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.

 

Military Liberation of the U.S.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I have seen similar threads.
I have asked this question in them, but I can not seem to get a straight answer.
So I would like to start this thread on this specific subject, without all the other subjects creeping their way into it.

At what point, if any, is our military obligated to liberate us from our own government?

I would prefer not to get into discussions of "this government is justified in it's actions" or "they are not over-stepping the law" etc.

It is clear our constitution is being subverted.
Simply rewriting laws to make the violation of our constitution "legal" is just as illegal as violating the constitution in itself.

I am particularly interested in what our soldiers and/or vets think of this.

Is there a point where they become obligated to reverse the Coup d'état that has obviously taken place?




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I have been thinking about this as I think we are in a similar situation as the USSR was when it collapsed. Remember the end when the old regime holdouts took a defensive position in a government building which the new Russian government attacked.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
If they are obligated (which I'm not sure, that is what I am asking) then it wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be one faction of the military against another.
I would hope that it would take the form of senior military staff giving the order that ALL of them would then execute.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 

This is why martial law will not be declared unless Americans start burning and pillaging. The military is not on the same page as the political leadership socially; if foriegn troops are used , the U.S. military will wage war on them. The phony political(many of whom are products of stuffed ballot boxes) leadership will loose control if they use the military. To be honest they deserve to loose control of this country.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by eradown]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 


i *believe* there is a movement of hard-core military patriots. i mean these guys are vicious&cunning. they are from the PSY-OP CONTELIPRO community. they know the 'secrets.' they have gone 'rouge' and cannot be stopped. they are like religious sorcerers. like the Fremin. they have been trained in the dark arts and use the light and psychic warfare as the ultimate weapons.

i *believe* they are forming an unstoppable army of darkness that uses light and psychic weapons under the ultimate guidance of TheHiddenGod. i *believe* one day the army will simply appear everywhere. civilians will either capitulate or perish. i'm not so sure this is going to an improvement over the current state of things.....



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 


Your post, as with so many others on this board is so off base that it's barely worth a response...

First, you say you don't wish to get into any discussions on whether the premise of your post is true or not. It's "obvious" that is it and you don't want to hear otherwise.

I'm not saying it's true and I'm not saying it's not, but where is your proof that our "consitution is being subverted"? If you're going to throw that out there, at least back it up with some facts.

I could say that our country is on the verge of being invaded by the flying spaghetti monster, that it's true and I don't want to get into a discussion that it's not. Then I'll ask what our military is going to do to protect us, and it will hold the same weight as what you just said.

Secondly, "the Coup d'état that has obviously taken place". Really? Are you aware that "Coup D'etat" indicates a government take-over by the military? The 2006 Thai Coup D'etat?

So you're asking us what the military thinks about fighting back against the Coup d'etat?

When did that happen?

I could answer your question, but I won't. It's "obvious" very little thought went into your OP, so why write down a thought out response?
This board is a joke. All the shut-ins, recluses, agoraphobes and conspiracy theorists get some far fetched idea and run on here to put it in writing without even thinking things through.

There are a lot of things going on out there worth looking into. There could even be quite a bit of answers had by sitting, thinking, researching, getting actual facts and piecing things together. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what this board is for anymore...



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOcean
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 


Your post, as with so many others on this board is so off base that it's barely worth a response...

First, you say you don't wish to get into any discussions on whether the premise of your post is true or not. It's "obvious" that is it and you don't want to hear otherwise.

I'm not saying it's true and I'm not saying it's not, but where is your proof that our "consitution is being subverted"? If you're going to throw that out there, at least back it up with some facts.

I could say that our country is on the verge of being invaded by the flying spaghetti monster, that it's true and I don't want to get into a discussion that it's not. Then I'll ask what our military is going to do to protect us, and it will hold the same weight as what you just said.

Secondly, "the Coup d'état that has obviously taken place". Really? Are you aware that "Coup D'etat" indicates a government take-over by the military? The 2006 Thai Coup D'etat?

So you're asking us what the military thinks about fighting back against the Coup d'etat?

When did that happen?

I could answer your question, but I won't. It's "obvious" very little thought went into your OP, so why write down a thought out response?
This board is a joke. All the shut-ins, recluses, agoraphobes and conspiracy theorists get some far fetched idea and run on here to put it in writing without even thinking things through.

There are a lot of things going on out there worth looking into. There could even be quite a bit of answers had by sitting, thinking, researching, getting actual facts and piecing things together. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what this board is for anymore...


I would be angry also if I was socialist/banker type whose power is based on a sham. When the U.S. military becomes involved in this country protecting socialistic politicians from bad ,poorly, thought out policies a coup will take place. Look at the top people in the military and look at the top people in politics, they do not even look like they are members of the same species. Clay and iron do not mix; your God has clay feet.



[edit on 14-10-2008 by eradown]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The evidence is all over the place.
There's no sense in regurgitating it here one more time for the benefit of one guy who doesn't seem to know how to use a search engine.

If you can't see that this government has been hijacked then just go watch dancing with the stars or something like a good little sheep.

Find me a better tearm to use for a president hijacking a country and I will be glad to use that instead.

A Coup D'etat is the sudden overthrow of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military...
Does USUALLY mean always and only?
No it means usually...

You are obviously just looking for something to argue about, without any concern whether your arguement is intelligent or makes any sense.
Wake up, Grow up, and get a clue before you shoot your mouth off please.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOcean
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 

...

I could answer your question, but I won't. ..


Then why bother posting at all? He just wanted to know at what point the military is (if it is) obliged to step in if the government were to hypothetically start breaking constitutional law all over the place.

I've wondered to. I've also wondered at what point are the average citizens obliged to revolt.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RegionalChaos
I've wondered to. I've also wondered at what point are the average citizens obliged to revolt.

I think we're WAY past the point that the people are obligated.
However without the support of our military I fear it would be mass suicide.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by eradown
 


Do you even know what 'socialist' means? Because I don't think you do...



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
As a former member of the US Army, I swore an oath to defend the constitution against enemies foreign or domestic, in that same oath, I swore to follow the orders of those in my chain of command, these two ideals are not necessarily on the same page. The US military is a microcosm of our nation, it is compromised by many people of different backgrounds, ethnicity, races, religion, belief systems, etc, but the underlying difference is that there is a direct line to the top as you chain of command goes all the way to the president. Most military units are non-combat units (also known as REMFs which is Rear Echlon MFrs), and those in charge at the company, battalion, and brigade levels operate as most businesses do, and the for those in charge, they are either seeking to get promoted, transfered, or retire. One of the reasons I stayed in for only 10 years is that I could not see me staying in for another 10 as the "politics" of officers within the brigade I was in.

In a combat unit, things are much "tighter" for lack of a better word, there are only a few goals to acchieve, the main objective complete the mission, (CHarlie Mike as we used to say). The mission objective differs with each situation, but being able to Charlie Mike is that each member of a unit must have a trust with each other member of his unit, and his chain of command.

For coup to take place, it will be the leaders of these elite units that are more concerned with ideals of what this country was founded on rather that thier retiremenmt or politcal aspirations (and there are many such as this) who will be the ones who take action.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
With all due respect can we not make this about socialism or any of the hundreds of other things this thread could splinter into please?
I started this thread to try to get answers to a question.

At what point, if any, is our military obligated to liberate us from our own government?


I'm hoping that some military folks who are alot more knowledgeable about this subject than I, could shed some light on this for me.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashamedamerican

At what point, if any, is our military obligated to liberate us from our own government?



I don't think there is a point in which that's an option. The head of the Government in the United States is the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. The next four or five Generals under the C-in-C are at his side and in his Cabinet.
Who would lead the coup? For one, it would be Treason to do anything you suggest. On top of that, there's a laundry list of Military crimes for the one officer and a laundry list of charges for every soldier that follows him.
On top of that, this would place the United States under a Military Junta. Do you really want General Joe Schmo to rule the country as a military institution? For even one second?

The "revolt" would have to come from the Senate and House literally being replaced, and, in America, that's where you come in. Vote intellegently and be more civically active. You be the "Revolt" and if you do it right, the ripples you cause may reach who you'd like it to.

That's my $.02
Cuhail



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
So there is nothing in military code or law saying that if the president violates or subverts the constitution, that our soldiers have the right to remove him, or at least refuse to carry out his orders?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
What about the fact that the Nuremburg Trials state that any military personel who commit a crime can be held responsible for that crime, EVEN IF they were just following an order.
If the president were violating the constitution that would be criminal, and the soldiers under him would be carrying out illegal orders.
There's no provision stating that they have the right to refuse those orders?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 



Are you asking me this?:




So there is nothing in military code or law saying that if the president violates or subverts the constitution, that our soldiers have the right to remove him, or at least refuse to carry out his orders?


Or telling me this?:




What about the fact that the Nuremburg Trials state that any military personel who commit a crime can be held responsible for that crime, EVEN IF they were just following an order.
If the president were violating the constitution that would be criminal, and the soldiers under him would be carrying out illegal orders.
There's no provision stating that they have the right to refuse those orders?


Because either way, I can't answer. I'm not in the Military and I've only read Albert Speer's recollection of the Nurenburg Trials. But, this is your thread and you can do some research yourself into it. I'm sure there's an online source for Military Codes and Conduct. Look into it.

Cuhail



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'm asking anyone who may know.
I consider myself a pretty bright guy but I am afterall just an average joe.
To be honest I'm not sure I could interpret military law or codes accurately.
Which is why I'm asking these questions.
I'm hoping someone who is alot more knowledgeable on this subject will chime in.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Well, a search engine found this for me.

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

Now, ya just have to read up a little. In the bit of perusing on that page I linked to, I found a lot out about The President.

Take a look. It tells you how the President is considered.

Here's the Code on a General Courts-Martial:



818. ART. 18. JURISDICTION OF GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL
Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), general courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any offense made punishable by this chapter and may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when specifically authorized by this chapter. General courts-martial also have jurisdiction to try any person who by the law of war is subject to trial by a military tribunal and may adjudge any punishment permitted by the law of war. However, a general court-martial of the kind specified in section 816(1)(B) of this title (article 16(1)(B)) shall not have jurisdiction to try any person for any offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has been previously referred to trial as noncapital case.


Cuhail



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Thank you for the link.
As far as understanding what was actually written there though, it may as well have been in another language lol
I'll try to decifer some of it and see if I can make enough sense of it to post it here.




top topics



 
0

log in

join