It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dgtempe
Tell me this doesnt coincide with our little BAILOUT program, and for Pete's sakes, how much more obvious could it get?????
What are we, stupid? real stupid???
I've had it- this is the climax of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. This is what is being dished out, although i must say, in no way do i believe he's leaving his REIGN OF TERROR anytime soon. Just wait and see.
Originally posted by primamateria
Not being from the USA forgive me if I am incorrect but isn't there a law somewhere that prevents the standing army being deployed in the USA so that no one political party party could use for it a coup? Isn't that why you have a national guard instead? Can anyone clarify this for me?
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What in the world is happening, does this not look like the precursor to Bush staying in power?
Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Really? That is funny, since part of my NG unit is attached to the 3rd.....You would think I might have heard something about this. But since it is pure BS why would I have heard about it.
Originally posted by Skelkie3
It was called The Posse Comitatus Act.
But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.
But, be aware that: It is illegal for the US to attack a nation that has not attacked it.
It is illegal in the US to put the best interests of another nation first, or ( I think ) to be a dual citizen.
It's illegal to do half the things our fearless leaders do...
Originally posted by mf_luder
We will not "blindly follow orders" I'm not going to go look at your little links to your little videos and little websites with your ""proof"" that we are all brainwashed - not because I'm "brainwashed", but because GASP! They're all a huge crock of #!!!!
I have a couple of honest questions, so please don't get your panties in a knot. If you are unwilling to view the links offered, how can you state " They're all a crock of # !!!! ?
"If the US Government orders us to police the US - they're in the wrong. If the US Government orders us to help with disasters or terrorist attacks - they're in the right."
I find the above statements very confusing. I am sure you are an intelligent fellow.
The definition of the words are intentionally vague and debatable, especially so, if you utilize the governments overly broad definition of the word ' terrorist '
My point is, I do not believe you, or anyone else who would be called upon to perform these tasks would be able to distinguish between "police the US " and "help with terrorist attacks " That being said; how do you respond to orders, that in your opinion
are the equivalent of Civilian police duties. Do you refuse ? Are you willing to pay that price based on honor ?
"But it sickens me to no end to see some of the utter crap coming out of people's uneducated mouths on the net today. I begrudgingly accept it, the drivel that it is. Because I defend your right to say that stuff. So - go ahead.... remain in the dark..... I love the dark..... "
“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier
“If we go in, we’re going in to restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier
Cloutier, YOU shamed yourself. Take off the uniform. YOU are not fit to wear it. You have disgraced yourself, your country, with those statements.
“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said
So said Army Col. Louis Vogler, YOU shamed yourself also. Take off the uniform. YOU are not fit to wear it either.
Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.
There is high expectation in the public eye that if something happens, there needs to be a [Defense Department] response, and it needs to be quick
Anyone recall Kent state? That is exactly what they are planning to do.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.