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.

 

NORTHCOM: Constitution Not Important

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

NORTHCOM: Constitution Not Important


www.roguegovernment.com

The United States government is now actively directing the attention of the U.S. military towards the American people. Using the phony war on terror, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) are creating a militarized control grid specifically to enslave the American people... In fact, both agencies by themselves are unconstitutional and should be abolished.....Amazingly, NORTHCOM is now openly admitting that they do not follow the Constitution.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.blacklistednews.com
www.blackanthem.com
online.wsj.com




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What the hell. This is just great. Admitting to not abiding by the supreme law of this great country. So now we are going to be the high priority of our own military! This is totally out of line. Our freedoms are being taken away from us day by day. How can citizens stand by and let this happen? We are going to be in some serious S#$T real quick if something isn't done soon! Why is it that we have to follow all the laws these people make, yet they seem to be above their own laws. Talk about hipocracy! What is this country coming too? I just have a very difficult time accepting these newly formed relationships between these agencies. They say they are working for the rights of the people, but it seems to me they are just taking them away little by little. What can we do about this to make sure our freedoms can be upheld?

www.roguegovernment.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I can't find anything where NORTHCOM specifically admits they don't abide by the Constitution. In fact their entire basis for saying this is actually a fine example of Yellow Journalism. Let's first quote the section of NORTHCOM's press release that was quoted in the article;


Safeguarding the privacy rights of U.S. persons is critical to the Department of Defense agencies that conduct intelligence activities in support of the nation’s homeland defense and homeland security.

To ensure the rights of all U.S. persons are protected, DoD established an Intelligence Oversight program to ensure that all military intelligence, counterintelligence, and intelligence related activities are conducted in accordance with applicable laws, presidential executive orders and DoD directives and regulations.

In its continuing effort to ensure compliance with the DoD IO program, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command sponsored the 1st Annual World-Wide Intelligence Oversight Conference Dec. 4-6 at Joint Task Force North Headquarters on Fort Bliss, Texas.


No where in there does it say that they don't abide by the US Constitution. The explaination in the article for such a claim is as follows;

They admit that intelligence operations will be conducted in accordance with applicable laws, presidential executive orders and DoD directives and regulations. There are countless unconstitutional executive orders, so this admission means that they are not concerned with following the Constitution. If applicable laws include the Constitution, than how can they follow the Constitution and the many executive orders that are unconstitutional and unapplicable as it applies to the supreme law of the land?


It seems to me as if the headline of this article is more speculation than actual hard fact.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
How did a command center admit to not following the Constitution again? I don't see it.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
What pushed my button was the part about the multi billion dollar spy satellite and the connection between our defenses and our neighbors to the north and south.
I suppose in order to form a more perfect control grid that would be a must or when S$#@&* hits the fan it will keep dissidents from running off into other countries like during Viet Nam.
Either way the only part of the article I could completely agree with and or trust (it was a lot of speculation on the authors part with repetitive jargon) was that we are and 'have' lost our freedoms. I do not blame the author for his take on the situation, but it was a bit of a stretch don't you agree?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Bush has already handed down the edict that should the situation warrant doing so, declaring martial law will put him in sole control of the country, and suspend the Constitution.

With that in mind, I think you could make a case that this paragraph here:


To ensure the rights of all U.S. persons are protected, DoD established an Intelligence Oversight program to ensure that all military intelligence, counterintelligence, and intelligence related activities are conducted in accordance with applicable laws, presidential executive orders and DoD directives and regulations.


...would establish the fact that, should martial law be declared, NORTHCOM would be under the direct control of the Executive branch and the DoD.

No?

And why does it state "U.S. persons" and not "U.S. citizens?"

Yeah, it's pushing a few of my buttons too, but which ones?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Wow good eye! I really wonder now just exactly what people verses citizens really means???



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Maybe it means that once the Constitution is suspended, the people who happen to reside on American soil will no longer be protected as "U.S. citizens" under the now defunct Constitution but will simply become "U.S. people" with what ever "rights" the leaders of the New (World) Order see fit to grant them.

You know, "U.S. people" as opposed to "Canadian people" or "Mexican people."

They're pulling the rug out from under us, one thread at a time!!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


That is exactly what I was thinking when reading this article. You have to read between the lines on this one I think. The wording is how they get away with it. It works the same way with current laws. You really have to be careful when interpreting things. The way wording is used is how a lot of things the government does is allowed to happen. I agree with you on the US people term. When the Constitution is suspended, all rights as a "citizen" go out the window. As you say, the only rules that apply will be the ones the NWO or executive branch have in place. And my bet is they already have those rules written!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 





What pushed my button was the part about the multi billion dollar spy satellite and the connection between our defenses and our neighbors to the north and south.


I agree here too. Another aspect that really got me ticked is the fact that they keep saying "The rights of the US people" Last time I checked, I didn't see too many government officials really caring about our rights anymore. If they did, then why does it seem like they are taking them all away piece by piece? They don't seem to actually listen to what the public has to say anymore (not that they ever really did). Every time we turn around, someone is spying on us, reading emails, tapping our phone lines, gouging at the gas pumps, raising food prices (pretty much raising prices on everything), and cutting education. I just get steamed when they always say it is for the good and safety of the American people.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by cyberdude78
 


I think the point of the article is stating that since executive orders are considered to be uncosntitutional, and that NORTHCOM's goal is to ensure that executive orders are followed, then they therefore do not abide by the constitution. But I do understand your comments about speculation. I take the main theme here as being that of taking away our freedoms bby means of spying and such. They say that they follow all applicable laws, but we all know what that really means when it comes to the government.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg
...would establish the fact that, should martial law be declared, NORTHCOM would be under the direct control of the Executive branch and the DoD.

...duh? The entire military is under the command of, gasp, the executive branch, AKA the president, who is in complete control of his department of defense. What's wrong with giving executive orders to the military? I thought the president was supposed to control it?

Where the hell is it saying anything about going against the Constitution?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Um... I don't know, perhaps to drive home the fact that there would be no chance of any Congressional oversight?

Just to underscore the Imperial powers of the "Great Decider?"

And his Uncle, "I'm above the Constitution," Dick?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there currently this annoying Constitutional formality where, legally, the Executive branch must seek Congressional approval to declare and wage war?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The Constitution was suspended in 1933 under an Executive Order approved by Congress. It has never been reinstated.

Any court which displays a gold-fringed national flag is a military court. Martial law has been in effect for more than a few years.

US citizens are entitled to privelges, not rights. Your SS number designates you as a corporate entity along with your name printed in ALL CAPS.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


A executive order is just an order to part of the executive branch. If it's taken as anything else, it isn't that, at least not legally. If the president orders something illegal, it is illegal. It doesn't let the president declare war (he even had to ask the Senate before going into Iraq) without Congress. The president is the sole head of the executive branch as checked by the powers of Congress and the judiciary.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Isn't there loopholes when it comes to getting permission from Congress to go to war. I thought the pres had some way of overriding a "no vote" when it came to going to war. I am sure that GW could go into Iran if Congress voted no on it. There is always a way around things when you are told no.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
To answer your question what American People's mean:
11 Million Illegal Mexican Immigrants
Start adding up the other south american countries and other countries of the world with people here whose visa are expired.

The obvious is too obvious for you?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


First of all, I would not put any worth into this article as it is clearly one-sided and extremely biased. Right from the beginning of the article in the 2nd sentence it states something about the 'phony war on terror'. That is an opinion and a wrong one at that which they are trying to put forth as fact.

Secondly, the article does NOT say that Northcom themselves stated the Constitution is not important. Again, the author of the article is putting forth his opinion that northcom believes the Constitution is not important by trying to relate two totally unreleated issues.

This entire article is ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 




And why does it state "U.S. persons" and not "U.S. citizens?"


A U.S. person is a sovereign entity entitled to Constitutional rights. A US Citizen is an incorporated entity entitled only to privileges under public policy.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by goosdawg
 




And why does it state "U.S. persons" and not "U.S. citizens?"


A U.S. person is a sovereign entity entitled to Constitutional rights. A US Citizen is an incorporated entity entitled only to privileges under public policy.



Then how does the concept of "sovereign entity" mesh with the opinion put forth in the article?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join