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.

 

RED FLAG.!! Foreign military officer takes over US NATO command..!!

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
French general takes over NATO command in Virginia


BRUSSELS (AP) -- In an unprecedented move, a French general will take over a key NATO command in Norfolk, Virginia, charged with transforming the Europe-centered Cold War alliance to tackle today's global challenges, NATO said Wednesday.
....
The position has traditionally been held by a four-star U.S. general. Abrial's appointment marks the first time in NATO's 60-year history that a non-American officer has been appointed to fill the position.


This is real spooky. With all of the threads started about our military and it's possible inaction against the American people, now we have this. The fact that this has never been done before and now, with all of the possible chaos this fall, they have chosen to put a foreign military in control really bothers me.

Is this just one more move in the chess game for america's freedom?




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Sadly this has happened in all levels of our government.

It is very disturbing however.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Looks to me like they are getting in position to surrender.(joke btw).

I personally don't think it matters who is in the position, they are going to be following the same person's orders either way. But I do suppose it's a sign of things becoming a global power, but don't think it has anything to do with American troops.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Umm, I'm failing to see what is wrong with this.

N.A.T.O. is not a US Initiative. It is an Alliance that we belong to, along with Canada, Greenland, the EU and even now the Russian Commonwealth of States and some North African countries. We don't get to run it as dictators. We get to participate in a partnership with our Allies.

Likewise, the positions of Prime Minister of N.A.T.O. and Deputy Secretary of N.A.T.O. has never been held by a U.S. Citizen. Italy has pretty much dominated both of these posts, although a Belgian is set to take over the role of Prime Minister of N.A.T.O. in August.

I suppose it being on U.S. soil may be fearful to some, but you don't hear the Belgians complaining about the Italians running one of the other 28 N.A.T.O. Commands worldwide that is on Belgian soil do you?

I think the most significant things to get out of this news is that:

1.) The U.S. is finally willing to play by the rules we make, rather than insist on being exempt from the rules that we make for everyone else to abide by.

and...

2.) The French are finally willing to work militarily with their Allies rather than go it alone and maintain military separatism (the French are the only EU Country that has provisions for complete military autonomy allowing them to utilize Military Force and Nuclear Weapons outside of EU approval).

These are big steps for two Super Powers to make and bodes very well, not the other way around.

Although I guess for some this is a taste of our own medicine. For once we get to feel what it is like when a foreign sovereignty operates a Military Command on our own soil, just like we do to every other nation that we have a US Military Base at. (The U.S. operates 700-800 Military Bases in 63 foreign countries along with a Military Presence in 156 foreign countries!)



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 



Don't forget that we have bases in pretty much every country, so how does it matter if a French guy is commanding a base in Virgnia?

It's not like NATO is going to invade the US.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by PieKeeper]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Intersting indeed. It does leave alot to the imagination of things to come next. Could it be the beginning of foriegn leaders to help impose martial law on the US? It would be easier for a non american to round us up or eliminate the people that stand against our gov.
Never can realy tell whats going to happen next but im sure itll be somthing big.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
It's not like NATO is going to invade the US.


Most true, even if we were to have another Civil War, N.A.T.O., especially under French Command would have a laissez-faire attitude and wait for the chips to fall where they may, unlike those pesky English who continued to meddle in our domestic affairs during the last Civil War, waiting for an opportunity to invade.

We forget that the French are the very reason we are free from English rule and are an independent nation. A guerrilla war fought by our fore-fathers only bought us time for the French Navy to show up and force the British to surrender. We were actually on our last leg and weren't going to hold out against the British much longer.

They have been our greatest Ally, as we have been to them.

For all the French-bashing that has happened in the past 9 years amongst the more Right-wing of our ranks, the French are the closest thing to American (and vice-versa) as you can get.

As it was inevitable that N.A.T.O. Command at the Virginia Base be turned over to another N.A.T.O. representative, I'd rather it be the French then an Italian or a Brit. Despite what some of us might say about the French, they've always had our backs and proven they could be trusted and stand for the same freedoms that we do (at least the freedoms we commit to paper, even if we don't exercise them other than in imagined idealisms).



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


The problem is the US is never supposed to enter into treaties that contain such things.

Like the Kyoto Treaty. Not signing that was the only thing GWB did right, but I seriously doubt he did it for the right reasons. But it is against the constitution to join into any treaties/alliances that gives jurisdiction to another country over Americans.

Which could be why it has always been an American if the positions carries such authority(really I'm not sure on the position itself).

That is the only thing I can think of anyway.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 



NATO has two strategic commands, Allied Command Operations in Belgium, which oversees all military operations, and Allied Transformation Command in the United States, which conducts training, and develops and improves military capabilities for the Alliance.


Nothing unusual really, just that it's now a French guy in charge of it.

You'd be surprised how much structure in the US is owned by foreign companies and nations.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by fraterormus
 



Don't forget that we have bases in pretty much every country, so how does it matter if a French guy is commanding a base in Virgnia?

It's not like NATO is going to invade the US.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by PieKeeper]


He's not commanding a base in Virginia. He'll be head of a command that is incidentally located on the base in Norfolk.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens

He's not commanding a base in Virginia. He'll be head of a command that is incidentally located on the base in Norfolk.


Not sure how I got quoted in that...but...

Good point about a distinction between heading a command and heading a Military Base.

Although even if it were the later, it really would be no different than a foreign dignitary being appointed to a foreign Embassy on US Soil. Most foreign Embassies and Consulates even have Military Appointments that are not under US control.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



But it is against the constitution to join into any treaties/alliances that gives jurisdiction to another country over Americans.


Can you please cite the relevant part of the constitution, and then explain how a mutual defense treaty "gives jurisdiction to another country over Americans"?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniskeptic
reply to post by badmedia
 



But it is against the constitution to join into any treaties/alliances that gives jurisdiction to another country over Americans.


Can you please cite the relevant part of the constitution, and then explain how a mutual defense treaty "gives jurisdiction to another country over Americans"?


I can't remember it right off my head, but I will look it up for you.

Also, I didn't say that the treaty itself was doing that, I am not familiar with the position and so forth. Just that if the treaty includes subjecting US citizens to the laws and jurisdiction of foreign countries it is wrong. I was just saying that is the only thing I can think of that would be a "problem" with the appointment.

Sorry if you took that as me saying that is the case. I honestly do not know, only know where it could potentially be a problem.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Omniskeptic
 


Here you go.

Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is all to keep treaties from superseding the constitution. As per the 10th amendment, any powers not specifically listed given to the federal government are passed down to the states and so forth. So, if you start to give foreign countries powers and jurisdictions over the people, then you are violating the constitution etc.

Make sense?

If that is the case, I do not know. I'm just saying this is the only thing I can think of that could possibly be a problem with it is all. I'm not really sure what all NATO and that command entail etc.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

RED FLAG.!!
Is this just one more move in the chess game for america's freedom?


I personally would like to see us pull out of NATO. But that's a discussion for another time.




[edit on 29-7-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


That says the exact opposite of what you claim it does...


Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;


This part says that there are three things that are the supreme law of the land:

1) The Consititution
2) Federal laws made under the constitution
3)Treaties made under the authority of the United States


and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.


This part says that judges in every state will be bound by those three things, regardless of their state's individual laws or constitutions.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Omniskeptic
 


"under the authority of the United States" puts it under the constitution would you not say? That is what the president and military take an oath to defend. Where does the US government get power outside the constitution(legally). The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it has existing rights which can't be infringed on(9th amendment)

Jefferson said in Manual of Parliamentary Practice -



If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution


Hamilton in the federalist papers:



a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.


It does superseded state constitutions however, as that is the "pecking order" as per the 10th amendment. That has happened before in a supreme court ruling(just found this out). You are right about that part.

Ware vs Hylton



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Yeah, I don't think we disagree about that. Treaties aren't supposed to contradict the constitution. But nowhere does it say that treaties cannot supplement the constitution. In fact, it says the opposite by giving explicit instructions on how to ratify treaties.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I think the thing that people are missing is that NATO is like a club. It is an empty entity with nothing but bureaucrat that make policy for NATO. Only when NATO is called upon to act by a vote within the body proper, will troops be commited to the fact. The US does not have a standing unit under authority of NATO and neither does any other country who are in the treaty. When action is required member nations contribute available and appropriate forces to the NATO force. This is to make sure that NATO does not have a standing army of it's own as it is not a country. NATO is nothing more than a western reactionary force. Nothing more.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Omniskeptic
 


Right, but the 10th amendment still does apply(and 9th). There are limits to what can be done, as the powers have to be specificially listed, and not infringe on previous amendments.

If it isn't, then the constitution can be completely bypassed by treaties. I am sure there is something else about not subjecting the country to other countries laws/regulations/punishments. I haven't really been talking about the constitution the past few years, and don't have my links anymore but I remember it because of the Kyoto thing.

The entire reason for the 9th and 10th amendments was so the government couldn't do those kinds of things, so it would make no sense if the treaty power allowed them to.

I'm going to go search for that.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join