Article

2009-08-01 Home Front: WoT

Someone spying on Olympia-based anti-war group could violate federal law

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-08-01 08:51|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 what "law enforcement activities" did he conduct? He infiltrated a group of peurile anti-American tools on his own, and as a civilian. They're just upset they were scammed. P*ssies. I wish they would roll the trucks and trains right over their protesting bodies

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-08-01 11:18|| 2009-08-01 11:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Interesting issue here is was the anti-war group in any way involved in threatening DoD activities or assets? Force Protection permits CONUS based DoD assets to ascertain threats and evaluate. LE actions would then devolve to local police, FBI JTTF or other federal LE agencies for enforcement actions.
If this guy was working this on his own as a private citizen, did he commit any fraud by using an assumed name? If not, hard cheese for the anarchists, whoi by the way, by their very title, imply a threat to organized government do they not?

Posted by NoMoreBS">NoMoreBS 2009-08-01 16:27|| 2009-08-01 16:27|| Front Page Top

#3 That's okay, hippies.
Of course you know you haven't found the real guy, right?

Posted by tu3031 2009-08-01 16:32|| 2009-08-01 16:32|| Front Page Top

#4 If some enthusiastic individual proposed this to me, I would have "requested and required" that he prepare a 10-page essay on the concept of "plausible deniability", before he do anything else.

Grading his paper, if he made less than a 'B' in comprehension of the concept, it would have been aborted.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-08-01 17:06|| 2009-08-01 17:06|| Front Page Top

#5 The question here is: Does an installation or unit commander in CONUS or anywhere else have the obligation to his very command to assess all threats to his command, and the obvious answer is yes, and it is an obligation which supercedes the Posse Comitatus Act by about a thousand years.

It can be well argued by the military that the presumed spying was strictly a military activity meant to ascertain that anti-military protesters were not posing any threat to military activities such as passing information about military facilities meant to pose a threat to either the military or those employed by the military.

FWIW, that the protesters were peaceful doesn't mean they were not actively involved in activities which could pose a threat to military units. In fact the contention that protesters were peaceful was an obvious canard meant to change the subject.

Posted by badanov 2009-08-01 17:59|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-08-01 17:59|| Front Page Top

22:59 Rambler in Virginia
22:45 Cornsilk Blondie
22:33 JohnQC
22:30 JohnQC
22:22 Keystone
22:22 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:14 Frank G
22:13 Lord garth
22:09 Spurong Trotsky3560
22:04 flash91
21:50 Spurong Trotsky3560
21:39 OldSpook
21:39 Redneck Jim
21:39 Lone Ranger
21:37 OldSpook
21:32 Mullah Richard
21:23 Redneck Jim
21:19 CrazyFool
21:19 Barbara Skolaut
21:15 Rambler in Virginia
21:12 James
21:04 Redneck Jim
21:00 phil_b
21:00 Redneck Jim