
U.S. Military Is Monitoring Groups Protesting at the Border - OrgNet
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/11/border-protest-groups-surveillance/
======
ourmandave
Are they watching both sides of the protest, like the self styled militias
roaming around posing as law enforcement?

 _The U.S.-Mexico border isn 't protected by militias, it's patrolled by
domestic terrorists._

[https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-mexico-border-
isn-...](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-mexico-border-isn-t-
protected-militias-it-s-ncna997056)

~~~
icegreentea2
They explicitly call out "unregulated militias" in the same threat assessment.

The linked briefing is basically a daily update update - it includes a 3 day
weather report and assessment on weather impact on operations.

We can't know why the three specific events were called out as "Events of
Interest". Probably through social media posts - in fact all the details of
the events seem to be the type of stuff on a facebook event page. Question is
do militias do that on their patrols?

We're missing all sorts of contexts. Like yes, the slide header is "Threat
Fusion Running Estimate", but the subheader is "Events of Interest". Does
inclusion under this slide mean they actually think they are a threat? What
are their working definition of threat? Or are events of interest (as in any
type of large gathering near and related to the area of operations)
automatically included in the threat estimate?

For example, the inter-faith group "being tracked" is assembly a protest
outside (or near? unclear) a military base. Knowing that a protest will appear
a certainly a way to deconflict.

~~~
remarkEon
This is just a basic CUB (Commander’s Update Brief). People are reading way
too much into this.

------
tim58
People please be safe. This is a friendly reminder that the fourth amendment
is significantly weaker within 100 miles of an international border than it is
for the rest of United States [0].

[https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)

~~~
UI_at_80x24
Not enough people know this. An additional addendum to this is International
airports. Specifically: The International border includes a 25-mile radius
around international airports.

The majority of US Citizens live within 100 miles of the border. A good chunk
that don't live within 25 of an 'international' airport. Further note:
"International airport" is based on designation and not traffic. You can have
a 1 runway po-dunk airport in the middle of nowhere that received
'international' status as a checkbox formality in the event that ANY plane
MIGHT need to use the airport for emergency purposes.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
"International airport" isn't a checkbox formality. It's a specific length
(and weight-bearing capacity?) of runway.

~~~
UI_at_80x24
That is very true. I didn't mean to imply that any dirt-track could receive
that designation. It is however a 'checkbox' for those airports that do infact
meet those requirements. {thus my "checkbox" statement}

Before I ever heard of such designation, I had a very glamorous opinion of
what was required to be an 'international airport'. Things like regular
flights from all over the world landing and taking off. Huge passenger
gateways & terminals, and thousands/millions of people being served every day.

The airport in my town has 3 runways. is serviced by 2 carriers. has under 20
(closer to 10) arrivals on average per day. Is only open part-time. (weekends
+ holidays) It has 'international airport' status.

A tremendously HUGE Russian Cargo plane landed here to deliver a factory for a
major automaker.

My point in the OP was that even 'minor' airports could be affected by that
international border.

~~~
cameronh90
Three runways is still one runway more than Heathrow, which is one of the
busiest international airports in the world.

Not undermining your point, just thought it was interesting.

~~~
rtkwe
Londons' airports have been kind of a mess for ages now because they've gotten
hemmed in by developments on all sides. Heathrow really really wishes it could
have more runways but it'd require bulldozing loads of housing developments
and even more noise for the existing houses.

------
Aaronstotle
While this is concerning, it's hardly surprising. After all, if I were a gov't
in power I'd want to keep track on groups that could be a potential threat.

~~~
ajross
The outrage is precisely that the government in power considers non violent
protest movements "potential threats", yeah.

I mean, obviously if you don't agree with them you'd tend to view them in a
less generous light (e.g. "Some of those hippies are loons, and all it takes
is one with a weapon...") and view this decision as reasonable.

The problem with that thinking is that mere political disagreement is never a
justification for "threat" in a democracy, by defintion. People disagree,
that's the whole point. You need a history of violence, some rhetoric,
something. But protesting ICE by itself isn't enough.

~~~
caseysoftware
For the last few years, we've been assured that words themselves - _regardless
of what they are_ \- are violence and just as damaging as physical violence.
If that is true, this makes perfect sense and just another step towards the
logical conclusion.

It's bad but shouldn't be surprising.

~~~
ajross
Words can be violent, sure. Violent rhetoric is for sure reason to surveil a
group. What words specifically did these groups engage in that worries you?

------
justin66
We seem to have defined down "extremist:"

 _“The extremists belong to a known anti-border wall group alleged to have
direct action camps in the McAllen, TX area,” the document states. The group
in reference appears to have been the Rio Bravo Action Camp, a training camp
hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America’s Rio Grande Valley Chapter,
the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, along with several activist groups,
according to its website. The action camp’s training appears to focus on
nonviolent forms of resistance, including civil disobedience and street
protests._

~~~
masonic
And defined "terrorist" upward.

San Francisco government has officially declared the NRA to be a "terrorist"
organization. Not the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm), mind you, but the NRA
501(c)(4) _non-profit organization_ , whose mission is safety and training.

It would be like saying Sinn Fein was a terrorist organization but the IRA
wasn't.

~~~
justin66
Honestly, I don't know why you'd bring up a nonbinding resolution by the _San
Francisco Board of Supervisors_ in a serious discussion about federal law
enforcement, the US military, and civil liberties. Their resolution is
something you don't need to care about _even if you live in San Francisco._ (I
had to google it)

------
brenden2
But who is monitoring the military?

~~~
MrZongle2
Top. Men.

------
briandear
As a counterpoint, almost every major European power “monitors” certain
protest groups. The French Army, for instance was authorized to shoot Yellow
Vest protesters. After the 2015 terror attacks in France, civil liberties were
greatly curtailed due to the “state of emergency” — a state of emergency that
kept getting extended at the whims of the Élysée Palace.

~~~
sdinsn
> The French Army, for instance was authorized to shoot Yellow Vest protesters

How is that monitoring?

------
algaeontoast
It’s not surprising, given a number of groups with similar intent were openly
planning to intimidate or kill border patrol agents (govt employees) and have
attacked govt buildings (shots fired at a building in San Antonio, woman with
a firebomb in an ICE facility, man who shot at agents and tried to firebomb an
ICE facility...)

~~~
exabyte
well... that paints an entirely different picture than the one in the article
which is a bunch of smiling old ladies, men and adolescents. None of them look
like they're about to go Rambo, unless it's a gross misrepresentation of the
majority of those there.

~~~
partiallypro
The truth is probably in the middle...this is the Intercept after all. They've
defended Assad, Maduro, Putin, etc somehow saying their internal
corruption/slaughters were because of the US.

~~~
excalibur
Many of Assad's were. Not that he isn't responsible for his own actions, but
the US put him in a position to kill far more people than he would have
otherwise been incentivized to fight. The "Syrian Civil War" would have been
brief with few casualties, were it not for US intervention and support of the
rebels. We turned a tussle that would have played itself out in a couple of
months into a decade-long quagmire that has killed countless civilians,
decimated the country, pulled in armies from around the world, and on several
occasions toed the line of nuclear war.

~~~
shantly
There are cases in which half-assed actions in favor of "good" (allowing that
for the sake of argument) are way worse than doing nothing. Syria was one of
them. Predictably.

Quite possibly a worse strategic blunder than Iraq, to boot. And I'm a libby-
lib who protested that war.

~~~
jjcc
There are two different groups of anti-war people: 1. People love peace and
don't want war, but also they don't understand sometime war might be necessary
2. People who knew that specific war (Iraq war) would have very severe
calculable and incalculable consequences that eventually hurt US.

Which group did you belong to?

As contrast let me tell you that they're also 2 groups of people outside of
the US who supported the war: 1. Those shares the "values/belief" with US and
saw the war would spread democracy and more importantly would deter dictator
countries like China, and 2. Those who already knew the action would fail to
prove democracy can be applied to any country, would weaken US so the world
would be more balanced. History proved the 2nd group are correct.

~~~
shantly
Chiefly #2 on both counts. I didn't see it as strategically useful, nor as _in
fact_ advancing any kind of humanitarian or idealistic vision (brand, rather,
if we're being frank) for the US.

I end up agreeing with the anti-war-for-morality's-sake folks more often than
not, though, mostly because US foreign policy on that front is kind-of shit,
generally speaking, and because my inclination is to _default_ to their
position absent a compelling reason to oppose it.

