Thanks to
Armchair Generalist and
DefenseTech.org for their stories covering this insight into the development of the police state that A.G. found in this report by
The Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project (BNLWRP)(pdf).
A rep from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs on "strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media"...
If there was negative coverage about an important programme that could be derailed by the general public or congress then they would `really go after them', she said. ...Officials would give increased information access to `bread and butter military journalists' as opposed to the `60 minutes type journalists' in return for more positive coverage. She also advocated a strategy of targeting military analysts working for various news media and getting them on message. She admitted, however, that they `still don't know how to handle the bloggers'.
They "still don't know how to handle bloggers."
OK here's a tip: Don't sound so blatantly evil!
Don't subvert the pillars of democracy, free inquiry, free press, and the right of the people to participate in, indeed to constitute, their government. We'll decide whether we want ourselves, or our friends and neighbors, to be microwaved while protesting or fetching takeout food in the vicinity of a protest. Thanks. Be greatful you live in a democracy and stop hating freedom! That's how to deal with bloggers. Don't.
The report's author's comment on the foregoing:
The irritation voiced at the conference, particularly with regard to media coverage that paints non-lethal weapons in an entirely negative light or that is simply inaccurate, is understandable. However, the evangelical zeal with which some advocate these types of weapons systems, combined with an all-consuming operational focus on a "global war on terrorism", do seem to encourage a kind of group tunnel vision that can lead to the dismissal of legitimate concerns raised by outside observers, as exemplified in John Alexander's opening presentation. Perhaps the best course of action, and a more constructive approach, as suggested by a representative from Human Rights Watch during a question and answer session, would be for the US military and others to fully engage with their critics in a more transparent manner on these important issues.
But what are we talking about here?
Public relations continues to be a big issue for those working in and around the US Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, the majority of whom feel that they have been unfairly criticized by the media and other independent observers. The consensus is that the media `just don't get it' or `are missing the point'. This was a theme that was revisited many times during the course of the conference with speakers and panellists repeatedly asked for their opinions on how they might start to win the public relations battle.
How about presenting the facts, and letting the people decide what policy they want their advocates to pursue?
Sorry for the copious emphasis which is all mine if its unneccessary. (All the line breaks in this chunk are my additions too.) Note that this is an American talking, and that this is issue seems to get nowhere near as much play here. This is a fait accompli in the US of A, it seems...
John Alexander, a retired Colonel in the US Army and long-time non-lethal weapons advocate, opened proceedings with a combative presentation that attempted to negate all concerns that have been raised in relation to NLW development.
His approach reflected the frustrations felt amongst those working on NLW development who feel their work has a revolutionary quality.
He argued that there was no evidence that NLWs would reduce the threshold for initiation of conflict and that the relatively low investment in NLWs precluded arms racing.
He rejected the idea that NLWs could be used to facilitate torture, arguing that it was the intent of the user rather than the technology that determined its use or misuse.
He admitted that NLWs could cause some deaths or serious injuries but asked `compared to what?' and argued that recent concerns voiced over Taser in the US showed that critics such as Amnesty International `must have an agenda'.
He accepted that NLWs can be used as a precursor to killing but suggested that this is `not such as bad idea' in some cases, citing the example of the Moscow theatre siege in 2002 when the hostage takers were shot and killed while unconscious from the effects of an incapacitating agent.
He added that the issue of chemical and biological weapons should be revisited for non-lethal weapons purposes arguing that international law prohibiting their development is `outdated'.
He went on to argue that concerns over the use of NLWs to suppress dissent are unnecessary since such suppression can already be carried out with lethal force.
Finally he dismissed concerns over insufficient data about the human effects of NLWs. Addressing the issue of population groups who may be more susceptible than others to certain weapons (e.g. effects of electrical weapons on drug users or those with heart disease) he assured us that `blind deaf midgets with Parkinson's disease aren't likely to commit crimes'.