Seven Arrested After Protesting Army Video Game Recruiting Center

GamePolitics writes "Seven anti-war protesters were arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday during a protest rally and march which targeted the Army Experience Center, a high-tech recruitment center which uses PC and Xbox games and simulations to attract potential recruits. GamePolitics was on hand to cover the protest, and took video of the arrests. A local news station also reported on the rally, and the Peace Action Network released a statement saying, "In its desperate approach to meet recruiting numbers, the military is teaching the wrong values to teenagers. Sugarcoating combat experience with virtual war is a dishonor to those with real war experience."

Comments

fp!

[CheshireFerk-o]

i for one have played America's Army for years, and i would love to play in the vehicles and huge screens with other ppl! sure its a recruitment tool but take it for what it is, a great team-based shooter.

So...

[will_die]

Are the games any fun?
If so, can you play if you are older than recruiting age?

Re:So...

[smchris]

Dude, that's like 43 these days.

Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[nysus]

After watching the video, that "Army Experience" store, set up in a mall, strikes me as a little twisted. It seems pretty clear this place was set up to resemble a video game center to "lure" high school kids to it so recruiters would have an opportunity to talk to them about joining the Army. I'm not very comfortable having my government treating its kids this way.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[Anonymous Coward]

I go here sometimes...I go in play baseball or madden..they dont bother you about that shit unless you ask..

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[American Terrorist]

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[tacarat]

Which video game is it that teaches suicide bombers or their handlers such anti-social activities?

As far as your cousin is concerned, sorry. Maybe he'll smarten up eventually, but it'll probably have to wait until he finds out there's more to life than beer, bullets and bitches. I'd take more issue with the military academy high school than the US military, though. If he doesn't know about LOAC and the Geneva Convention, he may be in for a bit of surprise.

Hopefully he's not so far gone that he doesn't think that, unlike movie bad guys, his opponents can actually think or aim...

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[khallow]

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

I assure you the violence makes a lot of sense. You just aren't trying to understand. Making a civil society in Iraq is not the US Army's goal. The US Army's goal is to discourage violent alternatives to peaceful cohabitation and negotiation. That often requires the civility of a headshot.

I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.

By all means let him join assuming they'll have him. The disease is the cure when it comes to militarism. My bet is that the Marines or Army don't like militarism any more than you do. It gets people killed unnecessarily.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[Epsilon Moonshade]

"My bet is that the Marines or Army don't like militarism any more than you do. It gets people killed unnecessarily."

Not sure about the Army, but based on my time in the Marine Corps, militarism was encouraged. "One shot, one kill", the fact that ever Marine (in theory) can shoot a rifle and shoot it well whether they're a cook or a grunt, the good old "Napalm sticks to kids" running cadence... although that starts to cross the line into good old-fashioned violence.

If you've watched the first half of Full Metal Jacket, that's pretty close to the USMC Boot Camp experience that I remember. They want killers who don't get remorseful.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[Firethorn]

And your source for this is three commercial t-shirt sites, sites with no actual ties to the army?

They look crafted to sell to military wanna-bes. I'm not going to say that NO military member wears those shirts, because the military IS drawn from the population, and there's over a million in uniform between all the services, and you do have the occasional gung-ho type.

Thing is, the Army only wants you to be so gung ho, and a few who wear those shirts do it as a sort of exageration of their position, or to 'look tough'.

If the Academy had him chanting 'kill 'em all', then there's a serious problem with the academy. Especially today, the army wants a very discriminating killer.

No highschool graduate is going to know exactly what they're getting into when they join the army, but then, they aren't going to know what they're getting into with college or anything else. Still, joining the army, the recruit is generally going to know(if they paid attention), these important items:
1. You may be called upon to kill somebody
2. You may come under fire and even be killed
3. The standard contract is for 8 years, of which your 'active' commitment may vary. All bets are off during wartime/combat operations.
4. You will serve the needs of the Military, within the terms of the contract. You may get your preferred career field, assuming you pass the training, but that doesn't mean they can't cross train you later to a different field

In return:
1. Average to sucky pay compared to your civilian equivalent
2. Free training
3. Free medical care, if with the occasional bureaucratic nightmare or incompetent doctor
4. Tax advantaged income
5. Retirement eligible, with pay and benefits, after only 20 years

The game center is an excuse to get people in to see the recruiters. That doesn't mean that the recruiters are stuffing them into burlap sacks and shipping them to boot camp. They still have to cross all the ts in regards to paperwork, contracts, eligibility, ASVAB results, etc...

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[inviolet]

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

The army does not use "senseless violence". They are very clear on the importance of shooting only the bad guys, and Iraq demonstrates that they have a good success rate at doing so, at least compared to the whole rest of the history of war.

Your argument is a straw man, and not even a clever one.

Incidentally, one of the basic principles of civilization is "Keep a lot of violence ready for when the barbarians attack." Any civilization that fails to do so will end soon after. Don't let the current Pax Americana, the product of the West's skill with violence, lead you to believe that barbarians aren't still knocking at the gate.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[hey!]

Oh, but if you ask...

I have a nephew who was a Ham radio operator with his Amateur Extra Class, as well as an avid hiker and outdoorsman. He had no plans to go to college right away. He made the mistake of talking to a Marine Recruiter, and they slotted him right away into a particular class of recruit they were looking for. It was like being stalked by Big Brother. They showed up places he hung out at, talked to people he knew, they even started calling him on his cell phone which he never gives out to anyone.

It was stupid, because they actually had a chance of getting him to sign up if they hadn't pulled the Big Brother baloney on him. That freaked him out.

Re:At least they are protesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Where were all these protesters during the last 8 years when Bush was acting like an idiot?

Acting?! He most certainly was not acting!

Re:Did anyone actually watch the vid?

[ipX]

Argh, it's too early in the morning. Here's a deep youtube link to the footage of the arrests.

from an old soldier

[tazanator]

I have played AA for 6 years it's a great game, on the flip side I served as Infantry for 12 years. The AA game simulates the battle side of the army but nothing about the other phases (book training, guard duty, and cleaning the base) AA tends to glorify the battle side. I entered in 1989 and served till 2001 (medical discharge) I volunteer to go anywhere I could, but was never deployed outside the US. while the war training was fun it wasn't a common ordeal during my service time. on a final note http://www.pvtmurphy.com/Prints/Any%20Luck.htm

Re:At least they are protesting

[Zumbs]

A quick google search found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest and http://www.zombietime.com/iraq_war_fifth_anniversary_protest/. If you put your mind to it, I'm sure you can find *a lot* more.

Re:At least they are protesting

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Where were all these protesters during the last 8 years when Bush was acting like an idiot?

800 of them were arrested at and around the 2008 Republican Convention.

In Norway

[KarlIsNotMyName]

In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion. After that it's possible to join the army full time. Semi-obligatory because it's not that hard to get out of. So the following could be considered a recruitment event). All males of around 18 years old (and I think they've made attending this obligatory for females too now, just not obligatory for them to serve) are called in for a "Sesjon" (Session?) to determine physical and mental abilities, as well as a minor health checkup.

One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.

Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.

Re:In Norway

[Vintermann]

Well, to defend our glorious military (which I opted out of the non-easy way, by becoming a CO), there probably isn't much blood involved in conscripted Norwegian military service. No conscript is shipped abroad, even on the most sleepy peacekeeping mission, without applying for it himself.

Support for conscription would plummet if it did.

Re:In Norway

[Krneki]

It was the same in our country (Slovenia), until too many people realized how stupid war is. Eventually too many treated the army as a joke forcing the state to employ soldiers as professional. Now we have very few soldiers, but they are all motivated professionals. Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire. P.S: We do not have a military court, all soldiers mistakes are judged by the civil court.

Re:In Norway

[swillden]

Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire.

It will lower standards a little, but not nearly as much as instituting a draft. The problem the US military faces right now is that the ongoing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan require a lot of bodies. Not because many of them die, but because it's unpleasant duty and people tend not to want to do it for very long. Since it's an all-volunteer military force, recruiters to do whatever they can to motivate people to volunteer.

The real solution here isn't to shut down the recruiters, it's to reduce the demands on the military, i.e. get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, I think we should return to the Constitutional form of national defense. Get rid of the "standing army" almost entirely. Limit the armed forces to the high-tech forces that can't be staffed on a volunteer basis plus a training cadre capable of quickly training and equipping large numbers of volunteers for the bulk of the ground forces. Shift most of those forces to the state national guards (organized militia). All we really need at the federal level during peacetime is the Navy and maybe a core staff to coordinate the training and equipping of national guard forces to maintain consistency and standards. Finally, repeal the NFA and encourage citizens to own and practice with military-style weapons in standard caliber to maintain/rebuild the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense (unorganized militia). But I realize that following the Constitution is a radical idea.

Re:Shutup you commie

[tacarat]

I found it ironic that as a service member, I had less freedoms available to me. The freedom of speech, needing to ask for permission to get married, etc. Throw in the the base clubs weren't allowed to have "offensive" music (and of course the sensitive types wouldn't have the decency to stay home). /sigh. Buy all the liquor, tobacco and bibles you want, but no porn!

Re:This is America

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't continue to protest on private property once the owner asks you to leave or you are trespassing. Trespassing is an arrestable offense.

So simple a caveman would get it.

Re:This is America

[MyLongNickName]

Then the army oughtn't be able to open a center there. Frankly, this whole "hide behind public property" that the government uses is wrong. It is basically circumventing the first amendment by using technicalities. Whether you or I agree with the protest, citizens should be free to peacefully protest their government.

Join the Army!

[markbark]

It's just like XBox -- only you die.

Just like real life

[Drakkenmensch]

Anyone who played an online multiplayer shooter will attest that the experience is very close to real life war. The fresh young recruit steps onto the battlefield, expecting a grand battle the likes of the opening of Saving Private Ryan, only to end up in the scope of a spawn point camping sniper who is only farming headshots on the newbies...

Re:Just like real life

[Veggiesama]

You know, they really ought to have specified "camping" in the Geneva Conventions.

Re:At least they are protesting

[ArcherB]

Well and that ain't the whole story. To quote from wikipedia:

During the convention's first three days, more than 300[50] individuals were arrested by police,[51] including journalists (AP photographer Matt Rourke was one),[52] health-care workers and lawyer observers.[53] Some were released, but nearly half received felony charges.[53]

It was more or less the same at 2004 RNC: people (1800 accordingly to wikipedia) were arrested, many just just for being in the wrong place. Not only reporters/lawyers/health care volunteers were arrested but also people completely unrelated to the protests that were going about their business (delivery men, people just going/coming to/from work, etc). I thought at that point this is something realy massive and NYC will be sued to oblivion, Bush will lose a lot of popularity and maybe resign and so on. But no, nothing like that...

Maybe there were not lawsuits because no one had a case against the city. I was in NY during the RNC (on non-related business) and got to see first hand what was going on. First, the police did an awesome job. They pretty much let people do what they wanted and were there to maintain the peace. They maintained a pretty light hand. Right in front of a couple of police officers, I was spit and threatened on by a peace protester who didn't understand the irony of his actions. The police did nothing. I asked them why and they basically told me that they had bigger fish to fry. Sadly, I agreed.

I saw people block entrances to businesses, block the bus routes for delegates, hurl objects such as fake blood, urine, and dirt at delegates, try to "release" protesters that had been arrested and partake in other activities that went far beyond their right to peacefully assemble. No one can deny that their attempt was to disrupt the RNC, meaning that their goal was to strip the rights of the RNC members. Those that resorted to illegal means were arrested.

The only bystanders that I saw arrested who were at the wrong place at the wrong time were given fair warning. For example, if a bunch of protesters were blocking a bus route and a reporter was in the mix interviewing them, that reporter was also arrested for helping to block the bus route. They were given ample warning to move.

What does this have to do with the recruiting center protests? When you block a legal activity in protest, you can count on getting arrested. These people crossed the line and were no longer "peaceably assembling". They were breaking the law.

7.62 millimeter. Full Metal Jacket.......

[Chas]

Okay. Films like FMJ, that (rightfully or not) demonize military culture, are okay. But a video game depicting a limited facet of the military experience is horrible evil propaganda?

Militarism definition

[Firethorn]

It looks like you have a different definition of militarism than khallow was using, or at least are looking at a different meaning.

I'd describe your definition as 'military skills' - If you're going to have a military, best to have it be as effective as possible.

On the other hand, Khallow's 'militarism' is a philosophy of using the military in the most offensive way possible, of looking at the military as first and last solution to any international problem.

They're substantially different things. Even the Marine Core wants their Marines to be violent only when the situation calls for it.

As for Cadences, didn't you figure out that they're supposed to be dirty/politically incorrect?

Re:This is America

[jellomizer]

A lot of protesters really want to get arrested or teargassed or whatever. Because they are not fully protesting any particular issue but feel the government is corrupt and if they get hurt somehow it makes the government look bad, and them look good.

I remember in a college someone was planning to go to a protest on some silly policy. And she was looking into finding a bullet proof vest. So in other words she was planning on harassing the authorities and the people they are protesting against to a point where someone on the other side will cross that line and make them victims.

I don't have a problem with people protesting, and it should be legal. However a lot of protesters are really Stupid and do it the wrong way.

Here are some Stupid Protests I have seen.

A Silent protest on something... (I don't know what it was about because they wouldn't tell me)

A huge Anti-War (I think) protest in the state capital. I saw a lot of people protesting, however I was busy setting up new computers for the Government Higher Ups (who can actually make some fuss) on the 19th and 20th floor. While most of the people up there were focusing on their work. No one could be heard, and if you did look down and see all the people even their biggest signs looked like smudges.

Protesters in groups less then 15. Small groups are not really effective and can easily be seen as just a fringe group who just hates everything.

Playing folk music. I am a fan of folk music myself, however for protests it is way to corny.

Personal attacks, Are you willing to open a fair dialog with someone caring a poster of you looking like the devil or Hitler?

Re:This is America

[jav1231]

Something tells me these protesters will be reported more favorably than the Tea Party protesters, who were of course bigots and fanatics.

Re:This is America

[DaveV1.0]

They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing. I know, why don't I come over to your house and protest your stupidity by taking over you living room. After all, you should not be able to hide behind public property either.

Can it be that he was all so simple...

[FatSean]

Who owns the property. Not the gov't. The property owner. If my tax dollars pay for it, it's public. If the property owner doesn't like the protests, he can try to boot his tenant and the protesters out. The gov't can't boot out citizens.

Different rules apply. This is why we don't like to conflate government and private enterprise. Gets messy.

We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.

Re:Can it be that he was all so simple...

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

If my tax dollars pay for it, it's public. [...] The gov't can't boot out citizens.

Let's all go protest in the Oval Office or the Pentagon then... Somehow I suspect it wouldn't work out exactly as you expect.

Re:Can it be that he was all so simple...

[Moryath]

The gov't has the right to rent space where people go (e.g. a mall).

The mall has the right to evict anyone, at the choosing of the mall owner or their delegated authority such as security guards, from the property.

What is so hard to understand about this? The mall chose to remove a bunch of lunatics from their property. The lunatics refused to go, so police arrested them under the law for trespassing.

Stop trying to make this more than it is. A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today (the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place). So they go, do something stupid, refuse to obey a lawful order by the property owner to leave, and get their stupid asses arrested.

The gov't can't boot out citizens.

Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute; the Supreme Court has routinely held that reasonable restrictions - such as requirements to get a permit, to adequately prepare for possible problems, and to disperse when ordered to by police - are completely enforceable.

If you go out of your way to get arrested, you're gonna get arrested. It's really that simple.

We can't let the military hide behind private business and vice versa. It breeds contempt for the military and the gov't.

They follow the rules same as everybody else. What breeds contempt for the gov't is fuckers who pull "protests" like this and have no grasp on reality.

Re:Can it be that he was all so simple...

[vux984]

According to you, the government has no right to rent space anywhere. That's bullshit.

If the government rents space somewhere, the space around its entrance should become available to protesters, same as if the government owned it.

If the owner of the mall doesn't want to allow protestrs to gather in front of spaces he's leased to the government, then he can elect not to lease space to the government.

The alternative is absurd. The government can simply sell all its property to private management companies, and then lease it back from them, and suddenly you can't even protest on the street... its the property of the LRX Holding Company... and the government is just leasing it... they'd be happy to let you protest on it, -but- LRX is the owner you see... so they call the shots. We'd like to help... but... LRX is calling the shots... sorry.

Re:Can it be that he was all so simple...

[WNight]

(the same military, might I add, that goes and fights and dies for their freedom to express their opinion and peacefully protest in the first place).

You're either a fucking imbecile or a liar. There's a big difference between the soldiers who actually put their asses on the line and the commanders who decide the hand-wave the realities of war with a video game for recruitment purposes. To think that the protesters can't tell the difference is ridiculous.

A bunch of fucking loonies decided they hate the military today

But this makes it obvious, you're a liar. You have no clue what the protesters were really protesting for but you hate them.

I wonder what the opinion of a veteran would be to someone like you, lamely ra-ra'ing everything into a "think of the troops". That sort of knee-jerk objectification of a soldier as this hero-object you send overseas and who dies gloriously for freedom, even if they're sent into an unjust war under false pretenses, seems pretty offensive to me. It's the same kind of handwavism towards the reality of war that the protesters were protesting.

The mall has the right to evict anyone ... What is so hard to understand about this? ... police arrested them under the law for trespassing.

Isn't that convenient. The only relevant place to protest and it's private property. But how about outside? Oh, the whole area near the entryway is private, the sidewalk can't be blocked by groups, and the nearby park is private too. Guess there just can't be a protest because everywhere is private...

Yes, the government can. The people have the right to "peaceful assembly" and "petition the government for redress of grievances." These rights are not Absolute

The courts, supreme or otherwise, are far from unbiased on this, being the ultimate 'tool' of 'justice' in the land they have far to much faith in quietly following the rules and protesting inside the lines. Sorry, but their opinion is just as irrelevant as that of the most radicalized protester.

The truth is that protest MUST be done where it is relevant and will be seen. A public park six miles away might be more convenient for mall management but they rented space to a government propaganda centre and can't simply dismiss this issue as one of troublesome trespassers or they themselves become a legitimate target for protest. Removing protesters for violence, preventing other legitimate access through the area, and so forth would be reasonable, yes. But to remove them for expressing a reasonable opinion against the government, in a very relevant manner and location, simply because it's private property - that is unreasonable.

It's fairly well established that the government has the right of eminent domain, and the current US gov claims it has the right to draft its citizens. To think that this doesn't afford the people (the government) the reasonable expectation of a right to assemble and protest the activities going on in that location is silly. The USA seceded, in part after people boarded private ships to throw privately owned tea into the harbour as part of a tax protest against the government. Considering the issue at hand is pro-war brainwashing materials being passed off as games by the government I think a mere protest in a mall is a pretty reasonable thing.

Perhaps the mall should rent to less controversial customers if it doesn't want the fallout.

Re:Can it be that he was all so simple...

[couchslug]

"If the government rents space somewhere, the space around its entrance should become available to protesters, same as if the government owned it."

Legal citation needed.

Re:This is America

[Dunbal]

The government is leasing some space in the mall so now they own the mall.

      No but I would gather there's one of those "Management reserves the right to refuse admission" signs hanging on or near all the doors into the mall. If you are asked to leave the mall and refuse, don't complain when you get busted for trespassing. This has nothing to do with government. A protest against "Banana Republic" would yield the same result. Oh, the parking is mall property too. You're welcome to go wave your signs on the public street though, so long as you have a permit from the municipality.

Re:This is America

[Big Nothing]

I'm all for using games as a means of sparking young men and women's interest in joining the armed forces. It's a great way to show them what to expect without actually sending them overseas. The only condition I ask is that a representative number of gamers get shot in the gut with an AK-47.

Re:At least they are protesting

[h4rm0ny]

You are saying it is possible to believe in A ("did not do enough") and again in A ("did too little") simultaneously?

No, the GP is saying it is possible to believe that A "did not do enough X" and that A "did too little Y" simultaneously. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension and be a little less insulting to people.

Re:This is America

[digitig]

They have the right to peacefully protest. They did, in fact, peacefully protest. But, the moment they stepped on private property, they were trespassing.

No they were not, because they asked for, and were given, permission to continue their protest on the private property. The moment they failed to leave the private property when told to do so they were traspassing.

Re:This is America

[rtb61]

Of course you have to be careful, when a person commits a crime when surrounded by people protesting, only that person committed a crime, the rest of the protesters are guilty of nothing and should not be subject to arrest as they are expressing their constitutional rights. As has happened in the past, only a very small minority of of agents provocateur have actually done any damage and the police have then basically lied and pressed false charges against innocent protesters, only to have to drop those charges when video evidence refutes their statements.

Peace protesting should always take place where appropriate. When a country is the dominant supplier of weapons, then obviously the protest should take place there, when a country funds the war effort obviously the protest should take place there, where a country is largely responsible for the war via it's intelligence operations obviously the protest should occur there.

Only a thoughtless person would consider it appropriate to peace protectors to protest in a combat zone, of course then the same thoughtless idiot would accuse the people being attacked of using the peace protesters as human shields and, demand even more violent actions be taken.

Re:This is America

[Kell Bengal]

A permit for protesting? That's as egregious as a 'free speech zone'. The mere idea of free speech somehow being limitable to a certain geographic locale is in itself a conceptual tyranny.

Re:This is America

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Wanna bet the "protesters" were doing more than just standing there with placards ?

Wanna bet that you didn't RTFA? The protesters were described as peaceful as can be, with the average age being over 40. Their list of offenses? They made some speeches and marched to the entrance of the AEC. Essentially, they were considered trespassing.

You don't get, as a protestor, to deny anyone access anywhere.

Which they didn't do.

You don't get to damage cars, or any other type of private property and, of course, a protest takes responsability for all protestors.

Which they didn't do.

If the police thinks the group is damaging property or denying people access to a location, they do not only have the right to end the protest, they have the duty to do so.

Again, they didn't do any of those. The police arrested them for trespassing, and I don't blame them for that. The police were only doing their job. But I don't see the point in your post, when you're basing it off of assumptions and won't even bother to read any of the links posted in the summary.

Besides, peace protesting in the united states is a farce. Someone who hides in a territory that's defended by the biggest guns on the planet is not a peace protestor. A real "peace protestor" would demonstrate in a lawless region without police forces present. You know, like Southern Darfur. You don't see many peace protests there, of course, for good reason. It doesn't make peace protests in America any less hypocrite.

How the fuck did this get modded insightful? Why would peace protesting be hypocritical in the U.S. ? One of the definitions of hypocrisy is:

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

How are peace protesters, in this case, practicing beliefs that they do not hold? It would be hypocritical of them if they were protesting war, and at the same time, donating money to weapons manufacturers. One of the freedoms afforded to us is the freedom of assembly. It would be a damn shame for us to HAVE such freedom and not exercise it.

Re:Shutup you commie

[Kagura]

I found it ironic that as a service member, I had less freedoms available to me. The freedom of speech, needing to ask for permission to get married, etc. Throw in the the base clubs weren't allowed to have "offensive" music (and of course the sensitive types wouldn't have the decency to stay home). /sigh. Buy all the liquor, tobacco and bibles you want, but no porn!

You don't need permission to get married, unless you are planning on marrying a foreigner while you are stationed in a foreign country.

Re:This is America

[Dachannien]

What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest?

As with most malls, the Franklin Mills Mall, where the U.S. Army Experience Center is located, is private property. This means that if the owner wants you gone and you stay anyway, you're trespassing, which means you're subject to arrest.

Actually, from actually reading the twitter log, it seems like the police were very reasonable, allowing the protesters to march all the way down to and into the mall, where they protested for some time. Eventually, a police captain told them they'd have to leave. When they didn't, a few people got arrested. I suspect the order to leave was at the behest of the mall management, since there are numerous other stores there which depend on having an orderly environment in order to conduct business.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't peaceably assemble on private property when the owner doesn't want you there. Simple as that.