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.

 

Battle Brewing Over Command Authority!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
It is only prudent to streamline the process and remove unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. In the event of a national emergency there needs to be a clear and direct chain of command in place to maximize the response and effectiveness of available resources. Furthermore, the United States military has no inclination or capacity to change and control the course of civil affairs in the CONUS.

To consider an alternative possibility in this manner is absurd. For one it assumes that in such a grand conspiracy a point of resistance would be the governors of a state?
And it paints military personnel as if they are incapable of self induced thought.
If an individual decides not to obey orders for a cause it matters naught whether they came form the governor or the President.

It's just a political power struggle, occurring in a calm environment. Now imagine how much worse such conflicts of authority might be in the event of a chaotic national emergency. That is the whole point, to avoid this for when we really cannot afford to play this game.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by WestPoint23]




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 
Anyway to phrase that in English?

I thought I heard what you said, but, as I read further I became confused...

...or...was it your confusion, that confused me???

So...resistance IS futile and we will be Assimilated???

Or...Pizza Hut has a Special for $9.99?


[edit on 8/21/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
I thought I heard what you said, but, as I read further I became confused...

...or was it your confusion, that confused me???


I sincerely hope you are indeed confused and not attempting to respond with a lame and irrelevant reply. If it is the former, it only serves to weak all points you have made thus far. As nothing I wrote requires extraordinary powers of perception or thought. If it is the latter, you can rest assured that I am not confused or interested in a pointless squabble.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Dumb it down is all the guy is trying to ask you to do. Not everyone has a vernacular like yours sir.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashnomadonte
reply to post by WestPoint23
 
Dumb it down is all the guy is trying to ask you to do. Not everyone has a vernacular like yours sir.
Yeah...

What he said...

I onlys got a Associate Degree in Consumers Electronics dang gone it...

So...what yer sayin' is da Military has a mind of it's own and will do what's right...regardless of orders?

Or not???

That was my cryptic question...sorry...



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I've got an idea to add to the bill. Force these army folks to shovel sand for sandbags, carry the sick and wounded and clear and clean disaster ares. How this could happen you may wonder? Well add a part to the bill that defines that the soldiers cannot carry any arms or act in any way as a law enforcement body. If this bill is truly about helping disaster areas then that should be more than enough. Police can do the policing and if needed the army can help with the victims.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Bull crap bro what if we get shot at? Than what is I left to defend myself with? My whit? the police
No sir I think not how about not letting us help in the first place. And if law enforcement can't help that is what the guard is for they don't need us in the streets the don't want us there our rules are different from your rules. We don't want to be there as much as you don't want us there so call your congressmen and tell them to shoot this crap down!

[edit on 21-8-2009 by ashnomadonte]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
As far as I can imagine there isn't a natural disaster in the world that would require armed military response. The local police, national guard and militia have more than enough firepower to quell even the most persistant zombie outbreak.
I see the idea behind the law is to have an organized troop to respond to a disaster without the need to reorganized or restructure the current force. However the only reason I can think of that would merit an armed military force on US soil would be an total invasion by a hostile force.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
As far as I can imagine there isn't a natural disaster in the world that would require armed military response. The local police, national guard and militia have more than enough firepower to quell even the most persistant zombie outbreak.
I see the idea behind the law is to have an organized troop to respond to a disaster without the need to reorganized or restructure the current force. However the only reason I can think of that would merit an armed military force on US soil would be an total invasion by a hostile force.


Hurricane Katrina could be used as one people refused to leave there homes and that was there choose. But as a solider I don't want to have to worry about whether or not this house I am entering is going to have a gun totting fool in it or just dead bodies. And I agree with you NO TROOPS IN THE US! Doing anything other than what we do now train and that is it. And if we must help out let it be in giving out humanitarian aid fresh water food and the like.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 

Some additional info on Squalene here as well.

Squalene - The H1N1 vaccines dirty little secret

The part that I'd like to key in on...

I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan.

That pretty much seals the deal for me.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Taking over those base of operations. That is the only way to attack space weapons, IMO

Token second line.


You would still end up dealing with things like the AC130 Gunship.

AC130 - Spectre Gunship - Multi weapons platform

I just can't see ppl on the ground doing to well against that.

The only good news is there is only 25 active at this time.




[edit on 21-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 





It is only prudent to streamline the process and remove unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. In the event of a national emergency there needs to be a clear and direct chain of command in place to maximize the response and effectiveness of available resources. Furthermore, the United States military has no inclination or capacity to change and control the course of civil affairs in the CONUS.


First my friend let me say that the Military Industrial Complex and the Politicians and the actual Military itself are 3 different things, most especially when it comes to the bulk of our troops that comprise the latter. The United States Military is full of many noble, decent, honest, courageous, self sacrificing principled men and women and my comments are not meant to disparage those who serve in uniform.

Having said that let us be realistic here because the reality is the honest and principled nature of our men and women in uniform makes them trusting targets for brainwashing and propaganda that could sway them to believe they are acting in the nation’s best interest when in fact it isn’t in the nation’s best interest.

The reality as I pointed out on page 1 is no…let me repeat no, there is no chance 400,000 troops are simply for domestic disaster relief.

Those numbers are excessive to the extreme for such duty when once again one considers that at the height of the surge less than 150,000 troops were deployed into the active war zone in Iraq. In Afghanistan no more than 60,000 troops have ever been deployed once again into an active war zone. Two entire nations under attack hardly received one half the levels of troops being illegally proposed to now serve ‘guard’ duty and ‘disaster relief’ duty within the United States.

Logistically this makes no sense. Let’s look at Los Angeles California normal peacetime civil law enforcement 21,000 individuals. A metro-plex with as many as 7,000,000 people is policed by 21,000 people.

Let’s look at New Orleans the day after Katrina…maybe 125,000 people were still dwelling in the city on that day.

In these two examples we are talking about in a disaster in theory increasing the presence of uniform authority in Los Angeles 20 fold! There will be 3.1 uniformed personnel in New Orleans to every one person in possible need of assistance?

In the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew that devastated major parts of South Miami and Homestead in Florida where up to 40,000 people were displaced for prolonged periods from an area that normally housed 400,000 people no more than 8,000 troops were needed to provide shelter, assistance, medicine, food, water and ice and at that level to the community of 400,000 people in a disaster area with 8,000 troops providing relief equaled to the average man, woman and child receiving offers to be fed 12 times a day, water 30 times a day, and security at every major intersection 24 hours a day.

400,000 troops, for disaster duty when barely a 1/3 of that are deployed for a major war to take over an entire nation?

When the mod’s aren’t looking pass that over here my friend, I would love a hit of that stuff!

400,000 troops equal the equivalent of a sizable enough force to relieve 10 major cities at one time with total saturation of services.

Now what scenario do you think the Pentagon’s computers envision wrecking the infrastructure of 10 major cities at the same time? Hurricane? Earthquake? Flood? Snow Storm? A Donnie and Marie Osmond Reunion Tour?

Unless Donnie and Marie are planning something I haven’t heard about, these numbers are far too excessive for disaster relief.

Please don’t mistake citizens for Marines; some of us have been trained to think!



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The reality as I pointed out on page 1 is no…let me repeat no, there is no chance 400,000 troops are simply for domestic disaster relief.


That is the sum total number of possible reservists which would be affected under the proposed change in the law. There is no mandate which dictates that in the event of an emergency all national reservists have to be called to duty. Furthermore, your statement goes against the explicit reality of the situation. The President already has the authority to call up reservists for specific situations. The proposed change would encompass first and foremost natural disasters, and other scenarios under a broader spectrum.

The proposed change should not be looked at as a means for the President to use reservists for some grand scheme of tyranny and oppression. If that was the case, the legal authority for such already exists.


Currently, the President can call up the Reserves only in an emergency involving “a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction” or “a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in significant loss of life or property,” according to Title 10, Chapter 1209, Section 12304, of the U.S. Code. In fact, Section 12304 explicitly prohibits the President from calling up the Reserves for any other “natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”

So the new proposed legislation would greatly expand the President’s power to call up the Reserves in a disaster or an emergency and would extend that power to the Secretary of Defense. (There are other circumstances, such as repelling invasions or rebellions or enforcing federal authority, where the President already has the authority to call up the Reserves.)

Link


This is where this gets silly. What some of you are discussing if open warfare in the United States against U.S. citizens. Do you realize how radical and absurd a notion that is? The consensus here seems to be that legal technicalities will somehow prevent tyranny, but our massive, well armed, well educated, an highly motivated population will not?


I will repeat once again, the United States military has no inclination or capacity to change and control the course of civil affairs in the United States. The military has served under 44 Presidents for over 230 years filling its ranks and protecting the United States with each generation of Americans. You do not build the finest and most disciplined fighting force on the planet so that you may throw away such a history and legacy to commit mass murder upon your civilian population.

I've personally had enough of this fear mongering based on false assumptions and faulty logic. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who entertains such an idea should be ashamed of themselves.


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Please don’t mistake citizens for Marines; some of us have been trained to think!


Take your insults elsewhere. Clearly you struggle to think of anything that's remotely based on reality and rational thought.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


I appreciate your thoughtful response. However the premise on which you stand is at least questionable, if not faulty.

It is not prudent to further streamline any process of utilizing U.S. Military Forces as law enforcement. Furthermore, the DoD proposal is much much more than an attemt to streamline, and provide clear channels of command. The clear chain of command already exists with the Governors. And rightly so, as each state is still sovereign to varying degrees.

The Federal arm of the government was structured to provide a larger protection for states; a combined power that is greater than each state on its own. However, the states have clear authority under The Constitution; and the intent of the founders was just that, not that ever The State should find itself needing protection from The Federal Branch of The Government.

While I can surely appreciate your stated commitment to indepenent thought in regards to the intent of orders given,
that applies to citizens as well. Indeed, the point of resistance is the Governors, and the people. The Founders intent exactly.
The Federal Arm of the Government has too much power, and intends to usurp more. Even if we implicity trusted the Federal Government, why change the command of authority now?
Hundreds of years of precedent should not be set aside for merely
"convenience".

Indeed, as you say, it is a politcal power struggle, but one of deadly serious implications if the Federal Arm is allowed to advance further.


Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas and West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, chairman and vice chairman of the NGA, responded in a letter to the Pentagon:

"While we appreciate the outreach,
Har

governors remain cautious about changes to the military's authority to engage independently in domestic emergency response situations."

Governors want a clear chain of command and fear that the Pentagon proposal would complicate planning, result in duplication of efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities.


www.dailymail.com...


Historically, Americans haven't trusted the military to do domestic police work. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, passed in response to abuses by federal troops in the South after the Civil War, prohibits the use of the military "to execute the laws" of the U.S. That's been widely interpreted as a ban on searching, arresting or spying on U.S. civilians by federal troops.

But the law has been violated, notably during the Vietnam War, when Army operatives spied on antiwar activists on campuses. Meanwhile, Congress has eased the law's limits to allow the military to help prosecute the war on drugs.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House sought to further loosen restrictions to allow the military to take on a new domestic-security role. It has mostly been rebuffed. In May the House refused to approve a White House-backed proposal to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the military authority to scrutinize personal and business records of U.S. citizens. And the Senate last year blocked funding for a Pentagon project known as the Total Information Awareness program, which was supposed to collect a vast array of information on individuals, including medical, employment and credit-card histories.

The issue of an expanding military role in domestic affairs also surfaced last year with the Pentagon's creation of the Northern Command, or Northcom, based in Colorado Springs, Colo. The new command, the first such military command designed to protect the U.S. homeland from a terrorist attack, has responsibility for the U.S, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and U.S. coastal waters. Northcom's commander, Gen. Ralph "Ed" Eberhart, is the first general since the Civil War with operational authority exclusively over military forces within the U.S.

www.commondreams.org...

"What we are starting to see is 50 years of legal refinement and revisions for oversight being quietly jettisoned. "

Steven Aftergood, an intelligence policy specialist at the Federation of American Scientists

Soft Kill

The real question is do you trust your government and your elected officials? Well, do you? It seems that U.S. leadership in all areas of government, law enforcement and military are pitting the people against the empire
www.thepeoplesvoice.org...



[edit on 21-8-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 





I will repeat once again, the United States military has no inclination or capacity to change and control the course of civil affairs in the United States.

The military has served under 44 Presidents for over 230 years filling it's ranks and protecting the United States with each generation of Americans. You do not build the finest and most disciplined fighting force on the planet so that you may throw away such a history and legacy to commit mass murder upon your civilian population.


The United States Military is a tool and not a policy making entity unto itself.

The United States Military does not command itself.

The United States Military functions on command.

The German Army had a fine military tradition too until one (1) dictator came along and that’s all it takes is (1) dictator to get in command of any army including our own.

One dictator, plus x number of people who believe it could never happen, plus skilled and prolonged propaganda and political indoctrination adds up to A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.

44 previous Presidents and Governments were not this President and this Government.

The easiest way to lull Americans into the type of complacency that allows for a Dictatorial Regime to take over is these types of authoritarian excuses that attempt to dismiss fears and overlook dangers and make it all seem inconsequential.

Yet the reality is the request wouldn’t be being made if it was of no consequence.

The reality is no, the existing remedies can’t be used as easily or readily to such an end and that’s why the request is being made.

The reality is that no, it’s not the militaries purpose or function as designed by our non-complacent, and much wiser and better educated forefathers and it is because it goes against their thinking and wisdom that such requests are in fact being made.

Insulting is to suggest that none of the above is true. Insulting is to suggest such requests serve any legitimate purpose to the citizen. Insulting is to imagine that a huge over funded, over staffed government on every level of government is not adequately capable of the supposed task of disaster relief already.

Smart people don’t rest on the Laurels of trust and complacency; smart people ask questions with a critical and suspicious eye.

Authoritarian figures and states like to dismiss that as frivolous.

The manner and style of your advocacy undermines the foundation of your appeal.

Once again I am not a Marine; I don’t follow authority without question. I don’t relish anyone who suggests I should. Nor do I accept non-answers as answers.

I am an American and a concerned citizen and all Americans and citizens should be concerned when the Constitution is being violated by it’s government, and as a member of the military who is charged with protecting and safe guarding those ideals and principals I would urge you not to be so anxious in your dereliction to said duty no matter how in love you are with your suppositions or how authoritatively or qualified you feel you might be when promoting them.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Hi WestPoint23. Let me preface the following questions by saying
that I have great respect for our men and women in the US military
and reserves. I have worked both with and for military and
federal agencies, all of whom I found to be competent and
conscientious.
I have not met anyone from DOD or the Pentagon
and given some of the statements I have heard I certainly would
be hesitant to trust them as their white house connections are
of neccesity close. I would ask, if you will, to please clarify and
expound on some of your statements -


Originally posted by WestPoint23
It is only prudent to streamline the process and remove
unnecessary levels of bureaucracy.


Streamline what process exactly? Is this related to the swine
flu? Why would we need so many soldiers logistically?



Furthermore, the United States military has no inclination or
capacity to change and control the course of civil affairs in the
CONUS.


The military doesn't have the capacity to change the course of
civil affairs in the US? Are you privy to what the top brass is
planning? How about national guard troops going door to door
in New Orleans confiscating guns after Katrina. Would that qualify
as meddling in civil affairs?



If an individual decides not to obey orders for a cause it
matters naught whether they came form the governor or
the President.


Are you referring to civilians or miltary personnel here? If
military it would make a difference because they governors
of any state have no authority over you whereas the president
is you commander-in-chief.

You see, it's not the troops the public fears - it's the
commander-in-chief. Given how the last 8 years went, we the
people are more than a little uneasy about what our Federal
fathers have in mind. What differences do you see between
Bush 43 and Obama?

Thank you for your time and I salute you for your service to our
country sir. Best regards.




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


We all see where things are going.

I know I must sound like a broken record but get your act together and start preparing for the worst. That means thinking about gear, food and shelter.

We aren't in Kansas anymore Toto



bite the snake before it bites you

[edit on 21-8-2009 by warrenb]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


Adjuvants such as Squaline activate an auto-immune response so when you take a vaccine your body gets to fightin!...trouble is, these adjuvants also cause swelling of major organs, neurological disorders a-plenty, but see it's OKAY...cause the vaccines passed testing WITHOUT them.

Let's see them pass WITH them, that's not such an easy thing, it's the Adjuvants which caused alot of the deaths, neurological disorders in the 1976 flu shots and yet they STILL insist on using them despite that fact.

Your biggest brow-raising thought should be, the Government has given immunity to vaccine manufacturers against any claims of harm by citizens who take them and either die, or suffer life-long illness as a result.

Like the life commericial years back..."I'm not gonna try it...YOU try it!"



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I will interject a little rational thought and facts here and then be on my way.

Posse Comitatus Act prohibits both NATIONAL GUARD troops as well as federal troops from acting in a law enforcement capacity without express consent from congress.

See that Nation Guard bit? No one screams about a Command Authority or a Nazi state when the National Guard assists flood or hurricane victims.

The Federal government is going to back up the National Guard with Federal troops and assistance in cases of DISASTER RELIEF. Seeing as the scale of disasters lately (Katrina for Example) have outpaced the National Guards capabilities....more so with so many deployed abroad.

Rest assured that Federal Troops deployed to assist in states of disaster are still restricted by Posse Comitatus, just like the National Guard is.

If a Disaster strikes my geography I am going to want all hands on deck.

Makes for great partisan/states rights spin though.

Okay carry on...



[edit on 21-8-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Somthing that goes hand and hand with this thread.
Glenn Beck right now. The Apollo Alliance and the Czars.

If this thread gets you going, you better pay attention to this.
This is the group of sick bastards that will control all of this.

If you trust your Govt and Admin, then see what you think after you find out how they have planned and are planning this for years...........

There is a thread on this, but a new one need to be put up to refresh.

This is the same group that talks about the National Security force Obama promised, just as strong, just as well funded. Remember? Well this is how it's coming about. Northcom...........

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join