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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Activist's hacked Twitter account yields an interesting DM (direct message) about martial law!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:36 PM

originally posted by: opethPA
So let me see if I get this right..hacked Twitter accounts, with alleged references to the much talked about and impossible to implement national martial law just to keep Obama in office..

Just why would a President who has served his term want to stay in the job?

When he left he would be his own man, spend a lot more time with his family, earn more money etc.

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: hellobruce

With Obama's current state of mind, anything is possible.

The venom of jealousy is powerful.

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:05 PM
a reply to: defiythelie

Also if martial law went into effect it does not matter who is in the white house becuase martial law is handing all governmental powers over to the military.

and just who do you suppose is the the commander and chief of the military. hint the abbreviation for his office is POTUS.

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:11 PM
a reply to: MrSpad
I love your posts, you know your stuff!

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:52 PM

originally posted by: lindalinda
a reply to: BlueAjah

The messages were hacked. The person who found them tweeted them to expose them.

Interestingly, the top story on ATS right now is about a "secret memo" stating that Obama supports ISIS.

these aren't hacked messages, merely screengrabs which, can be easily manipulated.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Under martial law the President hands over his power to a top ranking General. Under martial law all governmental powers go to the military. Not even the President would have power.

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: defiythelie

sorry your wrong,under martial law generals still have to answer to the POTUS. the U.S Military is and will always be under the control of a civilian.

Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution.

Congress has never declared martial law. However, at the outset of the Civil War, in July 1861, Congress ratified most of the martial law measures declared by President Abraham Lincoln. Its martial law declaration gave the Union military forces the authority to arrest persons and conduct trials. However, Congress initially refused to ratify Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This refusal created friction between Congress and the president and raised the question of whether unilateral suspension of the writ under martial law was within the president's power. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue and ruled in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861) (No. 487), that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. After Congress approved Lincoln's suspension of the writ in 1863, Union forces were authorized to arrest and detain Confederate soldiers and sympathizers, but only until they could be tried by a court of law.
The martial law declared by Lincoln during the Civil War spawned another legal challenge, this one to the military courts: ex parte milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L. Ed. 281 (1866). Lamdin Milligan, a civilian resident of Indiana, was arrested on October 5, 1864, by the Union military forces. Milligan was charged with five offenses: conspiring against the United States, affording Aid and Comfort to rebels, inciting insurrection, engaging in disloyal practices, and violating the laws of war. Milligan was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to prison by a military court.

Although the habeas corpus petition had been suspended, the Supreme Court accepted Milligan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court held that neither the president nor Congress could give federal military forces the power to try a civilian who lived in a state that had federal courts. Milligan firmly established the right of the U.S. Supreme Court to review the propriety of martial law declarations.
Martial Law

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces.[53][54] U.S. ranks have their roots in British military traditions, with the President possessing ultimate authority, but no "rank", maintaining a civilian status. As with European monarchies, the position of the American president as the nominal head of the armed forces is deeply rooted in traditions going back centuries.

better bone up on your knowledge and deny your ignorance.

edit on 16-6-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

ETA: here is the oath of enlistment for enlisted and officers, notice that the oaths are different and say specific things.

Enlisted Oath of Enlistment
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Oath of Commissioned Officers
Oath of Commissioned Officers Download Poster Oath of Commissioned Officers Download PDF I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

notice that for enlisted it says the Constitution and President.
for officers it says the Constitution.

now you can't take a oath ( well i guess you could) to defend the Constitution and not follow the clause that the President is the Commander and Chief.
and by the way the old oath for Officers did include the President.
here is the reason why.

The difference between Oath of Office, Oath of Enlistment

edit on 16-6-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:38 AM

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: MrSpad

are troops from allied countries allowed to be deployed in the United States
if martial law is enacted ?

I wondered about this. I was thinking U.N. troops.

Either way, storm's a'comin.....

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 08:41 PM
The day I can finally say "I told you so" is fast approaching.

I do not look forward to it...

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 10:39 PM

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Although we live in scary times, and so many in our government are corrupt or just plain evil, somehow this does not make sense.

If there were something that huge going on, why would anyone be tweeting about it?

A month ago, I posted the above.
So much has happened in the past month, that I am rethinking my previous opinion.
Now, this OP worries me a bit.

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 10:48 PM
Recent developments since this OP:

In addition to the obvious riots, police shootings, demonstrations, other countries sending out travel notices warning travelers to avoid big cities in the US, there is this:

Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson arrested by Baton Rouge police

So, DeRay Mckesson, the subject of the hack that supposedly revealed information regarding the plot described in the OP, is arrested. Did he know too much? Was it a warning to him to stay on point and not talk too much? Was McKesson starting to get cold feet?

I have to admit that the recent civil unrest has seemed very "off" to me. Even those police shootings, and the video that woman took in the car of her boyfriend being shot, just seemed "off".

I usually try to be sensible about these things, which is what led me to disregard this OP originally, but... I am getting a little worried now.

posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 10:56 PM
Another thing that caught my attention is the Snopes reply to this issue.
Now, I always look at Snopes with a critical eye. Sometimes they have a logical response, sometimes it makes no sense, and sometimes it at least provides additional information for further research.

Their reply to this issue actually gives me the creeps.
They say it is false.
Their reasoning (summed up):
1. The hacked tweets were fabricated. - possibly, I thought surely so before recent events. But now they seem eerily prophetic.
2. The President or Congress could not impose martial law "outside an actual war zone". Well, our country is going to become a war zone if things continue as they are.
3. Mckesson said it was false - why would we take his word for it?
4. "In a sense. the claims were similar to "cold readings" done by psychics, in that the claim's assertions were interpreted as "hits" when in fact the details were entirely off-base." - Well, "summer of chaos" does not seem so off-base at the moment.

If that was all they could come up with, I'm not sure that is enough.


posted on Jul, 14 2016 @ 11:06 PM
Yesterday, McKesson and other civil rights leaders were invited to the White House to meet with Obama.

The meeting included DeRay Mckesson and other civil rights activists and law enforcement.
I guess we will see what comes of this meeting. If peace comes from it, perhaps this will disprove this topic.
If things get worse... the plot thickens, because McKesson and the others are certainly getting personal and cozy with Obama.

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 01:26 AM

originally posted by: xuenchen
The venom of jealousy is powerful.

It certainly is, one just has to read some posters here!

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:52 AM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Is this the same plausibility mindset that you use with CERN opening dimesional portals?

And yet nobody is ramping up for you really believe the bs you post, because none of it has anything to back the claim...which isn't surprising.

And who is this boss of the US president and exactly what agenda would that be?

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in