PDA

View Full Version : Ghost Skins -- A Fifth Column?



ClydeR
12-16-2008, 02:57 PM
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white supremacist groups in the United States, thinks that skinheads are enlisting in the military to gain experience, including experience with explosives, to use for ulterior purposes.


Two years ago, the Intelligence Report revealed that alarming numbers of neo-Nazi skinheads and other white supremacist extremists were taking advantage of lowered armed services recruiting standards and lax enforcement of anti-extremist military regulations by infiltrating the U.S. armed forces in order to receive combat training and gain access to weapons and explosives.

Forty members of Congress urged then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to launch a full-scale investigation and implement a zero-tolerance policy toward white supremacists in the military. "Military extremists present an elevated threat to both their fellow service members and the public," U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, wrote in a separate open letter to Rumsfeld. "We witnessed with Timothy McVeigh that today's racist extremist may become tomorrow's domestic terrorist."

But neither Rumsfeld nor his successor, Robert Gates, launched any sort of systemic investigation or crackdown. Military and Defense Department officials seem to have made no sustained effort to prevent active white supremacists from joining the armed forces or to weed out those already in uniform.

Furthermore, new evidence is emerging that not only supports the Intelligence Report's original findings, but also indicates the problem may have worsened since the summer of 2006, as enlistment rates have continued to plummet, and the military has struggled to meet recruitment goals in a time of unpopular war. Asked about the latest developments, military officials this fall declined to comment.

A new FBI report confirms that white supremacists are infiltrating the military for several reasons. According to the unclassified FBI Intelligence Assessment, "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel Since 9/11," which was released to law enforcement agencies nationwide: "Sensitive and reliable source reporting indicates supremacist leaders are encouraging followers who lack documented histories of neo-Nazi activity and overt racist insignia such as tattoos to infiltrate the military as 'ghost skins,' in order to recruit and receive training for the benefit of the extremist movement."

More... (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=971)

It might be unconstitional to "weed out" servicemembers based on their white supremacist beliefs.

Clove
12-16-2008, 03:04 PM
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white supremacist groups in the United States, thinks that skinheads are enlisting in the military to gain experience, including experience with explosives, to use for ulterior purposes.



It might be unconstitional to "weed out" servicemembers based on their white supremacist beliefs.Really? Which clause or amendment were you thinking of?

ClydeR
12-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Really? Which clause or amendment were you thinking of?

The First and Fourteenth Amendments, regarding free speech and equal protection.

Clove
12-16-2008, 03:22 PM
The First and Fourteenth Amendments, regarding free speech and equal protection.First Amendment doesn't apply, at least not according to Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888 which forbids military officers from making any contemptuous comments about the President or any member of Congress. I could see a black CIC going over really well with white supremecists. How does equal protection apply to eligibility to military service?

Drunken Durfin
12-16-2008, 03:23 PM
The equal protection clause in the Fourteenth was good enough for Judge Zilly back in the day, it could be argued here as well. I am pretty sure that the sedition argument would get them nailed though.

Clove
12-16-2008, 03:30 PM
Most places of employment have conduct policies (freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater); I seriously doubt you'd run into Constitutional conflicts at least not with the 1st and 14th Amendment, unless perhaps black-haters are kicked out but white-haters are allowed to remain.

ClydeR
12-16-2008, 03:41 PM
Most places of employment have conduct policies (freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater); I seriously doubt you'd run into Constitutional conflicts at least not with the 1st and 14th Amendment, unless perhaps black-haters are kicked out but white-haters are allowed to remain.

Those are some really good points, Clove. I guess I was thinking of freedom of association, which is widely accepted as being part and parcel of the speech and assembly protections of the First Amendment. I think it would be difficult for the military to discharge someone solely because he was a member of an unpopular group. If his membership in the group manifested itself in actions such as racist comments while in uniform or on active duty, then that's a horse of a different color.

BigWorm
12-16-2008, 04:47 PM
Most places of employment have conduct policies (freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater); I seriously doubt you'd run into Constitutional conflicts at least not with the 1st and 14th Amendment, unless perhaps black-haters are kicked out but white-haters are allowed to remain.

Most employers are not the government.

But anyway, the constitution doesn't apply to members of the armed services because they literally sign away their rights.

Clove
12-16-2008, 04:51 PM
Those are some really good points, Clove. I guess I was thinking of freedom of association, which is widely accepted as being part and parcel of the speech and assembly protections of the First Amendment. I think it would be difficult for the military to discharge someone solely because he was a member of an unpopular group. If his membership in the group manifested itself in actions such as racist comments while in uniform or on active duty, then that's a horse of a different color.You agree to adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Thems the breaks.

Clove
12-16-2008, 04:52 PM
Most employers are not the government.

But anyway, the constitution doesn't apply to members of the armed services because they literally sign away their rights.The military is not the government. That would be bad.

Gelston
12-16-2008, 07:38 PM
The UCMJ supercedes your constitutional rights while you are serving your military contract. Within it is an article called the General Article.

You can recieve a thing called Non-Judicial Punishment, which doesn't go on your civilian criminal record. Being overtly racist and making constantly racist comments CAN get you charged, and you can face seperation.

ClydeR
12-17-2008, 11:09 AM
The UCMJ supercedes your constitutional rights while you are serving your military contract.

People frequently say that, but I've never seen it in anything authoritative. In fact, the Constitution supercedes the UCMJ. If the two conflict, then the Constitution wins. You do not surrender your Constitutional rights when you enter the military. The first thing in the oath of enlistment is a commitment to defend the Constitution.

The confusion arises from the fact that the courts seem to say that all constitutional rights must be evaluated in light of the circumstances. If the circumstance is that Japan is attacking the United States, then it's constitutional to send all Japanese Americans to internment camps for the duration of the war, but it would not be constitutional to do that in the absence of a threat. In the military, if the circumstance is participating in political activities inside the United States and not on a military base, then it's constitutional for the military to place some restrictions on what a service member can do. If the circumstance is living on a military base, then it's constitutional for the military to circumscribe almost all aspects of behavior.

But if the circumstance is being a member of an unpopular white supremacist group, without any activity on the part of the service member that is disruptive, then I'm not sure that the military's needs outweigh the service member's constitutional right of association.

Gelston
12-18-2008, 02:59 PM
Yeah it does. If you desert from the military in the pursuit of happiness during war time, you can be executed. If you desert during peacetime, you will be thrown in jail. You don't have the right to attend political rallies in Uniform. You don't have the right to be openly homosexual. If you speak your mind in a disrespectful manner to a superior, you will be place on restriction and unable to leave the base.

Covered under the UCMJ, saying inappropriate words can get you restricted to base and loss of pay.

What more do you want? Because there is a lot more I can pull up.

Gelston
12-18-2008, 03:00 PM
But if the circumstance is being a member of an unpopular white supremacist group, without any activity on the part of the service member that is disruptive, then I'm not sure that the military's needs outweigh the service member's constitutional right of association.

And you can be removed from the military for racism. If you get a swastika tattooed on your chest, you'll most likely be booted.