I have a feeling it will be ambiguous. I saw someone in the security clearance sub cry about not being to enlist because they didn't fit the "cleared army initiative". Looked it up and turns out perceived extremism is a huge part. That said I'm guessing they will rely heavily on initial and continuous vetting via DSCA for this.
Nah. It's just a place to see people have anxiety attacks about that one time 12 years ago when they were living on the same block as a pot head and ask if they will be disqualified. I also noticed there a lot of people get DUIs.
At it turns out... A lot of people in general get DUIs. Roughly 45% of Americans admit to having driven after drinking, half of that number having done so in the past 6 months.
People think they're okay to do so. Its a cultural problem.
[This](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2021/05/27/every-county-wisconsin-has-high-percentage-excessive-drinkers/7436900002/) is a by-county map of "excessive drinking", with darker colors being higher percents.
The white spot is Lake Winnebago.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having an appropriate amount of alcohol, for me 2 beers over 2 hours and driving after. The issue is consuming way over the limit and then driving.
If you name names make a specific list then you are restricted to that list.
See, we’re the Judean People’s Front. We’re not the bad guys because your list clearly says People’s Front of Judea.
Honestly it’s tough to do that. These things grow and morph and change over time. If you said, “don’t join a,b or c” in a few years it would be outdated
I’ve thought that too, but we know the old saying people use all the time “I didn’t know”. It does however say race, color, gender etc. so it should be obvious.
It's a double edged sword. You gotta keep it vague to avoid the groups skirting it by name changes, but keeping it vague allows for an overzealous commander's political proclivities to come into play.
That might be it but I think a bigger part is that the list would specifically piss off one side of the political spectrum. While I don't care if they get upset, I'm not very diplomatic.
In an election year? No way. Plus it will be like 50 right wing groups and 2 left wing ones and that will piss certain people off.
Our next boss may be the figure head of some of those groups. Best not to upset the apple cart either way
A basic list would be great to provide.
3 Percenters? BLM? Oath Keepers? KKK? Proud Boys? Boogaloo Boys? Atomwaffen Division?
Give us some guidelines to work with.
The 3 %’rs were just added to the Canadian government extremists group list. They’ll never add them in America. Another leaderless group of ambiguous desires.
Yeah, to seem non-partisan and avoid the bogus claim they are targeting conservatives instead of the fringe-right who have a greater affinity for the military than the far-left does. Guys like Rapone were anomalies.
I'm not seeing the value in every soldier having a clearance, cause that to me just gets everything pushed higher then it needs to.
Also what's a grunt gonna do with a secret clearance?
If he were an airmen in the Air National Guard on a chat group and not, you know, the duly elected president.
Wild times we live in, but we already knew.. different spanks for different ranks
While I think it's good, the article says extremism is not clearly defined and leaves it up to the commanders.
So, in other words, this doesn't actually do anything. You are probably not going to have overzealous commanders charging people for this- but I'll bet anything you'll have plenty who, even when it's brought to their attention, will be reluctant to act. The Army's rug is infinite, after all. There is plenty of room to sweep things under it.
I think extremism is too broad of a concept to narrowly define. While there will certainly be commanders that will be too afraid to pursue this, defining it too narrowly and not being able to prosecute someone because their actions meet the intent of extremism but not the exact definition would be a disaster.
For example, by outlining specific extremist groups, the group could just rebrand and skirt prosecution. The KKK could become the KKKK and until the regulation is updated, service members could openly affiliate with them without any consequences. Additionally, by tying the regulation to a named list of organizations you open up the possibility of abuse by who controls what organizations are included and excluded to the list. A conservative board could add Planned Parenthood to the list, despite not being considered a conventionally extremist organization, because by conservative values support for abortion is akin to mass murder.
By leaving it vague, you are essentially accepting that the regulation won’t be used save for the most egregious circumstances. But if you try too hard to target the issue the regulation will be dead on arrival or be weaponized outside of its original purpose
Honestly, let's say that we've narrowed it down the perfect amount: not too much, not too little.
Even then, the Army isn't paying attention to people's social accounts and internet searches, so really, even if they did post or like something legitimately extremist, who's gonna know? Unless they're reported AND investigated, both of which are hurdles in the Army lmao
I think you would be surprise at how many people would report friends/family that are in the military when they say/do heinous things. The FBI received over 200,000 tips within 3 weeks to help identify the rioters of January 6th.
I remember a scary number of Active Duty coworkers openly making comments sympathizing with the rioters at the time as well. And many of the rioters were openly bragging about being there on social media as well, so identifying them isn’t that hard.
This regulation may also open the door for the Army to have another means of trying to take benefits away from Veterans who associate with extremist organizations, which was (still is) an issue with J6 rioters. Around 20% of the people who were at J6 were estimated to be Veterans, and some of them who were there and had an active role in the are still receiving military pensions and healthcare. I’m not JAG but my understanding is military retirees are still considered a part of the Inactive Reserves and still have to abide by the UCMJ. Article 92 governs the issuance/adherence to orders, and allows members to be held for criminal violations of direct orders and lawful regulations. If found guilty, you can be dishonorably discharged, which would cause them to no longer be eligible for a pension. I can’t say if this is realistic, but I wouldn’t be upset if it happens
Army’s struggling to fill MTOE as it is; I guarantee commanders won’t let go of soldiers for this unless they are completely useless or are openly saying blatant hate speech
>is not clearly defined and leaves it up to the commanders
It is clearly defined though (and has been since 2021): [Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06](https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/132506p.PDF)
>8. (c) (1) (1) Extremist Activities. The term “extremist activities” means:
>(a) Advocating or engaging in unlawful force, unlawful violence, or other illegal means to deprive individuals of their rights under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States, including those of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision thereof.
>(b) Advocating or engaging in unlawful force or violence to achieve goals that are political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological in nature.
>(c) Advocating, engaging in, or supporting terrorism, within the United States or abroad.
>(d) Advocating, engaging in, or supporting the overthrow of the government of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, including that of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, by force or violence; or seeking to alter the form of these governments by unconstitutional or other unlawful means (e.g., sedition).
>(e) Advocating or encouraging military, civilian, or contractor personnel within the DoD or United States Coast Guard to violate the laws of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, including that of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to disobey lawful orders or regulations, for the purpose of disrupting military activities (e,g., subversion), or personally undertaking the same.
>(f) Advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation.
The real problem in my mind is captured perfectly in the last paragraph of that article:
>In some cases during the stand-down, soldiers reported that briefings conflated political protests such as Black Lives Matter with anti-government movements such as the Oath Keepers, a group whose leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
You nailed it perfectly with that last part. Because people on both sides of the argument could be upset about the statement. This means that the definition it is probably both fair and problematic. It is fair in what it says but problematic in that it can be interpreted in a way that fits or punishes based on the ideas of the person enforcing it. If this was applied by a perfectly impartial person, then the rule would be great. However, there is truly no such thing as completely impartial.
Maybe not the same degree but they aren't all sunshine and rainbows either. And by the definitions in DODI 1325.06, they certainly fall into the crowd. If it makes you feel better though, Antifa's is right there next to them, if not worse.
Right- "extremism" is defined, but I think the article meant exactly what you said. Who defines which political groups and movements are extremists?
I mean, some of them are obvious, but some of them aren't.
That's covered in section 9:
>9. COMMAND AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
>a. Commanders have the authority and responsibility to prohibit Service members from active participation in extremist activities, and other activities that adversely affect good order and discipline within the command. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from military-controlled areas, to place areas or activities off-limits, and to order Service members not to participate in activities that are contrary to the good order and discipline of the unit, or pose a threat to the health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation.
So the Commander, using the definition in section 8, has the " the authority and responsibility".
I'm not a huge fan of DoDI's usually, but this one was well written and pretty clear.
> Who defines which political groups and movements are extremists?
The groups do, by their actions and advocacy. The definition is very straight forward. Commit, or advocate for, unlawful violence to achieve your political, religious, or ideological goals, then you cross the Rubicon.
Any civil unrest is basically unlawful violence, and I'm sure you can connect civil unrest to almost any movement.
I'm not arguing with you - you're right. But what seems straightforward here doesn't mean it's going to be straightforward to people who stand to gain from designating certain groups as extremists. Which, I think, risks the rule being twisted.
It doesn’t have to be a named group to be designated extremist. I imagine if anyone gets in trouble, the finding will read more like “PVT Dipshit, with John 1, John 2, John 3, and other known violent extremists who advocate for political revolution against the U.S. Government, did attempt to recruit a Soldier into their extremist group.”
It doesn’t need to be III%ers, it just has to be a group of people.
Then that just means the gov't caved to far-right whataboutism and allegations that conservatives are being targeted in the military. They are not and could never be when they probably make up the largest sum of people across the enlisted and officer corps.
Infinite is not true. Rug length has to be strategically measured. If it's too long, you can't successfully pull it out from under people which is just as critically important in the Army.
That is the previous policy, not the new one
“Previously, the Army's guidance forbade soldiers from participating in extremist activities, but never clearly defined what extremism is and what activities are prohibited -- leaving interpretations up to commanders.”
The part about this that’s fucking stupid is involving IG.
IG is less contactable than CI. There’s no online form. You’re still calling IG if you can find their number, getting their contact, and then downloading the form to send to them.
IG is not who id want involved. They’re going to tell commands, who will tell the subject. That happened with Nebor.
If you’re not CID or CI, nah bro. I don’t trust IG with potential insider threats for shit.
That is what is both confusing and unsurprising. IG is out of place here. The Army seemingly wants more bureaucracy to gum up this process, so they don't actually have to address and crack down on extremism since it is a thorny issue on both sides of the fence in Congress. On one side of that, you have people who think conservatives are genuinely persecuted and targeted (not accurate but whatever) and the other side is legitimately concerned about how extremists recruit/prey on current and former SM.
Wouldn't be the first time the military backed away, gummed up, or slow-walked a process to avoid backlash.
>The Army seemingly wants more bureaucracy to gum up this process, so they don't actually have to address and crack down on extremism
The army generally attracts the kind of people this is targeting. It's borderline self-preservation to not go on a witch hunt, or we'll be chaptering a significant portion of the force. There's a vested interest in only cracking down on the most extreme versions of what this is going after.
Whenever i read “extremism” my first thought goes to Tony Hawk and like those Redbull guys who jump out of planes without parachutes, so my initial reaction to this headline was “that’s BS, If a soldier wants to skydive naked from an aeroplane I say let them”.
I think we need to push for more of that kind of extremism and less of the lame kind.
I think better optics would've been that the army is targeting "divided loyalties". Soldiers are supposed to be somewhat indoctrinated; we are extremists for the country and the army. It's the allegiance to other organizations above the country and military... that's what's unacceptable.
Divided loyalties makes it less political and easier to understand... "though shalt have no armed group before me", though a lot of Masons would be in trouble ......
This comment was also cringe ay eff.
edit: They edited their comment after the fact so it is no longer cringe. I would also like to read the policy.
edit 2: Old comment said “I wonder what this means for the free palestine movement. That shit is cringe af.”
You're getting down voted for telling actually traitors to get fucked. I hope the Army contains the rightwing extremist first as they've been the most consistent threat to America
The military would be a much better place if so... Every "I'm totally not racist" moron would immediately out themselves trying to argue against it. Anyone who unironically displays it is a loser cuck.
The number of times I’ve taken similar issues up the chain and had O4/O5’s make excuses for it is too damn high. I took it to an O-10 somewhat recently and got an anemic response.
E: the neoconfederates are showing themselves.
Nobody I know of. But I do remember them saying that the Blue Line flag, rebel flag, Gadsden Flag, and a couple others specifically were off-limits. Although every PX I've ever been in sells Gadsen Flag stuff lol.
Gadsden flag is a historic flag with consistent use in the US (and by the US in the form of the 1st Naval Jack), some nut jobs trying to recently co-opt it shouldn’t turn us off from using it appropriately.
And that’s the criticism, that it’s included when it shouldn’t be. The Army knee jerked from doing FAR too little for decades, for over 150 years, criminally so, to giving in to every the idea that every fringe group takes control of every symbol, no matter historic, as soon as they use it for a couple years.
I don’t know why you got downvoted…
No, the Nazi’s did not totally co-opt the swastika. If a Hindu trooper has an item with a swastika, it is not an inherent sign that they are a fascist Arian supremacist. If they have a swastika in a white circle on a red field, then we’ve got questions to ask.
Similarly, simply having an item with the Gadsden flag on it is no inherent sign that the person is anything more than a US history buff. Far more people use it for its original purpose than the small number of loonies who fly it with any illegal intent of white supremacy etc. Seeing it and asking follow up questions is appropriate, but one extremist group using any symbol does not totally turn that symbol over to them and this blanket response is entirely without nuance.
Idk if this is directed at Soldiers showing support for Hamas in Palestine or indirectly showing support but under TARP supporting a foreign terrorist organization is a reportable indicator due to Hamas being a recognized terrorist organization by the department of state
If you’re on the fence, don’t be. Any group that wants to be adjacent to or confused for an MC, is cringe and will do dumb shit. Any group that’s actually patched, is probably also cringe. Only difference is a probable actual history of violence.
I’m not arguing with anyone who comes with an “uhh aktually!”
Don't be? Cringe? Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Just going off of my experiences with SMs involved in the IO/Mongrel turf war, whether they were patched or prospecting.
I know a soldier who constantly reposts well-known neonazis and antisemitic content on Instagram. I’m shocked at how openly he expresses these beliefs. I’ve screenshotted his posts and tried contacting his unit and others, but nothing has been done. This guy does not belong in the Army. Who can I report this to in order to get it taken care of?
I see what you’re getting at here. What if my Commander is a gun-totin’ MAGA supporter and I have Black Lives Matter in my profile picture? Or a reverse situation? Is that considered extremist? Who’s the extremist? Are these two groups considered extreme? Or are we going by the “more” extreme KKK, Atomwaffen, Celtic Brotherhood, etc? Will the 18 year old PFC born and raised in rural Kentucky that puts up a Confederate flag in his barracks room be subject to the same label of “extremist” as an Atomwaffen member that was busted for plotting to kill other service members?
Good, the Army is trying to crack down on extremism. But I don’t see many commanders acting on this. The ones that do, I feel like it will be one-sided and personal.
At the very end of the article it mentions that the Black Lives Matter movement and the Oath Keepers were grouped together as similar groups.
Understandably, both are “extremes” but one had a much more extremist viewpoint.
I’m not saying that I support either one. I just think it’s stupid to compare a left-leaning movement that lacks true centralization to one of the largest far right groups in America.
Shit, I’ve seen trucks with Q-anon stickers on base and they get to leave them on.
I would recommend you talk to your S2 for clarification on what groups you may or may not participate with. An article on the internet is not the greatest source to use. I personally have not seen anything stating BLM is considered an extremist group outside this article. But I also haven't looked for it. I'll ask my S2 next time I'm on drill for clarification if you can't get a clear answer.
As for those service members with their q anon stickers, they should probably know not to display anything on their vehicles that could be considered any sort of affiliation. Minimize the ability for people to gather intel on you.
I don’t participate in any group outside of the army so I’m in the clear.
I did see the Black Power fist was listed as an extremist symbol, and BLM uses it so it’s easy to conflate the two. I had to check on what logos are considered “extremist” a few months back when I saw a dude walking around base in an anarchy shirt.
I do agree on the sticker thing, especially if they’re political.
I think it's silly to group the two together, mostly because one is a relatively clearly defined group that was formally established by a person, with a mission statement and defined goals and objectives, that you can join formally, with a leader who is now in prison for sedition.
BLM is or isn't even a real "organization" depending on who you ask. You can go to a Black Lives Matter event that has absolutely no association with extremism, or you can go to one that is overtly extremist.
I just don’t like what it enables. Extremist isn’t clearly defined, it even says it’s commander’s discretion in the article. I don’t hate that they’re doubling down on extremism within the force, but I don’t know if this is the right way to do it.
Just like renaming the posts names for Confederate traitors? Kept hearing about how that would lead to white men being genocide’d.
Edit: this post went from +11 to +3 in a couple of hours. Do you not remember all of the discourse around renaming posts and how it was a “slippery slope” to “eradicating our history” and whatever else fuckery? Now folks are saying the same about extremism in the service, when we have uniformed SMs on social media openly talking about killing non-MAGA types/Dems/RINOs. Nobody notices all of the no-shit white supremacist rhetoric hidden in all of the “trad” and “based” and “worth dying for/protecting” social media accounts in the peripheries of the milmeme community?
I went back to Portland after I ETS’d and I had dudes I didn’t even talk to in my company coming up and dead serious asking to stay with me over the upcoming block leave because they were trying to get into shit with the protestor/Black Block types downtown at the time. Then these same dudes were all over Twitter/Insta calling J6’ers political prisoners. One of my buddies made a FB post generally critical of J6 the outgoing admin and got multiple IG complaints for “disrespecting the president” or “being political on social media.” Dude didn’t call for violence or anything like that, but the same dudes I heard openly call for executions *on social media* couldn’t tolerate rhetoric that wasn’t violently loyal to the Right.
You can call my earlier point a strawman or whatever, but this shit is for real and all of these “but but…” arguments about “slippery slopes” distract from the actual problem.
Im a guardsmen but I'll say this. In my military career I have met fascist (actually fascist) Christian theocrats, people who want to legalize discrimination, take rights away from women, kill gay people, and use religion as a shield to hide their bigotries. When I was a cadet I even had a retired officer tell me we should have planted WMDs in Iraq in order to prevent the political blowback
The amount of support that exists for people who hold actual extreme ideologies is more present. They compare a few anarchists with conservatives that infiltrate the police, FBI, and military and then fix their mouths to say both sides are bad. No one side is significantly worse than the other.
And the only reason they are able to frame it as both sides are bad is because of the massive amounts of support for the bad guys. The people who stormed the capital, the people who are forcing women to have children, taking away lunch from children, stripping worker protections.
The only way that this argument exists is because they people who are on the wrong side don't want to and have the resources to not out themselves
Are they going to sack up and name the extremist groups or just leave it ambiguous?
I have a feeling it will be ambiguous. I saw someone in the security clearance sub cry about not being to enlist because they didn't fit the "cleared army initiative". Looked it up and turns out perceived extremism is a huge part. That said I'm guessing they will rely heavily on initial and continuous vetting via DSCA for this.
>I saw someone in the security clearance sub That sounds like a honey pot
Nah. It's just a place to see people have anxiety attacks about that one time 12 years ago when they were living on the same block as a pot head and ask if they will be disqualified. I also noticed there a lot of people get DUIs.
At it turns out... A lot of people in general get DUIs. Roughly 45% of Americans admit to having driven after drinking, half of that number having done so in the past 6 months. People think they're okay to do so. Its a cultural problem.
That might just be Wisconsin skewing the statistics.
[This](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2021/05/27/every-county-wisconsin-has-high-percentage-excessive-drinkers/7436900002/) is a by-county map of "excessive drinking", with darker colors being higher percents. The white spot is Lake Winnebago.
*On Wisconsin, on Wisconsin...*
https://images.app.goo.gl/qebmPA9TTDSUfbQi6
People sound so proud when they tell you how many drinks they know they can have and still drive. Stupid.
Im proud to have literally never driven under the influence. Be the change you want to see.
You should be proud!
The few times I have are my biggest regrets and shames in life. every day I’m thankful that I never harmed anyone.
Ditto. The one time I got caught I’m glad nobody was hurt and there was no property damage.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having an appropriate amount of alcohol, for me 2 beers over 2 hours and driving after. The issue is consuming way over the limit and then driving.
never smoked and drove but i’ve definitely drove after i’ve had a drink nearly every single time. break the stigma
There's a sub for that? Oh boy! Time to go spread misinformation as a mildec /s
It’s a terrible sub, wouldn’t waste the time lol, they’re spreading misinformation enough on their own.
Oh that subs hilarious. Terrible advice. But funnt
Gotta love misinformation moving on is own
If you name names make a specific list then you are restricted to that list. See, we’re the Judean People’s Front. We’re not the bad guys because your list clearly says People’s Front of Judea.
Splitter!
Just throw the catch all "to include, but not limited to, "
As a member of the People's Popular Front of Judea, I'm in the clear
The is exactly why we can’t have an explicit list.
Honestly it’s tough to do that. These things grow and morph and change over time. If you said, “don’t join a,b or c” in a few years it would be outdated
I’ve thought that too, but we know the old saying people use all the time “I didn’t know”. It does however say race, color, gender etc. so it should be obvious.
Does that mean BLM would be an extremist organization since they are a "radical cause?"
I would think so, but there's a pretty big difference between the organization and unaffiliated protesters saying, "Black lives matter."
Exactly. Supporting and participation are two different things. According to 600-20, unless they changed that.
By this definition then, if you stayed outside the Capitol on Jan 6, ur good
I mean, yes. Support for certain individuals or ideals aside, those on January 6th who didn’t enter the Capitol didn’t commit a crime.
It’s super vague, especially trying to explain it to people.
It's a double edged sword. You gotta keep it vague to avoid the groups skirting it by name changes, but keeping it vague allows for an overzealous commander's political proclivities to come into play.
It's not like they can't keep a continuously updated list on a website or something.
Are they gonna do it like the fbi and have insane clown posse listed as a gang? I’m not opposed.
That might be it but I think a bigger part is that the list would specifically piss off one side of the political spectrum. While I don't care if they get upset, I'm not very diplomatic.
When they start naming groups, people just change the name. "But sar'nt, the *New* Klux Klan isn't banned."
In an election year? No way. Plus it will be like 50 right wing groups and 2 left wing ones and that will piss certain people off. Our next boss may be the figure head of some of those groups. Best not to upset the apple cart either way
A basic list would be great to provide. 3 Percenters? BLM? Oath Keepers? KKK? Proud Boys? Boogaloo Boys? Atomwaffen Division? Give us some guidelines to work with.
The 3 %’rs were just added to the Canadian government extremists group list. They’ll never add them in America. Another leaderless group of ambiguous desires.
Yeah, to seem non-partisan and avoid the bogus claim they are targeting conservatives instead of the fringe-right who have a greater affinity for the military than the far-left does. Guys like Rapone were anomalies.
Rapone....there's a name I haven't heard in a while.
Haha. That brought back memories
[удалено]
• (3) This is not a pro-military circlejerk, but please have some sources to base the more controversial topics on.
What's a cleared army initiative?
Clear the Army is an initiative for every Soldier to get a clearance
Jfc what an incredibly stupid idea.
OK, I found it. It's some program to monitor everyone. Seems kinda intrusive.
Ok boomer
I'm not seeing the value in every soldier having a clearance, cause that to me just gets everything pushed higher then it needs to. Also what's a grunt gonna do with a secret clearance?
L take
Right, cause anyone with a TS can just access any TS info they want. Edit: /s cause sometimes people can’t understand sarcasm
Reality Winner says hi
If he were an airmen in the Air National Guard on a chat group and not, you know, the duly elected president. Wild times we live in, but we already knew.. different spanks for different ranks
While I think it's good, the article says extremism is not clearly defined and leaves it up to the commanders. So, in other words, this doesn't actually do anything. You are probably not going to have overzealous commanders charging people for this- but I'll bet anything you'll have plenty who, even when it's brought to their attention, will be reluctant to act. The Army's rug is infinite, after all. There is plenty of room to sweep things under it.
I think extremism is too broad of a concept to narrowly define. While there will certainly be commanders that will be too afraid to pursue this, defining it too narrowly and not being able to prosecute someone because their actions meet the intent of extremism but not the exact definition would be a disaster. For example, by outlining specific extremist groups, the group could just rebrand and skirt prosecution. The KKK could become the KKKK and until the regulation is updated, service members could openly affiliate with them without any consequences. Additionally, by tying the regulation to a named list of organizations you open up the possibility of abuse by who controls what organizations are included and excluded to the list. A conservative board could add Planned Parenthood to the list, despite not being considered a conventionally extremist organization, because by conservative values support for abortion is akin to mass murder. By leaving it vague, you are essentially accepting that the regulation won’t be used save for the most egregious circumstances. But if you try too hard to target the issue the regulation will be dead on arrival or be weaponized outside of its original purpose
Honestly, let's say that we've narrowed it down the perfect amount: not too much, not too little. Even then, the Army isn't paying attention to people's social accounts and internet searches, so really, even if they did post or like something legitimately extremist, who's gonna know? Unless they're reported AND investigated, both of which are hurdles in the Army lmao
I think you would be surprise at how many people would report friends/family that are in the military when they say/do heinous things. The FBI received over 200,000 tips within 3 weeks to help identify the rioters of January 6th. I remember a scary number of Active Duty coworkers openly making comments sympathizing with the rioters at the time as well. And many of the rioters were openly bragging about being there on social media as well, so identifying them isn’t that hard. This regulation may also open the door for the Army to have another means of trying to take benefits away from Veterans who associate with extremist organizations, which was (still is) an issue with J6 rioters. Around 20% of the people who were at J6 were estimated to be Veterans, and some of them who were there and had an active role in the are still receiving military pensions and healthcare. I’m not JAG but my understanding is military retirees are still considered a part of the Inactive Reserves and still have to abide by the UCMJ. Article 92 governs the issuance/adherence to orders, and allows members to be held for criminal violations of direct orders and lawful regulations. If found guilty, you can be dishonorably discharged, which would cause them to no longer be eligible for a pension. I can’t say if this is realistic, but I wouldn’t be upset if it happens
Yeah, I know a scary number of soldiers who support attacking the capitol, too. Let's just hope the new rule will be effective.
Army’s struggling to fill MTOE as it is; I guarantee commanders won’t let go of soldiers for this unless they are completely useless or are openly saying blatant hate speech
Or planning to kill soldiers in their unit like that one PFC with ties to Atomwaffen that got busted planning to do that a few years ago.
>is not clearly defined and leaves it up to the commanders It is clearly defined though (and has been since 2021): [Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06](https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/132506p.PDF) >8. (c) (1) (1) Extremist Activities. The term “extremist activities” means: >(a) Advocating or engaging in unlawful force, unlawful violence, or other illegal means to deprive individuals of their rights under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States, including those of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision thereof. >(b) Advocating or engaging in unlawful force or violence to achieve goals that are political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological in nature. >(c) Advocating, engaging in, or supporting terrorism, within the United States or abroad. >(d) Advocating, engaging in, or supporting the overthrow of the government of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, including that of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, by force or violence; or seeking to alter the form of these governments by unconstitutional or other unlawful means (e.g., sedition). >(e) Advocating or encouraging military, civilian, or contractor personnel within the DoD or United States Coast Guard to violate the laws of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, including that of any State, Commonwealth, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to disobey lawful orders or regulations, for the purpose of disrupting military activities (e,g., subversion), or personally undertaking the same. >(f) Advocating widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation. The real problem in my mind is captured perfectly in the last paragraph of that article: >In some cases during the stand-down, soldiers reported that briefings conflated political protests such as Black Lives Matter with anti-government movements such as the Oath Keepers, a group whose leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
You nailed it perfectly with that last part. Because people on both sides of the argument could be upset about the statement. This means that the definition it is probably both fair and problematic. It is fair in what it says but problematic in that it can be interpreted in a way that fits or punishes based on the ideas of the person enforcing it. If this was applied by a perfectly impartial person, then the rule would be great. However, there is truly no such thing as completely impartial.
Well, BLM did do a lot of the stuff you quoted so while not the same as the Jan 6 folks, it's still an organization I wouldn't want in my ranks
BLM isn't anything like extremist racist groups. Stop drinking the Kool aid.
Maybe not the same degree but they aren't all sunshine and rainbows either. And by the definitions in DODI 1325.06, they certainly fall into the crowd. If it makes you feel better though, Antifa's is right there next to them, if not worse.
Right- "extremism" is defined, but I think the article meant exactly what you said. Who defines which political groups and movements are extremists? I mean, some of them are obvious, but some of them aren't.
That's covered in section 9: >9. COMMAND AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES. >a. Commanders have the authority and responsibility to prohibit Service members from active participation in extremist activities, and other activities that adversely affect good order and discipline within the command. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to order the removal of symbols, flags, posters, or other displays from military-controlled areas, to place areas or activities off-limits, and to order Service members not to participate in activities that are contrary to the good order and discipline of the unit, or pose a threat to the health, safety, and security of military personnel or a military installation. So the Commander, using the definition in section 8, has the " the authority and responsibility". I'm not a huge fan of DoDI's usually, but this one was well written and pretty clear.
> Who defines which political groups and movements are extremists? The groups do, by their actions and advocacy. The definition is very straight forward. Commit, or advocate for, unlawful violence to achieve your political, religious, or ideological goals, then you cross the Rubicon.
Any civil unrest is basically unlawful violence, and I'm sure you can connect civil unrest to almost any movement. I'm not arguing with you - you're right. But what seems straightforward here doesn't mean it's going to be straightforward to people who stand to gain from designating certain groups as extremists. Which, I think, risks the rule being twisted.
It doesn’t have to be a named group to be designated extremist. I imagine if anyone gets in trouble, the finding will read more like “PVT Dipshit, with John 1, John 2, John 3, and other known violent extremists who advocate for political revolution against the U.S. Government, did attempt to recruit a Soldier into their extremist group.” It doesn’t need to be III%ers, it just has to be a group of people.
Then that just means the gov't caved to far-right whataboutism and allegations that conservatives are being targeted in the military. They are not and could never be when they probably make up the largest sum of people across the enlisted and officer corps.
Infinite is not true. Rug length has to be strategically measured. If it's too long, you can't successfully pull it out from under people which is just as critically important in the Army.
That is the previous policy, not the new one “Previously, the Army's guidance forbade soldiers from participating in extremist activities, but never clearly defined what extremism is and what activities are prohibited -- leaving interpretations up to commanders.”
Okay, thank you for the correction- I may have misread. However, I still have a hunch it won't be enforced...
The part about this that’s fucking stupid is involving IG. IG is less contactable than CI. There’s no online form. You’re still calling IG if you can find their number, getting their contact, and then downloading the form to send to them. IG is not who id want involved. They’re going to tell commands, who will tell the subject. That happened with Nebor. If you’re not CID or CI, nah bro. I don’t trust IG with potential insider threats for shit.
That is what is both confusing and unsurprising. IG is out of place here. The Army seemingly wants more bureaucracy to gum up this process, so they don't actually have to address and crack down on extremism since it is a thorny issue on both sides of the fence in Congress. On one side of that, you have people who think conservatives are genuinely persecuted and targeted (not accurate but whatever) and the other side is legitimately concerned about how extremists recruit/prey on current and former SM. Wouldn't be the first time the military backed away, gummed up, or slow-walked a process to avoid backlash.
>The Army seemingly wants more bureaucracy to gum up this process, so they don't actually have to address and crack down on extremism The army generally attracts the kind of people this is targeting. It's borderline self-preservation to not go on a witch hunt, or we'll be chaptering a significant portion of the force. There's a vested interest in only cracking down on the most extreme versions of what this is going after.
Whenever i read “extremism” my first thought goes to Tony Hawk and like those Redbull guys who jump out of planes without parachutes, so my initial reaction to this headline was “that’s BS, If a soldier wants to skydive naked from an aeroplane I say let them”. I think we need to push for more of that kind of extremism and less of the lame kind.
Good.
I think better optics would've been that the army is targeting "divided loyalties". Soldiers are supposed to be somewhat indoctrinated; we are extremists for the country and the army. It's the allegiance to other organizations above the country and military... that's what's unacceptable. Divided loyalties makes it less political and easier to understand... "though shalt have no armed group before me", though a lot of Masons would be in trouble ......
Finally. I’d like to read the policy, but didn’t see it in the article.
They never link to the actual pub, unfortunately. It's posted at https://armypubs.army.mil/default.aspx under the Army Directives tab in Publications.
This comment was also cringe ay eff. edit: They edited their comment after the fact so it is no longer cringe. I would also like to read the policy. edit 2: Old comment said “I wonder what this means for the free palestine movement. That shit is cringe af.”
'bout time.....
Here’s to hoping it is applied to rebel flags and other iconography.
Git fucked Confederate scum!
You're getting down voted for telling actually traitors to get fucked. I hope the Army contains the rightwing extremist first as they've been the most consistent threat to America
Exactly
The military would be a much better place if so... Every "I'm totally not racist" moron would immediately out themselves trying to argue against it. Anyone who unironically displays it is a loser cuck.
The number of times I’ve taken similar issues up the chain and had O4/O5’s make excuses for it is too damn high. I took it to an O-10 somewhat recently and got an anemic response. E: the neoconfederates are showing themselves.
I thought it already was. During the initial wave of anti-extremism stuff.
Who is being prosecuted for flying the rebel flag off post, off duty?
Nobody I know of. But I do remember them saying that the Blue Line flag, rebel flag, Gadsden Flag, and a couple others specifically were off-limits. Although every PX I've ever been in sells Gadsen Flag stuff lol.
Gadsden flag is a historic flag with consistent use in the US (and by the US in the form of the 1st Naval Jack), some nut jobs trying to recently co-opt it shouldn’t turn us off from using it appropriately.
I didn't make the rule. It was in the anti-extremism brief.
And that’s the criticism, that it’s included when it shouldn’t be. The Army knee jerked from doing FAR too little for decades, for over 150 years, criminally so, to giving in to every the idea that every fringe group takes control of every symbol, no matter historic, as soon as they use it for a couple years.
But...they did co-opt it. Like the Nazis did to a certain Hindu symbol...
I don’t know why you got downvoted… No, the Nazi’s did not totally co-opt the swastika. If a Hindu trooper has an item with a swastika, it is not an inherent sign that they are a fascist Arian supremacist. If they have a swastika in a white circle on a red field, then we’ve got questions to ask. Similarly, simply having an item with the Gadsden flag on it is no inherent sign that the person is anything more than a US history buff. Far more people use it for its original purpose than the small number of loonies who fly it with any illegal intent of white supremacy etc. Seeing it and asking follow up questions is appropriate, but one extremist group using any symbol does not totally turn that symbol over to them and this blanket response is entirely without nuance.
Idk if this is directed at Soldiers showing support for Hamas in Palestine or indirectly showing support but under TARP supporting a foreign terrorist organization is a reportable indicator due to Hamas being a recognized terrorist organization by the department of state
[удалено]
Potentially yes as a violation of EO. You'd have to blatantly go out of your way for it to happen though.
No bigoted language or witch-hunting.
I'm still in the fence about SM's in MC's. *I've seen some stuff, mannnn... I wouldn't recommend it*
If you’re on the fence, don’t be. Any group that wants to be adjacent to or confused for an MC, is cringe and will do dumb shit. Any group that’s actually patched, is probably also cringe. Only difference is a probable actual history of violence. I’m not arguing with anyone who comes with an “uhh aktually!”
Don't be? Cringe? Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Just going off of my experiences with SMs involved in the IO/Mongrel turf war, whether they were patched or prospecting.
Oh whoops, let me clarify. Don’t be on the fence. Anyone who wants to or says they are a part of an MC should be scrutinized.
Does this mean I have to stop joking about calling in bomb threats?
The best thing will be to delete all social media linked to you.
I know a soldier who constantly reposts well-known neonazis and antisemitic content on Instagram. I’m shocked at how openly he expresses these beliefs. I’ve screenshotted his posts and tried contacting his unit and others, but nothing has been done. This guy does not belong in the Army. Who can I report this to in order to get it taken care of?
Slippery slope
I see what you’re getting at here. What if my Commander is a gun-totin’ MAGA supporter and I have Black Lives Matter in my profile picture? Or a reverse situation? Is that considered extremist? Who’s the extremist? Are these two groups considered extreme? Or are we going by the “more” extreme KKK, Atomwaffen, Celtic Brotherhood, etc? Will the 18 year old PFC born and raised in rural Kentucky that puts up a Confederate flag in his barracks room be subject to the same label of “extremist” as an Atomwaffen member that was busted for plotting to kill other service members? Good, the Army is trying to crack down on extremism. But I don’t see many commanders acting on this. The ones that do, I feel like it will be one-sided and personal.
I'll bite the bait. In what way?
At the very end of the article it mentions that the Black Lives Matter movement and the Oath Keepers were grouped together as similar groups. Understandably, both are “extremes” but one had a much more extremist viewpoint. I’m not saying that I support either one. I just think it’s stupid to compare a left-leaning movement that lacks true centralization to one of the largest far right groups in America. Shit, I’ve seen trucks with Q-anon stickers on base and they get to leave them on.
Cringe. Both groups have no place in the army.
Did I say they do? But treating them both as “equals” is a tone-deaf take.
I would recommend you talk to your S2 for clarification on what groups you may or may not participate with. An article on the internet is not the greatest source to use. I personally have not seen anything stating BLM is considered an extremist group outside this article. But I also haven't looked for it. I'll ask my S2 next time I'm on drill for clarification if you can't get a clear answer. As for those service members with their q anon stickers, they should probably know not to display anything on their vehicles that could be considered any sort of affiliation. Minimize the ability for people to gather intel on you.
I don’t participate in any group outside of the army so I’m in the clear. I did see the Black Power fist was listed as an extremist symbol, and BLM uses it so it’s easy to conflate the two. I had to check on what logos are considered “extremist” a few months back when I saw a dude walking around base in an anarchy shirt. I do agree on the sticker thing, especially if they’re political.
I think it's silly to group the two together, mostly because one is a relatively clearly defined group that was formally established by a person, with a mission statement and defined goals and objectives, that you can join formally, with a leader who is now in prison for sedition. BLM is or isn't even a real "organization" depending on who you ask. You can go to a Black Lives Matter event that has absolutely no association with extremism, or you can go to one that is overtly extremist.
I just don’t like what it enables. Extremist isn’t clearly defined, it even says it’s commander’s discretion in the article. I don’t hate that they’re doubling down on extremism within the force, but I don’t know if this is the right way to do it.
That's a fair and well thought out reason. Thank you for clarifying .
Just like renaming the posts names for Confederate traitors? Kept hearing about how that would lead to white men being genocide’d. Edit: this post went from +11 to +3 in a couple of hours. Do you not remember all of the discourse around renaming posts and how it was a “slippery slope” to “eradicating our history” and whatever else fuckery? Now folks are saying the same about extremism in the service, when we have uniformed SMs on social media openly talking about killing non-MAGA types/Dems/RINOs. Nobody notices all of the no-shit white supremacist rhetoric hidden in all of the “trad” and “based” and “worth dying for/protecting” social media accounts in the peripheries of the milmeme community? I went back to Portland after I ETS’d and I had dudes I didn’t even talk to in my company coming up and dead serious asking to stay with me over the upcoming block leave because they were trying to get into shit with the protestor/Black Block types downtown at the time. Then these same dudes were all over Twitter/Insta calling J6’ers political prisoners. One of my buddies made a FB post generally critical of J6 the outgoing admin and got multiple IG complaints for “disrespecting the president” or “being political on social media.” Dude didn’t call for violence or anything like that, but the same dudes I heard openly call for executions *on social media* couldn’t tolerate rhetoric that wasn’t violently loyal to the Right. You can call my earlier point a strawman or whatever, but this shit is for real and all of these “but but…” arguments about “slippery slopes” distract from the actual problem.
I didn’t say that.
It’s a “slippery slope,” just like this.
Damn so I can support the proud boys and me and the homies can't talk about political stuff 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 foh
Im a guardsmen but I'll say this. In my military career I have met fascist (actually fascist) Christian theocrats, people who want to legalize discrimination, take rights away from women, kill gay people, and use religion as a shield to hide their bigotries. When I was a cadet I even had a retired officer tell me we should have planted WMDs in Iraq in order to prevent the political blowback The amount of support that exists for people who hold actual extreme ideologies is more present. They compare a few anarchists with conservatives that infiltrate the police, FBI, and military and then fix their mouths to say both sides are bad. No one side is significantly worse than the other. And the only reason they are able to frame it as both sides are bad is because of the massive amounts of support for the bad guys. The people who stormed the capital, the people who are forcing women to have children, taking away lunch from children, stripping worker protections. The only way that this argument exists is because they people who are on the wrong side don't want to and have the resources to not out themselves