It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Two Four Star Generals write New York Times demanding Obama Veto the NDAA

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

Well, the mass detention of Americans doesn't so much concern me as does mysteriously never hearing from one of my friends or family again, and the parties involved not being liable for letting anyone know or ever releasing them.

Of course until the "war on terror" is over, whatever that is supposed to mean. It's not like this hasn't already happened, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not.
edit on 24-12-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 07:48 PM
I knew Chuck back in the day, he is not just any 4 star retired. He was commandant and trust me the Marines are listening. He was principled when I knew him, I wouldn't expect that to have changed. Good to see he's speaking out.

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:20 PM
Some of you have asked about what the military would do if asked to turn against the American people by order of the president. I have related this story a while ago, but it bears retelling, to give the latest posters asking about it some perspective.

I served in the Marines from 1994-1999. For those of you unfamiliar with the Marine Corps role, they are a branch of the Navy, an amphibious force and as such are often sent on six month tours or "floats" aboard Navy ships, where basically we just ride around, and if the # hits the fan somewhere we could be rapidly deployed to the hotspot.

Anyways, one day we were all summoned to the t.v. room of the berthing area (sleeping area) and we were all handed a sheet of paper. On it were ten questions, all asking if we would support a presidential declaration of martial law, would we fire on US citizens if the need arose, etc. It was completely anonymous. We didn't have to sign our names to it, we simply filled it out and deposited it in a box on a table at the front of the room.

We didn't know who had commissioned this poll, or what brought it about, but afterwords we talked amongst our unit about the questions and how we had answered. We were all somewhat puzzled by this poll, but the consensus within our unit was no, we would not fire on U.S. civilians, regardless of what the commander in chief ordered.

I still think back to day sometimes and wonder what prompted that little poll. Never heard anything about it again, as to how we replied, or who was interested in our responses.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Observor

The constitution is what the supreme court says it is. So no amendment to the constitution is required if the supreme court in one instance says that habeas corpus doesn't apply.

The court must find reasoning to justify the suspensions of an explicit right/provision within the U.S. Constitution.

Sure, but the justification is to themselves, not to someone else.

The ACLU, I'm certain, already has a suit going to have the constitutionality of the law reviewed.

They can try and will probably find some judge willing to entertain it. But I doubt it will go far.

This is not unlike how "Obamacare" is under review by a similar lawsuit.

There are people directly affected by "Obamacare". Until someone is detained under this new law, there wont be a person with a locus standi in the matter.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:39 AM
Is there any scenario where having the NDAA in place is a good idea? Beyond what it is documented for it to be used for?

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:10 PM
No offense but this corrupt government it wouldn't matter if everyone in the country but a hand full of people didn't want him to sign it. They are pushing for a new world order and they don't care who gets in the way.

There is no need for this to even be talked about or considered. There is no case where someone should be stripped from their rights as an American but then again it's done everyday in the United States. What this law would be is if I said F this country and the government read this and didn't like it they would bust in my door and arrest me and no one would ever hear from me again. I would be sitting in a FEMA death camp digging my own grave.

The NDAA would just mean if your out spoken about this government, or extremely patriotic or anything that posses a risk to the new world order agenda you might as well pack a bag for a long stay at your nearest FEMA camp and they won't be cooking smores and singing camp fire songs either.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by WatchRider
reply to post by TheTimeIsNow

I seriously doubt that the location on his profile is a real one.
Use your loaf and don't fly off at half-cock like that dude.

That is his location cuz he has said so before. Use your "loaf" WTF does that even mean--I don't fly off half-cock this guy is a MORON to the 100th degree

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:21 AM
reply to post by Reaper2137

It will be a day of reckoning when the people of the U.S. Rise up against all this tyranny and corruption in our government. They wil only b able to push so far. Our troops are just that, OUR troops. They know what their oaths mean, to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic. The government must make civilians appear to be enemies in order to justify using the military against citizens.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:26 AM
If this bill becomes the law of the land...watchout.......the total end of freedom will come riding on the heels and soon....many many U.S. citizens will be imprisoned. Mark my words......

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by Reaper2137

and even after all of that he still passed the bill....

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:12 AM
I have a hunch as to why the Marine Generals are protesting.

There have been rumors that the Marine Corps would be the division of military that would be eliminated in a restructuring project. This NDAA law would be part of such a restructuring. Prevent the NDAA, prevent the chance of the Marines getting laid off for austerity measures. (personally I don't see a problem because most of the Marines I've met after they do their duty go into drug trafficking enterprises, soldiers of fortune; a few get to be police who get access to Fusion Centers, they become a nuisance to the average clean citizen like me, beacuse of aggression and entitlement issues, but that's my point of view)

It's been seen in Arizona that the Department of Homeland Security is overriding one Maricopa County Sherriff's jail staff with their DHS staff. In New York City, there is restructuring to give city police the tools that the FBI would previously have access to. Around the USA, Fusion Centers are providing information to all tiers of law enforcement, blurring the distinctions between law enforcement agencies. The NDAA is another blurring step, which appears to put the common civilian on defense against the military, which is trained, armed, and with this act, dangerous in the wrong hands.

Historically, at least the way I've seen history, when a leader of a nation opts to use the nation's military to police the citizens, instead of as defense against "the enemy", the military eventually oversteps boundaries of liberty, peace, and lawfulness, and there is great potential for a democracy to transform into a dictatorship, with the concept of citizens voting the country into action as "the enemy". I think of the (edited, not milgram, my bad)Stanford Prison Experiment, where role-playing went horribly wrong, with those playing prison guards nearly tortured those playing the defenseless prisoners. Weapons are designed to inflict harm, and men trained to be weapons for their country, trained to kill, trained to extinguish, can you see the potential threat?

Hasn't McChrystal, in another branch but still was a 4 star General, already been de-pinned as a result of making comments to the press? I'm confused why the Marine Generals would go to the NYTimes and not directly to the President. Maybe they are trying to build peer pressure to resist the NWO.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Sandalphon because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by FreedomKnight
reply to post by Reaper2137

If the TPTB believe the entire US military will be at their beckoned called if AND when they declare Martial Law and the detainment of American citizens under this treasonous act the scum will come to realize there are good men and women of the Armed Forces that will stand with the People and not with them and defend our Constiution and our HOMELAND!!

That's nice. I already have had Navy SEALS and Marine types stalk and bully me the People up and down Arizona, from inside California, and across into Texas, because I found out about their hobby of domestic drug investments, and they are doing it to more "the people" than just me. I've got indoctrinated military coming home from the war on terror and telling me that military has better quality rights than civilians. Actions speak louder than words.

Military already is working covertly against the citizens. This is why the USA has a disgruntling effect on foreign powers as of late. I don't see a big protest from within from the Armed Forces now. The song changes when soldiers have something to lose like family, and are being threatened with prison for aiding whatever the definition of terrorism turns out to be in the microchipped future. A plus for bravado.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Sandalphon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Wow.. About damn time, that the military is standing up to Obama. Even retired Generals carry a lot of weight still. Its good to see these fine men standing up for the American people. They need to be working there contacts at the Pentagon to get this B.S pulled as quickly as possible.

This needs to be stopped, This slowly eroding of our freedoms make me sick as a former Military Police officer. I would never as an MP enforce any laws that pertain to indefinite arrest. Its Crap and every one knows it.

How much longer are Americans going to stick their head in the sand? At what cost will it take for them remember they can revolt? Will it take America becoming the 4th Reich?

I hope that these two fine men, Even tho they are Marines I won't hold that against them. Lead the revolt that needs to happen. I see the writing on the wall, I'm pretty sure that most of ATS does too, A civil war is coming. Might not be today but I think it will happen in the next ten years.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I completely agree with your sentiments. As far as how long the American people are going to stick their heads in the sand...I think its going to take military leaders (retired and not) such as these to stand up and do their jobs - to defend against all threats, foreign and domestic. Under a strong leader, the American People will stand up and revolt. The flipsyde is this...TPTB put a great deal of effort into what I'll call "marketing", as well as "market testing." They know how far and when to push certain things, and what to show and not show in the media (i.e. it always seems that protest groups are fringe and small, so that people don't feel the urge to 'jump in the game') Strong leadership, especially from the military, and especially someone(s) who can get a message out there without it being quashed, is going to be necessary for any sort of resistance against the fascist regime which has gone from 'creeping in' to 'charging in' over the last decade or so.

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in