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: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aazadan

I'd need to see a source on that because I hadn't heard that. As far as I know, if you're 60 or going to hit 60 before a recall goes through or a deployment begins, you're not going anywhere.


That's what I was saying, they wouldn't bring back officers over 60. The change to this EO removes that. They still might not do it, but there's no longer a policy saying they can't. Which does open things up to either bringing back specific generals, or perhaps a retiring doctor or something where as they couldn't before.

Retirement age for the military is not the same for a civilian . Technically you could retire at 40 . All that is required is to spend 20 years active duty.
I think the limit is 52 . Just checked the paperwork . It is 52 . In some military jobs you sign for 4 active and are placed on inactive until age 52 . And at any time in-between you have to pass that ridiculous PT and Basic.
I think that is where you are getting confused...

edit on 10/20/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/20/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


You're welcome, citizen.

I should have said thank you, civil servant. Taxes pay your salary, you're supposed to defend the people, not the Executive Branch.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Say whatever makes you feel good, citizen. I know it makes you feel better.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Aazadan

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


As far as shutting me up... that'd be easy. Two laps around the platoon with
even a 16 overhead would poptart my heart out like a four-banger toaster.

No worries, really : I got eligible for the draft a month before the Tet. They'll
probably take me back right after somebody evaporates Chesapeake Bay.


We can rock the militia though



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You're wrong on all three counts. If you follow the military developments lately, the Air Force is facing a major pilot shortage. They're currently looking at several hundred pilots, which is rapidly going to reach over 1,000. They will need 1500 to cover the current shortage, and another 500 to cover the shortage coming in the next year. Under the existing law, the military can only recall 25 officers. The new law removes that cap, and will allow the Air Force to recall the pilots they need and reactivate them.


WASHINGTON — President Trump signed an executive order Friday allowing the Air Force to recall as many as 1,000 retired pilots to active duty to address a shortage in combat fliers, the White House and Pentagon announced.

By law, only 25 retired officers can be brought back to serve in any one branch. Trump's order removes those caps by expanding a state of national emergency declared by President George W. Bush after 9/11, signaling what could be a significant escalation in the 16-year-old global war on terror.

"We anticipate that the Secretary of Defense will delegate the authority to the Secretary of the Air Force to recall up to 1,000 retired pilots for up to three years," Navy Cdr. Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement.

But the executive order itself is not specific to the Air Force, and could conceivably be used in the future to call up more officers and in other branches.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shamrock6


You're welcome, citizen.

I should have said thank you, civil servant. Taxes pay your salary, you're supposed to defend the people, not the Executive Branch.


Uh. NO . Just NO.
The only thing you are sworn to protect is the Constitution of the United States of America.
The country can rebuild if that document , and all it contains , survives
By the words of that Constitution the military would defend the people and this country at all costs.
The military owes no allegiance to any person in government . Even the Commander in Chief can be relieved of that office by the military if deemed necessary and has violated the principles of the Constitution.
Dont know how it works where you are at , though.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog


The only thing you are sworn to protect is the Constitution of the United States of America.

The constitution and the bill of rights.

Defending the people, not the State.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It was an already existing EO but okay modified if you will but not really a change as it was already a option for the military to recall to active duty past members. It was known as Stop Loss at one time and many got caught up in it during the Iraqi campaign. I don't know what all changes the President made to the existing EO as I was mobile earlier and couldn't look it up, I will take the time to look now but I promise you it wasn't signed for "petty" reasons nor to keep service members speaking out, that is just plain false and misleading.

Here it is, the very small paragraph added to the already existing EO.

www.whitehouse.gov...


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."

edit on 10/20/2017 by DJMSN because: addition



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

They removed the cap. Under previous rules, they could recall 25 officers a year. The Air Force needs far more than 25 pilots to make up their shortage, so the new EO removes that cap, so they can recall a large number of pilots to fill the gap.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yep, I mentioned that in a followup post. It seems to have been written due to the pilot issue.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gothmog


The only thing you are sworn to protect is the Constitution of the United States of America.

The constitution and the bill of rights.

Defending the people, not the State.

You almost got it..



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Could they also be worried about an NK attack and not enough enlisted here to help put things back together? In addition to the pilot thing?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Lilroanie

The far larger worry is the pilot shortage. It got so bad on the UAV side that they had to start allowing enlisted pilots to operate the aircraft. That's not really an option on the manned aircraft side though, so they're going to have to recall pilots.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aazadan

It may also have something to do with being a quick and simple way to bring back a number of the high ranking officers purged from the services under Obama.


That's exactly what I was thinking. Some really good people, very selectively, were purged.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Fools

What a coincidence, so am I.


Then the argument should be fun to watch.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
It's Trump.

When he RECALLS high ranking officers who've gone on record (there have been many) against him ...

He'll just say:

"They knew what they signed up for..."



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
It's Trump.

When he RECALLS high ranking officers who've gone on record (there have been many) against him ...

He'll just say:

"They knew what they signed up for..."


Guess you just skimmed over Zaphod's comments.

But yea... Something something Trump! RAMBLE RAMBLE!!

For the record, I don't really care for him. But this EO has been around for a while. Of course you were probably just as critical towards Obama when he kept it.... And bombed four more countries than Bush.... And added to the patriot act.... And went after more journalists with the espionage act than any other administration combined.

They all suck.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey enlisted pilots worked before...



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

They did, but it would be harder now.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Fools

What a coincidence, so am I.


Then the argument should be fun to watch.


Well, in this case I went too deep down the rabbit hole of people posting the story. Not to say I don't think Trumps capable of doing those things, it seems the EO was amended mainly for the USAF to keep pilots, which has been a real issue for years now. And ultimately probably a good thing to do.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join