Document: Army Preparing To Use Lethal Force Against “Unarmed Civilians” During “Full Scale Riots” In U.s.

[1929crash]

Document: Army Preparing to Use Lethal Force Against “Unarmed Civilians” During “Full Scale Riots” in U.S. Training manual outlines "sniper response" during crowd control operations

Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons

by Paul Joseph Watson | August 18, 2014

A document released by the U.S. Army details preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.

The appearance of the document amidst growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, with the National Guard now being called in to deal with the disorder, is an ominous coincidence.

The 132-page document, titled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances (PDF), was written in April 2014 and recently obtained by Public Intelligence.

The document makes it clear that the techniques detailed therein are to be applied both outside and inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”

The training manual outlines scenarios under which, “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.”

The most shocking aspect of the document is the fact that it describes the deployment of a “lethal response” directed against “unarmed civilians,” including “sniper response” and “small arms direct fire.”

Under the heading “sniper response,” the document states, “Ensure that target leaders or troublemakers are targeted,” in addition to a passage which states, “Exploit the psychological effect of an attack.”

Under the heading “small arms direct fire,” the manual states, “Escalate gradually, starting with a small caliber, single round and work up to a large caliber, automatic.”

Another graphic which depicts “escalation of trauma” directs soldiers how to use “riot batons” in order to cause the necessary level of injury or death to the subject. “Deadly force final target areas” include the back of the neck, the solar plexus, the neck, the spine and the head.

In light of events in Ferguson, where a predominantly black community has faced off with militarized police, it’s interesting to note that the manual makes reference to civil unrest that can arise out of “ethnic hatred” and, “Community unrest (that) results in urban conflicts that arise from highly emotional social and economic issues.” The document also mentions how rioters target “retail stores,” as happened during the looting in Ferguson.

“Significant ethnic differences in a community can create an atmosphere of distrust, even hatred…… (and) can cause an eruption of civil disorder that can lead to full riots,” states the document.

Although the document makes reference to the Constitutional rights of American citizens it goes on to stress that such protections are null and void under a state of emergency, asserting that Posse Comitatus, which is supposed to limit the power of the federal government to use military personnel domestically, “does not apply” under declared “emergency authority” or “When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists.”

It is important to stress that this training manual applies to U.S. Army operations in foreign countries as well as domestically on U.S. soil. Indeed, section 2-18 of the document goes into detail about domestic protests such as the 1999 anti-WTO demonstration in Seattle.

The emergence of the document as National Guard troops prepare to descend on Ferguson, Missouri to deal with looting and civil unrest follows a report we published just a few weeks before the outbreak of the Ferguson riots which documented how National Guard troops were training to detain unruly African-American citizens in prison camps before handing them over to police.

In a special video report, Alex Jones documented how the story was part of wider preparations by the government for domestic disorder that have been ongoing for years.

This document is real. America, it seeems, is headed to Hell.

Maybe the military response the past week to public disorder in Ferguson, the St Louis suburb, is some kind of beta-test.

http://www.infowars.com/document-army-preparing-to-use-lethal-force-against-unarmed-americans-during-full-scale-riots-in-u-s/

[Executive Sadman]

I like how in the columns below "lethal response" it goes on to say "use minimum response necessary"

Definitely written by civil servants.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

This document is real. America, it seeems, is headed to Hell.

Maybe the military response the past week to public disorder in Ferguson, the St Louis suburb, is some kind of beta-test.

http://www.infowars.com/document-army-preparing-to-use-lethal-force-against-unarmed-americans-during-full-scale-riots-in-u-s/

Don't really know what your point is, beyond fairly blatant astroturfing.

Do you imagine that most countries don't have these sorts of contingency plans in place in the event that the army has to be used to quell civil disorder ?

And if so what would you prefer, the troops to go in with instructions on how to stop it via selective application of fire, or they didn't have any instructions on how to stop in and just got a "go in there and hose the lot down" from the OC ?

Really.

[happy_renting]

Don't really know what your point is, beyond fairly blatant astroturfing.

Do you imagine that most countries don't have these sorts of contingency plans in place in the event that the army has to be used to quell civil disorder ?

And if so what would you prefer, the troops to go in with instructions on how to stop it via selective application of fire, or they didn't have any instructions on how to stop in and just got a "go in there and hose the lot down" from the OC ?

Really.

Why does a sniper response to unarmed civilians even need to be considered?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Why does a sniper response to unarmed civilians even need to be considered?

The point was that America is headed to hell because it has a contingency plan for armed response in the face of serious public order, not whether armed response in the face of serious public order is appropriate.

It's a slightly (but significantly) different debate IMO, and could be seen by the paranoid as a disguised attempt to divert the debate somewhat down a long and convoluted path away from the original proposition (see the how to control an internet forum thread). First of all you have got the long debate about whether an armed response is ever appropriate as a method of crowd control, then the debate about specific tactics that should be applied. I can't be bothered getting into either.

My point is that the OPs original statement "This document is real. America, it seeems, is headed to Hell." is just anti American propaganda, because in my view all countries that engage in contingency planning have plans like this in the case of serious public order issues and it's extremely naive to assume otherwise.

[1929crash]

The point was that America is headed to hell because it has a contingency plan for armed response in the face of serious public order, not whether armed response in the face of serious public order is appropriate.

It's a slightly (but significantly) different debate IMO, and could be seen by the paranoid as a disguised attempt to divert the debate somewhat down a long and convoluted path away from the original proposition (see the how to control an internet forum thread). First of all you have got the long debate about whether an armed response is ever appropriate as a method of crowd control, then the debate about specific tactics that should be applied. I can't be bothered getting into either.

My point is that the OPs original statement "This document is real. America, it seeems, is headed to Hell." is just anti American propaganda, because in my view all countries that engage in contingency planning have plans like this in the case of serious public order issues and it's extremely naive to assume otherwise.

Can you point to a similar proposal/plan that is possessed by the UK government? Let me save you the trouble of answering - 'No' is the appropriate response.

There was controversy over Bojo's plans to purchase water cannon. I would say that using snipers against unarmed civilians is several orders of magnitude beyond this, and in any event would be considered a Nuremberg crime.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Can you point to a similar proposal/plan that is possessed by the UK government? Let me save you the trouble of answering - 'No' is the appropriate response.

There was controversy over Bojo's plans to purchase water cannon. I would say that using snipers against unarmed civilians is several orders of magnitude beyond this, and in any event would be considered a Nuremberg crime.

Well, you've got me bang to rights there.

Clearly the UK government would never consider shooting unarmed civilians.

[1929crash]

Well, you've got me bang to rights there.

Clearly the UK government would never consider shooting unarmed civilians.

The last time the Uk did so on a large scale was Bloody Sunday in Derry.

i don't think there was a plan in place prior to the event to do so.

But this is a distraction from the real issue, which is whether or not governments have the right to slaughter their own citizens. I say No, you appear to approve.

[The XYY Man]

So what we have here is the 'news' that a bunch of people who carry portable machines around that are designed to kill people are being trained to know how to kill people with them.

No shit Sherlock...!

XYY

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

The last time the Uk did so on a large scale was Bloody Sunday in Derry.

i don't think there was a plan in place prior to the event to do so.

But this is a distraction from the real issue, which is whether or not governments have the right to slaughter their own citizens. I say No, you appear to approve.

I suppose "large scale" depends on whether or not you are the ones being shot.

If the real issue was as you state, why not post that ? Why not illustrate with examples of similar recent events from other countries as well instead of appearing to make this solely a US issue ?

You say I appear to approve. Where did I say that ? I actually explicitly stated that wasn't an argument I was making.

I'll put that down to clumsy reasoning rather than a deliberate attempt to try and fog the issue. I'll take the opportunity of reminding your original post, which was :

"This document is real. America, it seeems, is headed to Hell.

Maybe the military response the past week to public disorder in Ferguson, the St Louis suburb, is some kind of beta-test"

Not

"whether or not governments have the right to slaughter their own citizens"

[1929crash]

I suppose "large scale" depends on whether or not you are the ones being shot.

If the real issue was as you state, why not post that ? Why not illustrate with examples of similar recent events from other countries as well instead of appearing to make this solely a US issue ?

You say I appear to approve. Where did I say that ? I actually explicitly stated that wasn't an argument I was making.

I'll put that down to clumsy reasoning rather than a deliberate attempt to try and fog the issue. I'll take the opportunity of reminding your original post, which was :

"This document is real. America, it seeems, is headed to Hell.

Maybe the military response the past week to public disorder in Ferguson, the St Louis suburb, is some kind of beta-test"

Not

"whether or not governments have the right to slaughter their own citizens"

Look, the United States has been - despite its faults - a shining example in many ways.

Now, it has published an army briefing/policy document outlining plans for mass killing of unarmed protestors.

Do you have any doubt that the US would condemn any other country which did this? I seem to recall that there were calls for Ukraine's Yanukovic to be brought to trial because he supposedly gave the order to open fire on protestors. It now looks as if it was not the Kiev police who did that. But this sort of behaviour is a war crime and the US is blatantly crowing about doing it.

By the way, I think that shooting American people is far more anti-American than condemning the rogue American government which actually does it.

[1929crash]

So what we have here is the 'news' that a bunch of people who carry portable machines around that are designed to kill people are being trained to know how to kill people with them.

No shit Sherlock...!

XYY

No, it goes beyond training people to use weapons - it involves using those weapons on unarmed civilian protestors.

[happy_renting]

The US police have been given the most extraordinary ex-military hardware since the US has withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. They are more militarised, and militarily equipped, than most of the world's armies.

Bear in mind that the US police are, like the UK police, supposedly a civilian force that operates by public consent.

I sense that consent is very fragile.

At least most British police do not want to be armed with firearms. Most British police, thankfully, understand the issues and are sensible.So far.

[The XYY Man]

No, it goes beyond training people to use weapons - it involves using those weapons on unarmed civilian protestors.

But crashy - you're getting upset at the instruction manual rather than the killing machine itself mate.

You get hit by a car and presumably blame 'The Highway Code' then...?

XYY

[sPinwheel]

Why does a sniper response to unarmed civilians even need to be considered?

They might be angry unarmed civilians.

[stormymonday_2011]

The last time the Uk did so on a large scale was Bloody Sunday in Derry.

i don't think there was a plan in place prior to the event to do so.

But this is a distraction from the real issue, which is whether or not governments have the right to slaughter their own citizens. I say No, you appear to approve.

I think Bloody Sunday is a pretty good example of the potential drawbacks of using lethal force against unarmed demonstrators since it just encourages people to tool up in response. This would be a particular problem for any U.S. administration where public access to weapons is widespread.

[StainlessSteelCat]

I think anyone is hopelessly naive if they think that the UK government wouldn't deploy armed troops on the streets with orders to kill on sight if they felt they were seriously likely to be overthrown (outside of the ballot box).

My own view is such a Government would lose their mandate to rule by the same action though - and would likely not be in power for too much longer unless the trouble was confined to a small easily identified/marginalised section of the population.

[oracle]

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.''

seem to remember hitler and stalin BOTH being of that particular opinion.

never seems to work out too well for them in the end.

[1929crash]

I think anyone is hopelessly naive if they think that the UK government wouldn't deploy armed troops on the streets with orders to kill on sight if they felt they were seriously likely to be overthrown (outside of the ballot box).

My own view is such a Government would lose their mandate to rule by the same action though - and would likely not be in power for too much longer unless the trouble was confined to a small easily identified/marginalised section of the population.

Would British troops agree to shoot in such circumstances?

[StainlessSteelCat]

Would British troops agree to shoot in such circumstances?

I think a significant number would. There are undoubtably some fine young people in our armed forces, but like our police - there are also quite a few who are basically up for a bit of a ruck without worrying too much about who the "enemy" is.

[1929crash]

I think a significant number would. There are undoubtably some fine young people in our armed forces, but like our police - there are also quite a few who are basically up for a bit of a ruck without worrying too much about who the "enemy" is.

And what would wives, mothers and other relatives think or the way their sons had behaved?

And don't they tell soldiers these days that illegal orders should not be obeyed?

[Caravan Monster]

I think anyone is hopelessly naive if they think that the UK government wouldn't deploy armed troops on the streets with orders to kill on sight if they felt they were seriously likely to be overthrown (outside of the ballot box).

My own view is such a Government would lose their mandate to rule by the same action though - and would likely not be in power for too much longer unless the trouble was confined to a small easily identified/marginalised section of the population.

Didn't the Blair government legislate for armed troops on the streets after the 2000 fuel protests ? Things started to look a bit precarious for the government at that point, as I remember.

[Riedquat]

And don't they tell soldiers these days that illegal orders should not be obeyed?

Do soldiers get sufficient legal training to know what is a legal order or not, and in the heat of the moment do you want them sitting down and debating it? Unless it's really, really blatant expecting that would make an army utterly inefficient. It depends upon the exact circumstances though. A group of generals telling local commanders to plan an attack is rather different from giving immediate orders in the middle of a battle, where any hesitation to ponder could be disastrous.

Moving on to the general case it's not impossible to imagine situations where it might be appropriate for the army to turn up and use lethal force if that's the only way to stop a greater evil.

[thecrashingisles]

Didn't the Blair government legislate for armed troops on the streets after the 2000 fuel protests ? Things started to look a bit precarious for the government at that point, as I remember.

Yes, for a brief moment William Hague led in the opinion polls. It was almost a complete civilisational collapse.

[Executive Sadman]

Yes, for a brief moment William Hague led in the opinion polls. It was almost a complete civilisational collapse.

Ha, not quite...but the tea party in the US tried to organize truckers to go on strike, block routes, go slow etc.

They know that with food turnover so quick, the most logical route to revolution would be to disrupt roads and haulage.