Well, whatever the disgusting ways in which those Indian reservations were
formed, American Indians who live on them, choose to do so. They want to
live on the land in their own communities. Those who don't choose to, can
leave. Yes, certainly, there are economic and social barriers confronting
people of color and women. But there's a very big difference between those
barriers and prison camps.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 11:29 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic
Use of Military
Mention of FDR's Internment Camps for Japanese American Citizens during
World War II reminds me that we don't need to look back so far to see what
internment does to a people. Just look for starter at the Indigenous People
shoved onto lands not needed by our Empire. Take a trip and wander through
these enforced camps. Want something closer to home? Just wander down to
your city's Central Slums. Take a look at the people crammed into these
internment camps. And be aware that there are those who would put Muslims
and all non Christian people in special camps. Women are no longer safe
from those who would run their lives for them.
That is what Internment Camps are all about. Controlling the lives of
others. And we are a nation chock full of them.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/25/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Domestic Use of Militaryearth's climate with fossil fuels.
A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
________________________________________
By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016 Have you seen Dahr
Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in Washington
state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is simply
looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and needed
practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North Korean nuclear
missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of Russia to
uphold the fundamental international law against Vladimir Putin's
existence.
But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military
-- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The
Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder
whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a side
benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next time
citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on poisoning the
Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in itsof building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S.
military's profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic
tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two
centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the National
Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny
civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African Americans.
Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into law and
often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at
allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans. The story is
one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in written law and
in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.
Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men
occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the
lack of similar restraint in using the military or militarized police
against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we
know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually
unaltered since
-- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide.
Among the developments that concern me far more than the authors of
Soldiers on the Home Front:
Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston,
desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on our
streets.
Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against
their oligarchs.
The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or
trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S.
citizens
or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as
anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.
Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.
Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States
against the people of the United States.
Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic
government violence.
Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put
martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence
of a president.
The militarization of the Mexican border.
The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the
bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon
coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible
internment camps.
The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance
all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address
"storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we?
None of these threats can be best addressed by people trained and
armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have funding and
numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing. But what
if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking on the
protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to enforce
laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps trained and
equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a computer whiz
team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing their
ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a publicly
funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a State
Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new project
If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above,earth's climate with fossil fuels.
the main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.
.
. davidswanson's blog
. Email this
&&&&
. Home
. Books
. Article Topics
. Talk Nation Radio
. About
. Donate
. Search
. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
. Youtube
. WarIsACrime.org
. RootsAction.org
. Images
. RSS
. Store
. WorldBeyondWar.org
. War No More
You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / A Homeland Is a Country That
Allows Domestic Use of Military A Homeland Is a Country That Allows
Domestic Use of Military
By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016 Have you seen Dahr
Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in Washington
state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is simply
looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and needed
practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North Korean nuclear
missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of Russia to
uphold the fundamental international law against Vladimir Putin's
existence.
But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military
-- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The
Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder
whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a side
benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next time
citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on poisoning the
Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in itsof building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S.
military's profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic
tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two
centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the National
Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny
civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African Americans.
Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into law and
often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at
allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans. The story is
one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in written law and
in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.
Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men
occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the
lack of similar restraint in using the military or militarized police
against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we
know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually
unaltered since
-- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide.
Among the developments that concern me far more than the authors of
Soldiers on the Home Front:
Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston,
desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on our
streets.
Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against
their oligarchs.
The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or
trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S.
citizens
or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as
anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.
Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.
Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States
against the people of the United States.
Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic
government violence.
Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put
martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence
of a president.
The militarization of the Mexican border.
The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the
bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon
coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible
internment camps.
The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance
all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address
"storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we?
None of these threats can be best addressed by people trained and
armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have funding and
numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing. But what
if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking on the
protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to enforce
laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps trained and
equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a computer whiz
team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing their
ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a publicly
funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a State
Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new project
If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above,earth's climate with fossil fuels.
the main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.
. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
. davidswanson's blog
. /forward?path=node%2F5023 Email this
Home
Books
Article Topics
Talk Nation Radio
About
Donate
Search
Youtube
WarIsACrime.org
RootsAction.org
Images
RSS
Store
WorldBeyondWar.org
War No More
You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / A Homeland Is a Country That
Allows Domestic Use of Military
A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
----
By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016
Have you seen Dahr Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war
games in Washington state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the
military is simply looking for a place to engage in safe and
responsible and needed practice in hand-to-hand combat against
incoming North Korean nuclear missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a
humanitarian invasion of Russia to uphold the fundamental
international law against Vladimir Putin's existence.
But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military
-- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The
Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder
whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a side
benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next time
citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on poisoning the
of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in its
support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S.
military's profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic
tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two
centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the National
Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny
civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African Americans.
Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into law and
often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at
allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans. The story is
one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in written law and
in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.
Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men
occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the
lack of similar restraint in using the military or militarized police
against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we
know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually
unaltered since
-- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide.
Among the developments that concern me far more than the authors of
Soldiers on the Home Front:
Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston,
desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on our
streets.
Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against
their oligarchs.
The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or
trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S.
citizens
or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as
anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.
Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.
Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States
against the people of the United States.
Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic
government violence.
Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put
martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence
of a president.
The militarization of the Mexican border.
The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the
bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon
coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible
internment camps.
The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance
all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address
"storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we?
None of these threats can be best addressed by people trained and
armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have funding and
numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing. But what
if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking on the
protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to enforce
laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps trained and
equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a computer whiz
team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing their
ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a publicly
funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a State
Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new project
If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above,
the main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.
