Is this reasonable if US military uses blatantly deceptive methods to recruit youths?

[host]

Does a community have a legitimate right and duty to protect it's young people from predatory and deceptive military recruiting campaigns, if that is what they are?

Is military recruiting, even without officially financed and practiced deception, akin to an influence in a community not without comparison to merchants of pornographic material? At the end of the army basic training graduation ceremony I attended, less than five years ago, an army officer gave a speech describing the training to parents as, "you turned your sons and daughters over to us, and we've transformed them into killing machines !"

I think the advent of a recent change in US policy that makes aggressive pre-emptive war an SOP, muddies the issue, and it made me consider that what is being discussed in Berkeley is not unreasonable given these circumstance I've described.

I know that this will be controversial, it was touched on in Moore's Farenheit 911 film, but I think it is symptomatic of a societal denial and disorder not to discuss it, since at least in one community, historically a seat of social change, is dicsussing it and attempting to do something about it.

I'm more interested in reading what you think about this, than how you feel about it.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/a...&storyID=29007
Initiative Drive Begun to Restrict Military Recruiting
By Judith Scherr (01-25-08)


Berkeley peace activists are gearing up to circulate a petition to place a measure on the November ballot restricting where public and private military recruiters can locate within the city.

“Most towns regulate adult-oriented businesses—the initiative is modeled on that,” said Sharon Adams, the attorney who wrote the initiative, which is signed by former Councilmembers Carole (Davis) Kennerly and Ying Lee (Kelley) and Code Pink activist PhoeBe Anne Sorgen.

While Adams said she believes the government has to follow local zoning ordinances, Acting City Attorney Zach Cowan told the Planet that “in general, the city can’t regulate the state, its entities or the federal government.”

There are times when the government will waive its rights, such as the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s agreement to be regulated by the city’s hazardous waste regulations, Cowan said.

The city attorney’s office does not weigh in on the legality of citizen-sponsored initiatives, Cowan added.

Major Wes Hayes, Marine Corps Recruiting Command spokesperson, responded to the Planet by e-mail: “To answer your question; the Marine Corps works closely with the Army Corps of Engineers when determining the locations for recruiting offices all around the country. The ACOE takes all lawful regulations and zoning requirements into account before recommending locations of any Marine Corps Recruiting Office.”

The impetus for the initiative is that anti-war activists were surprised one day last fall to find a Marine Recruiting Center located smack in the heart of perhaps the most anti-war city in the country. Berkeley has passed several resolutions opposing the war in Iraq and supported the impeachment of the president and vice president for their role in taking the country to war.

Led by Code Pink, individuals and various groups—including the World Can’t Wait, Grandmothers for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, the Middle East Children’s Alliance and more—have been demonstrating for about four months on most weekdays outside the recruiting center at 64 Shattuck Square.

The city can’t ban recruiters, Adams said. “Prohibition would be a restraint on the First Amendment right of speech.” But she says she believes they can restrict the recruiters to certain areas and create law where a public hearing would be mandated before permitting the recruiters to do their business.

Entitled “Initiative Petition Establishing Zoning Requirements for Military Recruitment Offices and Private Military Companies,” the measure would prohibit locating a public or private military recruiting office within 600 feet of a residential area, school, library, health clinic or a building used for religious assembly.

“The Berkeley community has spoken strongly in opposition to U.S. policy of military aggression,” said Lee, a library trustee and activist with the committee supporting Ehren Watada, the first commissioned military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

Keeping youth from being lured into combat “is a health and safety issue,” Lee told the Planet. “We have the right to say no to pornography stores—why can’t we say no to those who promote killing and torture?” she said.

If the initiative passes, it won’t affect the existing recruiting office.

On Jan. 30, at noon, pro-war activist Melanie Morgan of KSFO Radio and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink are planning to debate the question of the role of the military in society—the debate will be held outside the recruiting station at 64 Shattuck Square, Adams said.

Zanne Joi of Code Pink, one of the organizers of the debate, said its purpose is to keep the war “front and center.”

A frequent protester at the recruiting station, Joi said: “Our hearts are broken every time we’re there, to see people who say we’re fighting for our freedom—we need to educate and inform.”

In October Morgan organized a counter- demonstration outside the recruiting office, which attracted hundreds of pro-war demonstrators, outnumbering the anti-war protesters.

Petitioners will need to collect some 2,000 signatures to get the initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot.

On Tuesday, the City Council will address a resolution from the Peace and Justice Commission:

• Asking the city attorney to investigate what the city can do with respect to the military recruiting office, given a conflict between the military’s prohibition against recruiting homosexuals and the city’s laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

• Asking the city manager to write letters to various U.S. Marine officials, telling them “that the marine recruiting office is not welcome in our city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.”

• Encouraging those groups that “volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the city of Berkeley.”

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/a...&storyID=29066
Demonstrators Get Space to Protest
By Judith Scherr (01-29-08)


Posted Wed., Jan. 30—The question of dedicating space—a parking space—for Code Pink’s weekly demonstrations in front of the downtown Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center (MRC) raised hackles at Tuesday night’s Berkeley City Council meeting, when Councilmember Gordon Wozniak likened the demonstrations there to protests at abortion clinics.

“There’s a line between protesting and harassing,” Wozniak said, referring to possible harassment of recruits.

Wozniak was the lone vote in opposition to a resolution authored by Councilmembers Linda Maio and Max Anderson designating a parking space in front of the recruiting center for the demonstrators from noon to 4 p.m. every Wednesday for six months.

The dedicated parking space “is showing favoritism to one side of the argument,” Wozniak said, adding, “My concern is giving a parking space in front of the Marine Recruiting Center seems confrontational.”

While Dori Schmidt, whose husband owns The Berkeley Review, a test preparation business above the MRC, told the council that the demonstrations disrupt the business with their noise, other public speakers supported the parking space designation.

“It’s not favoritism,” said PhoeBe Sorgen, a member of Code Pink and the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee. Rather, it’s following the Berkeley “tradition to stand up for peace,” she said.

Bob Meola, a veteran who has staffed hot lines for military personnel trying to leave the service, told the council that use of the parking space will help the demonstrators deliver the truth to possible recruits.

“People get lied to. They don’t get the jobs and training” they’re told they will get, Meola said. “It’s a community service to warn youth about the criminal liars.”

Anderson spoke as a former Marine who had protested the Vietnam War, addressing the unfair advantage of the Marines that have “millions of dollars at their disposal to bombard the nation with propaganda.”

Councilmember Betty Olds, who originally intended vote against the resolution, said she changed her mind, especially listening to one of the speakers who is a 90-year-old peace activist. Olds said it would have been hypocritical of her to oppose the resolution, since she, like many others in Berkeley, “found a psychiatrist who said their kids were all crazy to get them out of the [Vietnam] war.”

Olds added, “The Marines ought to have had the sense not to come here.”

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by host

Does a community have a legitimate right and duty to protect it's young people from predatory and deceptive military recruiting campaigns, if that is what they are?

We already do. Some friends and I organized multiple counter recruitment campaigns at all local high schools. We provide accurate information about what actually happens when one joins the military, and how recruiters are not only allowed to lie, but it's standard practice. The military complained, but when we provided the stats backing our information there was nothing they could do. We've also had the Army kicked off campus for lying to several students.

If anyone else is interested, simply google the information you need, include it in a pamphlet, and have someone who's friendly to the school act as an intermediary. Make the case, "We simply want your students to have all the facts." I've found that likening the military tactics to those of big tobacco are very helpful in illustrating points to those who are conservatives. Be sure that you provide options for the kids, too. Kids who are interested in the military may also enjoy police work, firefighting, being a paramedic, etc. It has the same heroic sheen, but without having to murder Iraqis or drive over IEDs.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Well police often murder black people, so perhaps that isn't a viable alternative.


....

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well police often murder black people, so perhaps that isn't a viable alternative.


....

1.2 million in the past 4 years?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Murder = Malice aforethought or in execution of a felony.

Collaterral damage, insurgents, terrorism, and sectarian militias no.

Nice try though.

Edit: Also, I'll humor that 1.2 million mark, but guess what it wasn't the US military pulling the trigger. Sure X amount of civilians might've died, it wasn't the US making Al Qaeda, or Sunni Death squads, or the Madhi army doing the shit that they did.

[Willravel]

If this pisses you off, me counter recruiting, maybe you should ask yourself why you are siding with an organization that blatantly lies to children in order to get them to risk their lives for something that has nothing to do with them.

The military's recruiting tactics are inexcusable.

Oh, and if you think that "insurgents and terrorists" are the only people to be killed by US/coalition forces, you're naive.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I have no problem with counter recruiting, I'm sure the military using janky tactics.

And I realize its not just insurgents and terrorists, but the US military did not systematically and willingly kill 1.2 million human beings.

You completely dismiss the culpability due for the sociopaths who are actually responsible.

I'm not naive, but you calling US soldiers murderers in a blanket sense, makes you a jack ass.

[Seaver]

The occasional person may be fooled, but to act like everyone who enters is a naive 12 year old is absolutely insulting.

No recruiter EVER lied to me, and I spoke with Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. The told me what I was signing up for, 3 of them even asked if I understood my primary job would be killing or assisting in the killing of other people.

As far as counter-protests goes have fun out there, it only made me more intent on signing.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

And I realize its not just insurgents and terrorists, but the US military did not systematically and willingly kill 1.2 million human beings.

You completely dismiss the culpability due for the sociopaths who are actually responsible.

Who is actually responsible? Do you want a list? Here are some big players:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I'm not naive, but you calling US soldiers murderers in a blanket sense, makes you a jack ass.

Being an ass is using a term like "malice aforethought" and not understanding it. All it means is intent to cause grievous injury where death is the intended result.

But hey, as long as you don't want to think of it as murder. And BTW, US soldiers are under the jurisdiction of the USMJ and Iraqi law. You should familiarize yourself with the difference between those and what's going on now.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

So where can I view these 1.2 million counts of murder that have violated the USMJ? Since we are a country of laws and protocol I'm sure the USMJ has its place in how we act in Iraq, much like how military action is provided for, in this case as it is consented by congress and faithfully executed by the President.

Soldiers kill shit, its what they do. Because somebody dies doesn't make it murder, especially in the case of military action. I don't see how I in anyway shape or form had the meaning of malice out of sync.

US soldiers, US politicians are no where near solely responsible for 1.2 million deaths; calling it murder or asserting as much is delusional.

[Ustwo]

Wasn't that 1.2 million bullshit number debunked quite a while ago?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So where can I view these 1.2 million counts of murder that have violated the USMJ? Since we are a country of laws and protocol I'm sure the USMJ has its place in how we act in Iraq, much like how military action is provided for, in this case as it is consented by congress and faithfully executed by the President.

Soldiers kill shit, its what they do. Because somebody dies doesn't make it murder, especially in the case of military action. I don't see how I in anyway shape or form had the meaning of malice out of sync.

Where does it say one can enter a home without a warrant, based on hearsay that's paid for from people who have lied before, and shooting people who resist? Where does it say you can run over a car with a man in it because there's traffic and he can't move? Where does it say you can open fire on a vehicle after shouting "Stop!" in ENGLISH? Malice is having the capability, the intent, and then executing.

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

US soldiers, US politicians are no where near solely responsible for 1.2 million deaths; calling it murder or asserting as much is delusional.

Ah, because you said so. BTW, someone with no experience or education in psychology shouldn't be throwing around the word "delusional", especially if that individual who doesn't believe Bush is playing games when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Wasn't that 1.2 million bullshit number debunked quite a while ago?

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78
It was the 655,000 number that was debunked.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

You're right it's Wolfowitz and his neo-cons sending in their operatives to crowded bazaar's or gatherings and blowing themselves up. The sleeper cells are probably activated when Kristol guests on Fox News live.

My bad.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

You're right it's Wolfowitz and his neo-cons sending in their operatives to crowded bazaar's or gatherings and blowing themselves up. The sleeper cells are probably activated when Kristol guests on Fox News live.

My bad.

Maybe you can tell me how many SUICIDE BOMBERS there are in Iraq. Unless you're thinking of Palestinians in Israel. Cause you are. Or are all Arabs the same?

Tell you what, if you'd like to make your corrections, let's start another thread. I don't want to take away from host's thread.

/threadjack

Getting back, I'd love to know people's responses to the articles in the OP. I've gotta say that I'm proud of Berkeley. I knew about the pro-war demonstration in October, but it was really more of a joke to most local protesters. I look forward to helping out.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78
It was the 655,000 number that was debunked.

They used the same method...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/arti...bomb/index.htm

Its B.S. will, that would be 1000 a day, not happening.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

They used the same method...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/arti...bomb/index.htm

Its B.S. will, that would be 1000 a day, not happening.

Is 100 a day that much less shocking?

[dksuddeth]

If someone can't understand that being in the military MAY REQUIRE you to be a combat soldier who has to kill, then I have to wonder what kind of intelligence said person actually has.

[dc_dux]

To the topic of the OP:

There is evidently little oversight of the actions of military recruiters. A recent GAO report found:

..the services do not track all allegations of recruiter wrongdoing. Accordingly, service data likely underestimate the true number of recruiter irregularities. Nevertheless, available service data show that between fiscal years 2004 and 2005, allegations and service-identified incidents of recruiter wrongdoing increased, collectively, from 4,400 cases to 6,600 cases; substantiated cases increased from just over 400 to almost 630 cases; and criminal violations more than doubled from just over 30 to almost 70 cases. The department, however, is not in a sound position to assure Congress and the general public that it knows the full extent to which recruiter irregularities are occurring.

GAO Report: DOD and Services Need Better Data to Enhance Visibility over Recruiter Irregularities (pdf)

Should there not be better accountability of the practices of military recruiters?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Should there not be better accountability of the practices of military recruiters?

There should, but how would one get this done? Congress? I mean this may be something where you actually need a president to get this done.

[dc_dux]

It could be done by law.

Here's an example of one small change that could be made.....there is a little known provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that high schools must provide the same access to military recruiters as it does to colleges/universities and prospective employers or risk losing federal funding. This is not only allowing recruiters to participate in on-site school functions, but gives them access to the school's database of student names, phone number, addresses.

There is an opt-out provision for parents to indicate they do not want their children exposed to this, but studies have shown that few parents are aware of the option. I would change it to opt-in, where a parent can check-off which of the three (colleges, prospective employers, military recruiters) they want for their kids.

[Willravel]

I'm not sure if it's the same to say "You can or can't go here" vs. "You can or can't say this". Wouldn't that be military policy? If one wanted to end the lies and misinformation, I mean, could Congress do this?

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Is 100 a day that much less shocking?

Well said.

When does it become too many? Is 10 alright? If so then would 20, 40, 80? If those are not shocking would 800 tip the scales?

Seems like a insane conversation, doesn't it?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm not sure if it's the same to say "You can or can't go here" vs. "You can or can't say this". Wouldn't that be military policy? If one wanted to end the lies and misinformation, I mean, could Congress do this?

Congress can require changes in military policies and practices by force of law...they just stick it in an annual DoD authorization bill....thats how we got "dont ask, dont tell" policy that few in DoD wanted.

side note:
But then again, you may have a president who issues a signing statement to ignore selected provisions of the law...like Bush did this week with the provision in the 2008 DoD Authorization Act that required more accountable of the actions of military contractors.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

If someone can't understand that being in the military MAY REQUIRE you to be a combat soldier who has to kill, then I have to wonder what kind of intelligence said person actually has.

Yeah, who knew? Teenagers not that bright.

Yep, news to me.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Sorry to insert this as the thread as gotten back on track, just one little piece I thought I'd put in... there have been 1400 reported suicide bombings by the US military in Iraq since 2004.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18791.html

/end thread jack

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Sorry to insert this as the thread as gotten back on track, just one little piece I thought I'd put in... there have been 1400 reported suicide bombings by the US military in Iraq since 2004.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18791.html

/end thread jack

53 suicide bombers are from our ally Saudi Arabia, the most from any country... including Iraq. Iraq only had 18. That's interesting. Wonder how many Saudi bombers there were in Iraq before we invaded?

[host]

The posts I have read here are from such completely opposite POV's that I was inspired to do a looong OP on a new thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...09#post2392409

....hoping to wake just one of you from your belief that we are somehow fighting a "war on terror" against a primary enemy, that is a greater threat to us than our leadership and the corporate complex that finances and tells it what to do.

Wish me luck !!!

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Is 100 a day that much less shocking?

It's far less shocking to the other 900 people who weren't actually killed.

There are casualties in any war, its what a war does, and yes lower numbers are better and less shocking.

When those opposed to the war claim insanely high casualty rates for the sake of propaganda and demoralization of the American people, it needs to be called out.

[Rekna]

I wouldn't say our soldiers are murders. Sure there are some that are but I wouldn't make any claims about it being the norm. No doubt civilians have and are dieing in this war but their blood for the most part doesn't fall on our soldiers and instead it falls directly on this administration.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by Rekna

I wouldn't say our soldiers are murders. Sure there are some that are but I wouldn't make any claims about it being the norm. No doubt civilians have and are dieing in this war but their blood for the most part doesn't fall on our soldiers and instead it falls directly on this administration.

Exactly. When a owner or head office of a profession sports team screws all the season ticket holders and/or the players you don't blame the players.

Also, yes MAYBE some of our soldiers have committed murder in Iraq or Afghanistan, MAYBE. But when you take young kids, many of whom aren't even old enough to order a beer at the local watering, put them in EXTREMELY STRESSFUL situation and ask they make life and death decisions in a split second you create a recipe for disaster, IMO.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When those opposed to the war claim insanely high casualty rates for the sake of propaganda and demoralization of the American people, it needs to be called out.

When a president, vice president, secretary of defense, national security advisor claim Iraq was a haven for terrorists and make even more insane claims about imminent threats of mushroom clouds over the US for the sake of propaganda and demoralization of the American people, it needs to be called out.

When military recruiters insanely claim to impressionable high school kids that "we need you to fight them there, so we dont have to fight them here", it needs to be called out.

I wonder how many blatant lies were among the 6,600 cases of recruiter wrongdoing as the war in Iraq was going badly.

[Plan9]

It was after 9/11 and before Iraq when I enlisted. You know how they got me?

"So, you wanna jump outta planes?"

They don't have to be really deceptive.

The military has that GI Joe draw.

[sprocket]

All I have to say, is "Buyer Beware".

Kids need to be taught to be skeptical of what military recruiters say... just like anyone else that is selling anything. Recruiters are most definitely salesmen for the army, and really should be considered about as trustworthy as that greasy guy from "Bobs Used Car Emporium".

Thats about where it should end. The actions of the town Berkeley are reprehensible.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by sprocket

All I have to say, is "Buyer Beware".

Kids need to be taught to be skeptical of what military recruiters say... just like anyone else that is selling anything. Recruiters are most definitely salesmen for the army, and really should be considered about as trustworthy as that greasy guy from "Bobs Used Car Emporium".

Thats about where it should end. The actions of the town Berkeley are reprehensible.

The actions of Berkeley residents are proportional. The military recruiters there have been warned before by many people (including me) that deceiving people won't be tolerated. They decided to ignore us. These are the consequences.

It's clear that the military recruiters can't be bothered to act responsibly or honorably. The military won't hold them responsible. As such, it's up to the community to hold them responsible.

So maybe change the word in your post from "reprehensible" to "responsible".

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by sprocket

All I have to say, is "Buyer Beware".

Kids need to be taught to be skeptical of what military recruiters say... just like anyone else that is selling anything. Recruiters are most definitely salesmen for the army, and really should be considered about as trustworthy as that greasy guy from "Bobs Used Car Emporium".

Thats about where it should end. The actions of the town Berkeley are reprehensible.

Cities can regulate the location of used car dealership through zoning and can regulate their practices through state consumer protection laws.

Why not the same for "military salesman" particularly since their "sales" are generally targeted at minors?

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by host

Is military recruiting, even without officially financed and practiced deception, akin to an influence in a community not without comparison to merchants of pornographic material?

So...if military recruiting stations are akin to porn shops, then does my military service equate to that of a porn star? Fascinating. I don't know whether to be insulted, or grin from ear to ear.

Originally Posted by willravel

We provide accurate information about what actually happens when one joins the military, and how recruiters are not only allowed to lie, but it's standard practice.

Based upon your years of experience as an active member of the United States Armed Forces?

Originally Posted by willravel

If anyone else is interested, simply google the information you need, include it in a pamphlet, and have someone who's friendly to the school act as an intermediary.

Oh...I see.

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Yeah, who knew? Teenagers not that bright.

And yet...we let 'em vote.

Originally Posted by willravel

The military recruiters there have been warned before by many people (including me) that deceiving people won't be tolerated.

And you would be......?

[Ustwo]

Reading the original stories I have to say that I love Berkeley.

Its like every moonbat stereotype come to life for me to mock.

I can only hope these types get louder and louder come next November, for what should be obvious reasons.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Reading the original stories I have to say that I love Berkeley.

Its like every moonbat stereotype come to life for me to mock.

I can only hope these types get louder and louder come next November, for what should be obvious reasons.

Since two out of three Americans oppose the war and occupation without end in Iraq (and presumably dont want their kids to be recruited to support it), the obvious outcome in November will be a larger Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a better than even chance of a Democratic president.

[sprocket]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Since two out of three Americans oppose the war and occupation without end in Iraq (and presumably dont want their kids to be recruited to support it), the obvious outcome in November will be a larger Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a better than even chance of a Democratic president.

Given the two frontrunners for the republicans are practically left wing themselves, its kinda like aliens vs predator: No matter who wins, we lose.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by sprocket

Given the two frontrunners for the republicans are practically left wing themselves, its kinda like aliens vs predator: No matter who wins, we lose.

....waiting for the Ron Paul commercial.