It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:55 PM
a reply to: CRUSTY37

If that wasn't on topic that I don't know what is. It's directly related to the website you posted a link to.

I guess it's too hard to believe he is a cointel pro agent or maybe you never considered it like I hadn't. Do some research and stay away from the fear monger.

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 11:35 PM

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
none taken, I was just trying to show how Obama gave Interpol higher authority over our own law inforcement. Why would that happen?

It didn't happen - you didn't bother to read what the amendment actually did.

Section 2(c) - allows the premises and property of international organisations to be immune from search
Section 3 allows duty free entry of baggage

Section 4 exempts international employees from US domestic taxation in some circumstances

Section 5 exempts the organisation from paying taxes or levies under the Social Security Act or under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or the Federal Unemployment Tax Act

Section 6 exempts them from paying property tax.

- source

there is nothing at all in that EO about granting Interpol any authority or powers over any Americans or over any US LEO - you should try understanding what it is you are writing some time.

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:35 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: marg6043

No offense, but that is a load of crap. I just did my own research to see if that was true, and I only chose links that were legit.. not some tinfoil hat owned websites.

The law stands as it has for years with a couple of exceptions:

Well when it comes to politics and what politicians do in their term actually they do a whole bunch of crap

Now as for the information, thanks for doing the research and find out that is different, you don't have to be pushy to prove a point, posting the right information is the best way to do and for that I thank you.

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:29 PM
a reply to: marg6043

Ok, I probably went a bit overboard with my reply. I just am severely tired and irritated with obviously biased stuff being presented as factual.

We have enough problems with disinformation, misinformation and outright lying to add to it by posting something that is so obviously biased it hurts my head.

It's not even that I am a Bush fan...if the next president is blaming everything on Obama I will find myself eventually jumping in to point out how ridicilous that is, or will be.

What ever happened to people, particularly presidents, accepting responsibility? I respect Harry Truman more and more as the years pass: "The Buck stops here!". He was da man!

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:16 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

I understand and know how you feel, sometimes I feel the same, you don't get to be in ATS for a long time without feeling the heat eventually.

Now because our discussion on the matter of how the Federal government can use their power to use "Lethal force against civilians" in our soil, well I found some interesting information from more reliable sources, I do apologize for no looking twice at what I posted before I take the fault

This a list of what I found, some information may have been posted already.

1878, United States enacted the Posse Comitatus Act.

More than 100 years since its enactment, the Posse Comitatus Act continues to guide everything the military does while operating in the homeland. “Basically, it means that you won’t have a posse of Department of Defense people going out and providing law enforcement,” Connors said. “That is not their role.”

Posse Comitatus does not limit the military’s role in military operations against external threats and in defense of the United States, Connors said. But it draws a clear line within U.S. borders, recognizing that law enforcement responsibility belongs to federal, state and local law enforcement, including the National Guard.

“This is important, because you want the military doing military operations,” Connors said. “It keeps defenders focused on defense, and security [experts] focused on security.”

Although initially written to prevent military forces from enforcing state laws, the Posse Comitatus Act has been extended by policy to prohibit direct military involvement in all law enforcement activity, Connors said.

But recognizing the military’s special capabilities, Congress has authorized specific exceptions in which military forces can be used domestically -- as long as they operate within strict compliance with the Constitution and U.S. laws, he said.

Now while we all know the role of the Posse Comitatus Act, Recently the role has been extended under the Obama administration to prohibit any military involvement in law enforcement activities, but Clearly it recognizes the capabilities to use military forces domestically.

We had troops in our soil before, yes, during Katrina, in 2005, we had 22,000 active duty soldiers and 50,000 National Guard troops were on the ground providing security, rescue and recovery duties.

We also have the insurrection act that was last invoke during the riots in 1992

The Insurrection Act lets the president call troops into federal action inside the United States whenever "unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages — or rebellion against the authority of the United States — make it impracticable to enforce the laws" in any state.

The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992 when it was requested by California Gov. Pete Wilson after the outbreak of race riots in Los Angeles. President George H.W. Bush dispatched about 4,000 soldiers and Marines

After reading this information I am kind of worry of how much power the Federal government can have an impose by Federal command on the states.

Perhaps having the Posse comitatus act will not be enough to deter the use of US troops in our soil when using the insurrection act, now as for deadly force that is another issue.

What you all thing about this.

Insurrection Act Law & Legal Definition

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:25 PM
NO! The topic is about an amry document and the possibility of American troops on our streets. Your trying to turn it into a Jones bashing session. The origional doc didn't even come from infowars.

Open your own thread for that, im sure you will get plenty of response. reply to: tompumped

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:31 PM
Thank you fir all of that. This is the kind of info i was looking for. Instead I got blasted for posting an infowars article.

So, it IS totally possible for the president to order troops on the ground in a civil unrest situation in America. Bush did it in LA.

reply to: marg6043

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:08 PM

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
So, it IS totally possible for the president to order troops on the ground in a civil unrest situation in America. Bush did it in LA.

no, it is not.

It is possible for het President to order troops on the ground in an INSURRECTION - not for "just" "civil unrest".

Why do you keep misrepresenting what is so clear??

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:12 PM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I believe that the line between calling a group of people protesting civil unrest and resulting in chaos and violence insurrection, it gets blurred, we have also the patriot act that can define and redefine and rename (yes I am been sarcastic) the meaning of civil unrest and insurgency.

We are living very strange days where presidents are governing more with executive decisions than congress approval.

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:55 PM
a reply to: marg6043
Maybe sometimes it does - however that is for the courts to address - there is clear guidance in the act as to what constitutes insurrection, as quoted above.

Generally I find it is only scaremongers who ignore what is actually written - if you look at the last few claims you'll see that the claims bear no resemblance to reality - it is classic CT disinfo - find a scary title, make a claim about a document or law, and then hope nobody will actually check.

Well that's not good enough IMO - these people accuse the Govt of disinfo, lies, etc...and then they do exactly the same themselves??

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in