It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SHOCKER: Obama Preparing to Attack Veterans

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
jesus...this place has turned into a site of right-wing fanatics....hyperbolic bull-crap anyone?




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Not at all, just exploring the ramifications of government decisions. Ahhhh, I see, CA. Nuff said.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Have you read the directive? If you have would you care to show us why we are so out of line in questioning this…I mean I didn't wanna rely on a youtube vid so I looked up the links. I am in class and can't properly comb through it but from what I read in the Washington Post article it seems like they are effectively circumventing posse comitatus.

ETA: left or right this should cause worry…in fact if we could just drop the left right thing all together and stick to facts we would get a lot further and also build closer ties with our countrymen/women.
edit on 4-6-2014 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockflier
a reply to: Krazysh0t

See above link to what the Feds consider to be terrorist material


That's cool and all. I see your link traces to DHS document that eludes to it.


the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks


But I already have that document saved on my HDD. How does this NEW document highlight that obama is warring against veterans? The OP says that Obama's number one enemy is veterans. I don't see that being the case in either document provided. I do see some troubling aspects from the two documents, but most of what the OP says appears to be hyperbole.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did not see anything about veterans in the Washington Post article either. I will say however that the directive seems to fully circumvent posse comitatus though.


Yea. Like I said, there are some troubling aspects about the document, like circumventing posse comitatus (domestic military use). But this thread just looks like a bunch of exaggeration to get everyone mad at Obama. It's like the OP made up an issue with the document to get outraged over, when there are already plenty of things wrong with it that he could have highlighted if he had bothered to read it first.

SHOCKER: This document has nothing to do with veterans
edit on 4-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe it would be prudent to create a new less sensational thread that doesn't make people disregard an important issue because it has been spun into something it's not.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As a veteran, I really only believe what I read in official documents OR reliable news sources of which there are very few.
Here is an article I had some interest in, even thought it comes from the WT. It appears to reaffirm that veterans are, indeed, considered unreliable to the nation.

Napolitano Statement



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
this is going to be a rather lengthy and long winded post filled with all kinds of copy and paste ninja tactics. here is my source for ALL of it. Source Directive

il try to keep all copy and pastes easily determined apart from my own opinions but I'm sure it won't be hard to find my weird way of stringing words together when compared to legal jargon.





SUBJECT: References:
Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) (From now on DSCA means Defense Support of Civil Authority)


1. PURPOSE. This Directive:
Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE
NUMBER 3025.18 December 29, 2010 Incorporating Change 1, September 21, 2012
USD(P)
a. Establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for DSCA, also referred to as civil support.
b. Incorporates and cancels DoD Directive (DoDD) 3025.1 and DoDD 3025.15 (References (a) and (b)).
c. Supplements the regulations (in DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))) required by section 375 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), (Reference (d)) regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.
d. Provides guidance for the execution and oversight of DSCA when requested by civil authorities or by qualifying entities and approved by the appropriate DoD official, or as directed by the President, within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any political subdivision thereof.
e. Authorizes immediate response authority for providing DSCA, when requested.
f. Authorizes emergency authority for the use of military force, under dire situations, as described in paragraph 4.i. above the signature of this Directive.


this first section reads to me that they made it a lot easier to get help if your asking for it?




e. All requests from civil authorities and qualifying entities for assistance shall be evaluated for:
(1) Legality (compliance with laws).
(2) Lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DoD Forces).
(3) Risk (safety of DoD Forces).
(4) Cost (including the source of funding and the effect on the DoD budget).
(5) Appropriateness (whether providing the requested support is in the interest of the Department).
(6) Readiness (impact on the Department of Defense’s ability to perform its other primary missions).


this part looked decent IMO






g. Federal military commanders, Heads of DoD Components, and/or responsible DoD civilian officials (hereafter referred to collectively as “DoD officials”) have IMMEDIATE RESPONSE AUTHORITY as described in this Directive. In response to a request for assistance from a civil authority, under imminently serious conditions and if time does not permit approval from higher authority, DoD officials may provide an immediate response by temporarily employing the resources under their control, subject to any supplemental direction provided by higher headquarters, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States. Immediate response authority does not permit actions that would subject civilians to the use of military power that is regulatory, prescriptive, proscriptive, or compulsory.

(1) The DoD official directing a response under immediate response authority shall immediately notify the National Joint Operations and Intelligence Center (NJOIC), through the
Change 1, 09/21/2012 4
DoDD 3025.18, December 29, 2010
chain of command, of the details of the response. The NJOIC will inform appropriate DoD Components, including the geographic Combatant Command.

(2) An immediate response shall end when the necessity giving rise to the response is no longer present (e.g., when there are sufficient resources available from State, local, and other Federal agencies to respond adequately and that agency or department has initiated response activities) or when the initiating DoD official or a higher authority directs an end to the response. The DoD official directing a response under immediate response authority shall reassess whether there remains a necessity for the Department of Defense to respond under this authority as soon as practicable but, if immediate response activities have not yet ended, not later than 72 hours after the request for assistance was received.

(3) Support provided under immediate response authority should be provided on a cost- reimbursable basis, where appropriate or legally required, but will not be delayed or denied based on the inability or unwillingness of the requester to make a commitment to reimburse the Department of Defense.


immediate response without approval??//





i. Federal military commanders are provided EMERGENCY AUTHORITY under this Directive. Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law (e.g., chapter 15 of Reference (d)) or permitted under emergency authority, as described below (see DoDD 3025.12 (Reference (j)) and DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))). In these circumstances, those Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:

(1) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,

(2) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the Federal property or functions.


This one makes me cringe a bit.


the word civil disturbance gets used a lot too. idk what that means i just thought it weird when talking about military mobilization... sounds like something from the USSR.







l. Special event support to a qualifying entity shall be treated as DSCA.
m. All requests for DSCA mutual and automatic aid via the DoD Fire and Emergency Services programs shall be in accordance with Reference (g).
n. DSCA is a total force mission (see DoDD 1200.17 (Reference (ac))).
o. No DoD unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) will be used for DSCA operations, including support to Federal, State, local, and tribal government organizations, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense. Use of armed UAS for DSCA operations is not authorized. (See References (p), (q), (r), and (s))
p. Direct liaison between DoD Components and the States should occur only when time does not permit compliance with paragraph 13.a. in Enclosure 2 of this Directive. In each such instance, the Chief, National Guard Bureau, will be informed of the direct liaison.


define special event??

they also say using ARMED unmanned aerial vehicles isnt allowed, thats kinda reassuring.


I'm still picking through enclosure 2. it seems more the semantics of this whole thing. il post more if anything else jumps out.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: rockflier

Look. I never said they weren't I have the same document that you gave me already stored on my HDD for later use. I'm a veteran too and things like the OP concern me, but I'm not going to jump and get outraged over a forum topic that is drumming up blatant fear where there is none to be had. There is no proof in the OP that Obama's #1 enemy is veterans. Even your document doesn't highlight that veterans are Obama's number 1 enemy. They are just a group of people that the DHS wants to keep an eye on (which should be illegal). Like I said, there are things in these documents that I am concerned about, but this thread is blatant hyperbole.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
Here is a fun quote from the article…might kinda be fitting for the Presidential eating their words thread lol




President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”


Source



1. PURPOSE. This Directive:
a. Establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for DSCA, also referred to as civil support.

b.Incorporates and cancels DoD Directive (DoDD) 3025.1 and DoDD 3025.15 (References (a) and (b)).

c. Supplements the regulations (in DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))) required by section 375 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), (Reference (d)) regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.

d.Provides guidance for the execution and oversight of DSCA when requested by civil authorities or by qualifying entities
and approved by the appropriate DoD official, or as directed by the President, within the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States or any political subdivision thereof.

e. Authorizes immediate response authority for providing DSCA, when requested.

f. Authorizes emergency authority for the use of military force, under dire situations, as described in paragraph 4.i. above the signature of this Directive.

Section 4.i

i. Federal military commanders are provided EMERGENCY AUTHORITY under this Directive. Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law (e.g., chapter 15 of Reference (d)) or permitted under emergency authority, as described below (see DoDD 3025.12 (Reference (j)) and DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))). In these circumstances, those Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:

(1) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order;

or,

(2) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the Federal property or functions.


This destroys posse comitatus, make the POTUS the sole dictator concerning the use of the military within the US and failing the ability of the POTUS to sign the orders and change the law further, allows military commanders to temporarily operate within the US.

Big problem here! No oversight and there are rather crappy definitions as to the use of this kind of force/operation. It's all pretty loosey-goosey. So if one day protestors decide to start breaking crap on wall street and el-presidente determines that it could effect the US currency, which could be construed as a terrorist act, the military can be invoked to quell the situation by force with extreme prejudice. Tell me that isn't a fascist or totalitarian state.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mindseye1609

Thank you a bunch for this…I almost wanna say you should add this to the OP instead of the video or maybe edit the title so people don't discount it because the title said vets and nothing is in there about it. I do see your logic and why you said it that way…I just think you'll open up a larger audience to this if it wasn't worded as it is.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
whoa whoa whoa....



o. No DoD unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) will be used for DSCA operations, including support to Federal, State, local, and TRIBAL government organizations, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense. Use of armed UAS for DSCA operations is not authorized. (See References (p), (q), (r), and (s))


is this in reference to native americans? tribal warlords in afganistan? if the warlords why do they need to be included in this document?



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess I too kind of think the title is overboard. I take each thread at face value and evaluate it on the actual content and not the title.

Regardless of ranking in the list of "undesirables", the simple fact that you and I are listed is very troubling. No more than before, just troubling and worth watching.

take Care - Rock



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: mindseye1609

Thank you a bunch for this…I almost wanna say you should add this to the OP instead of the video or maybe edit the title so people don't discount it because the title said vets and nothing is in there about it. I do see your logic and why you said it that way…I just think you'll open up a larger audience to this if it wasn't worded as it is.


im not the OP or i would



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I've been saying all along that a lot of this escalation in police brutality seems to be directed toward veterans. I believe the government and their law enforcement lackeys fear the veterans in this country.

When the time comes, and it will come, if they want a fight, a fight is what we'll give them.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mindseye1609

I don't know why I thought that lol…I am paying attention to a lecture while posting and reading so that may be the problem.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: mindseye1609

I don't know why I thought that lol…I am paying attention to a lecture while posting and reading so that may be the problem.


"paying attention" hehe



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
All that come to mind is " this sound way too familiar, pre ww2 nazi germany come to mind"



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: caladonea

Don't forget a lot of vets got their pensions cut too.

Well I am also considered a domestic terrorist, because of my guns , ammo and that I have a six month plus food supply your only aloud to have less than a month.

At least I have not gotten a red dot yet on my mailbox.

edit on 4-6-2014 by nighthawk1954 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Just a reminder when looking at a government directive if it is an original document it will end with a .1 when updated it will become .12 then .13 etc. So Presidential directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” is the 17th update to a document from 1995. It was not created by Obama, nor was it updated by Obama, nor is it signed by Obama. It is a military directive and signed by the secdef. If you want to know what changed have been made all 18 versions can found online. You will not find anything exciting but, feel free to knock yourselves out. Now you may go back to your crazy talk.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join