US Air Force to Test Hi-Tech Weapons on Americans? 670
GayBliss writes to tell us CNN.com has an article about how the US Air Force secretary proposes testing new 'non-lethal' weapons on American citizens before deploying them to the battlefield. New weapons like a high-power microwave device are designed to incapacitate people or sometimes even electronic devices. From the article: "The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne."
Use it on hippies first! (Score:4, Funny)
Besides, this will give hippies a chance to do their part in the GWOT! Just stage another mass protest and do what comes natural.... toke up, get rowdy and start smashing stuff. If the bright boys have done their stuff right nobody gets permanently damaged and we have a new shiny toy to use against the barbarian hordes. If they screwed up the hippies can unleash the lawyers.
Of course if they get wind they will already be inventing the strange symptoms they will claim to suffer and even have a cute name for the syndrome.... which can only be cured with a huge cash settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Man-o-man, you sure have the right name. (Score:5, Insightful)
So why aren't you stopping the destructive people in your midst, to show that you're actually committed to peaceful speech and non-aggressive demonstration of your point of view? If you tolerate the guy standing right next to you who is swinging a two-by-four at someone's windshield or getting ready to torch a Starbucks - why aren't you jumping at the chance to show the "pigs" (um, nice way to indicate your lack of hostility, there) that there is no need for crowd control, because the crowd is controlling itself?
No? I didn't think so. "Anonymous Coward" has never been more accurate. Ever.
I don't usually agree with the Cowards, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been in this situation. There was a peaceful anti-KKK protest in Atlanta many years back when I was an undergrad at GT (early 90's or late 80's), and I was there with more than a thousand others. Everything was going fine. Then, a few people started throwing rocks at the KKK marchers, several of which hit the police - either intentionally or unintentionally. (The KKK march was naturally the impetus for the anti-KKK protest.) Now, I was not in a position to stop "the destructive people in [my] midst", but I would have if I could have. The police then ordered us to disperse. Now, of course, with over a thousand people, no crowd can disperse quickly. I can't speak for everyone else, but I know that I was attempting to leave. Nevertheless, the police got impatient and started pushing. At this point, I got a club to the back from a police officer - not hard enough to do any real damage, but hard enough to leave a small bruise.
My point is that you shouldn't judge all protesters at a given protest for the acts of the few - or even the acts of the many. If I was there legally (and I was), then what other people did at the rally does not justify using force on me - as long as I'm continuing to act legally (and I was). Now, granted, the club incident was no big deal, and to the best of my knowledge no one else got treated much worse. The point is that even if you're doing everything right, you can find yourself in an unsavory situation.
(I also want to point out that calling police officers "pigs" (as the GP post did) is never useful. And, in most cases, it is highly inaccurate. Most police officers are decent, hard-working people and should be shown the respect they deserve.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sort of a good question. "The Muslims" is a little vague. Why do the ones culturally closest to the jihaddists keep quiet? Because they'd rather back their culture, I presume, than face what those people are doing to their culture. Of course, that has nothing to do with your ability to get a couple of your friends and physically stop someone from trashing a store at your peaceful demonstration.
Why aren't the Christians ratting out the abortion bombers?
anarchists (Score:3, Interesting)
As an anarchist myself, whenever I see one of those types of anarchists, I do us all a favour and slam them up against the wall and punch them in the gut a few times, demonstrating to them exactly what their idea of 'anarchy' really is.
While not an anarchist I do believe in having the smallest government possible. Something many people don't know is that it wasn't just communists who fought the Czar in Russia, anarchists did as well. However after the end of the revolution the anarchists walked away an
Coming soon on FOX? (Score:2)
I smell reality/sitcom!
An amazing generation those "hippies", 40 years down the road they still ruffle feathers
I'm a hippy, and I still think this post is funny (Score:5, Funny)
Jmorris42, shine on, you crazy diamond.
Re:I'm a hippy, and I still think this post is fun (Score:4, Informative)
Flamebait [slashdot.org] -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Troll [slashdot.org] -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
Re:Trolling (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, Libertarians are my favorite target. Hippies are too damn mellow, they're all like, "I support your right to your opinion, man, but I, like, respectfully disagree." Boring. Quote some Proudhon at them and Libertarians are like, "I'm gonna git mah gun and come shoot your dog in the face iff'n you tries to mess with my propuh-tie!" Much more entertaining.
How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, test them on yourselves. Test them on volunteers. Don't use the citizenry as guinea-pigs; that's just a scary precedent. "Three protesters were killed today in a test deployment of non-lethal alternatives."
You built 'em, you go on record (and on video) having personally been subjected to them numerous times. Make everyone who built them do the same thing. When you've tested it a few t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but have they tested them enough? From TFA
You know, we damaged the testers, and we need medical people to tell us how likely this is to happen when we hose down protesters.
Wanna test it in a riot scenario, pay yourself a bunch of Army recruits to stage a riot under controlled circumstances. Disarm/disable them. Do it enough to be statistically significant. Find out all those little injury problems and resolve them. Don't take something you haven't adequately tested on willing volunteers and send it out on protesters in Free Speech Zones or who have decided Free Speech doesn't have zones.
I understand why they would publically state one shouldn't be so callous as to try this out on foreign nationals without having tested it; but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be testing it on the people who are building it or will be using it in real life. And it sure as hell doesn't mean you should put a bunch of your own citizens into harms way so you can feel better about deploying it abroad. There's a big gulf in between those two, and I don't think they've addressed it.
As I recall, pretty much every police office is going to get sprayed with pepper spray so they understand what it does to you. Likewise, if you're going to give them some of these other things, they should be trying to create realistic situations in which to test them; not just one volunteer standing still under optimal conditions.
Cheers
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell with that.
You know those carnival/fair events where you get to dunk "Insert Person Here"?
I say we make the congress critters + president and cabinet sign up for non-lethal weapon tests performed by citizens who buy tickets to fire off said weapons. The more painful weapons have higher ticket prices.
Make all of them rotate through the program until the national debt is paid off.
I bet you that as a side effect, the budget would get balanced REALLY quick.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd recommend charging more for crotch-shots especially with the heat ray-gun.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People would take out (another!) mortgage on their house for that.
My state (Washington) has an initiative process, I wonder if this is a valid initiative to have passed.
Yo, anybody down in Cali, you all have initiatives as well, get on this!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they don't need to be 'testing' them on the general population, because they've already had the opportunity to test them. Unless they're afraid the weapons for some reason wouldn't work on 'those people.'
No, after reading the article they're not interested so much in TESTING as they are in USING - that is - police usin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, if you're dealing with large crowds, it's usually a lot easier to use force than to try and solve the situation in a peaceful manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
he made it and no would would buy it.. so he video taped him self shooting him self in the gut.. and sent the tape to the police departmnets - and well we all know how well that worked out...
hell i would take a bullet to have that credit to my name
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In my opinion snipers are at least as awesome as ninjas.
Re:How about (Score:4, Interesting)
Needless to say, I seriously doubt that cop will forget what a taser feels like.
And yes, pepper spray is also tested.
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA: "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
Riiiight. Just like tazers & stun guns are "non-lethal" and never injure people in a way that was not intended.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for Raytheon. [raytheon.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the CIA just found a new favored method of information extraction / recreation.
Mod me down if you will, but you have to admit that that's a torturers dream - hurts like hell but won't leave evidence or run the risk of killing the subject prematurely. And with any luck it will also destroy any video tapes and photos of the incident.
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Information extracted under pain has limited value. A lot of people will say/confess to anything just to stop the pain.
-b.
Great for torture! (Score:4, Insightful)
I see this going over great with your current administration - a torture device that the Spanish Inquisition would have killed for in the hands of people who have proven they're not to be trusted.
IRA - funded by US money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this isn't the only group to carry out terrorist activities here in the UK and the rest of Europe has had it's fair share of home grown terrorists from different political persuasions. Plenty of multicultural diversity here!
"Muslims (the majority of whom are Arabic) are the only ones I've seen who
1/64" vs. cornea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for linking to the brochure.
It looks like the beam is sufficiently narrow that it can target individuals or small groups, so I can see how targets can move away from the beam even in large crowds.
The limited width of the beam also gives me reason to believe that even the most poorly-trained/sadistic operator isn't going to leave it pointed at any one target for a prolonged period of time: when you're outnumbered 100:1 by an angry mob and can only fry those protestors in the path of a very narrow beam, you're going to have a very strong incentive to keep that beam moving across as many protestors as possible. The operator who elects to fry the hell out of some poor schmuck like an ant under a magnifying glass does so at the risk of having his position very quickly overrun by the remaining 99 ants :)
With the wavelengths discussed, I can also see why the energy is absorbed near the surface of the skin and is unlikely to effect things like pins/plates or other surgically implanted devices such as pacemakers.
The only question I'd have about safety is the effects that rapid heating would have on the human cornea. Is there anything in the public literature regarding this? (I'm thinking that much of this must have been researched back in the WW2 and Korean War era when we were learning how to train techs to work on radar installations without cooking themselves, but I'm damned if I'm gonna Google for stuff like that these days :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting that the OP picked and chose his quotes to obfuscate what Wynne was getting at. He was actually trying to say that if we use these non-lethal weapons on (potentially) civilians abroad, we'd better also be willing to have them used in situations like riot control at home. Never let the truth stand in the way of politics, though.
Personally, I've been waiti
FUD, FUD, FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
You should try reading the article. The Air Force is saying that it's not going to "test" these weapons that everyone THINKS are non-lethal in a combat area and find out they are, in fact, NOT non-lethal. The air force is saying that if the governemnt (read: US population) wants them to use non-lethal weapons, then it better go about PROVING their non-lethality and willingness therein so far as to use it on themselves. The Air Force is saying that if the US conscience wants to the US to use non-lethal weapons, it better be willing to stick it's own neck on the line in the face of such non-lethal weapons.
This is the military being responsible... not the other way around. This is all-time great FUD. Slashdot should be ashamed for buying into this bullshit headline and quoting the wrong parts. Militaries KILL PEOPLE. That's what they do. The conscience of the American people want the military to NOT-KILL-PEOPLE, so they are promoting non-lethal weapons. The Air Force response by saying, "Once you test them on yourselves, American population, we will agree to use them on our enemies... they are nonlethal, after all?".
The air force is agreeing with you. The yellow journalist and sensationalistic title on this piece is seriously disheartening.
Re:FUD, FUD, FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Anyway, if supercomputers could accurately predict effects of different things on the human body, we'd have computer-designed cures for all illnesses known to man.
I'd go out and protest... (Score:3, Funny)
Horrible idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
How dare we use weapons on our citizens? (Score:2)
Our gov't doesn't need more ways to subjugate us.
safe? test it on air force generals first (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
'Unruly crowds?' (Score:5, Insightful)
<IRONY=0%>
Dammit, did I leave off the "IRONY=100%" tag again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they need a new PR firm (Score:3, Insightful)
read this earlier (Score:5, Insightful)
Military uses them first on US citizens:
OMG the Military is testing weapons on US citizens!
Military uses them first on non-US citizens:
OMG the Military is testing weapons on non-US citizens! What are those people worth less to you racists?
Military doesn't develope these weapons:
OMG the Military is using deadly force against civilians
Re:read this earlier (Score:5, Insightful)
The question you should be asking is "Why is the Military being used for civillian law enforcment?"
This is to save lives, period. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not. Here's a scenario for you:
You're with a platoon of Marines assigned to guard a US Embassy, or perhaps to support the local military in their protection of a local elected official (say, the Interior Minister of Carjakistan, who is friendly to democracy but tends to have angry mobs pointed at him by his local political opponents in the city where they're trying to put together a function municipal government that doesn't involve daily beheadings). A couple of busses pull up with that day's duly designated Angry Mob(s). They start screaming, throwing rocks, etc. Then, some shots ring out from the crowd, at the Marines.
So, they can fire over the heads of the crowd, hoping to disperse them. The people willing to attack some Marines don't really care about that tactic one way or the other, so that's something of a non-starter. Or, they can fire into the crowd, making them disperse into smaller body parts, and hopefully also killing the people who are shooting at whatever building they're in. That works, but has the unfortunate side effect of killing the people who were bussed in as angry-crowd-cover by the militants. Marines look bad on CNN for that one. Or, they can trot out a new toy or two that makes it pretty much unbearable to be in that crowd in the first place, AK-47 under your cross-dressing burkha or not. Unarmed civilians don't die, and Interior Minister gets to go to work on the police force that's ultimately supposed to handle these situations.
If I'm a Marine, I'm all for this. Likewise Air Force MPs (who are often guarding facilities that get swamped with representatives from Unruly Crowd Central Casting), etc.
Re:This is to save lives, period. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a Marine, one who's done a tour in Iraq already, and I can tell you we are literally dying to have something like this. The current ROE is such that you're severely limited in the action you can take when somebody starts shooting at you or your convoy. You basically can either choose not to respond at all (i.e. disengage) or you can choose to excercise deadly force. There is no option three.
With all the reporters crawling around just hoping for a dead baby with an M-16 bullet lodged in it just in time for the evening let's-bash-the-U.S.-military evening newscast, I can assure you we all spend far too much time debating about pulling that trigger. We have dead Marines because of it, and because our enemy chooses to hide amongst civilians hoping we'll kill some of them. These people are animals, barbarians, sub-human scum, but don't get me started.
With a reliable, ranged, non-lethal weapon of this type, we could be much more indiscriminate about how we apply it. Don't take that the wrong way; I don't mean we run around zapping everyone in sight. Instead, when a threat develops, we could "stun" the person without fear of wounding or killing non-combatants. Fewer dead Marines, fewer dead civilians, and (maybe) fewer dead terrorists (captured alive instead and then used as a useful source of intelligence). Only the stupidest Peacenik would oppose the availability of such a weapon. It would save lives no matter how you look at it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using human shields is not fighting unfair, it's fighting dirty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, assigned to people that are probably pretty happy to have the job, and may use it as a stepping stone to career in law enforcement or security management in the private sector? OK, just checking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An army's job is to attack things (or at least to be there so we can threaten to attack things) and to guard shit. That's why a county has an army. Why don't they guard their own facilities, then? It's one thing when it's a job that for which we rarely enlist people with the proper qualifications, but everyone who's made it through basic and maybe a few weeks of extra training should be able to do this! Hell, it's practice for th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, because the commanders in the ranks of your municipal police department answer to no one? Because the media isn't watching events like that? Because the mayor or governor they work for has no authority over them and their policies?
The police already have vastly more dangerous/lethal tools at their disposal. These are simply different tools. Just because both the military and the police each use teargas doesn't mean it's a "recipe for abuse." Same thing for a crowd dispersi
Re:This is to save lives, period. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. And, if there was some demonstration outside the Chinese embassy in Washington DC and the Chinese started blasting US citizens in the vicinity of the Chinese embassy with high intensity microwaves, then the Washington DC "natives" would think that was totally OK.
While I'm not necessarily opposed to non-lethal weapons, what I don't like about the microwave weapon is that it seems more like an offensive weapon. I mean, if you just want to protect an embassy from a crowd of people throwing stones then why not just build a really high wall?
It seems more likely that this will be used to disperse crowds that are exercising their right to assemble in a way that is embarrassing the government.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG the Military is... wait, what?
PETA: testing them on ANIMALS!
Everyone Else: Oh go away PETA.
Dummies: OMG the Military is testing them on us!
Everyone: OH SHIT ZOMBIE DUMMIES KEEP FIRING AT THEM! GET THE LETHAL WEAPONS BACK HERE!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. In the current climate, it would seem that all the military needs to do is provide the weapons to the police for use in the War on Drugs/Terrorism and let them do the testing. For a very interesting (but a bit on the long side and to be taken with salt) paper on the topic of police and military cooperation that takes huge chunks out of the Posse Comitatus Act, check out "Overkill" at Cato.org.
Drat..it seems that
Major Flaw (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares if you are in a *war* and you hurt the enemy?
Give me a break. When you get to the point where you are trying to care about what people think about you in a war you are losing. War is for one thing only--the destruction of your enemy.
If you are very efficient and eliminate your enemy very quickly you can just write (rewrite) any PR you want to.
Re: (Score:2)
How about if you are bogged down in a peace-keeping and rebuilding operation where 90% of the population wants you out of their country and the Prime Minister has said it's okay to kill American troops? What if the only way out is to win the hearts and minds of the people so that they think they are better off than before you conquered their country? What if you need to disperse and angry and violent crowd without killing anyone so that you don't tur
Re:Major Flaw (Score:5, Informative)
Independence (which doesn't require destruction of enemy.
Territory (ditto).
Other scarce resources (food, water, oil, gold, etc. -- doesn't necessarily require destruction of your enemy).
War isn't about destroying your enemy (that's genocide you're thinking of, there). War is typically about the control of resources, and one of those resources is popular opinion. Plenty of wars have been fought for PR reasons -- an external enemy is one way of helping ensure you don't have to deal with an internal enemy.
Re:Major Flaw (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why we're losing -- or at least not winning -- the "war" in Iraq. Wars in the last millenia are not like the ones you get in Civilization games -- they rarely (if ever) result in the total annihilation of the enemy, nor is that usually the goal of a war either. Wars with that goal in mind (e.g. the Germans in WWII) are doomed to fail because there are always more "them" than "us."
Wars these days are as much ideological wars as they are wars over territory or economics. Especially in the war on terror, public relations is a huge issue (and perhaps the most important one). The problem we are currently having is that the insurgents are recruiting people faster than we can neutralize (either by killing or capturing) them. If we were to use unethical or excessive force in dealing with the insurgents, we will only succeed in driving more and more people to the insurgent's cause. Events such as the prison abuse scandal have hurt our efforts in Iraq and in neighboring regions. Some people will be driven to the insurgency regardless of what we do in the Middle East and across the globe, but we must take whatever steps possible (and reasonable) to limit the number of people who join the insurgency.
If winning a war was just about destroying the enemy without regard to any reprecussions, we would just drop a ton of nukes on Iraq and Afghanistan and call it a day. Obviously the world does not work like that, and hasn't since the middle ages.
Re:Major Flaw (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting is that in the past 50 years we've fought two or three such wars, losing every one and we still have optimists who believe "This time for sure!".
You can't fight a war this way. The fundamental problem is not the rules have changed, but rather you start with a false assumption.
This is not to say military might is not necessary. But it is necessary in the classic sense that you rejected and say is no longer possible. It exists in the sense of when all else has failed. It exists in the sense of the Powell Doctrine, that when you go you go balls to the walls. You throw everything at the war and end it quickly.
Sun Tzu understood this. The Romans understood this. This is not a new concept.
The problem is, in a republic like ours, war of this nature has to be justified. The President has to go to the people and say "We need your sons and daughters. We need your wealth. We need the sweat of your brow. With all these things, we can win this war." Franklin Roosevelt did that. No other President since has. It's interesting that FDR won WWII in not much more time than we've been in Iraq.
So the problem is either the cowardice of Presidents to make that argument, or the lack of a proper justification of war, or maybe both. It's not because the rules changed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between a war and an occupation. If in an occupation for every insurgent you kill you create 3 more you will never keep the country*. That is why in an occupation "winning the hearts and minds" is more important than military victory.
*There is another option that have been proven throughout history to
I always thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... (Score:2)
We're so well-respected (Score:2)
From the article:
You know, 'cause we're so well respected now. We wouldn't want to tarnish the US' image in the international community.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad to say it, but there already is a group to test these weapons on: American soldiers. Whether or not that's the way it should be, the government has been using solders as lab rats for decades. There have to be soldiers willing to volunteer to test (potentia
Yes, but... (Score:2)
...what they don't tell you is that there are plenty of brown "islamic" Americans who go to mosques and are likely to blow themselves up given half a chance.
Or so they'd have us believe.
This war on Humanity has driven me past the boundaries of sanity. Hand me my pills.
Good... (Score:2)
Politically good way to field test (Score:2)
They are tested and documented less lethal weapons. Even if there is no intention to use them by the military, domestic use might help save lives and reduce injuries.
If they really are less lethal they should be deployed domestically.
It's good for Americans because it allows one more step before employing lethal weapons.
It's politically safer to use them outside the US after they've been used domestically.
With domestic riots they have a few options to control, adding another somewhere betw
A big "No" in my mind... (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just paranoid. But it doesn't seem like a good idea.
One day, it will be used to quell a violent outburst from some crowd. And, from then on, it could be used to take away our right to assembly. As if tear gas and rubber bullets weren't enough.
I'm all about keeping a crowd under control, but we can't allow something that
We're already guinea pigs (Score:2, Informative)
Luckily I never had to take any of the anthrax shots while in the Navy, but I remember talking to another Navy guy who said part of the enlistment contract requires service members to accept drug testing on them. That's why the anthrax shots were so debilitating; they were
War is heck? (Score:4, Insightful)
I Can't Even Begin (Score:2)
There are so many things wrong with this quote, that that I'm having trouble even starting to comment. Except maybe to say that I sincerely hope that most US citizens remember remarks like these when they go to the polls this fall.
This is unbelievable, even in this administration where sadly, one has come to expect this type of mentality. BTW - Let me say that I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is unbelievable, even in this administration where sadly, one has come to expect this type of mentality. BTW - Let me say that I am a registered Republican before I get flamed by all the NeoCons.
That you are a registered republican, I find forgiveable. What you (Mr Republican) and I (Mr Socialist) have in common is this: we believe in the rule of law and the government as a utility for positive public policy. You and I can (and will) disagree with a WIDE range of what the .gov should
Fantastic (Score:2)
What a wonderful entourage is that you voted to govern your country !!!
I was part of one of these (Score:2)
Highly misleading tag... (Score:2)
It isn't about the military testing it on civilians at all, nor is it about the military using it on US Citizens either (you may not realize this but the military (Army/Navy/Air Force/Coast Guard/Marines) does not get deployed against civilian populations; at worst it'd be the National Guard which is sup
Strange article... (Score:2)
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer...
So only 1/3 of the article is actually about non-lethal weapon testing. Seems like right about where they should have given more details about the new weapons,
Brilliant! (Score:2)
Air Force Techie #2: Hmmm....yeah, actually. * Goes and posts on Slashdot *
Slashdot Hordes: Onoes! They're planning to use weapons against American citizens! We should start a riot!
Angry Mob: We demand you don't use those weapons on American citizens!
Air Force Guard #1: That mob is getting pretty close. Guess we should get on with it then.
Air For
Out of context (Score:4, Informative)
Wasteful (Score:4, Funny)
Test them on Testy Mobs...Hmmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Using this stuff on Americans is about the quickest and surest way to guarantee that the second scenario happens.
It would make a change (Score:3, Funny)
A nice demo site. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com]
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm [oldamericancentury.org] [oldamericancentury.org] [oldamericancentury.org]
http://www.hermes-press.com/etch1.htm [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com] [hermes-press.com]
In the land of the NOT free, All hail the shrub!
Re: (Score:2)
To my knowledge, America isn't officially at war with anyone at the moment (Afghanistan is a "peacekeeping" operation and the Iraqis are supposed to sort their own mess out themselves). I guess this means that America is, in fact, at war with itself, meaning that the use of these weapons against its own citizens is quite justified.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't like it, (Score:5, Interesting)
Or you can go here [pacificnews.org].
Re:Rich = Powerful = I Do Whatever I Want (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's been that way since a Supreme Court Clerk Decided that corporations were persons [mcn.org] back in 1886. We lost our democracy then.
Yesterday, we learn that the HP executive who authorized the illegal surveillance has been slapped on the wrist.
Of course- she's not in your class.
Today, we learn that government officials will arbitrarily test military weapons on American citizens.
But only in keeping with what the Corporations want- in other words, they'll be used on protestors who are blocking streets and endangering profits.
Re:Great...another new weapon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, laugh about while you can, but it's going to happen. Oceanea is our friend; we have always been at war with Eastasia. Good news! Chocolate rations have been increased to 4 grams!
The only difference between today and Rome is that in Rome, the emperor named a horse as a senator. Now, we only have horse's asses.
Re:Great...another new weapon... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great...another new weapon... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't even have to be doing anything illegal. The government will do that for you. Can't find a crime to charge the arrestee with? No matter, the President has special authority which allows the government to hold people indefinitely without charging them, allowing them to see a lawyer, or treating them humanely.
Sure, when the shit hits the fan, some people will be fired. Preferably someone close to the action, but definitely someone low on the food chain. Oh, and by the way, we did mistreat those people who were being held in the secret CIA prisons, despite what we've been saying for the past months. But it's ok, we're the Administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really think that this is just about allowing governments to use force