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.

 

Mueller working directly FOR Trump....EO13223 Ammendment...

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Assumptions was my word. What do you think I'm here for? Just to parrot what you say? You need to get over yourself.




posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ohhhh I'm wounded.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Assumptions was my word. What do you think I'm here for? Just to parrot what you say? You need to get over yourself.


Then respond to your own comments if you are responding to your own words.

Leave me out of your cray.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You still have nothing but opinion. Attaching the E.O. and the amendment to it does not support anything in your theory it just wasted band width and page space.
You still only have an opinion on the meaning of the amendment to the order because it sure doesn't lay out in reality the way it does on your computer screen.
Your opinion on what it means isn't the end all and be all that you seem to think it is.

This theory is a fairy tale to get the kiddies through the cold dark night that is approaching this admin.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GD21D

Well I don't. I'm on your side. Lol
You must be new.
I'm the democrat welcome mat every conservative on the site wipes their feet on.

But I'm tough and I'm not easily led astray and they really hate that they can't send me packing.


(post by MotherMayEye removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Then why do you think the EO was amended?

And remember to cite your sources for the basis of your opinion.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Haha.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sillyolme

Then why do you think the EO was amended?

And remember to cite your sources for the basis of your opinion.


It appears it was amended to allow the Secretaries of the branches of the Military to recall troops or delay retirements.

As I had seen is stated elsewhere, it's a "mini-draft" of sorts.

Mueller has nothing to do with it and I'm not sure where this little theory came from. Doesn't make much sense.
edit on 21-11-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


It appears it was amended to allow the Secretaries of the branches of the Military to recall troops or delay retirements.

As I had seen is stated elsewhere, it's a "mini-draft" of sorts.


From my understanding, the original EO does that. The amendment added the authority of, "sections 688 and 690 of title 10," to those same secretaries to the existing EO. The only thing pertinent I can find in those statutes are where it discusses the extension of the time that a reactivated member can be "drafted," otherwise the time limit of 24 months would hold.

 



originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Haha.


In other words, you got nothing.
edit on 21-11-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


It appears it was amended to allow the Secretaries of the branches of the Military to recall troops or delay retirements.

As I had seen is stated elsewhere, it's a "mini-draft" of sorts.


From my understanding, the original EO does that. The amendment added the authority of, "sections 688 and 690 of title 10," to those same secretaries to the existing EO. The only thing pertinent I can find in those statutes are where it discusses the extension of the time that a reactivated member can be "drafted," otherwise the time limit of 24 months would hold.

 



originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Haha.


In other words, you got nothing.


I believe it was specifically added by this amendment in section 1.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Why would the executive order be amended to say something it already says?

Here is the original 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.


This says that former service members can be reactivated, "for not more than 24 consecutive months," so there was no need to amend the EO to say that former service members can be reactivated.

I admit I may be wrong, legalese is a dense language and not the easiest to comprehend, but as near as I can tell the newly added sections don't do anything other than give the ability for the 24 month time limit to be extended.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Why would the executive order be amended to say something it already says?


Here is what the amendment says:



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."


This EO extends the authorities layed-out in sections 688 and 690 to the secretaries of the military branches. If it was already stated in the original EO, there would not have been a need to amend it.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


This EO extends the authorities layed-out in sections 688 and 690 to the secretaries of the military branches. If it was already stated in the original EO, there would not have been a need to amend it.


And here are those sections:


10 U.S. Code § 688 - Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties

(a)Authority.—
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member described in subsection (b) may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time.
(b)Covered Members.—Except as provided in subsection (d), subsection (a) applies to the following members of the armed forces:
(1) A retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.
(2) A member of the Retired Reserve who was retired under section 1293, 3911, 3914, 6323, 8911, or 8914 of this title.
(3) A member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(c)Duties of Member Ordered to Active Duty.—
The Secretary concerned may, to the extent consistent with other provisions of law, assign a member ordered to active duty under this section to such duties as the Secretary considers necessary in the interests of national defense.
(d)Exclusion of Officers Retired on Selective Early Retirement Basis.—The following officers may not be ordered to active duty under this section:
(1) An officer who retired under section 638 of this title.
(2) An officer who—
(A) after having been notified that the officer was to be considered for early retirement under section 638 of this title by a board convened under section 611(b) of this title and before being considered by that board, requested retirement under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title; and
(B) was retired pursuant to that request.
(e)Limitation of Period of Recall Service.—
(1) A member ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection for more than 12 months within the 24 months following the first day of the active duty to which ordered under that subsection.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to the following officers:
(A) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(B) A health care professional (as characterized by the Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care professional for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(C) An officer assigned to duty with the American Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(D) An officer who is assigned to duty as a defense attaché or service attaché for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(f)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—
Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President.


And


10 U.S. Code § 690 - Retired members ordered to active duty: limitation on number
(a)General and Flag Officers.—
Not more than 15 retired general officers of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, and not more than 15 retired flag officers of the Navy, may be on active duty at any one time. For the purposes of this subsection a retired officer ordered to active duty for a period of 60 days or less is not counted.
(b)Limitation by Service.—
(1) Not more than 25 officers of any one armed force may be serving on active duty concurrently pursuant to orders to active duty issued under section 688 of this title.
(2) In the administration of paragraph (1), the following officers shall not be counted:
(A) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(B) A health care professional (as characterized by the Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care professional for the period of the active duty to which ordered.
(C) Any officer assigned to duty with the American Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(D) Any member of the Retiree Council of the Army, Navy, or Air Force for the period on active duty to attend the annual meeting of the Retiree Council.
(E) An officer who is assigned to duty as a defense attaché or service attaché for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(c)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—
Subsection (a) does not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President after November 30, 1980. Subsection (b) does not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President.


Statue 688 seems to say that, a reactivate member "may not serve on active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection for more than 12 months within the 24 months," while statue 690 seems to give a limit on the number of officers from each branch that can be reactivated.

Both of these statues have the caveat at the end stating that these limits do not apply during times of War or National Emergency.

Other than the Korean War, we would not be considered to be in a "period of war," nor do we seem to be under a declaration of national emergency and so there is no reason to add the amendment in question.

I suppose the next logical question would be, could the president declare a national emergency in secret?



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


This EO extends the authorities layed-out in sections 688 and 690 to the secretaries of the military branches. If it was already stated in the original EO, there would not have been a need to amend it.


And here are those sections:


10 U.S. Code § 688 - Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties

(a)Authority.—
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member described in subsection (b) may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time.
(b)Covered Members.—Except as provided in subsection (d), subsection (a) applies to the following members of the armed forces:
(1) A retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.
(2) A member of the Retired Reserve who was retired under section 1293, 3911, 3914, 6323, 8911, or 8914 of this title.
(3) A member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(c)Duties of Member Ordered to Active Duty.—
The Secretary concerned may, to the extent consistent with other provisions of law, assign a member ordered to active duty under this section to such duties as the Secretary considers necessary in the interests of national defense.
(d)Exclusion of Officers Retired on Selective Early Retirement Basis.—The following officers may not be ordered to active duty under this section:
(1) An officer who retired under section 638 of this title.
(2) An officer who—
(A) after having been notified that the officer was to be considered for early retirement under section 638 of this title by a board convened under section 611(b) of this title and before being considered by that board, requested retirement under section 3911, 6323, or 8911 of this title; and
(B) was retired pursuant to that request.
(e)Limitation of Period of Recall Service.—
(1) A member ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection for more than 12 months within the 24 months following the first day of the active duty to which ordered under that subsection.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to the following officers:
(A) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(B) A health care professional (as characterized by the Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care professional for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(C) An officer assigned to duty with the American Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(D) An officer who is assigned to duty as a defense attaché or service attaché for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(f)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—
Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President.


And


10 U.S. Code § 690 - Retired members ordered to active duty: limitation on number
(a)General and Flag Officers.—
Not more than 15 retired general officers of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, and not more than 15 retired flag officers of the Navy, may be on active duty at any one time. For the purposes of this subsection a retired officer ordered to active duty for a period of 60 days or less is not counted.
(b)Limitation by Service.—
(1) Not more than 25 officers of any one armed force may be serving on active duty concurrently pursuant to orders to active duty issued under section 688 of this title.
(2) In the administration of paragraph (1), the following officers shall not be counted:
(A) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(B) A health care professional (as characterized by the Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care professional for the period of the active duty to which ordered.
(C) Any officer assigned to duty with the American Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(D) Any member of the Retiree Council of the Army, Navy, or Air Force for the period on active duty to attend the annual meeting of the Retiree Council.
(E) An officer who is assigned to duty as a defense attaché or service attaché for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(c)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—
Subsection (a) does not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President after November 30, 1980. Subsection (b) does not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President.


Statue 688 seems to say that, a reactivate member "may not serve on active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection for more than 12 months within the 24 months," while statue 690 seems to give a limit on the number of officers from each branch that can be reactivated.

Both of these statues have the caveat at the end stating that these limits do not apply during times of War or National Emergency.

Other than the Korean War, we would not be considered to be in a "period of war," nor do we seem to be under a declaration of national emergency and so there is no reason to add the amendment in question.

I suppose the next logical question would be, could the president declare a national emergency in secret?


Ok. Again, this EO amendment only allows those powers to be extended to the head of the DoD and secretaries of the branches of the military.

It has nothing to do with Mueller.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
it seems desperate and a little delusional to keep trying so hard to figure out some way mueller is in cahoots with trump when he's gathering the most damning info possible about the man and his activities.


It's just SAD and DESPERATE and DELUSIONAL at this point.

Mental illness has infected the "Trump train".

SMH. Thank GOD these posts are preserved for history...



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Nobody likes to be wrong. But when someone backs a theory so ridiculous it speaks of their grief in accepting the reality of the situation. It is sad but it's also a conscious choice so....



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


It has nothing to do with Mueller.


When did I ever say it did?



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The Air Force has a pilot shortage crisis. They're something like 1,000 pilots short and it's getting worse. Under previous rules, they could recall members to active duty, but were limited in the number they could recall, to something like 30 a year. By changing the rules through an EO, the number that can be recalled was increased to 1,000.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


It has nothing to do with Mueller.


When did I ever say it did?


That is the topic of the OP.




top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join