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.

 

Obama's promise of a civilian security force is set in motion

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
READ THE DOCUMENT!!!

Blackwater is gone and this sets up a framework for a replacement that is accountable under the UCMJ.

I guess that no one read that all civilian contractors must sign a form indicating they understand it is voluntary and there are no penalties for refusal.

What's the problem here?

.... I mean, other than the knee jerk reaction of Alex Jones.




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I missed your link when I made my post.

Considering all that your link is implicating, wouldn't you think that this would have to be some sort of a bill or something that Congress would have to pass or enact something like this?

Does the president have the power to do this all on his own?

I, at this time anyway, didn't think so.

And if congress had to vote on it, why didn't we ever hear about it?

Seems like all I've got are questions about this right now after reading your link!

[edit on 1/30/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but this nonsense is absurd.

If you honestly believe Obama is putting together a new age version of the Browncoats, you need to step away from the keyboard, put away you obscene collection of guns and go outside for a bit.

Obama is putting together a workforce to rebuild our infrastructure. I'm still trying to figure out how you right-wing loons construed that as a civilian death force.




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernDystopia
 


ok, just because i dont like what Obama is doing doesnt make me a "right wing loon" or that i have a "huge gun collection". youre being arogant and ignorant. if you would read the post it also states that these cilvilian workers could be used for "combat missions" and are there to supplement the misssion. people saying that this is for infrastructure and to stimulate the economy by providing jobs is shallow. LOOK AT WHAT OBAMA IS SAYING, youre not a rightwing psyco for questioning his motives



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
The executive branch does not have to follow the constitution. If they did Bush would have been thrown out of office 8 years ago.


Technically they do as far as the law states, hint the whole inauguration where they promise to protect the Constitution while they have there hand on the bible. Wow you are seriously misinformed. But I can see where a person can get that sense because in the last 16 years we haven't really had presidents that followed the Constitution, even on the surface.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleman11
reply to post by ModernDystopia
 


ok, just because i dont like what Obama is doing doesnt make me a "right wing loon" or that i have a "huge gun collection". youre being arogant and ignorant. if you would read the post it also states that these cilvilian workers could be used for "combat missions" and are there to supplement the misssion. people saying that this is for infrastructure and to stimulate the economy by providing jobs is shallow. LOOK AT WHAT OBAMA IS SAYING, youre not a rightwing psyco for questioning his motives


So, Obama is putting out a civilian workforce, and you want me to believe Steve Watson because he's paid to write sensational crap for Jones?

Sorry, but no.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I don't think research is going to solve this one. It's something new and we don't yet know where it's going. What Obama said about the civilian force during the campaign was campaign rhetoric, just as closing Gitmo immediately was rhetoric. Now that he understands the situaton he admits it might take his whole first term to get it closed. We know he wants a civilian force. As far as I can tell, Americorps is not funded by Dept of Defense. I'm not saying that Americorps and others aren't great programs but I just don't think this is really the force Obama has in mind. He might not know himself what he has in mind. He'll just know when he needs it.

I know that Obama's team maintains touch with the giant database of citizens who supported him during the campaign and is now asking them in what ways they want to serve. The economy being what it is, I'm not sure that large numbers of people are in a position to do volunteer work for extended period of time. The Obama campaign proved that such a database is very powerful in engaging support in a large number of people. Maybe he wants an extension of something like that, a force that can be used wherever they are needed to do whatever is needed. I'm not suggesting anything sinister, just that it's nice to have an army of unarmed people to go do what needs to be done. As for it being a volunteer force, I can't see that happening, and if it's going to be a paid force, then the funding must go through Congress though of course it could always be tacked onto some bill to declare Feb 10 national chewing gum day or something.

As for the assertion that the MSM wouldn't miss anything as important as this, please. They missed everything about Obama during the campaign and have a vested interest in continuing their support to prove they were right him.

Given how our elected officials have been acting, it is only prudent to watch their every move and try to figure out what they are up to.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by oconnection
 


I am not mis informed. I carry a copy of both the Declaration of Independence and a Copy of the Constitution. I know what the President swears to uphold.
Probably better than most. Doesn't mean that we get a President that will do as promised.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join