I am not a paid propoganda agent

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Recent revelations on Above Top Secret have lead to information that states that Paid government information agents are unable to post falsehoods, under penalty of the Universal Code of Military Justice.


Can you please provide a source to where this is stated in the Universal Code of Military Justice - it sounds about as real as the old wives tale that a police officer has to tell the truth when he answers if he is a policeman.
Besides even codes can be bypassed in matters of 'national security' and all that rubbish.

For the record I will state I am not a agent sponsored by any agency in any form when I post on here - but I doubt it is going to really provide those in the know much security.

IF THIS WERE TRUE - ATS could simply have their terms layed out like below - but they dont.


Do you accept the ATS terms and condition
Yes (I also swear I am not here representing or gathering info on behalf of any 3rd party)
No
edit on 28-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 
nor am I, so how does this work? will this be part of my sig?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Recent revelations on Above Top Secret have lead to information that states that Paid government information agents are unable to post falsehoods, under penalty of the Universal Code of Military Justice.


Can you please provide a source to where this is stated in the Universal Code of Military Justice - it sounds about as real as the old wives tale that a police officer has to tell the truth when he answers if he is a policeman.
Besides even codes can be bypassed in matters of 'national security' and all that rubbish.

For the record I will state I am not a agent sponsored by any agency in any form when I post on here - but I doubt it is going to really provide those in the know much security.

IF THIS WERE TRUE - ATS could simply have their terms layed out like below - but they dont.


Do you accept the ATS terms and condition
Yes (I also swear I am not here representing or gathering info on behalf of any 3rd party)
No
edit on 28-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



In 1950, Congress passed the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ),3 providing a comprehensive system of military justice applicable
to all the armed forces. Through this landmark legislation, Congress spe-
cifically addressed offenses involving falsehoods by service members.
Such falsehoods have always proven contrary to the ideals of trust and
integrity vital to the maintenance of military discipline.

Falsehoods and false statements by service members are “condemned by military law as
much for [their] unsoldierly qualities as for the deceit and fraud [they] may
accomplish. A falsehood can never be interpreted as an innocent act.”



.... Service members often make false statements. Not all such state-
ments, however, violate Article 107. In establishing Article 107, Congress
provided that, “[a]ny person subject to this chapter who, with intent to
deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official
document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official state-
ment knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may
direct.


Statements to public media, and to the public at large, are considered official.

Source: www.loc.gov...
edit on 28-2-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: better URL



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
whoa....you expect people to open that file lol

Thats exactly what a disinfo agent would do....upload a virus ridden file to infect peoples computers...thanks for the source....but how about something that we dont have to download eh...i dont want a virus thanks very much



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by backinblack
 
nor am I, so how does this work? will this be part of my sig?


Well, that's the plan...

You copy a link to YOUR POST stating that you are not a dis-info agent, into your sig, so more and more people can tell that you are NOT a dis-info agent.

My plan is one to separate the dis-info agents from the actual, honest to god posters.

Of course, this would only work with member participation, and if successful, would clearly indicate not only that disinfo agents are in our midsts... but WHO they are...

lol.

I have never liked seeing a problem, and not attempting to solve it.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
and then for you who do not know how to use a mouse to well usmilitary.about.com... this is the one we should post

8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
not that there are but you never know.
edit on 28-2-2011 by bekod because: word spelling
edit on 28-2-2011 by bekod because: word spelling
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 28-2-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 



whoa....you expect people to open that file lol


It's a PDF from www.loc.gov...

Nice try though.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 



whoa....you expect people to open that file lol


It's a PDF from www.loc.gov...

Nice try though.


So your saying you cant get a virus from a PDF file hahahahahaha

I suggest you look at this....its not a file you have to download


www.itpro.co.uk...

Anyways...im done here, cant be feeding the troll all day
Good luck with finding all the disinfo agents haha
edit on 28-2-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: leaving comment added







Last month, security firm F-Secure revealed that Adobe Reader had overtaken Microsoft Word as the number one target for targeted attacks, with nearly half of all attacks in 2009 having being directed at Adobe's PDF-reading software.
edit on 28-2-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: to add snippet for other user




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 



whoa....you expect people to open that file lol


It's a PDF from www.loc.gov...

Nice try though.


So your saying you cant get a virus from a PDF file hahahahahaha

I suggest you look at this....its not a file you have to download


www.itpro.co.uk...
could you add a snippet? the last time i got a troj vir from a uk site.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


You don't have to download the PDF if you don't want to.. it's just what I copied the External Quote from, reguarding the uniform code of military justice.

I ahve also noticed that you are trying your absolute best to discredit this thread, and prevent rational discussion...

And you still have not Stated that you are NOT a dis-info agent working for a Government for the purpose of directing discussions, and promoting propaganda.

It's such an easy thing to do, and yet, here you are... trying your absolute BEST to prevent people from even taking this thread seriously...

Once again, the topic of this thread, is Stating FOR THE RECORD that you are NOT a dis-info agent.

And yet, here you are.... Spreading dis-info, and attempting to corrupt the discussion.

Please stay on topic, or kindly leave.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Well, bearing in mind that the FBI, CIA, NSA, among many other agencies would be exempt from the UCMJ, and that there is every probability that Executive Order has alleviated even the branches of the Military from such restriction...

And also overlooking the very real concept that most paid posters, IMO, represent corporate interests and have little concern or interest in the trivialities of law....

I am not now, nor have I ever posted on ATS for any reason other than personal interest. I have never received recompense for posting here nor have I ever done so at the behest of any agency, government, or corporate entity.

Good, bad, or otherwise, I take ownership of every single word.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



I am not now, nor have I ever posted on ATS for any reason other than personal interest. I have never received recompense for posting here nor have I ever done so at the behest of any agency, government, or corporate entity.

Good, bad, or otherwise, I take ownership of every single word.

~Heff


Thank you very, very much.

(Second line is Made of Gratitude)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
i would like to reaffirm this statement"I bekod am not now, nor have I ever posted on ATS for any reason other than personal interest. I have never received recompense for posting here nor have I ever done so at the behest of any agency, government, or corporate entity". and to see if the post copy like post worked?hay i did it yayayay now if i could jest get an avatar, an do not tell me about to how too post thread, well any way i hope people see the line!
edit on 28-2-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Well if this was true - ATS can just put a condition in their TOC to protect it's community and save everyone putting this in their sig.
Unfortunately from your source I interpret it to say something quite different:


Service members often make false statements. Not all such statements,
however, violate Article 107. In establishing Article 107, Congress
provided that, “[a]ny person subject to this chapter who, with intent to
deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official
document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement
knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may
direct.”7


See it says they often make false statements. And goes on to say which false statements they can not make.



“[a]ny person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive:

signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official
document, knowing it to be false

OR makes any other false official statement
knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may
direct


They are not making an official statement or signing an official document. Good idea, but we didnt really think it would be that simple did we?
edit on 28-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)




The officiality of a certain statement depends on the facts of each case.

It then goes on to give examples, we need to remember these people have freedom of speech as an inalienable right to and only give away part of that when they join the military - if they are not claiming to be representing the military they can say just about anything to anybody. I do not see why they would need to answer who they work for, or even answer it truthfully on an internet forum.
edit on 28-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Hmmm, interesting concept. Though I'm unsure of the effectiveness of such a thread... what the heck.

I'm not employed by any government agency, nor any branch of the military, and my reasons for being here on ATS have never been related to purposefully posting propaganda, dis-info, or discussion steering in the interests of any such military branch, government agency, or any corporate entity.

That said, if any of the above are hiring, and the pay is right...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 



OR makes any other false official statement
knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may
direct

They are not making an official statement or signing an official document. Good idea, but we didnt really think it would be that simple did we?


They actually ARE making an official statement.

If they are dis-info agents, and they are posting HERE, that means that THIS BOARD, and their statements on it, ARE part of their OFFICIAL DUTY.

And hence, pursuant to the UCMJ, they ARE considered official.

They would be LYING, IN THE LINE OF DUTY... and that's a BIG no-no in the military.
edit on 28-2-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)


The article I linked to earlier is actually a collection of court cases that define what "Official" is, for the purpose of issuing false statements...

And the court cases indicate, quite clearly, that lying while preforming ones duties is considered "Official" as the UCMJ applies.

Source Again (Military Law Review):
www.loc.gov...
edit on 28-2-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


What a load of hogwash. Just because you say it is official does not make it so - read your own source:


The officiality of a certain statement depends on
the facts of each case. Consider the following five scenarios:
1. In order to be excused from her apartment lease, a Marine lance
corporal falsely tells her landlord that her father was killed in the September
11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon .11
2. An airman tells another airman that he was a star running back on
his high school football team when, in fact, he was only the water boy.
3. A soldier lies to a civilian police officer during a state investigation
concerning his involvement in a fight and shooting involving a senior non
commissioned officer at an off-post bar and trailer park.12
4. In order to impress a civilian girl, a corporal falsely alters his leave
and earnings statement to reflect a higher salary than he really receives.
5. A military recruiter lies to a civilian police officer during a state




In each of the five scenarios, the service member made a false statement.
The issue, however, is whether or not each false statement is “official”
and thereby capable of sustaining a conviction under Article 107.
Today, service members face a continually expanding application of the
term “official” under Article 107. This article examines the scope of Article
107. Specifically, the article focuses on the first element of the offense,
which limits proscribed conduct under Article 107 to “official” statements.
Although the article reviews cases involving the so-called “exculpatory
no” doctrine, that doctrine is not discussed in this article.14


I am 99.9% sure that posting on an internet forum is not an official statement.


An “official” statement can only be made while acting in a military capacity or pursuant to military authority




Not all false statements by service members are “official.” Courts must not
hesitate to strike down those statements that are legally insufficient to sustain
an Article 107 conviction.


AND FOR THE ULTIMATE PROOF


The actual act of altering a military identification card may, in itself, constitute a violation of the UCMJ.300
The presentation of that falsified identification card to one’s mother, however, does not mean that statement (made at the time the document is presented to mom) is “official.”
edit on 28-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 



I am 99.9% sure that posting on an internet forum is not an official statement. Considering they did not have to even tell the truth to civilian investigators investigating a crime:


The section that you are quoting from is in regards to an off duty soldier, being questioned pursuant to a civilian investigation.

He was not answering the questions while on duty.

Dis-info agents posting on a forum as part OF their duty, ARE on the other hand.

The precedent still stands, Posting falsehoods while "In the line of Duty" is a violation of the Universal code of Military Justice, because they are Acting in an official capacity, and "On the Clock" so to speak.

And Government Dis-info Agent posting on this website is acting as a type of "Public Relations" because interacting with the members here is a part of their duty.
edit on 28-2-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: clarification



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


All of this truly means nothing, if i were a disinfo agent i would just not post in this article.
It is truly simple as that.
They could however read it.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


All of this truly means nothing, if i were a disinfo agent i would just not post in this article.
It is truly simple as that.
They could however read it.


And if Everyone ELSE posts here?

What if we ALL made the public statement, and they did not?

You see what I mean?





top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join