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.

 

Presidential Executive Order Amending EO 13223

page: 1
36
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
www.whitehouse.gov...

This Amendment effectively allows Trump to recall any former member of the military to active duty at any time, for any reason. Even if they've been discharged or retired, they can be brought back.

There's a few reasons this could be happening.
1. Trump is planning a big war soon, that's going to have a lot of casualties such as Korea. This would let us boost our fighting force without resorting to the draft, or worse used in conjunction with a draft.

2. It's a "just incase" move.

3. This is the one I really want to put forward because I think Trump is this pathetic and petty. By reactivating former military members, but giving them no orders, he could silence them due to UCMJ rules on speaking out against the government. McCain in particular has been pissing Trump off lately. In theory Trump could use this to force McCain out of the Senate, and then silence him from ever speaking out against Trump. The same could be done to any other legislator. Such a move would effectively prevent any ex military member from ever returning to service. Would he do that?

Thoughts? I especially want to hear vets thoughts on the idea that Trump might reactivate them, just to prevent them from protesting.



+63 more 
posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It happened to me after Nine-Eleven.



I swore an oath.

If they need an old, fat, grey-haired (not all bald) old man to work, then I work.


I did take my oath seriously, and if my spot takes the place of my son(s) or some one else's, then all the better.

I'm old.

I've lived my life.

I'll take a bullet.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I think the reason for doing this should be looked into. However, if you think Trump activating a former service member to silence that person is a tool he might use and, more importantly, he thought it would work in today's world, you're naive.

That story would be blasted all over the world!



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
I think the reason for doing this should be looked into. However, if you think Trump activating a former service member to silence that person is a tool he might use and, more importantly, he thought it would work in today's world, you're naive.

That story would be blasted all over the world!



I think it would work. It seems legal enough. It's not moral/ethical but Trump doesn't have those. I wouldn't put it past him for a second to try it.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

What is it after your time is up? I think it's 8 years anyway. I am way past that - but I don't think this is for a "big war" as much as it is to send a message. And that is if the information you are showing here is actually accurate.

Let's also try to keep in mind that this is amendment to an executive order already in effect:

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

So let's try to focus on the changes between the original and the new. I am looking and will edit when done.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Great way to SILENCE retired generals and vets who are critical of Trump.

Active duty can't be critical of their commander in chief.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
OLD SECTION 1:

Section 1. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, the authority under title 10, United States Code, to order any unit, and any member of the Ready Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense. The term "Secretary concerned" is defined in section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code, to mean the Secretary of the Army with respect to the Army; the Secretary of the Navy with respect to the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to the Air Force; and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.

New Section 1:
Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 13223. Section 1 of Executive Order 13223 is amended by adding at the end: "The authorities available for use during a national emergency under sections 688 and 690 of title 10, United States Code, are also invoked and made available, according to their terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense."



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Old section 2:
To allow for the orderly administration of personnel within the armed forces, the following authorities vested in the President are hereby invoked to the full extent provided by the terms thereof: section 527 of title 10, United States Code, to suspend the operation of sections 523, 525, and 526 of that title, regarding officer and warrant officer strength and distribution; and sections 123, 123a, and 12006 of title 10, United States Code, to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, involuntary retirement, and separation of commissioned officers; end strength limitations; and Reserve component officer strength limitations.

New section 2:
General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



Not sure about section 3 - 9 as it seems they either will not change or will be deleted..


+24 more 
posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland


Active duty can't be critical of their commander in chief.


That's a damned lie.

I was very critical of Obama.

I was very critical of Clinton.

I was very critical of Bush.

OUT OF UNIFORM




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

It happened to me after Nine-Eleven.



I swore an oath.

If they need an old, fat, grey-haired (not all bald) old man to work, then I work.


I did take my oath seriously, and if my spot takes the place of my son(s) or some one else's, then all the better.

I'm old.

I've lived my life.

I'll take a bullet.



If I was wearing a hat right now I would tip it your way......

RA



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

This is nothing new....I believe they have always been able to do this.
edit on 20-10-2017 by RazorV66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

It added "national emergency" and we've been hearing of the "911-type threats." Purely speculating since we don't know why for sure at this point - but perhaps the fear is that the threat will transpire and potentially, leave us vulnerable with our attention diverted. So maybe this addition is as much a message to the "outside" that our forces / attention won't be diverted or our military position weakened in the case of a national emergency?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

I don't think any of you read this, you assume the OP is correct possibly. What it looks like to me - by the actual wording - is that the order is that the defense department cannot invoke this executive order to hamstring the federal budget office with demands while invoking this order.

And rightly so, if you don't think there isn't any corrupt monkey business in the military when it comes to budgets, then you are a living under a rock.

Catch 22 anyone?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Have you maybe thought he wants to recall more men in times of national emergency NOT including war? Such as disaster relief?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: nicevillegrl
a reply to: Fools

It added "national emergency" and we've been hearing of the "911-type threats." Purely speculating since we don't know why for sure at this point - but perhaps the fear is that the threat will transpire and potentially, leave us vulnerable with our attention diverted. So maybe this addition is as much a message to the "outside" that our forces / attention won't be diverted or our military position weakened in the case of a national emergency?


I am pretty sure that is already a law given that it is a US code, he just added it to the preceding so as to make sure there was no question.

Believe me, if things ever get bad enough, that would happen under any president. I remember being told so when I signed up and that was back in 1987.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Yes, they have. I have had to update/confirm my contact information twice since retiring. Now that I’m fast approaching 60 and have 3 stents in my heart, doubt they’re that interested in me...though if called, I wouldn’t bat an eye (and would probably enjoy the influx of income!).



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


This Amendment effectively allows Trump to recall any former member of the military to active duty at any time, for any reason. Even if they've been discharged or retired, they can be brought back.

There's a few reasons this could be happening.
1. Trump is planning a big war soon, that's going to have a lot of casualties such as Korea. This would let us boost our fighting force without resorting to the draft, or worse used in conjunction with a draft.

They are running out of volunteers. Good, maybe people are beginning to see the current endless war cycle for what it is;

War making for profit. Same thing happened during the Vietnam War.

It costs considerably to train fresh recruits, still not guaranteeing they will become 'combat tested veterans'.

Those need no training, just notice.


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan



First off it is a standing Executive Order meaning he simp'y renewed it. Second you must not be in the military since you don't know anything the UCMJ; you can disagree with government, you can protest, whatever you want to do or say as long as you dont do it in uniform so stop adding to the fake news with more partisan tripe.

I know GW signed this one which means Obama did too. You sign a contract and agree to 8 years of service, 4 of which are active and 4 in the ready reserve. If they need your MOS they will reactivate you. It has nothing to do with Trump being petty, that is just you and comes from losing an election.


I have a fair amount of time in uniform and a solid majority support the President with a number of detractors as well but ALL support the CIC



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Aazadan

This nothing new....I believe they have always been able to do this.


When I got out I had to register for the draft...........I thought that was kinda weird. But hey I registered.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Thank you for clarifying AND thank you for your service.




top topics



 
36
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join