Pentagon releases training materials to address extremism

Pentagon releases training materials to address extremism
Dated: February 26, 2021

This is how the military is addressing the issue of soldiers being involved with extremist groups. However, it feels a bit toothless because they don't define extremism. They retain their "freedom of speech" rights but it "may be restricted under some circumstances". It makes me wonder if there is a way to effectively hamper our troops being part of hate groups or will something like this just send them underground?

What do you think?

 

An interesting start, but I want to see where things go going ahead.

 

Sounds suspiciously similar to thought control.

But the substance is probably in the exact details.

It sounds like Democrats are scared of their own people in the military.

You know, I'm sure this isn't the case here, but the Soviets embarked on purges of their military forces too. There's a long history there.

I would hope they're not trying to purge people out for their political beliefs.

"extremist organizations" sounds extremely vague.

 

And I noticed they appear to have the logo of the Oath Keepers among those examples of "extremist organizations" !

Clearly insinuating that they are an "extremist organization".

 

CYA for SecDef and the Secretaries.

 

Im very interested to see what the "review of the meaning of the oaths to the Constitution" will mean. I smell a dogmatic, politically motivated 'interpretation' lurking around the corner...

As to 'our troops being part of hate group', I was told on the first day of ROTC that the Army takes all races, colors and creeds, but some creeds (like hate and racism) fell under the 'dont ask dont tell' policy- oiow, you could be racist or extremist ...until you did something to display it and/or until it caused an issue with other soldiers or the mission. Which this kinda sounds like still.

 

That taken along with the 'review of what the oath means' pretty much guarantees they're gonna be pushing a 'the oath to the constitution means an oath to the govt, not The People' narrative. Here's hoping I'm wrong...

 

That was exactly the same thought that immediately occurred to me when I read that.

The devil will be in the details, as they say.

Seems like this has the possibility of being very concerning.

 

Just endeavoring to assure that if ordered to turn their guns on the American people at the behest of the government they will unhesitatingly do so...what banana republics militaries are supposed to do.

 

This is outrageous, and more than a little concerning.

Pentagon releases training materials to address extremism
Dated: February 26, 2021

The Pentagon on Friday released documents meant to serve as training materials for the recent departmentwide stand down order to address extremism.

The one-day stand down, ordered by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in early February, is meant to take place by early April and serve as a first step toward rooting out those who hold white nationalist or other extremist views.

The materials released Friday lay out four goals for commanders in broaching the issue,

including a review of the meaning of the oaths to the Constitution taken by all service members;
an assessment of actions prohibited under law or military policy;
the responsibility to report to the chain of command when a prohibited action is seen or learned of,
or certain behaviors cause concern; and planned listening sessions.


The documents also remind military personnel that while they have the right to free speech under the First Amendment, "speech that interferes with or prevents the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presents a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops may be restricted under some circumstances."

In addition, "speech in the workplace that interferes with the mission, espouses extremist or discriminatory doctrine, or is disrespectful and harmful to colleagues, will have consequences."

The materials also placed on emphasis on reporting extremist behavior or actions to the chain of command.

Defense officials have for years struggled to stamp out extremism among service members, though the problem was brought to the forefront on Jan. 6 when supporters loyal to former President Trump -- including some active-duty service members and veterans -- stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden's election win.

Defense Department policy expressly prohibits military personnel from advocating for or participating in supremacist, extremist or criminal gang doctrine, ideology or causes, including fundraising or demonstrating at a rally as part of such groups, recruiting, training, organizing or leading members or distributing material.

But there is no consensus across the military on how to define extremism. Similarly, the Pentagon does not define whether extremism includes belonging to a racist or violent ideological group such as the Proud Boys -- a relatively new organization -- or if it includes believing in or spreading patently false conspiracy theories such as those pushed by QAnon supporters.​

One of the training slides can be seen here:
https://preview.redd.it/zfxh0f8pmvn61.jpg?auto=webp&7c2e4540


You'll notice they appear to have the logo of the Oath Keepers among those examples of "extremist organizations". And that's not the only questionable example.

The slide says: "Participation in criminal gangs and extremist activity is inconsistent with military service. Soldier may not engage in cyber-related activities in support of extremist organizations or gangs. Soldiers must report to command any actual/suspected extremist activities/affiliations."

"extremist organizations" sounds extremely vague.


Sounds suspiciously similar to thought control.

But the substance is probably in the exact details and implementation.

Almost sounds like Democrats are scared of their own people in the military.


You know, I'm sure this isn't the case here, but the Soviets embarked on purges of their military forces too. There's a long history there.

One would hope they're not trying to purge people out for their political beliefs.

Once again, one really has to ask if there was really any significant problem in the first place, and what the true motivations behind this policy are.

 

The language seems kind of vague, but it seems like they're implementing control over free speech of members of the military.
Even their internet posts they make while off duty could make them face disciplinary action, or possibly even being expelled from the military and losing their benefits.

Again, the language seems concerningly vague, and this sort of policy could be implemented in all sorts of really bad ways.


Then they want to tell them what the Constitution means, the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Might not sound like there's anything wrong with that. But it depends on exactly what they are going to be told.
They are afraid members of the military might disobey their superiors because of the Constitution, so it seems they want to try to prevent that from happening.

And then basically trying to get members of the military to report on each other if they see anything.

If someone in the military simply expresses support over an organization that is deemed "extremist", then they could get in trouble, possibly be removed from positions of authority or removed from the military forces altogether.
Many of the organizations these slides are insinuating are "extremist" are not even advocating illegal violence, yet seems they still get on the prohibited list.

We had another thread a while back about a court case that set a precedent that these type of military code of conduct rules even apply to retired military, and they could lose their benefits. Some of these military code of conduct rules limit certain types of free speech that other normal Americans have.

This might be unrelated, but it sets an additional concerning precedent here:

Retirees can be court-martialed for crimes committed after service

Members of the military forces have fewer rights than ordinary citizens, not having the right to a jury trial, and being bound by many additional restrictive laws in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Defense Department's authority to prosecute retired service members for crimes they commit, even after retirement.

The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The law stipulates that "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" and "members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are subject to court-martial jurisdiction.

The reasoning, the government argues, is that retirement is simply a change of military status and retired personnel are subject to recall should the need arise.

One provision was cited in the UCMJ that makes "contemptuous words" used by a commissioned officer "against the president, the vice president, Congress" and others as punishable by court-martial.​

 

I've a modest proposal

Simply assign an officer to each Army Battalion; let's call him a political officer; and have him watch the political reliability of the soldiers in each unit. That way wrong think and extremism can be avoided if the troops know that there is someone watching them and watching out for them.

"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."

MAJ Frank Burns.

 

I'm assuming you are referring to a political commissar, as was done under the Soviet Union.

Nice sarcasm. I think that satire went right past most people.

 

It is not "questionable", when you consider that it actively encourages members to disobey any orders that they or the organization feels are "Unconstitutional".

I have met a couple of those morons while I was in, as well as Moron Label types. I find them just as retarded as those "Sovereign Citizen" nutcases, or any others. OK might have started out benign, but over the years they have unquestionably become more and more radical, and if one wants to belong, then they should not be in the military.

And this kind of thing has been ongoing for decades. At least to me, it was not all that long ago that the KKK and proto-militia organizations were sending people into the military for the training. And by the 1990s, many LA gangs were doing the same thing. To me, the only organizations somebody in the military should consider being members of is the VFW and American Legion. But look on any post, and you will find a large number of people that belong to other organizations, ranging from Black Panthers and La Raza to Oath Keepers and others.

And I find it distasteful, no matter what side of the political fence such organizations are on.

And as an FYI, a lot of people tend to confuse the "Oath Keepers" with the "Promise Keepers". They are two very different organizations, and should not be confused. One is an ecumenical Christian movement, the other helped organize and conduct the 6 January riots in DC.

 

It's the type of thing that would easily be spotted as sarcasm just a few years ago, and now looks like an interesting suggestion.

 

Yeah, we can't risk anyone being in the military who might ever refuse to follow an order because of their conscience or duty to the Constitution.

(more sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell)

Maybe we need to sit back and question who the real "dangerous extremists" are here.

 

There is a term for encouraging those in the military to disobey orders. And that is "sedition". You know, the charge that three of the founders pled guilty to.

And their claim of what is "Constitutional" is not even close to reality. They are far-right conspiracy believers.

But in case you did not know, the UCMJ is very specific if somebody can be charged with such a crime. And it is "Disobedience of a lawful order". People in the military disobey orders almost daily, and nothing happens to them because ultimately the orders were not lawful. They have no place trying to encourage members of the military to disobey orders.

And yes, it is obvious you are all butt hurt because you seem to identify with them, and are mad they are being pointed out for what they are. And want to know something? I could not care less. Honestly, I see people in OK as just the opposite side of the coin as ANTIFA. And maybe it would be best for all if both sides were put on a deserted island somewhere, so they can pound on each other and leave the rest of us alone.

 

In the last 2 decades, politics in the US have gotten very hostile, and very ugly. With the fringes on both sides moving farther and farther in each direction, and growing increasingly antagonistic and hostile to any that do not share their beliefs. And in the military, it is less obvious because even those on the "left" side politically tend to be more like classic "Conservative Democrats" than what most people think of when they think of a Democrat.

And that was where I was first described by somebody I deployed with as a "Militant Moderate". And in general, I would prefer to try and reach compromises with the moderates on both sides.

The extremists on both sides can go hang themselves as far as I am concerned.

 

Someone who is pro military doesn’t say such things. Your conscience has no place in the military. At least, that’s how it’s been explained to me by military people for the last 40 years.

 

The endpoint is that there will be nothing left but extremists.

 

I doubt it, because the moderates are always the ones that decide Presidential elections.

That is something I actually realized over 4 decades ago. It was something that in 2016 Donald Trump realized, so he spoke mostly to the moderates in the middle. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton tried to preach to the liberals that were the strong point of the Democrats, not even realizing that she already had them in her pocket. Andin doing so, she largely alienated the moderates. And in the end more of them voted R instead of D.

And 4 years later, it reversed. As Trump was doubling-down on the far-right segment of the Conservative movement, and he alienated the moderates. So we now have President Biden. Who in reality ran an almost Jimmy Carter style "Rose Garden" campaign, yet he never alienated the moderates so got most of them in the election.

That is a trend I have seen for decades, and it always amazes me how few seem to get that. In fact, rarely will a candidate ever get real "cross-over" appeal from members of the other party. The only time I can think of that ever happening in my lifetime was President Reagan, who saw a large number of Democrats move to support him. They did not change parties, but they had enough of the Carter-Mondale administration that they did not want a repeat of it in 1980 or 1984. But to get that kind of reaction, candidates need to speak mostly to the moderates in the middle. Speaking to the "loony fringe" in their own party is foolish. They already have them and it will alienate any that are in middle, or the more moderate spectrum of the opposing party.

In general, the US population has been split along similar lines for close to a century. Around 35-40% on the Right, around 35-40% on the Left. The 20-30% in the middle is always the segment that determines who the next President will be. Alienate them, and no candidate has a chance.

Now local elections, that is something completely different.

 

At the risk of having this thread veer further away from the topic, there is less and less room to be moderate. "Moderation" is a symptom of a healthy democracy of which ours is not. Consider that anyone not voting the Democratic ticket this November could, as been argued on this forum, be voting to end democracy. When there is only one side that officially claims the mantle of the democratic process, and the other side is branded, not just by political opponents, but by every major institution in the country, as "extremist," where is there room for a moderate?

 

The extremists on both sides say the exact same thing. There is not "one side" that says that, both sides say that. They simply say the other side is trying to subvert it.

 

The Frank Burns reference wouldn't even give them pause.