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.

 

Defense Department Announces Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Defense Department Announces Civilian Expeditionary Workforce


www.infowars.com

The Defense Department has established a "civilian expeditionary workforce" that will see American civilians trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of worldwide military missions
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The program was officially implemented one week ago, on the 23rd January, when Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed Defense Department Directive 1404.10 which provides a summation of the duties the workforce will undertake.

The directive, which is effective immediately, states that civilian employees of the DoD will be asked to sign agreements stating that they will deploy in support of military missions for up to two years if needed.

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

[edit on 30-1-2009 by prjct]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
This makes one wonder how long it will be before it's mandatory service for our younger citizens?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I have red the Rahm Emmanuel's book, The Plan, and it's true what's quoted in the article about that.

This book is the democrats PNAC.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I have mixed emotions about this.

I do not have a problem with civilians going to certain countries to help our military members out with whatever they need, but I dont know the extent of what their duties would be. I very much doubt that they will be carrying weapons, strapping on their boots, putting on their kevlar helmets, and humping up the mountains looking for enemies. They will be probably be more like a support unit without the training and military experience, cause even a support units troops are efficient at killing.

On the flip side, I dont think that civilians should be made to do anything that requires them to go into hostile environments for support when the only thing they can really do is provide aid, and maybe a shoulder to cry on. Instead of bringing troops home, we are sending civilians there instead. I do however believe that most people should be made for a certain time to be a part of something bigger than themselves, kind of like community service? But I also dont think they should HAVE to do anything they dont want to, since this is a free country. This is why I have mixed feelings about this.

I might be missing something, or quite a few things, but I dont know how well this is going to blow over. Im not worried about it since I have already done my time in the Marines, but I think if people want to be a part of affairs like that, then they would have joined the military already.
This to me resemles too much of the draft, but keeping them civilians.
They are part of the DoD though, so I guess they have to do what they are told. I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well.

Good thread



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
So this is how they are going to get around the whole ' can't have military troops patrolling the city streets to keep peace thing'.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Sounds to me like it is nothing new nor out of the ordinary.


Reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 1404.10 (Reference (a)) under a new title to establish the
policy through which an appropriately sized subset of the DoD civilian workforce is preidentified
to be organized, trained, and equipped in a manner that facilitates the use of their
capabilities for operational requirements. These requirements are typically away from the
normal work locations of DoD civilians, or in situations where other civilians may be evacuated
to assist military forces where the use of DoD civilians is appropriate.


www.dtic.mil...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   


"If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position." the DoD report states.


So, this part caught my attention right away. The use of civilians, and calling them "employees". So technically this is one of those "jobs" Obama promised us?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."


This sounds like they have the plan in the works!


"If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position." the DoD report states.


I'm sure evey effort will be made, ya right ! Read this


Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilian employees, either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
[So, this part caught my attention right away. The use of civilians, and calling them "employees". So technically this is one of those "jobs" Obama promised us?]

To have such a big, poor/ middle class civilian workforce would mean that everybody would be forced to accept peanuts as pay.

Corporation profiteers will be jumping and screaming with extreme joy at that time.

No unions, scant wages, a workforce that is forced to do as they say or go into combat at some NATO/UN embargoed killzone to shoot and bomb babies of government/corporation declared enemies to expand NWO control.

Oh man, oh man I hope they stumble into my neighbourhood.

I'll arrange a fantastic surprise party for them.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Sounds to me like it is nothing new nor out of the ordinary.


Reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 1404.10 (Reference (a)) under a new title to establish the policy through which an appropriately sized subset of the DoD civilian workforce is preidentified to be organized, trained, and equipped in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities for operational requirements. These requirements are typically away from the normal work locations of DoD civilians, or in situations where other civilians may be evacuated
to assist military forces where the use of DoD civilians is appropriate.


www.dtic.mil...



First, the article I supplied says REISSUES under a new title. That tells me that the directive already existed.

Second, it is not talking about regular civilians. The directive pertains to DOD civilians also know as DOD employees.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
There's already a Dept of Civil Service. Why is there a need to create this....unless this is meant to be a 'militarized' Civil Service.

This is just odd.

Unless I'm not understanding this new plan correctly, then it looks to be a NEW military???

This is confusing me.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
It sounds like the realization of the "well-regulated militia," a tertiary force, spoken of in the Second Amendment, except with overseas deployments.

It could also be a loophole to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Let's hope that whatever this turns out to be that it is held to the same high standards of duty, honor, and commitment that we hold our military to.

It's not so much the idea itself that makes me nervous as it is the people who are implementing it.


[edit on 2009/1/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Does this in any way present an option to using Blackwater? If so, would it not mean more direct control over how things get done than was the case with the private mercenaries?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Ok, this has been happening for years. This is not a "civil army" and the US is not taking civilians and throwing them into wars. Like someone commented before, it's for DoD civilians, not regular civilians. People who work for the DoD or one of the branches of the armed services that are not GIs are what they are pertaining to.

My experiences, most DoD civilians that are deployed are usually company grade officer level DoD civilians. They are in support roles (Communications, Intel, Services (Chow Hall workers) and CE personnel). They are not Blackwater missionaries that are touting M-16's.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It sounds like the realization of the "well-regulated militia," a tertiary force, spoken of in the Second Amendment, except with overseas deployments.

It could also be a loophole to the Posse Comitatus Act.

[edit on 2009/1/30 by GradyPhilpott]


You have severely misread those Two documents...

I suggest you read them again - and again after that if needs be - until you realize how wrong your last statement is.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by prjct
 


This is not really an "Obama Youth" program which is no doubt what sparked interest in stories like this. But I still gave this a flag. The fact of the matter is that we already have a civilian force that does exactly what was described in the link! It is called "The Reserves"! So clearly the only reason one would want this new program is that it must go beyond what our reserve forces are doing.

The only question is what the real purpose of the program is which is being covered up. Either that or it is some marketing ploy to sucker people into the military, or it is designed for domestic use rather than foreign use.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by truthquest]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
This Law strikes me as a way to legally impliment the CIA, Blackwater, and covert para military police and agents into the area to incite hostility and increase violence thus foistering the new bogus Communism War of the day, the Terror War. Who We should really be fighting is the One's who are funneling money into both sides of the Conflict as they are the Source of it and want to appear to be it's resolve as well to achieve a desired outcome. I say we are being distracted from the real Enemy. The Financial Benefactor of Terrorist's/ Communist's/ Semite's(Judeo Christian's)/ ETC.'s and Anti- Terrorist's/ Anti- communist's/ Anti- Semite's (Islams)/ Anti- ETC.'s.

And I would start with, not the people who stand to make a fortune on both sides of the war-- as those are just snake's in wolf's clothing, waiting to be the wolves in sheep's clothing of tomorrow.

No, I would look to the people who spend a fortune on both sides of the war-- as those are wolves in sheeps clothing who are the real snake's of today who will become the snakes of tomorrow through the money they funnel from the future snakes of the world.

It's Machiavelli 101.

It's Helgian 101.

Create the Conflict.

Support both sides of the Conflict.

Publically, don't be seen taking part in the Conflict. If you must then back the obvious victor, while secretly egging on the loser by showering them in support and false hopes.

Resolve the Conflict.

Publically, appear to be the Source of the resolve.

Never be found by either side as the Instigator of the Conflict or they may double up forces and turn on you.

Why are we fighting these Islam/ Judeo Christian Wars again? Why aren't the Eastern Orthodox Doctrines involved? If they are, still, why are we fighting again? If they aren't, hmmm.

Why are we fighting these Drug Wars again? Why aren't the Drug Traffickers, or Families whose fortunes were founded on Drug Trafficking involved? If they are, still, why are we fighting again? If they aren't, hmmm.

Why are we fighting these Communist/ Anti- Communist Wars again? Why aren't the Non- Communist/ Non- Anti- Communists (like neutral Swiss) involved? If they are, still, why are we fighting again? If they aren't, hmmm.

Why are we fighting these Terrorism/ Anti- Terrorism Wars again? Why aren't the Non- Terrorist/ Non- Anti Terrorist involved? If they are, still, why are we fighting again? If they aren't, hmmm.

Why are we fighting these "ISM"/ Non- "ISM" Wars again? Why aren't the Non "ISM"/ Non Anti "ISM''s involved? If they are, still, why are we fighting again? If they aren't, hmmm.

Whether it's left/ right ,north/ south, east/ west, up/ down, inside/out. We fight while the center remains neutral. Look for the Common Center and all points start to converge. That Dead Center is the true Instigator. Rather than Divide and Conquer, We should Unite and Vanquish. Then we can go back to killing and fighting amongst ourselves if we wish.

If you give me a reason why the other side is so hateful or whatever of your cause as to why they won't, I'll just say right back at you. Since, if you are not willing to just stop, well, then the Instigator has won, and, even if your cause is victorious, then, you have already lost, because, the Instigator at Dead Centor Supporting both sides, will just find you a new divide to fight.

Four Classes in the World:

1. The Know It All- The Instigator and resolver of and Creator of all Conflicts
2. The Highly Educated- Educated to one side or the other of all Conflicts
3. The Mid- educated Class: Doctor's, Lawyers, Etc. who are taught one side or the other of all Conflicts
4. The Low to No Educated Class: Taught obedience and loyalty to all Classes on one side or the other of a Conflict

Whether the Conflicts are religious, political, social, economical, ideological, etc. in Nature. They are all false.

It is false knowledge completely designed to keep people divided and structured so as to achieve a desired outcome.

With only the Know It All Class in possession of all True Knowledge and Wisdom the World has to offer.

Hard to believe that everything you think you know, no matter which side of the fence you are on is a lie, isn't it. You can argue, but, it does not change the Truth. If a thing can be debated then it is not Truth.

s Truth is Immutable, you can not add to it or take from it, it has no emotions, no feelings, no discretion, no discriminations, no mercy, no pity, no care, no concern. It is beyond debate, if Truth can be debated, then, it is not Truth.

The Truth is, since all you know can be debated, as false, revised, altered, modified, abolishable, erroneous, based only on blind faith leaving the possibility of blind wrongness, dis proven, etc., then, it is not Truth. Even Laws are based on the idea of not disproven over a set course of time, leaving the potential to be disproven, therefore Laws are not Truth, either. God can not be proven or disproven, therefore can be added to or taken from. While God may or not be real, the concept of what or who God is, is not Truth.

All you know is a lie. and all you fight for is based on an unTruth in one form or another, if not, in it's entirety.

The Instigator is the one who supplies you with false Knowledge.

Knowledge Truly was the First Sin imposed on Mankind.

The Instigator will side with the Victor, and, egg on the Loser, assuring them that, yes, they can win, knowing they cannot. Both sides lose no matter who wins, because only the Instigator can Resolve your problem. both sides will be greatful to the Instigator of the Noble Lie, but, will forget that the Guardian is the Deceiver. If you and your enemy would just realize the truth you would stop fighting, and, you both would figure out, just who sent you at each other's throat's in the first place.

This Law is just another loophole to keep Conflict alive. But, don't look to Obama and Co., Sheiks and Co., or Bin Laden and Co. They are just Class 2. (High Educated Classes). I'd look to see who supports all of them and on until you find a common supporter of all the supporters. Geneaology is a good starting point.

Then, You would have found the true Enemy of Mankind. The Dead Center. The Instigator. You place that one simple Truth onto the entire structure of lies that the Instigator has built and the entire structure of lies would crumble under that one simple revalation of the source of the Instigation.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I would like to know , why it is that more bodies on the ground are required? Seems to me that there must be something wrong with the armed services .
Obviously the chaps in the theatre of battle , have not been adequately equipped to perform the task they are intended for, either by way of insufficient training or through lack of the physical equipment required otherwise there would be no need for more men. But training another group of people to shoot thier allies by accident isnt going to help.
Would it not be more prudent to get troops home and keep them there? The civilised world should not accept the right of any nation to invade another for ANY reason , especialy now, after all thats happened , and is still happening in the Mid east and the arab nations.
It ought to be glaringly obvious to anyone who isnt a dirty scheming powermonger, that the only honourable way to defend oneself , is against land invasion . From within ones own borders. Theres no need for MORE men in someone elses backyard. Thats just asking for trouble.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I have been working as a DoD NAF (non appropriated civ) for over 10 years in Germany and I have seen this coming for a while. They are always undermanned and bouncing troops around all over the place to cover shortages. If they would send NAF civs this means they are definitley going to be covering support positions (dining halls, lodging facilities, rec facilities), because this is where they still have mil folks working that could be covering more vital areas....such as getting shot at in convoy escort duties. When they bring me this letter to sign I am going to tell them to stick it in their A hole! I did my tours while in the military and proudly. I wont be doing any tours as a civ.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join