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.

 

October 1. Please Post Here if You See Our Troops in the USA.

page: 21
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 


Tempe is far from beyond reason, thank you.
You know- She seen tanks and soldiers in China alright?
I think she knows a thing or two about martial law- I mean, come on.

Come on.




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ripperella
I thought that troops are NOT EVER supposed to be deployed at home, unless in active defense of the country. Could someone explain or correct me on this?


First this unit is being deployed. They're still living at home, wearing normal clothes, having the weekends and holidays off, going to dinner and a movie after work, etc. They're not 'deployed', patrolling streets or anything.

Second, army units are deployed in the US all the time. As I said, virtually every summer a unit from Fort Lewis, WA deploys to Oregon or Northern California or other places on the West Coast to help fight forest fires (they dig trenches, basically, so the firemen can focus on other things while the army does the manual labor). They went to New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina, as another example. In recent years, because National Guard units have been tapped out with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, regular army units are also involved in flood and tornado relief in states whos national guard capacities are lacking.

So this happens all the time, and it hasn't been a harbinger of martial law and shouldn't be seen as one now.

The only difference between now and then, the only reason there have been articles, is because now a unit has been pre-designated to be the unit that responds to these crises (although I bet they still won't pull that wildfire duty and someone out west has to) instead of just appointing a unit at the time that may not have the training to carry out the mission as efficiently as possible.

It's really a non-story.


The fact the the article was posted after the first, not before (when everyone began noticing the activity) sends up a red flag for me.


This was in the Army Times months ago. Maybe July?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Posse comitatis (spelling),was recently struck down by the military commisions act which was recently passed.The legislation that was struck down prevented the regular armed forces from assisting police forces in the continental US,except national guard and coast guard.
The regular armed forces are returning from Iraq,they have been desensitised to the killing and maiming of innocent civilians.
There was a reason that it was decided to make deploying armed forces in the continental US unlawful,and you may soon find out what that reason is.
I served in the military,they do not exactly teach one how to be honorable,they teach you to kill without thinking for yourself or asking questions,just follow orders......
Soldiers are murderers,plain and simple,I know,I was one,and I still feel guilty and worse,when I think about what I did when I was.
I think this is a very bad development.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by chiponbothshoulders]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
Posse comitatis (spelling),was recently struck down by the military commisions act which was recently passed.


No, it wasn't. One, you're referring to the John Warner Act, and two, it didn't either.


The regular armed forces are returning from Iraq,they have been desensitised to the killing and maiming of innocent civilians.
There was a reason that it was decided to make deploying armed forces in the continental US unlawful,and you may soon find out what that reason is.
I served in the military,they do not exactly teach one how to be honorable,they teach you to kill without thinking for yourself or asking questions,just follow orders......
Soldiers are murderers,plain and simple,I know,I was one,and I still feel guilty and worse,when I think about what I did when I was.
I think this is a very bad development.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by chiponbothshoulders]




[edit on 5-10-2008 by SuperViking]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 





No, it wasn't. One, you're referring to the John Warner Act, and two, it didn't either.


You're right, it's the John Warner Act. But it did overrule the Posse Commitatus Act.


In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.


Why you had to put a smiley under an ex soldiers' point of view, is beyond me.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Because it was melodramatic and just plain wrong.

Why don't you look up how the John Warner Act changed the language regarding posse comitatus, and post for us the language both before and after. I'll be here.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Okay - look folks. This thread is a request to report if you see troops in the US, and some interesting information has been presented as to why the question was asked.

Those of you who wish to dabate the information that raised the question should start your own thread and debate it there. Out of repsect for the OP and in the interest of your fellow members, please keep THIS thread on topic.

It's a request for reports. The OP should not have to defend h**self for asking, and if you don't like it, don't read it, and don't participate. If it really bothers you, like I requested above, feel free to start your own thread debating the underlying information. I'm requesting this 1) to keep the thread on topic and 2) because I think the tone of the thread at this point may prevent people from repsonding to the OP's request. Seriously - BACK ON TOPIC!

Thanks,

Relentless

GM FSME (So I only have the power to ask - but I can call for backup if need be
)


[edit on 10/5/2008 by Relentless]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 





Because it was melodramatic and just plain wrong.


Doesn't the militairy teach you to kill without thinking, to blindly follow orders, haven't innocent civilians, women, children, been murdered in Iraq, by US troops?

You just don't like what he had to say.




Why don't you look up how the John Warner Act changed the language regarding posse comitatus, and post for us the language both before and after. I'll be here.


Why, don't you, if you think it proves your point.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by SuperViking
 





Because it was melodramatic and just plain wrong.


Doesn't the militairy teach you to kill without thinking, to blindly follow orders, haven't innocent civilians, women, children, been murdered in Iraq, by US troops?


No, not really.


You just don't like what he had to say.


No, I don't like it. It's also wrong.





Why don't you look up how the John Warner Act changed the language regarding posse comitatus, and post for us the language both before and after. I'll be here.


Why, don't you, if you think it proves your point.


Are you saying you don't even know what the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006 even says? Honestly, when it comes to how exactly the President can declare 'martial law', the wording was slightly changed. If you don't even know how- if you don't even know what it says- why are you talking about it? That's very puzzling to me.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 





No, not really.


Right.




Are you saying you don't even know what the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006 even says? Honestly, when it comes to how exactly the President can declare 'martial law', the wording was slightly changed. If you don't even know how- if you don't even know what it says- why are you talking about it? That's very puzzling to me.


No, I'm saying, post the part that proves your point.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Nothing so far..all quiet and daily activity as usual.

Cheers!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dewm0nster
 

Are you still at it?


You crack me up afterall....


I have never experienced such twisted bologna (italian but you get the point) in any thread.

You are here to focus on this thread- you havent slept for days since i posted it
You are obsessed


Thank you Relentless for everything


ROFLMAO- nope never been to CHINA.


I already said i have very very thick skin- so nothing you can utter can make me say something in return to get myself offed of ATS. I KNOW BETTER.

Nice try and a bit fat "A" for persistance



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
so, we have the 3rd Infantry now under NorthCom for US Soil "Home Scenario" Starting October 1, 2008 stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia. then we have Atlanta National Guard's Mission Will be Closest to War thingie going on and American soldiers, mostly from the Atlanta metropolitan area, will be part of an Immediate Response 2008 exercise in none other than Republic of Georgia. www.kvirispalitra.ge...

From the USA, 1,000 military servicemen took part in the exercise including the United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit.
www.georgiatoday.ge... seems like Georgia is hot and the Georgia to Georgia connection is not funny

The state of Georgia has a partnership links with the country of Georgia and regularly sends military contingents for training purposes. The current exercise is not directly connected with that program, though the existing relations propelled the decision to take include Georgia guardsmen in the trainings. 325 soldiers from Winder, Covington, Lawrenceville, Gainesville and Milledgeville would otherwise have headed to Fort Stewart or another U.S.military base for their annual training. 'The Georgia to Georgia thing never gets old,' Smith said. 'Everyone gets a chuckle out of it.' The Georgia infantry battalion returned from a 12-month tour of Iraq in April 2006 and is scheduled to leave for Afghanistan next summer with the 48th Brigade to train the Afghan National Army. In 'Immediate Response', they will conduct tactical and procedural training alongside Georgian soldiers from exhausting road marches to combat lifesaving medical classes to marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat. They will also participate in mock war situations. The larger aim of the annual exercise is to help break down barriers
www.kvirispalitra.ge...

and let's not forget what old johnny isakson said about the billions poured into georgia's military

“This investment in Georgia’s military installations is very good news for Georgia,” Isakson said. “Our facilities play a key role in the security of our nation, and I am very pleased to see such a strong commitment to them from Washington.”
isakson.senate.gov...

oh and the closing of New London's naval base and relocating it to st mary's in georgia to the tune of close to 1/2 billion is quite impressive for georgia as well

THE Pentagon's recommendation will move six fast attack submarines, such as the USS Toledo, currently berthed at Naval Submarine Base, New London, to Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, in 2008.(Tribune & Georgian photo/James Nix)
www.tribune-georgian.com...

of course, i do not keep up with many other states other than georgia but georgia seems to be on plenty minds.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

No, I'm saying, post the part that proves your point.



(a) Use of section 3034(d)Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
←→
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
←→
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).


That's what was changed in 2006. Can you even tell me what the differences are from the original? Come on, show me anything here. You've already been wrong twice (posse comitatus never being legal in the US and the Military Commissions Act being the one you were trying to talk about), please show me something that says you're educated on the subject. Can you tell what's been changed? Do you even know what the original said?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


I sleep very well each and every night.
Though, it's with one eye open- As so I can tell whether or not American/Canadian troops are roaming my streets.
Perhaps some sort of joint effort?

Dgtempe- Do you think the Americans will invade Canada too?
I mean- They obviously have the man power for martial law in there own country; because they can instantly transport all those soldiers back home.
But do you think they'll use such magic/technology to take over Canada too?

Please advise, as soon as possible.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 





and the Military Commissions Act being the one you were trying to talk about),


That was somebody else's mistake. I just pointed out you were right about that.

So, the one mistake I made was that it hasn't been legal since the Civil War, instead of the whole history of the USA. Big deal, doesn't change my point.




That's what was changed in 2006. Can you even tell me what the differences are from the original?



So the changes to posse comitatus signed into law by Bush are extremely significant and ominous. Bush has modified the main exemptions to posse comitatus that up to now have been primarily defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. Previously the president could call out the army in the United States only in cases of insurrection or conditions where "rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Under the new law the president can use the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or "other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


reply to post by Dewm0nster
 


reply to post by SuperViking
 


SERIOUSLY FOLKS! YOU ARE DERAILING THE THREAD.

Cut it out or I will request a Mod intervene. There are people here who want to follow the thread, not your debating.

TAKE IT OUTSIDE AND I MEAN IT!!!!!!

(See my post above you obviously missed)


[edit on 10/5/2008 by Relentless]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Relentless
 


Perhaps your mistaken.

You should really re-read my posts.
I'm simply curious as to whether or not this threat can apply to Canada.

Which is a legitmate question.

Just because no one responded to your thread- Because we're all busy discussing other posts, doesn't mean the topic is derailed.

Everyone here is posting subject matter applicable to the original topic.

Jeeze guy, calm down.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
enigmania, please post the original language, not snippets of it from an alarmist article. You're sort of on the right track- it DID add an outbreak of disease or terrorist attack. But considering the President could already delcare martial law if he found it "impractical to enforce laws", that's not an escalation of Presidential powers, only a clarification of it. Please post the original language, if you can.

Relentless- There's not going to be troops patrolling the streets- there never was going to be. Some people misread the article because they're ignorant to military terms. So let's at least allow a semi-interesting conversation to continue instead of letting it die, because the only other posts are gonna be "Nope, didn't see anything."



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Relentless
 


Well excuse me for "derailing" the thread. Do you have any idea how much time and effort I have put in to defend this thread?

At least I'm willing to disprove the skeptics.

What have you done to help?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join