Activism vs terrorism?

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:21:26 -0500

Or better yet, how long before protesters start committing acts of violence just like terrorists?

We refuse to negotiate with terrorists..
We negotiate and listen to protesters...

Activism, or activists can commit acts which are not currently considered rerrorism...is it possible to assemble peacefully but under the very veil of freedom commit acts that border on terrorism.

What comes to mind is Internet hackers, or Hacktivists (group Anonymous), they can disrupt, block communication, threaten, and possibly use their talents to create new grassroot movements or incite riots and perpetuate violence.

Where do we draw the line on protesting vs. protesting with violence? Is one a right and the other acceptable but borders on the fringe, should we label the extreme form of activism with a different label...perhaps domestic terrorism?

If you've witnessed a peaceful protest that went awry, what are your feeling/thought? Other examples are the LA Riots / Race riots of the late 60's / Katrina / Nation-wide Occupy Movement. And more recently: Ferguson, Missouri are just other examples....is this form of activism acfeptable? Should it be , should the US military intervene in these scenarios?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 3:32 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:32:08 -0500

Good question, SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member. It made me think of the old story about yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. We have freedom of speech, but some speech is out of bounds.

Similarly, activists who incite violence need to be held accountable. There was some talk of an investigation into Michael Brown's step-father, when he yelled (I'm paraphrasing), "Burn this ***** down" in Ferguson, and then the protesters proceeded to set buildings on fire. The family claimed there was no connection between what he yelled and what they did, but it's a close call, I'd say.

As for military involvement ... I see this more as a civilian law enforcement issue. I guess there could be examples, in the cyber realm, for example, where we might get involved. And even in Ferguson the National Guard was mobilized to help keep the peace, so I guess the military was involved there. Still, first and foremost, I see it as a civilian law enforcement matter.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 3:58 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 15:58:02 -0500

We have strayed from out mission statement; to keep our borders secure, to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 10 at 2015 4:04 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:04:35 -0500

Activism vs terrorism can get complicated very quickly but it does not have to be:
- Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
- Activism: the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
- The former involves illegal activity while the latter involves legal activity. Activism crosses the line when it becomes or involves illegal activity. That is where we do or should draw the line as a society. When the line is crossed, it should be prosecuted at the governmental level and condemned at the individual level.
- Fallout from the Paris attacks are a good example. The conversation is revolving around our right of free speech. That is a no brainer and the French government has and will take action. Very little conversation about how people will now self censor their conversations and speech because they do not want to be killed by Islamic terrorists. The effect, therefore that these individuals wanted to create has already happened and is having an effect in their favor.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 10 at 2015 4:10 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:10:13 -0500

I think you run into two issues here, the "spirit" of the protest and the "effect" of the protest. In most cases, there is a legitimate base for the protest. There is injustice and it is bad enough that there are those able to see it and feel it and they wish to see it corrected. In the presence of such injustice, as defenders of the Constitution, some would say that the military is obligated to weigh in on the side of the protesters rather than the establishment.
Still, we are nation and observation of the "Rule of Law" is critical to smooth operations, not just for the establishment, but for the people.
Incidents in Ferguson, and else where, that have resulted in damage to property, as opposed to an inconvenience to the people, is as significant a problem as a system that creates injustice that needs to be protested.
I agree with CW5 Private RallyPoint Member that this is a civilian issue and it may be that the best resolution in many cases is a reworking of the laws and policies of enforcement that instigate the riots in the first place. However, power is never ceded easily... At what point is the balance of power so out of whack that we are given no choice but to "Burn this ****** down"?

Response by COL John McClellan made Jan 28 at 2015 1:36 PM

COL John McClellan — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:36:52 -0500

Great discussion! A protest is certainly not = terrorism, even if it goes awry, or if some of participates turn to violence. Our Constitution guarantees the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances…" Our freedom to do so is one of the things that set us apart from the terrorists we are facing. Terrorists reject peaceful civil disobedience and intentionally inflict violence and harm to instill fear and influence through intimidation. If your activism crosses that line, let's say, by firebombing an abortion clinic, then you are now an activist and a terrorist! Criminals or terrorists camouflaging themselves among the crowds protesting - a la Ferguson, or elsewhere in the past do pose a significant challenge for our law enforcement and for our intelligence communities - but we can't surrender our right to protest peacefully because some will abuse it.

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Jun 19 at 2015 10:00 AM

Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:00:36 -0400

Not all soldiers are the same neither are all activists. As a Veteran For Peace and Pax Christi Tahoma member i am still learning the ways of nonviolence (Thanks Fellowship for Reconciliation). I am learning to live with as little as possible so other will have more hope. I recycle, I share my time and talents to my church, 15 Now Tacoma. Like King I believe the threats are Extreme Materialism, Militarism and Racism. I expect to get arrested some day like Fr. Bill Bichsel, OSJ. I believe the Immature and Mentally Ill are running our governments, our churches, our corporations because our fears, anger and hopelessness have given them the power and money, . . .