previous post next post  

How to spot a terrorist-in-uniform

A helpful guide from the United States Army.  Remember when the story broke about Major Hasan, and I noted that he flew under the radar both because of political correctness *and* that whole "presumption of innocence" thingy we really like around here when it applies to us, but not so much when it applies to others we don't like? 

And I, and just about everybody else who ever served, said, "Now we'll get some policy guidance, closing that barn door after the horse escaped?"

And, because it's what bureaucracies do, seasoned with that whole Constitution thingy, that new guidance was going to be predictably banal and so broadly worded as to encompass just about everybody at some point?

Ta-daaaa!

This is from a newly released ALARACT (ALl ARmy ACTivities) message - the all caps are an artifact of the system used for these messages, and I'm not going to clean that up.  The unwitting irony in some of this is simply bemusing.  From line one, we're all terrorists now.

TEN KEY INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL TERRORIST ASSOCIATED INSIDER THREATS TO THE ARMY.

1.(U) ADVOCATING VIOLENCE, THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE, OR THE USE OF FORCE TO ACHIEVE GOALS THAT ARE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, OR IDEOLOGICAL IN NATURE.  

So, I might be a terrorist if I suggest... invading Iraq, invading Afghanistan, bombing Iranian nuke facilities... or hunting down terrorists.  Kewl.  See?  We're all terrorists now...
 
2.(U) ADVOCATING SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS OR OBJECTIVES. 

As a soldier of my acquaintance observed: "So, if a soldier supports the same objectives as a terrorist organization--say, the falun gong, or the IRA, or Mossad (which, according to most muslims and nazis, is a terrorist organization), they fit the bill?"  Put alternatively, one can  be suspected of being a TIU if you support a unified Ireland (an objective of the IRA) - even though one does not perhaps support bombing their way to that objective... 

3.(U) PROVIDING FINANCIAL OR OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORT TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OR TO SOMEONE SUSPECTED OF BEING A TERRORIST. 

Again, this soldier of my acquaintance asks, "So, if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, we are to assume they are guilty? Isn't there some constitutional thingy about that? Also, if we don't actively publish lists of everyone suspected of being a terrorist, how am I supposed to know if I am supporting a suspected terrorist?"

4.(U) ASSOCIATION WITH OR CONNECTIONS TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS.

See (3) above.  Gonna give us those lists?  Please define connections.  I'm in Rotary, if an IRA member also happens to be in Rotary, do I now have a connection?  If I'm a pro-lifer and I attend the same church as someone, oh, say, who kills an abortionist or plants bombs at clinics, am I now a "known associate with connections to a suspected terrorist? 

5.(U) REPEATED EXPRESSIONS OF HATRED AND INTOLERANCE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY, CULTURE, GOVERNMENT, OR THE PRINCIPLES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Um, doesn't that pretty much mean the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, and a goodly chunk of the faculty of many elite institutions...?  Oh, wait, none of them would be caught dead in a uniform, so they can't be TIUs.  Never mind.

6.(U) REPEATED BROWSING OR VISITING INTERNET WEBSITES THAT PROMOTE OR ADVOCATE VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR U.S. FORCES, OR THAT PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR TERRORIST THEMES WITHOUT OFFICIAL SANCTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY.

Heh.  Good thing I can still read books, though, eh? I can, right?  But I can only study my enemy or potential enemies "with official sanction in the performance of duty."  Does this mean I now have to either ask the CG for permission to retain ownership of the hardcopy and digital copies of The Anarchists Cookbook, Turner Diaries, Mein Kampf, Unintended Consequences, not too mention all the weapons and munitions references I have?  Of course, I've actually known for some time that were I to somehow run afoul of the Feds all of that would be pointed to as proof of intent, even though it's nothing of the sort - it's simply intellectual curiosity and professional development. 

7.(U) EXPRESSING AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM OR INCITING OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.
 
Well, if Code Pink ever wins the White House, we're all going down for this one.  It is the first one to not have mind numbing logic gaps you could drive a semi through.

8.(U) PURCHASING BOMB MAKING MATERIALS OR OBTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPLOSIVES.

Ruh-roh.  I'm doomed.

9.(U) ACTIVE ATTEMPTS TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VIOLATE LAWS, DISOBEY LAWFUL ORDERS OR REGULATIONS, OR DISRUPT MILITARY ACTIVITIES.

This is already covered under the UCMJ as "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" but apparently we needed to be reminded of that.  Sadly, apparently we do.

10.(U) FAMILIAL TIES TO KNOWN OR SUSPECTED INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS OR TERRORIST SUPPORTERS.

Yay!  I'm my brother's keeper! And my cousin.  And his wife's jerkoff cousin's aunt, too.

 
I'll close this out with a final quote from that soldier of my acquaintance, because it sums up the whole thing pretty well.

Of course, the only active measure they are taking at Hood is to put armed guards in the SRP location and at the hospital. Now there is no way this can happen again. That is, it can't happen at the Fort Hood SRP.

They are also rewriting the Fort Hood Privately Owned Weapons policy, doing more thorough searches, and enacting other policies and attempting to take other measures to restrict access to weapons on post. Because as we all know, if there had only been a CG's policy that clearly stated you weren't allowed to go on a SSFA* at the SRP, this never would have happened.

*Shooting Spree For Allah

Mind you, this message just designates the Opening Day of the Witch Hunt Season. Which will last until some overzealous dolt crosses one of the many bright lines of constitutional law that he's just been green-lighted to cross.

Except that he hasn't really.

And then we'll lawyer this up and down and sideways... and look stupid doing it.

Because that's what bureaucracies do.

I can't wait for the first "What the Bureaucrats meant to say" messages that will backtrack, elaborate, constrain and confuse.

Because that's what bureaucracies do

I really do love my Army.  But, hey, it's a bureaucracy outside of unit level.

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.fcgi/11308

Wow. It reads like a Jeff Foxworthy joke. If you sent money to Osama bin Laden, you might be a terrorist. Yes, it's that obvious. Here's a taste:TEN KEY INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL TERRORIST ASSOCIATED INSIDER THREATS TO THE ARMY. 2.(U)... Read More

4 Comments

By God, we DoD bureacrats may not be all that efficient, but at least we have that "Fire, Ready, Aim!" bit down to a science.
 
There is no way to say this, but, "been there done that". Most of what you said is usually covered by the definition of one phrase, *good Military discipline and order*.  Question, are the phrase and I both obsolete?

About Hassan, I would hope the Prosecution would not  focus on the terrorism, but focus on the multiple  homicides, alone. The terrorism was a by-product of the homicides. Then after the conviction, stick the slab of bacon and fry it, *in place.*
 
just great.  so they assigned some MI 2LT to update his crappy annual SAEDA briefing.
 
Wow, thats really some dumb stuff right there.