Seven Arrested After Protesting Army Video Game Recruiting Center 433
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."
At least they are protesting (Score:1, Insightful)
Where were all these protesters during the last 8 years when Bush was acting like an idiot?
Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:5, Insightful)
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:At least they are protesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, this is a non-story. A bunch of people make a protest (good for them, right of free speech) and then block the entrances after being asked to move (preventing expression of other people's rights) and get arrested. So what?
If there is a story here, it's whether or not the games are interesting, actually improve recruitment, and are worth the $.
This is America (Score:2, Insightful)
This is America. What the hell do you think gives you the right to peacefully assemble and protest? Only terrorists do that. Now bow down before our magnificent leader. You must go and die for his glory.
Re:In Norway (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, that's probably quite close to the real thing for the Norwegian Army.
I think you're actually disappointed they didn't lie and show soldiers getting blown to pieces (since they don't... see?).
Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:0, Insightful)
Simple: The story is about military use of video games to recruit and an associated protest against that activity. Your post is bitching about your cousin who went to a private "military academy" (the U.S. military does not operate high schools) and has a desire to go kill people, which the U.S. military had nothing to do with nor (based on what you said) did video games.
See how your post isn't on-topic?
Re:In Norway (Score:1, Insightful)
Since when has any government told the truth about war? I reckon if they did, there wouldn't be many recruits. The difference between a soldier who's never seen the horrors of war, and one who has, is like night and day. For one thing, the new recruits don't have nightmares and contemplate suicide.
Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Just like real life (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm always of mixed feelings... (Score:2, Insightful)
On one hand, I have great respect for the military and the sacrifices soldiers are willing to make to protect their fellow citizens, whether fighting somewhere else in the world to preserve democracy (yes, I really believe that's what they are doing, historically and now) or serving at home during disaster relief, helping their fellow citizens directly.
On the other hand war is something to be abhorred and avoided. It's always a last resort. Soldiers are a precious resource that we (as the people ultimately in charge of our political system) are responsible for protecting too. We must not send them into war for questionable reasons, or ask them to do a job that squanders the sacrifice they are willing to make.
Finally, if people are being recruited into the military while being falsely informed about what that really means to do the job, yeah, that is obscene. It deserves some good, old, democratically-principled protest.
The only video game that would be realistic would be one where it's "game over" if you are mortally wounded, and where you have to haul your non-mortally wounded buddies out of the battle zone or they die too. I know America's Army is far better than the usual "near-instant respawn" that is typical (it's no "Team Fortress"), but it still glosses over the unreality in the game. Let kids "13 and up" talk to real vets and serving military officers about the upside and the downside of their job, as recruitment has always done, and leave the virtual reality out of it. Glitzing it up too much is misleading.
But you do have to know where to draw the line between protest and obstructing other people's rights to their own decisions on the matter. The protesters should be as loud as they want on public land, but not block the door.
Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
7.62 millimeter. Full Metal Jacket....... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:5, Insightful)
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:At least they are protesting (Score:3, Insightful)
This can't be summed up in a 5 second soundbite, so most Republicans can't pay attention long enough to grasp it. Which is sad, really. The Democrats are going to have to be their own opposition party, because the remaining Republicans are all incompetent.
What Do You Expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Military recruiting has never been about truth in advertising. When I recruited for the USAF ('93-'97, 368 RCS OL-FD Reno, NV), I hung the front page of the European Stars and Stripes printed on the first day of the first Gulf War on the front wall of my office, the first thing a visitor saw when they came through the front door. It was a night-vision picture of an F-15E Strike Eagle, fully loaded with death and destruction, refueling from a KC-135 aerial tanker with WAR in a 3-inch bold font above the photo. My superiors suggested I should take it down since it might scare off potential applicants. I left it up - I felt it was important that even those folks joining the "Chair Force" should understand that the ultimate purpose of the military was not to provide job training, college money, or a pay check twice a month; the ultimate purpose of the military was to fight the nation's wars - everything else was secondary to that.
I don't think I lost a single applicant because of that picture. Even though I sold the benefits the Air Force provided (Money, Advancement, Training, Travel, Recreation, Education, Service, and Satisfaction), I made sure the applicant understood that they were applying to join an organization whose mission was to fly, fight, and win. If I was asked "will I go to war?" I told the applicant the chances were slim they would ever be engaged in direct combat (again, this was years before Afghanistan and the second invasion of Iraq and the use of Air Force personnel to run convoys, etc.), but the possibility always existed. Ultimately it was the applicant's responsibility to make the decision whether to enlist or not.
Yeah, there are dirtbag recruiters in all the branches who lie. Some get caught and are disciplined, others don't. But I don't have much sympathy for anyone who enlists because his or her recruiter told them they'd never go to war (and anyone who enlists today, after six years of Afghanistan and Iraq in the news every day, who thinks they'll never go to war is simply a self-deluded idiot and should be discharged at the earliest opportunity). There are a lot of misconceptions about military life propagated by the media and the education industry, but not fighting wars is not one of them. Trust me - the first day of basic training it's made very clear to the recruits (this includes the Air Force) the reason they're there - to fight the nation's wars. And its not hard for a recruit to get kicked out of basic training if that's what he really wants - we'd rather do it then and there than spend the money to train, house, and feed him only to have him start crying "I was told I wouldn't have to go war!" down the road.
Sorry, but any kid who enlists in the Army thinking war is just like a video game is just dumber than dumb. The Army isn't being dishonest or even disingenuous using this as a recruiting tool. The folks who are protesting this aren't upset about truth in advertising and they're not offering an alternative to these kids, many of whom either can't afford or aren't ready for college. There isn't a social program out there that can provide the same benefits military service does. And for every story you hear about someone not being able to find a job after spending four years in the military there are dozens of others like me who used their military experience and benefits as a stepping stone to bigger and better things in life.
Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:3, Insightful)
Can it be that he was all so simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is America (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
If I rent my living room to the government as public space then you absolutely do have a right to protest in it. By consenting to host a public government event you consent to allow protesters.
At least that's how it ought to be. Otherwise the government could just privatize everything to effectively outlaw protest. Would you like that? Private sidewalks, private streets, private White House, picketers being dragged away in chains. Truly a Libertarian ideal.
Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Can it be that he was all so simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:At least they are protesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Or she planned a restrained protest but was worried that there might be hotheads other than her on the protest who might cross that line. Or she was worried that there might be hotheads policing the protest for whom the very act of the protest is enough provocation to shoot the protestors. Or that some hothead in the general public might be so offended by the protest that they'd open fire. Or the protest just happened to be in the sort of neighbourhood one wears a bulletproof vest to. Or ... and so on.
Re:!Anti-war protesters (Score:3, Insightful)
The media in general constantly seems to repeat this phrase incorrectly.
No, they use it correctly.
Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)
Wanna bet the "protesters" were doing more than just standing there with placards ?
Wanna bet that you didn't RTFA [gamepolitics.com]? 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 [reference.com] 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:At least they are protesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Your post described what you saw with your own eyes, nothing more, and you conclude their behavior was positive based on no real data.
You may want to learn about what happened beyond your immediate line of sight -- people illegally detained and arrested, undercover officers inciting violence etc, officers telling people what they could do then arresting them when they followed instructions. "They pretty much let people do what they wanted" was not true outside your line of sight.
Um.... what I saw with my own eyes IS real data. For that matter, what I saw with my own eyes is MORE valid that what someone heard from someone else. It's too easy to say, "Someone told me that they were just standing there on the corner minding their own bizness and the Gestapo and took them all in." In other words, first person experience carries credibility than third person rumors.
I do not pretend to know everything that happened and only reported what I saw with my own eyes.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen
True, but again, what I SAW carries more weight than what you HEARD. Just because you HEARD it doesn't mean that it happened either. May I also add that this was the most documented protest in history. Not only was every major and local minor media outlet there, but at least one of every three "protesters" had a camera. I have not seen any video of these reported abuses either.
Re:Can it be that he was all so simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If a small group of asswad shithead anarchists want to kick the gov't out of any rented space, all they have to do is show up, block the entrance, and the "option" for the property owner is not to kick out the shithead anarchists, but instead to kick out the government employees who are actually doing their jobs?
Fuck you. That's not how it works, and you know it. Your entire argument is bullshit.
Re:This is America (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can it be that he was all so simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it the property owner doesn't like the protests, he can boot the protesters out. Why would he want to boot a paying tenant? The tenant isn't trespassing. The protesters are.
Re:This is America (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps there is a tradeoff between liberty and safety, but I choose liberty every time.
Re:If tax dollars buy it, it is public. (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, go protest in the Oval Office. It's public property. Let me know how that works out.
Re:Can it be that he was all so simple... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have to have "mindless obedience to authority" to have a dislike of people whose response to getting a traffic ticket, or being told that they need to prove their ability to safely handle a vehicle before we'll let them control 2 tons of steel at 75 MPH, is to shout "burn the government."
Re:Can it be that he was all so simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.