Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this was a very poor decision, to allow protestors to close a gate indefinitely at Kirtland, and then the solution is tell Airmen and civilians to use other gates, which surely impacted the mission with delays.
Why not arrest them immediately?
I also think this decision came from higher up the food chain, way above the O-6 Wing CC. The political appointees at the Pentagon, aka the Generals, probably determined that the optics wouldn’t look good if they had protestors arrested for disrupting base operations.
But serious question:
Do they want this to spread to other bases?
Because a good way to ensure a protest spreads is to do nothing when they disrupt everyday life. It emboldens them.
The only other explanation is that this is all a political prop, people getting paid to protest, and it won’t spread. This was just an appeasement tool for the administration to state that “we are with you”, a basically empty gesture as Israel is still doing what it feels it needs to do with our consent.
I was at Clark AB in the Philippines in the early 80s when local protestors barricaded all the gates. The order then was to "honor the barricades," which effectively closed off the base completely. Because the closure happened in mid-day, that left several thousand dependents stranded without their husbands in the 'ville. Not only without their husbands, but also without potable water, money, or communications because nobody had that off base in those days.
We had a captain in our squadron who used his 4-wheel drive vehicle to crash the fence in a remote area of the base, taking money and things to the wives of our junior enlisted in the 'ville. I strongly suspect our commander was aware of it, because it obviously wasn't a tight secret.
The siege ended after a couple of weeks when it was leaked that the upcoming COPE THUNDER exercise was going to be cancelled. The bar girls and trike drivers called that mess to a definite close.
That is absurd. When they sit down on a public highway, you cannot simply ignore them. People have places to go and these idiots are lying in the road to block them. SO tell me how to ignore that. If that happened to me and they were on a highway blocking me, I would simply drive right through them. They will probably move. If not, I still get to where I am going and they won't be going anywhere. No one is going to prevent me from doing what I have to do over their stupid cause.
In this case, they weren't impeding much, just inconveniencing the base workers. They were blocking gate access, not a public highway. Gates get closed sometimes for various reasons anyway.
In this case, they weren't impeding much, just inconveniencing the base workers. They were blocking gate access, not a public highway. Gates get closed sometimes for various reasons anyway.
This action made the protest a non-event.
Seems to me, you're overlooking something very basic, pardon the pun. Was this military base not part of the US's defense structure? Were these "protestors" not potentially impeding military personnel from entering/leaving a defense facility?
What if it was a planned interruption of accessibility to the base, ahead of a planned attack on the US? Would you then simply call it an "inconvenience"?
Seems to me, you're overlooking something very basic, pardon the pun. Was this military base not part of the US's defense structure? Were these "protestors" not potentially impeding military personnel from entering/leaving a defense facility?
What if it was a planned interruption of accessibility to the base, ahead of a planned attack on the US? Would you then simply call it an "inconvenience"?
The USAF generally works with the local police and authorities in relation to such protests.
In the past there have been peace camps outside of US bases and all kind of Anti-Nuclear and other peacetime protests, and the USAF are tolerant of people's right to protest.
In relation to entrances, these bases are often vast and have numerous entrances, whilst there is also a notable difference between peacetime peaceful protest and emergency powers in relation to an attack or wartime status, when such protests would not be tolerated, and which would result in very different response, with far more powers at the disposal of the military authorities.
Seems to me, you're overlooking something very basic, pardon the pun. Was this military base not part of the US's defense structure? Were these "protestors" not potentially impeding military personnel from entering/leaving a defense facility?
What if it was a planned interruption of accessibility to the base, ahead of a planned attack on the US? Would you then simply call it an "inconvenience"?
I've been seeing protests around base gates through the early 70s demonstration periods, the 80s demonstration periods, and the 90s demonstration periods. This is not a novel event for the Air Force.
If the situation changes, the methods change depending on the mission of the base.
The USAF generally works with the local police and authorities in relation to such protests.
In the past there have been peace camps outside of US bases and all kind of Anti-Nuclear and other peacetime protests, and the USAF are tolerant of people's right to protest.
In relation to entrances, these bases are often vast and have numerous entrances, whilst there is also a notable difference between peacetime peaceful protest and emergency powers in relation to an attack or wartime status, when such protests would not be tolerated, and which would result in very different response, with far more powers at the disposal of the military authorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
I've been seeing protests around base gates through the early 70s demonstration periods, the 80s demonstration periods, and the 90s demonstration periods. This is not a novel event for the Air Force.
If the situation changes, the methods change depending on the mission of the base.
Yes but where’s the acknowledgment that random anonymous internet social media posters know better the dangers of the situation than do the federal, military, and local enforcement authorities?
Status:
"Without data, it's just an opinion."
(set 8 days ago)
Location: South of Cakalaki
5,756 posts, read 4,738,779 times
Reputation: 5206
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadfoot4
Seems to me, you're overlooking something very basic, pardon the pun. Was this military base not part of the US's defense structure? Were these "protestors" not potentially impeding military personnel from entering/leaving a defense facility?
What if it was a planned interruption of accessibility to the base, ahead of a planned attack on the US? Would you then simply call it an "inconvenience"?
You can "what if" things till the cows come home. But maybe, just maybe, the folks on the base had a better grasp on things that were happening in real time.
Yes but where’s the acknowledgment that random anonymous internet social media posters know better the dangers of the situation than do the federal, military, and local enforcement authorities?
I am sure the US Military and various authorities had fully assessed the situation,however the US Military only has certain powers in peacetime in relation to outside of the wire, and this is especially true in terms of overseas bases.
Last edited by Brave New World; Yesterday at 02:36 PM..
I was at Clark AB in the Philippines in the early 80s when local protestors barricaded all the gates. The order then was to "honor the barricades," which effectively closed off the base completely. Because the closure happened in mid-day, that left several thousand dependents stranded without their husbands in the 'ville. Not only without their husbands, but also without potable water, money, or communications because nobody had that off base in those days.
We had a captain in our squadron who used his 4-wheel drive vehicle to crash the fence in a remote area of the base, taking money and things to the wives of our junior enlisted in the 'ville. I strongly suspect our commander was aware of it, because it obviously wasn't a tight secret.
The siege ended after a couple of weeks when it was leaked that the upcoming COPE THUNDER exercise was going to be cancelled. The bar girls and trike drivers called that mess to a definite close.
Clark, and other overseas bases, are an entirely different discussion as far as base access. You’ve got foreign governments, foreign police forces and military, the US Embassy, SOFA agreements, all part of the equation.
But if we are strictly talking about CONUS bases, there is really no reason at all for local authorities not to keep gates clear. Unless they don’t want to for political reasons. Which is exactly what happened in New Mexico.
Clark, and other overseas bases, are an entirely different discussion as far as base access. You’ve got foreign governments, foreign police forces and military, the US Embassy, SOFA agreements, all part of the equation.
But if we are strictly talking about CONUS bases, there is really no reason at all for local authorities not to keep gates clear. Unless they don’t want to for political reasons. Which is exactly what happened in New Mexico.
Obviously there are different powers in relation to US military authorities outside the wire in other countries.
On top of this there is also generally a difference between the powers of military police and civilian police in many countries, although some countries do have paramilitary police in the form of a Gendarmerie.
In Britain, US nuclear based protests outside of the war were generally dealt with by the local police and the Ministry of Defence Police a nation wide civilian police force who wear civilian police uniforms, and who have more powers in relation to ordinary civilians (the general public) around military facilities and outside of the wire than the various British armed service police branches do.
The main problems in Europe related to the basing of US Cruise and Pershing nuclear missiles back in the 1980's, and in Britain the main protests were in relation to two bases ar Greeham Common in Berkshire and Molesworth in Cambridge, both of which became home to BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile.
In terms of these Ground Launch cruise missile the vehicles had to leave the base via the gates and go to secret locations where they would launch their missiles, so keep the gates clear and open was essential and imperative.
In terms of the area outside of the wire and around the base at Greenham Common that was the responsibility of Thames Valley Police backed up by the Ministry of Defence Police, and they could also call on mutual aid from other civilian police forces in relation to mass demonstrations if needed, and the same applied to Molesworth with the only difference between that the local police force was Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
I should imagine in the US that outside of the wire in peacetime it's the Local and State Police along with some Federal organisations if needed that manage civilian protests with possible support from the uniformed military police such as the USAF Security Forces.
Last edited by Brave New World; Today at 04:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
