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.

 

US Military you are not fighting for your country

page: 8
64
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by smokingmonkey
 





The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.


Good point, smokingmonkey.

I might add that law enforcement agencies actively recruit members of the military. I don't know about you, but these days, with as many tours as these troops are having to do, I don't think it's a good thing to place some of these guys in LEO positions. We see how many suicides and other violent crimes they are committing due to psyche problems acquired after too many tours of duty. I have numerous police officer friends who are former military, and they often argue this issue with me, but the fact is, none of those friends have served in the wars of this past decade.

Frankly, every time I hear someone say they have recently enlisted in the military, it saddens me to think what's ahead for them...it really does.




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


They seem to be downsizing the military.

It will be difficult for them to find good jobs as it is for all.

I doubt many will want to be cops...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Because you quoted numbers of how many military are based within the US.

They are resting... not a threat to you.

Looking back, maybe I should have addressed that to the poster to which you were responding.


edit on 9-5-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err


LOL.....you had me scratching my head in bewilderment.

edit on 9-5-2012 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
So let me get this straight. Ya'll want martial law?

I've conducted martial law in Iraq. Believe me when I say any American that wants troops deployed within the US is well... "inexperienced" in this issue.

-Bullet enforced curfews from dusk til dawn.
-Passes required to go to work. Can't get a pass for whatever reason and your boss will fire you.
-You can only go to Grocery store at certain dictated times. Didn't make it today? Then you starve.
-No bill of rights. No free-speech, no internet, no guns, no anything against the UCMJ, this means civilians too.


That's why you are war criminals.

No Rights? Bullet enforced curfews in someone else's country? They starve?
Wow, that breaks like 100 international treaties and laws , no wait, a thousand!

Freaking sickening.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 





I doubt many will want to be cops...


You're probably right. I'm sure they will have had their fill of life's ugliness by the end of their military service.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by thesungod
So let me get this straight. Ya'll want martial law?

I've conducted martial law in Iraq. Believe me when I say any American that wants troops deployed within the US is well... "inexperienced" in this issue.

-Bullet enforced curfews from dusk til dawn.
-Passes required to go to work. Can't get a pass for whatever reason and your boss will fire you.
-You can only go to Grocery store at certain dictated times. Didn't make it today? Then you starve.
-No bill of rights. No free-speech, no internet, no guns, no anything against the UCMJ, this means civilians too.


That's why you are war criminals.

No Rights? Bullet enforced curfews in someone else's country? They starve?
Wow, that breaks like 100 international treaties and laws , no wait, a thousand!

Freaking sickening.


I knew you wouldn't pass this thread up, Muzzle.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


How does enforcing martial law which is written down in these treatise your trying to quote illegal, when it is the treatise that make this possible?



Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to subdue the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.[1]

Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.[1]

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).


Pretty much every country that has ever fought a war has imposed Martial law. Period end of story.

So how am I a war criminal exactly?
edit on 9-5-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy


I knew you wouldn't pass this thread up, Muzzle.


You know that his admission to what happened in Iraq is legitimate grounds for bringing charges against him and his company and commanding officers?

It actually opens the door to war crime investigations, and since he openly admitted to it, we have direct evidence of his complicity within the highly illegal acts mentioned herein.

If something like that went to the major media, it would create a global firestorm of dissent and criticism.

They not only broke various provisions of the Geneva Conventions, but they also clearly ignored the Declaration of Human Rights that the United States signed and is party to. We broke our own laws that we agreed to.

This guy just admitted to breaking all kinds of laws right here in public. And nothing's gonna happen folks, because might is right I guess. And the media purposely covers this crap up.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


sorry, I should have been responding to babybunny . I read his information quote in your post. Brain fart.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


Only officers swear to the constitution. Enlisted men swear to obey the president. Our military understands that an action to overthrow elected officials IS BREAKING THE CONSTITUTION. If you are a strict constructionist then the constitution gives a stand army no authority what-so-ever to interfere with government. How can you square these two?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


Only officers swear to the constitution. Enlisted men swear to obey the president. Our military understands that an action to overthrow elected officials IS BREAKING THE CONSTITUTION. If you are a strict constructionist then the constitution gives a stand army no authority what-so-ever to interfere with government. How can you square these two?


I believe the oath was changed recently was it not? It used to be all men swore to uphold the constitution even over the President.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Fourth Geneva Convention


Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.



Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.



Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.


Iraq and Afghanistan both signed as party to the Conventions in 1956.

That means that civilians in those nations are technically "protected persons", but instead these soldiers are shooting them for being outside at the wrong hours? What happened to simply detaining them?

By shooting civilians on sight based upon the "time of day/night it is", than you are clearly breaking Article 3 section D, where it states that the decision must first be made by a constituted court and that all judicial guarantees will be upheld. Looks like the soldiers are judge, jury, and executioner to me.

Shooting unarmed people on sight over a curfew is not legal...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


sorry, I should have been responding to babybunny . I read his information quote in your post. Brain fart.


LOL.....no problemo.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jagermeister
 


Yes , you said in your original post that you did not want to hear " we are just following orders," or did I miss something? We follow orders just like you obey the law and pay taxes that fund these wars, am I right? You need to address Uncle Sam about this, not the troops! Like I said, put up or shut up! You stop funding the war and troops
stop fighting in them, what do you say? Yep that's what I thought, nothing because you do not really feel as passionately about this as you think. Oh it's much easier to tell the troops to just stop following orders when you could just as easily stop paying taxes if you feel that strongly about this, but I know you Don't.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The Geneva Conventions have all sorts of provisions for "martial law" and "summary executions". We did the former, never the latter.

You should read about the Geneva Convention and the "Law of War".

ac-support.europe.umuc.edu...

As for the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"... It was a piece of paper adopted by the UN, not the US nor ANY other country. It's not in any law any where that we have to follow the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

www.un.org...

You should read some of my other posts as I clarified what I meant. On like pages 2 and 3 of the thread.

We didn't just shoot people, I was just trying to show how bad Martial Law is and that I don't want that in the US.
edit on 9-5-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmertSpionam1
Oh it's much easier to tell the troops to just stop following orders when you could just as easily stop paying taxes if you feel that strongly about this, but I know you Don't.


I did stop paying taxes.

Guess what? Your boss owns the printing press and printed enough to cover the shortfall.

They found a loophole.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Lets get to the point



WTF !!



Damn!!



_____________________________________________

Epic win



edit on 9-5-2012 by DumbTopSecretWriters because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Fourth Geneva Convention


Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.



Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.



Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.


Iraq and Afghanistan both signed as party to the Conventions in 1956.

That means that civilians in those nations are technically "protected persons", but instead these soldiers are shooting them for being outside at the wrong hours? What happened to simply detaining them?

By shooting civilians on sight based upon the "time of day/night it is", than you are clearly breaking Article 3 section D, where it states that the decision must first be made by a constituted court and that all judicial guarantees will be upheld. Looks like the soldiers are judge, jury, and executioner to me.

Shooting unarmed people on sight over a curfew is not legal...


Guidance for such actions is dictated by your Rules of Engagement also in these particular places Iraq and Afghanistan there is the Status of Forces Agreement that gives the guidelines for the ROE and also conduct the guys on the ground are not lawyers they want to survive this helps ensure their survival. I wish I had a copy of my ROE card I could post on here for you to look at, but I know you are a smart guy you probably already know about all of that anyways. As a matter of fact Joe Biden was just in Iraq on Nov. 30th this past Nov to discuss the new SFA terms.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
No I fight for my Universe.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by thesungod
 


I never flew the flag or listened to that garbage that came out of the dregs of Nashville (# Toby Keith!).

You were duped. Hell, we all were duped with that WMD talk and Dubya's "You're Either With Us or Against Us" rhetoric.




"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

It started way before W.




top topics



 
64
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join