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.

 

Did Obama just lay out the rules of engagement for US military vs Civilans

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The law trumps an executive order.

Laws are made to be broken.




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


Since the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of federal military against US citizens I would say no. It would seem to address concerns about civilians affected by military actions overseas.

Now, if the Posse Comitatus act were to be repealed, that would be a different matter. But the President does not have the power to do that.


That is not entirely accurate.

The Posse Comitatus act does not prohibit the use of the military in general against US citizens. It applies only and specifically to the US Army and the US Air Force.

That means that the Posse Comitatus act does not apply to the US Navy and to the US Marine Corps, and will not apply to any future branch of the military.

So if "they" decided that it would be pretty neat to use military personnel against US citizens, they would have no need to repeal the act or to create some cleverly worded executive order. At least not to get around the act in question.

I think I would go with the Homeland Protection Branch of the military. That would be a good can't-argue-with-that name.



edit on 12-7-2016 by DupontDeux because: brain fart



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   


As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.


The operative word here is "proportionality" - 'Properly related in size, degree, or quantity.'

And who gets to decide what the proper quantity is?



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

No, it isn't Constitutional, and yes, it could include operations in the country. The wording does NOT state only in other countries. Since troops have been to training exercises for "unspecified civil situations", along with foreign troops, this is a real concern. Since this guy doesn't care about the law, there is no reason to think he would in this case.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

according to the American Intelligence website 3 days ago the green light was given for UN troops to operate on US soil,it may not be US military



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

OR IS happening ...



posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Who would follow the current order?
THEM or us?
I BET I know!



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

according to the American Intelligence website 3 days ago the green light was given for UN troops to operate on US soil,it may not be US military


I can believe it. UN stuff has been spotted n the SE already.

Plans are in play.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join