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.

 

US Preparing Domestic Clampdown

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
DV... What about their commission oath? What about the Constitution? Wouldn't that have any bearing? If not on enlisted how about officers? Wouldn't they see it for what it is?


DO you really think GWB gives a rat's as* about the constitution?? Heh. A soldiers job is to follow orders. Period. Sounds ominous if true..

J.




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
They have a U.S Army Field Manual that details a lot of this.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL (FM 3-19.40)

I find chapter 5 and 6 particularly disturbing.

atiam.train.army.mil...

www.globalsecurity.org...

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:
ERIC K. SHINSEKI
General, United States Army
Chief of Staff
Joel B Hudson
Administrative Assistant to the
Secretary of the Army 0120505

[edit on 19-7-2007 by METACOMET]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Lightseeker has done this podcast which offers up a few ideas on this topic.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
And no one could buy or sell without the mark. (sounds awfully scary and familiar)


SCREENING AND DOCUMENTING THE POPULATION

Screening and documentation include following:

· Systematic identification and registration.

· Issuance of individual identification cards containing-

A unique number.

Picture of individual.

Personal identification data.

Fingerprints.

An official stamp (use different colors for each administration region).



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
remember, much of the US force in Iraq is not consisted of US Military forces, much of it is a contract handed out to Black Water. A military company.

You can apply for themselves if you want, but I wouldn't. I don't care what you pay me, no paycheck is worth getting shot at.


It makes me wonder. Perhaps the reason that the troops haven't been brought home is that many of them are currently being retrained to deal with the "looming domestic crisis" they are being told will happen. Perhaps the whole reason for the Iraq war was to set up a huge private base there to retrain our soldiers, a place on foreign soil where they wouldn't be privy to the truth that we discuss here. It's possible.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
They have a U.S Army Field Manual that details a lot of this.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL (FM 3-19.40)

I find chapter 5 and 6 particularly disturbing.

atiam.train.army.mil...

www.globalsecurity.org...

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:
ERIC K. SHINSEKI
General, United States Army
Chief of Staff
Joel B Hudson
Administrative Assistant to the
Secretary of the Army 0120505

[edit on 19-7-2007 by METACOMET]


The layout of the text in that manual is exactly the same as the document mentioned by the OP.

Take a look at part of the text from the manual you just mentioned. It is structured exactly the same way, with bullet points and all (the bullet points don't show up in here though, so see the last poster's links)


EDUCATION
5-59. Encourage and support an active, intellectual education program for CIs. Coordinate adequate facilities and instruction material through local agencies. Consider the following when developing an education program:

Levels of education throughout the CI population.

Basic courses of education, including—

Reading.

Writing.

Geography.

Mathematics.

Language.



This one sounds like it could be a true document. If so, we are all screwed. We better find a way to obtain heavy artillery for personal use, quick!

[edit on 7/19/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I'd probably agree that this particular setup is a hoax: I've noted a number of misspellings & such scattered throughout the text, BUT...

If the Government wanted to maintain deniability for something they're doing for real, they just may intentionally insert obvious flaws so that they can not only "prove" that it's fake, but a laughable fake at that, BUT...

So far the only things that the Bush Administration has been denying is their accountability to the crimes they've been commiting all along.

Yeah, it sounds like the circular logic of a real paranoid, but it works for me...


[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Hmm.....this is very disturbing. Like others said, this document may be the harbinger of what we're soon to experiance. But yes, i dont really see any sort of "uprisings" here in the US much other than expressing their beleifs towards the current US Administration. But i wonder what the Govt thinks will trigger such an insurgency. Sure Iraq is a big and divided issue, but i dont think that its enough to create a home-grown insurgency. I think that the Govt. probably knows what is going to trigger such an uprising, now that would be pretty suspicious...like NWO-type ; enslaving Americans to do this and have this chip on them and such. And with empty detention centers across the US just waiting to be filled, i think we're going to see something happen in the next decade or so....



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
This sounds more like a manifesto than a planned militaryop.When a CO gives a directive its move no questions asked..here they put rational for the op, the political climate, the lack of support, and on and on..and instructions for destroying the document, like in a mission impossible rerun. Xerox has paper that can erase itself..all it will take to do this a phone call, nod and a wink not a 900 page equivalent of a telephone book.When the author said his CO wouldnt know how to pour piss out of a boot, well....he must think we are dummer than a box of rocks! to believe this garbage..Bush can declare martial law based on his new continuity authority for less than an insurrection..a flu epidemic for example.
And of course its going to spread..just like a viral program..and there are a heap of them on the internet and especially large forums like this. It could even be a Russian or Alqaeda psych op..We are at war remember?Hec if that came from the top then they need to fire the secretary who typed it as I noted verb tense problems.


Like the doctor said
Just take an aspirin and call me in the morning..

SyS




[edit on 20-7-2007 by Sys_Config]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Here's the thing ... this is probably a hoax, but to what extent?

I mean you have to think to yourselves not "is this story true" but "what are the chances that this story would ever be true in the military's eyes at some point".

And those chances are actually very good. I ask my parents what they think about the world. They are your average, computer/informational illiterate, blue collar folks. And THEY are constantly annoyed by the Bush admin, particularly in reference to Iraq. I asked my dad the other day about it and he said he'd gladly pull a proverbial trigger or two if it keeps our troops from dying needlessly over there.

This is why I don't understand the members of this board sometimes. You will believe that aliens exist, 9/11 was a controlled demo, and a NWO will be taking over ... yet you refuse to realize that something like this is just around the corner and entirely probable. Who cares if right now it's just a lie concocted by some pimply faced history nerd whose life goal is to rile up people on the internet. The fact remains - if it's not a statement of truth at the moment, it definitely will be at some point.

Why don't we deny apathy and instead of arguing whether or not it's a truthful message, think of ways we can combat the consequences if it ever becomes so? Or is that really "beyond" the populace at this point?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
Why don't we deny apathy and instead of arguing whether or not it's a truthful message, think of ways we can combat the consequences if it ever becomes so? Or is that really "beyond" the populace at this point?


I've said that many times as well. I wish there was a way the owners of ATS could put together some type of local user meet where we could talk about these issues in real life and figure out what we could do to stop them, should the need arise -- and it probably will.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
This is a hoax.

It is written by somone currently or recently on duty, who has spare time, anonymity, and an existing document template.

This letter also was written in a perspective whereas the writer expresses a personal discontent for congress's abilities, "chronic inability" .

A professional "company wide" handbook, or policy change, does not use words in negative context when asserting the rule of law.

This is the work of an individual, wanting to scare us up...

If it was not, are we fooling ourselves with our own apathy, into thinking it couldn't happen?

-ADHD



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
If the Government wanted to maintain deniability for something they're doing for real, they just may intentionally insert obvious flaws so that they can not only "prove" that it's fake, but a laughable fake at that, BUT...


Good point. "Plausable Deniability", did not become obsolete with the resignation of Richard Nixon; all of the really neat dirty tricks and techniques of obfuscation are a science with some folks on the beltway and off. It's a pretty safe bet that every president since Nixon has had a "dirty tricks and disinformation", czar. Plus we all know how specialized that sort of thing has become in the military.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Really?

Where?

I'm not seeing it.
[edit on 7/19/2007 by Gools]


It's right in front of you. The means by which the Pentagon and DOD gather information in this age is mostly digitally and electronically. People during the Vietnam war had to band together in groups and affiliations to gather and grow support for their anti-war cause. In today's age of the internet and cell phones, I would assume that the DOD has sufficient evidence that civil un-rest poses a great threat to the corrupt and incompetent administration.

The unrest is not in the streets in certain cities anymore. It's widespread through out the entire United States and people gather and share their ideas on the internet. Some, hopefully, share their ideas and opinions with friends and family. I think the opposition to the war and this administration is much greater today that it was during Vietnam.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I have to agree with gottago that this was most likely an actual military document dealing with the military strategy against the Iraqi insurgency that has been modified. The reference to JP 1-02, the DOD dictionary, and the context and layout leads me to believe that this was indeed originally a military plan/report. However, a number of oddities and items that are inconsistent with the assertion that US troops are planning for a "domestic clampdown" leads me to believe that this is a hoax.

The first thing to draw my attention, was the article's assertion that the plan calls for US military units now serving in Iraq, to be re-trained and re-equipped in Iraq and then be tranferred back to the United States to combat the supposed civil insurrection. To me this is absurd. If the plan is to combat a domestic US civil insurrection unhappy with the administration's continuation of the war in Iraq, WHY would that administration, remove troops from the war to control it?

Secondly, almost all of the units listed in the document are Military Intelligence Brigades, and while some of them very likely have combat companies to exploit that intelligence, they have nowhere near the number of troops that would be needed to put down a true civil insurrection in a country the size of the United States. I believe that if this were an actual plan the OOB would deal with division size elements, not a handful of individual brigades.

Finally, but I think most importantly, for a document that purports to deal with having US troops combat a domestic insurgency, there is surprisingly NO discussion of the unique problems that are inherent to having US troops dealing with US civilians. As many of you have already brought up, there would be a large number of troops who would not agree with conducting combat operations against fellow US citizens, and yet while this "document" goes into minute detail on how searches are to be conducted (ie: instructing that "Room searches are conducted by two-person teams.") it has no instructions for dealing with a soldier's reluctance to violate the United States Constitution and the rights of his fellow citizen. To me, this is proof that this is a hoax.

On a side note, another thing that points to this being a hoax is this; if the orginal "report and several attached ones" were almost 900 pages long, and the person who disseminated this info to the news agencies was SO concerned about it, why would he/she not have forwarded the whole report and those attached to it? Why forward only part of the report, and why if one DID decide to disseminate only the important parts of the report, would one choose the rather mundane, and generic, counter-insurgency info that they included in the article. I have to believe that in a 900 page collection of reports dealing with such a momentous subject as using US military units to put down a domestic US homeland insurrection there would be a lot more important, interesting, and relevant information than instructions on how to conduct "Cordon and Search" operations.

-Cypher





[edit on 20-7-2007 by Cypher]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
While I have little doubt that our government and military has contingency plans for dealing with civilian uprisings (it has happened before, after all), I gotta go with the "hoax" angle on this for sheer reasons of there not being enough people willing to rise up.

Even the most avid Bush haters I know still aren't organizing into insurgent groups and looking to overthrow the USG. They're much more concerned with getting a Democrat into the White House in 2008. Wanting our troops out of Iraq and a worthless excuse for a CIC out of the White House is a completely different viewpoint than advocating treason and civil war.

Bush may be the worst president in the history of America, but it's still America, and perhaps as a result of the sheer magnitude of his failures, we will all learn some valuable lessons when it comes to the need to vote, and to vote responsibly.

There aren't going to be any serious attempts at insurrection until elections get suspended. As long as we still have the ability to vote some arsehat out of office, and a new one in, the vast majority will remain complacent.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
There aren't going to be any serious attempts at insurrection until elections get suspended. As long as we still have the ability to vote some arsehat out of office, and a new one in, the vast majority will remain complacent.


I agree, but you left out, unless Bush decide to attack Iran and push another war on this nations citizens.

Or if we get another "attack" with heavy American casualties.

Putting in action the series of bills and laws that he had signed in case of another attack giving him more privilege power as a president.

That will be the warning sign that something is very, very wrong.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
Old-line Republican warns 'something's in the works' to trigger a police state.


Yeah right. He and his theories are worse then this which says it all. Just another fear mongering hoax is all.

One question for those that support this and the one allseeing linked too, if all this is true where is the MSM coverage????



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
For those of you who might believe this drivel, just take a peek at the Top Stories llisted for this site. Number one is

Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States

I believe that there was a recent thread where this same headline was used? That thread was re-named and shut own by the mods.

I mean, please! How much "research" do you gotta do on a site with a resume' like that?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join