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.

 

Document: Army Preparing To Use Lethal Force Against “Unarmed Civilians” During “Full Scale R

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: CRUSTY37

Info Wars has proven very unreliable on this website. Do your own search and you will see. Attacking other members is against T&Cs and not very mature. It is also not a rational defense of your position.

The armed forces have manuals for everything, EVERYTHING. Having read half-way thru the manual I find it unremarkable and certainly not worthy of the sensational headline that Info Wars gives to it.




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
When it comes to Army field manuals or publications you have to keep in mind they always supersede an earlier publication. The AJ alarmist headline "written April 2014" regarding ATP 3-19.33 preys on the fears that Ferguson was plotted in advance to push martial law on us. However ATP 3-19.33 is a rewrite of FM 3-19.15 Civil Disturbance Operations, written April 2005, which itself supersedes FM 19-15 Civil Disturbances, written November 1985, and that one superseded one written in 1975, and so on.

So please don't stoop to fearmongering that this was created in 2014. This particular Army field manual has been around for a long time.

edit on 18-8-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
shouldnt you be concerned it was written in the first place?!


no.

the Army is required to have a response prepared for every eventuality that is might ever have to be used in, from disaster relief to crowd control to war.

I would be concerned if the army did NOT have such procedures!!



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well, the army has always had that permission, but this article may just be a new clarification of it. If someone is jeopardising the safety of army officials or other citizens, they are involved in criminal activity and reasonable force, including killing the person, is allowed.

This has always been. It is not new. We do not attack the people who have been assigned to protect the peace.

Now, if one of the soldiers becomes a loose cannon, the other soldiers should restrain this person. That is always a possibility with anyone. The protesters that turn to rioting are loose cannons, but the mob mentality is understood. If someone pulls a gun out in a riot, the soldiers have a right to shoot that person.

I read a little on this a while back, just to get an idea of how far that the national guard can go. I think that was during Catrina.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
If the American people would protest like they did in Cairo or Kiev you would see the USA government being more aggressive and violent than the Egyptian or Ukrainian government crackdown ....

The US would claim that we have a democratic process to deal with government change but the 2-party circle jerk is nothing more than 2 private clubs ruling the USA through the illusion of voting and democracy ..... there is no hope and change when the game is rigged on both ends .....



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: CRUSTY37

Info Wars has proven very unreliable on this website. Do your own search and you will see. Attacking other members is against T&Cs and not very mature. It is also not a rational defense of your position.

The armed forces have manuals for everything, EVERYTHING. Having read half-way thru the manual I find it unremarkable and certainly not worthy of the sensational headline that Info Wars gives to it.
whats my position? I simply posted the latest copy of a military service manual that discuses tactics to be used on Americans in America during a civil disturbance. Your first comment was to discredit my thread before even looking at said manual just because infowars reported it first.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
When it comes to Army field manuals or publications you have to keep in mind they always supersede an earlier publication. The AJ alarmist headline "written April 2014" regarding ATP 3-19.33 preys on the fears that Ferguson was plotted in advance to push martial law on us. However ATP 3-19.33 is a rewrite of FM 3-19.15 Civil Disturbance Operations, written April 2005, which itself supersedes FM 19-15 Civil Disturbances, written November 1985, and that one superseded one written in 1975, and so on.

So please don't stoop to fearmongering that this was created in 2014. This particular Army field manual has been around for a long time.
I never said it was created in 2014. This updated copy was just released to the public 2 days ago, but this release and the topic it covers coupled with the Ferguson national guard roll out today is definitely worth discusion dont you think?
edit on 18-8-2014 by CRUSTY37 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CRUSTY37

Even when is from infowars I remember that inforwars has been every true to some issues.

I believe that the government is well prepared in case of an escalation, as for American troops in our streets I will put my money on more of a show of force than an actual engage on the civilian population, now what we should be very closely monitoring is the government use of private security forces that will have not problems using bullying tactics to deal with the "insurrection" I mean "protestors" Now I wonder if the government will start disarming the population, "occurs for their own good".



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CRUSTY37

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is unconstitutional for the US Military to do what is discussed in the OP, no?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: CRUSTY37
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is unconstitutional for the US Military to do what is discussed in the OP, no?


You are probably thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act - which is a law passed by Congress, not part of the constitution.

This act limits the Federal Govt using Federal troops to enforce STATE Laws.

the current situation is described in the wiki article on the Act - probably worth a read.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: fnpmitchreturns
If the American people would protest like they did in Cairo or Kiev you would see the USA government being more aggressive and violent than the Egyptian or Ukrainian government crackdown ....


Except of coruse for the minor problem with that "argument" that the US "people" do hold large protests on a regular basis and no such aggressive and violent reaction every happens from the Government.

apart from that small fact that they hardly ever are aggressive and violent yes - the government would certainly be aggressive and violent if that ever happened....




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I believe that Bush changed that in some extent.


George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the “War on Terror,” the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined “insurrection” or many other “conditions” he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus — habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial — in the event of an “insurrection.” With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters “insurgents” staging an “insurrection” is strengthened


www.chelseagreen.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Careful - you're not allowed to blame Bush for anything on here - it's all Obama's fault.....didn't you get the memo??




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: CRUSTY37

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is unconstitutional for the US Military to do what is discussed in the OP, no?
yes! If im not mistaken this document alone is treason!



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: CRUSTY37

Even when is from infowars I remember that inforwars has been every true to some issues.

I believe that the government is well prepared in case of an escalation, as for American troops in our streets I will put my money on more of a show of force than an actual engage on the civilian population, now what we should be very closely monitoring is the government use of private security forces that will have not problems using bullying tactics to deal with the "insurrection" I mean "protestors" Now I wonder if the government will start disarming the population, "occurs for their own good".

true, and what about the reports of foreign troops used in drills on US soil?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
yes! If im not mistaken this document alone is treason!

you are mistaken - have a look a couple of posts above your own.

and in regard to "reports of foreign troops" being used for "civil unrest" in the USA - I've seen many such here on ATS - all of them turn out to be bovine excrement - got any actual evidence otherwise?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: bbracken677

I believe that Bush changed that in some extent.


George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the “War on Terror,” the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined “insurrection” or many other “conditions” he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus — habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial — in the event of an “insurrection.” With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters “insurgents” staging an “insurrection” is strengthened


www.chelseagreen.com...



lets not forget this also;

Key to the functioning of this information exchange will be the collection of “captured records.” Section 1071(g)(1), defines a captured record as "a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

When read in conjunction with the provision of the AUMF that left the War on Terror open-ended and the prior NDAAs’ classification of the United States as a battleground in that unconstitutional war, and you’ve got a powerful combination that can knock out the entire Bill of Rights

www.thenewamerican.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CRUSTY37

The final authority for NG soldiers to use lethal force is issued by the Office of Military Affairs under the Governor of the State of Missouri. The US Army (National Guard Bureau) only issues guidance for the conduct of NG units and doesn't order the use of leathal force. Before the the 80 guardsmen go on duty they will be briefed on the scope of their assignment and any "rules of engagement." I would bet that they will not be carrying a full combat load of ammo tonight.


edit on 18-8-2014 by buddah6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
yes! If im not mistaken this document alone is treason!


you are mistaken - have a look a couple of posts above your own.

and in regard to "reports of foreign troops" being used for "civil unrest" in the USA - I've seen many such here on ATS - all of them turn out to be bovine excrement - got any actual evidence otherwise?

sure here you gowww.thedailysheeple.com...
edit on 18-8-2014 by CRUSTY37 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
yes! If im not mistaken this document alone is treason!


you are mistaken - have a look a couple of posts above your own.

and in regard to "reports of foreign troops" being used for "civil unrest" in the USA - I've seen many such here on ATS - all of them turn out to be bovine excrement - got any actual evidence otherwise?

well then, it looks as if my paranoia toward this subject is justified isnt it? So, to recap, we have troops legaly allowed to occupy America, a new version of a document telling said troops what to do and how to do it, Ferguson on fire and national guard showing up today? No biggie, I guess ill just go back to read the cutest puppy thread.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join