Military Mobilization into Washington DC?
the footage I have seen this morning looks more serious than that now...hordes of masked rioters steaming down Whitehall assaulting many police and even an Aussie TV news crew. Scum need to be dealt with properly. Any excuse for a riot like after Mark Duggan in 2011.
Thanks Lonewolf 50. Having worked in Texas for several years, I too shared your optimism....and hope. I recognise that the US was designed to have checks and balances but dont accept it was as carefully planned as you suggest. The Constitution (in fact the second Constitution) was an accident from a meeting designed to raise a model Army, and John Adams argued it should be replaced by each generation. The relative lack of change and development, combined with decades of isolationism in the 20th century and fear of the word 'socialism' has left many Americans behind.
Turning to the police, I am not European, but police forces in England are based on counties so not national. There is a national training standard and each force is large enough to have senior management which can oversee standards and identify employees who need support and in extreme cases be let go, backed up by a National Inspectorate reporting to government. This is no different from any business. In the US some police departments are as small as a family business, isolated and struggling. We dont have multiple forces often fighting each other on the same turf, although there has been some slippage.
Turning to the police, I am not European, but police forces in England are based on counties so not national. There is a national training standard and each force is large enough to have senior management which can oversee standards and identify employees who need support and in extreme cases be let go, backed up by a National Inspectorate reporting to government. This is no different from any business. In the US some police departments are as small as a family business, isolated and struggling. We dont have multiple forces often fighting each other on the same turf, although there has been some slippage.
Lonewolf 50, #59, homonculus,
'In 1804 Thomas Jefferson expressed the hope that the USA had embarked on an experiment that "we trust will end un establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth."
The announcement by the Oxford Dictionaries 212 years later that "post-truth" was its Word of the Year seemed to confirm that the experiment had failed.'
Julian Baggini 'A Short History of Truth'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...story-of-truth
The book is an short, easy read, a balancing history of truth and democracy, together with concerning views of current issues and for the future.
Interestingly, the concluding 'solutions' have many similarities with interventions considered to improve human performance in aviation, but not IMHO, any more convincing of the likelihood of success.
Also note from Albert Einstein : “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Good advice for aviation as well as governments.
'In 1804 Thomas Jefferson expressed the hope that the USA had embarked on an experiment that "we trust will end un establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth."
The announcement by the Oxford Dictionaries 212 years later that "post-truth" was its Word of the Year seemed to confirm that the experiment had failed.'
Julian Baggini 'A Short History of Truth'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...story-of-truth
The book is an short, easy read, a balancing history of truth and democracy, together with concerning views of current issues and for the future.
Interestingly, the concluding 'solutions' have many similarities with interventions considered to improve human performance in aviation, but not IMHO, any more convincing of the likelihood of success.
Also note from Albert Einstein : “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Good advice for aviation as well as governments.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Not quite. The Articles of Confederation were failing to achieve their purpose; calling them a "Constitution" is I think a reach. The Constitution that was approved in 1789 took a lot of time and effort to get sorted out. The Constitutional Convention was no accident. The entire dialogue that went on around it, and in particular the desired amount of federal power in the model that they were trying to build, remains some of the best reference on what they were trying to achieve and what they all argued about. (Federalist Papers cover a lot of it, but not all of it).
It wasn't until they tried to put it into practice that they discovered where the edges might be found. Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, and Marshall were working without a net as Chief Justices while they ran into the old "no plan remains intact after first contact" problem form the Judicial branch perspective. Marshall probalby deserves the most credit for establishing the pattern of how the Judiciary branch fits into the model in practice.
Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion was quite controversial at the time. He faced significant criticism for overreaching with federal power. (But he did it anyway).
It wasn't until they tried to put it into practice that they discovered where the edges might be found. Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, and Marshall were working without a net as Chief Justices while they ran into the old "no plan remains intact after first contact" problem form the Judicial branch perspective. Marshall probalby deserves the most credit for establishing the pattern of how the Judiciary branch fits into the model in practice.
Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion was quite controversial at the time. He faced significant criticism for overreaching with federal power. (But he did it anyway).
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: gz
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the comment about the absence of name tags and any other identification.
It's perfectly normal in such scenarios and plenty of countries do the same. It prevents that the name and other info becomes mainstream, should a person commit a controversial act. Prevents retaliation / grudges, etc... Some countries give them identification numbers but still no name tag.
The people in the picture seem to be USAF personnel.
It's perfectly normal in such scenarios and plenty of countries do the same. It prevents that the name and other info becomes mainstream, should a person commit a controversial act. Prevents retaliation / grudges, etc... Some countries give them identification numbers but still no name tag.
The people in the picture seem to be USAF personnel.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting piece written by Chris "Ox" Harmer for Drive. Cut and pasted as unable to attach link.
Here is the link to the article. (Mod)
Here is the link to the article. (Mod)
Early in my career flying H-60 SeaHawks in the U.S. Navy, our carrier air wing was operating down in the Caribbean. I planned and led a complex training mission involving about a dozen aircraft, including four helicopters, eight strike fighters, as well as some Navy Seals. We expended a lot of live ordnance, accomplished all our training requirements, and in general had a great time. Afterward, as we were celebrating at a bar just outside of Naval Air Station Roosevelt Roads on Puerto Rico, one of the senior officers in the air wing took me aside and said: "There is a fine line between being aggressive and being stupid. Right now you are nowhere near that line. You are operating all the way on the stupid side of that line, and you need to un-**** yourself before you get somebody killed."
I am reminded of this incident at random times and it usually brings a smile to my face, because he was right. I was being aggressive, but stupidly so, and putting everyone at risk. I changed my ways and became a much safer, more effective, more responsible Naval Aviator.On Monday, I saw something that reminded me of the fact that there is a fine line between aggression and stupidity, and the memory did not bring a smile to my face. Just the opposite.
I watched military helicopters being used to conduct crowd control and dispersal operations on U.S. citizens engaged in protests in our nation's capital. I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but it's not courageous, it's not smart, it's not effective, it's just stupid and counterproductive on every level. It's also both unjustified and unnecessary. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I was trained how to use a helicopter as a "show of force" at low altitude to disperse crowds. Thankfully, I was never tasked with actually doing this mission while deployed. I know plenty of helicopter pilots who were tasked with these types of missions—used to disperse crowds so that insurgents couldn't hide in them—in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they all hated it. Even if it is necessary, using a helicopter to sandblast civilians is not what anyone thought they were signing up for.
I never thought I would see U.S. military helicopters being used in this way on American soil. There is a legitimate use for helicopters in civilian law enforcement. Virtually every major local police department has a flight division operating helicopters and light fixed-wing aircraft. Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department has an Air Support Unit. I don't think anyone has a problem with local law enforcement using aircraft to conduct routine operations, but there is something fundamentally wrong with using military helicopters to disperse American citizens engaged in the protected exercise of free speech.
I live just outside of Washington, D.C., so I am accustomed to hearing every major event, such as the current wave of protests, analyzed through a political lens, i.e., who does this hurt, who does it help, how does it change the political or electoral dynamic. That's just the way D.C. operates and this issue of an American military helicopter being used to disperse American citizens in the nation's capital is being analyzed in a similar fashion.
With that said, over the last 24 hours I have talked to a dozen or so former or current Navy helicopter pilots about this incident and each of them pointed out that regardless of the political messaging or posturing, the real issue in their minds was just how dangerous it was, both for the protestors on the ground and for the flight crew. While hovering over a crowd at low altitude, the downwash from the rotor circulates debris and dust at high speed. While some of the protestors were wearing rudimentary Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), many were not. Those citizens were at risk of being seriously injured as a result.
As far as the helicopter goes, kicking up that much dust and debris is almost certain to result in some Foreign Object Debris (FOD) ingestion into the engines. The worst-case scenario—an engine or control system failure while in a hover—would leave no room to maneuver to a safe landing spot and not enough altitude to enter an autorotation. It's far safer to be in forward flight at altitude than in a permanent hover. Both the American citizens who were subjected to the debris blast and the helicopter crew were placed in danger for no apparent reason.
The most obvious objection to this incident is it violates long-standing precedence and principle that the American military should only be used for domestic security purposes when absolutely necessary, in highly atypical situations. While the recent deployment of U.S. Navy hospital ships in support of the COVID-19 response brought temporary attention to the U.S. military's role in responding to domestic emergencies, the fact is the U.S. military has a baseline capability and responsibility to support civilian authorities during natural disasters and other contingencies. These missions are generally referred to as Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) operations and each military service trains to do this.
Far less common is the use of the U.S. military in case of a total breakdown of law and order. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the security situation deteriorated so quickly that local law enforcement was overwhelmed, and the U.S. military, primarily elements of the National Guard, temporarily assumed some law enforcement and civil order functions. The public supported that action because it was necessary and temporary. I doubt the American public will support the use of military helicopters to suppress and disperse American citizens.
As this piece was being written, the District of Columbia National Guard announced that its Commanding General, Major General William J. Walker, was directing an investigation into the actions of the helicopter crew. The message was short, but emphasized that the National Guard is operating in support of civil authorities and that the priority was the safety of both the Guardsmen and citizens. With this message, it makes it much easier for critics of the action on June 1 to conclude that it was an unauthorized event—a mistake or an unfortunate choice by a small number of people—rather than a deliberate institutional decision. Let's hope this is the case and demand that it never happens again. There are a time and a place for U.S. military helicopters to engage in crowd dispersal and show of force. It should never happen on American soil.
----------------
Editor's update: Secretary of Defense Esper has since commented that he ordered the investigation into these incidents.
-----------------
Chris Harmer is a retired Naval Aviator. He flew SH-60F and HH-60H helicopters, accumulating approximately 3,500 total flight hours. During his career, he was designated as both an Instructor Pilot and a Seahawk Weapons Instructor pilot, and is a graduate of the Navy's Mountain Flying School. He has flown training and operational missions in the airspace of over 50 different countries. He is a regularly scheduled military and national security analyst on multiple cable television networks including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and BBC.
I am reminded of this incident at random times and it usually brings a smile to my face, because he was right. I was being aggressive, but stupidly so, and putting everyone at risk. I changed my ways and became a much safer, more effective, more responsible Naval Aviator.On Monday, I saw something that reminded me of the fact that there is a fine line between aggression and stupidity, and the memory did not bring a smile to my face. Just the opposite.
I watched military helicopters being used to conduct crowd control and dispersal operations on U.S. citizens engaged in protests in our nation's capital. I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but it's not courageous, it's not smart, it's not effective, it's just stupid and counterproductive on every level. It's also both unjustified and unnecessary. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I was trained how to use a helicopter as a "show of force" at low altitude to disperse crowds. Thankfully, I was never tasked with actually doing this mission while deployed. I know plenty of helicopter pilots who were tasked with these types of missions—used to disperse crowds so that insurgents couldn't hide in them—in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they all hated it. Even if it is necessary, using a helicopter to sandblast civilians is not what anyone thought they were signing up for.
I never thought I would see U.S. military helicopters being used in this way on American soil. There is a legitimate use for helicopters in civilian law enforcement. Virtually every major local police department has a flight division operating helicopters and light fixed-wing aircraft. Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department has an Air Support Unit. I don't think anyone has a problem with local law enforcement using aircraft to conduct routine operations, but there is something fundamentally wrong with using military helicopters to disperse American citizens engaged in the protected exercise of free speech.
I live just outside of Washington, D.C., so I am accustomed to hearing every major event, such as the current wave of protests, analyzed through a political lens, i.e., who does this hurt, who does it help, how does it change the political or electoral dynamic. That's just the way D.C. operates and this issue of an American military helicopter being used to disperse American citizens in the nation's capital is being analyzed in a similar fashion.
With that said, over the last 24 hours I have talked to a dozen or so former or current Navy helicopter pilots about this incident and each of them pointed out that regardless of the political messaging or posturing, the real issue in their minds was just how dangerous it was, both for the protestors on the ground and for the flight crew. While hovering over a crowd at low altitude, the downwash from the rotor circulates debris and dust at high speed. While some of the protestors were wearing rudimentary Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), many were not. Those citizens were at risk of being seriously injured as a result.
As far as the helicopter goes, kicking up that much dust and debris is almost certain to result in some Foreign Object Debris (FOD) ingestion into the engines. The worst-case scenario—an engine or control system failure while in a hover—would leave no room to maneuver to a safe landing spot and not enough altitude to enter an autorotation. It's far safer to be in forward flight at altitude than in a permanent hover. Both the American citizens who were subjected to the debris blast and the helicopter crew were placed in danger for no apparent reason.
The most obvious objection to this incident is it violates long-standing precedence and principle that the American military should only be used for domestic security purposes when absolutely necessary, in highly atypical situations. While the recent deployment of U.S. Navy hospital ships in support of the COVID-19 response brought temporary attention to the U.S. military's role in responding to domestic emergencies, the fact is the U.S. military has a baseline capability and responsibility to support civilian authorities during natural disasters and other contingencies. These missions are generally referred to as Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) operations and each military service trains to do this.
Far less common is the use of the U.S. military in case of a total breakdown of law and order. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the security situation deteriorated so quickly that local law enforcement was overwhelmed, and the U.S. military, primarily elements of the National Guard, temporarily assumed some law enforcement and civil order functions. The public supported that action because it was necessary and temporary. I doubt the American public will support the use of military helicopters to suppress and disperse American citizens.
As this piece was being written, the District of Columbia National Guard announced that its Commanding General, Major General William J. Walker, was directing an investigation into the actions of the helicopter crew. The message was short, but emphasized that the National Guard is operating in support of civil authorities and that the priority was the safety of both the Guardsmen and citizens. With this message, it makes it much easier for critics of the action on June 1 to conclude that it was an unauthorized event—a mistake or an unfortunate choice by a small number of people—rather than a deliberate institutional decision. Let's hope this is the case and demand that it never happens again. There are a time and a place for U.S. military helicopters to engage in crowd dispersal and show of force. It should never happen on American soil.
----------------
Editor's update: Secretary of Defense Esper has since commented that he ordered the investigation into these incidents.
-----------------
Chris Harmer is a retired Naval Aviator. He flew SH-60F and HH-60H helicopters, accumulating approximately 3,500 total flight hours. During his career, he was designated as both an Instructor Pilot and a Seahawk Weapons Instructor pilot, and is a graduate of the Navy's Mountain Flying School. He has flown training and operational missions in the airspace of over 50 different countries. He is a regularly scheduled military and national security analyst on multiple cable television networks including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and BBC.
Last edited by T28B; 4th Jun 2020 at 21:31. Reason: added link, fine article
I think it would only be fair that the people/protestors demanding police/soldiers display their IDs also did the same so that they can also be easily identifiable in case they were to commit a crime.
To keep it aviation related too, I don’t think flying military helicopters at low level at night over a downtown city over the top of a mass of people gets a pass mark in the risk/reward category.There doesn’t seem to be much thought put into the optics of what is happening in Washington D.C. The pictures of having troops all over the Lincoln Memorial have stuck with me. I’m not close enough to say whether it is justifiable or not but I would have thought if they had to be there like the helicopters be careful how it looks. The shot that stays with me is like something from an end of the world movie.
To keep it aviation related too, I don’t think flying military helicopters at low level at night over a downtown city over the top of a mass of people gets a pass mark in the risk/reward category.There doesn’t seem to be much thought put into the optics of what is happening in Washington D.C. The pictures of having troops all over the Lincoln Memorial have stuck with me. I’m not close enough to say whether it is justifiable or not but I would have thought if they had to be there like the helicopters be careful how it looks. The shot that stays with me is like something from an end of the world movie.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Just east of KMCC
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, let me be clear that peaceful protest is a constitutional guarantee but vandalism and looting are not. Many, many people in the US saw this heavy handed response or something like it coming since his inauguration. That the military has gone against the people was dreaded but not unexpected under this administration. This is just a taste for when Trump loses the election badly, declares it rigged and refuses to recognize the results. He won’t be willing to leave office at the end of his term, you just watch. Fortunately our Constitution has an order of succession in the case of a faulty or no election and he’d be out Jan 20th regardless. My money is on him and his family skipping to Saudi early January when he realizes he will face consequences for many things he has done.
I was living in Seattle in 1999 when the WTO protests& riots happened. Each morning transit was running into downtown and “everything’s fine” until about noon when all hell broke loose. The police went mad and had a heyday. Nobody was safe from their antics. One afternoon, with all transit canceled I was having to walk out of downtown with other office clones (shirt, tie, Dockers), far from the protests/riot and was teargassed by police with badges and names covered over. The next afternoon I was walking home again, this time helping an 80 year-old lady when we were batoned in the back and teargassed by police with covered names and badges. You could see they were absolutely enjoying it. Since then I have never, ever trusted the police and I never will. .
I was living in Seattle in 1999 when the WTO protests& riots happened. Each morning transit was running into downtown and “everything’s fine” until about noon when all hell broke loose. The police went mad and had a heyday. Nobody was safe from their antics. One afternoon, with all transit canceled I was having to walk out of downtown with other office clones (shirt, tie, Dockers), far from the protests/riot and was teargassed by police with badges and names covered over. The next afternoon I was walking home again, this time helping an 80 year-old lady when we were batoned in the back and teargassed by police with covered names and badges. You could see they were absolutely enjoying it. Since then I have never, ever trusted the police and I never will. .
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Just east of KMCC
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not likely. If I'm away and my house alarm is tripped and they come I know the police won't rob me, and I will appreciate their checking for a burglar and politely get them the hell off my property. If a burglar tries to or enters my house while I'm home he/she will find themselves looking at the business end of a shotgun (or two if Mrs Towrope is home). Depending on that outcome it'll be me calling to report a break-in or a neighbor reporting a gunshot. I don't scare easily.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MILITARY MOBILIZATION INTO WASHINGTON
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Love this quote
Trump began his term promising to build a wall to protect America from the world.
He ends it building a wall to protect himself from Americans.
pic.twitter.com/mzvfIBVOSg
— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) June 4, 2020
He ends it building a wall to protect himself from Americans.
pic.twitter.com/mzvfIBVOSg
— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) June 4, 2020
Sounds like an ideal place to post a rumour about military aviation to me?
the footage I have seen this morning looks more serious than that now...hordes of masked rioters steaming down Whitehall assaulting many police and even an Aussie TV news crew. Scum need to be dealt with properly. Any excuse for a riot like after Mark Duggan in 2011.
Are you sure you are not getting muddled up wtih US footage? I was at the demonstration at the weekend which was peaceful and the chat and banter with the Police was friendly, and they were generally supportive. I was not on the demonstration on Wed but did just happen to be walking up Whitehall when a number of demonstrators who were gathered outside the gates to Downing Street were running down Whitehall toward Parliament Square. There were not thousands of them, they were NOT rioting, and at no time did I get any sense that they would. More than a few gathered at the Cenotaph for staged photos but they didn't desecrate it, and a lot of the protestors called them out and told them to leave it alone, which eventually they did.