New Army Manual - Civil Disturbances. Interesting.
 

Why is it interesting?

Well, firstly here is the link to the new Manual, https://publicintelligence.net/usarm...-disturbances/.

Interesting because it seems it promises to change the way the Authorities deal with protesters. Even peaceful ones.

Could the provision of this manual be the end of the first amendment right to assemble peacefully?

Section 1-2 of particular note:

"Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots."

This section of the manual clearly states that protesting is a right protected by the Constitution. However, the authorities leave themselves an out to "legally" engage in lethal force toward protesters when the manual states that "peaceful protests can turn into full-scale riots" and field commanders have the right to make that determination.

In other words, all protests are to be considered to be violent and handled accordingly.

Most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military.

However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.

There's also the exception claimed by the army of the need to protect politicians.

House Resolution 1292 claims any protest which makes a public official feel "threatened" would be illegal and subject to intervention by the U.S. Army.


So, it may appear, its intent is to eliminate the act of protesting from the American landscape?

The way i read it it seems pretty hardcore.

Open to interpretation or pretty clear?

Summing it all up
 

One of the comments at the end of that article kind of says it all...


They don't want their slaves getting all uppity.:-?

It seems that the laws passed since 9/11/01 are all in direct contradiction to the constitution as well as the oath of military service. Therefore, any soldier who participates in any action that denies anyone their constitutional rights is in direct violation of his/her oath to defend the constitution of the United States.

Well, It's not like it hasn't been done before. WWI comes to mind when laws were passed that criminalized any negative free speech against the government or its actions.
The Bill of Rights should be renamed The Bill of Privileges...
All of which can be revoked at their discretion.
Yes, irony does abound and lends ample credence to the saying...

That which you hate the most, you become.

Could be the planting of the seeds to what we call 'Martial Law' in the UK.

Is he the brother of Jude Law?:O::D

two words "A lie"

In one of my older thread where I linked to a newspaper(Washington times or something) I was been told very clearly that it was a conspiracy

Therefore it is a lie

Markus

Far more tolerant than Marital Law :)

Just a coinkydink I assure you.

""Shudder""

Bite your tongue please.