"Pain Compliance. Coming Soon to an Antiwar Demo Near You?" by Kurt Nimmo/TruthNews
October 11, 2007
Last September, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne indicated the military would use “nonlethal weapons” against “fellow citizens” before they use them in “a wartime situation.” In other words, the American people are considered little more than guinea pigs, especially dissenting Americans in need of “crowd control.”
Before zapping antiwar demonstrators with an ADS beam—that’s short for “Active Denial System”—the military or police may request they remove glasses, contact lenses, and take coins and keys out of their pockets. “Precautions used to test U.S. military’s microwave weapon ADS for crowd control have raised questions about its safety, says a report,” explains United Press International. “These precautions raise concerns about the ADS in real crowd-control situations, the New Scientist reported… The ADS fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam, which is supposed to heat skin and to cause pain but no physical damage, the report said. Until now little information about its effects had been released.”
In fact, it took a Freedom of Information Act request filed by a group that campaigns against the use of biological and non-lethal weapons to discover how dangerous the ADS weapon is. It was learned that military “experimenters” conducting tests at the Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque “banned glasses and contact lenses to prevent eye damage to the subjects and in the second and third tests removed any metallic objects such as coins and keys to stop hot spots being created on the skin.”
“How do you ensure that the dose doesn’t cross the threshold for permanent damage?” asked Neil Davison, co-ordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at the University of Bradford in the UK. “What happens if someone in a crowd is unable, for whatever reason, to move away from the beam? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?” Or will they get cooked like a Thanksgiving turkey? Considering the track record of the military—tasked, after all, with killing people and wrecking things—we can assume the latter.
During the experiments at Kirtland, reports the New Scientist, “people playing rioters put up their hands when hit and were given a 15-second cooling-down period before being targeted again. One person suffered a burn in a previous test when the beam was accidentally used on the wrong power setting.”
Oops. Don’t you hate it when that happens? Mistake or no, imagine the results if this “nonlethal” weapon is distributed to police departments, staffed with garden variety sadists of the sort now legendary for tasering students for not showing ID or asking the wrong question to globalists.
“Over the past 20 years Congress has encouraged the U.S. military to supply intelligence, equipment, and training to civilian police. That encouragement has spawned a culture of paramilitarism in American law enforcement,” notes the Cato Institute.
“According to a recent academic survey, nearly 90 percent of the police departments surveyed in cities with populations over 50,000 had paramilitary units, as did 70 percent of the departments surveyed in communities with populations under 50,000. The Pentagon has been equipping those units with M-16s, armored personnel carriers, and grenade launchers. The police paramilitary units also conduct training exercises with active duty Army Rangers and Navy SEALs…. State and local police departments are increasingly accepting the military as a model for their behavior and outlook. The sharing of training and technology is producing a shared mindset. The problem is that the mindset of the soldier is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer. Police officers confront not an ‘enemy’ but individuals who are protected by the Bill of Rights. Confusing the police function with the military function can lead to dangerous and unintended consequences—such as unnecessary shootings and killings.”
But then, of course, the commander-decider guy considers the Constitution and the Bill of Rights little more than a “g.d. piece of paper.”
In order to understand what the average activist may face come the next war—for instance, the coming attack against Iran—consider the following video produced by the DoD:
