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.

 

Army Admits Re-Education Camp Manual "Not Intended For Public Release"

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 



its all in there, have a look for yourselves.


No, it's not. You're reading a whole lot into the article.


Page 277 of the manual states, “Detainees constitute a significant labor force of skilled and unskilled individuals. These individuals should be employed to the fullest extent possible in work that is needed to construct, manage, perform administrative functions for, and maintain the internment facility.”


This is basic community living.

These plans are enacted without a defined termination date. People may be there for weeks - maybe years. It depends upon what kind of disaster we are talking about. And that will also affect the camp, itself, in a number of ways. Long-term stays are going to see continual development of the camp - likely in a "ground-up" sort of manner.

Tents suck. If there's a forest nearby and people can acquire some tools (tactical acquisition from abandoned stores... we don't loot/steal... we tactically acquire) - why not let them put together some floor plans and build some huts/shelters? Why not let them establish crops?

There's a notable difference between allowing these people to put their skills to use and conscripting their services/skills. But, either way - the point is that these camps may "be it." They may get cut off from centralized chains of command and be looking at something straight out of a Zombie film (town of survivors - though not necessarily having to put up with flesh eating corpses...).




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Army Admits Re-Education Camp Manual "Not Intended For Public Release"


www.survivalcentral.net

Fort Leonard Wood Public Affairs director Tiffany Wood has provided the first official response to the shocking U.S. Army document that outlines the implementation of re-education camps, admitting that the manual was “not intended for public release” and claiming that its provisions only apply outside the United States, a contention completely disproved by the language contained in the document itself.

After a reader sent Wood a link to where the manual, entitledFM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF), can be downloaded on thearmy.mil website (but only by military employ
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.dailypaul.com...
www.infowars.com...
edit on 9-5-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)


now....

let's all take a deep breath...

and for ONE second.. consider this...

that the un-named, uncredited... benefactors.. of humanity... have something.. alil bit more .. OMINOUS and WONDERFUL on the horizon for us.. as opposed to thr typical doom and gloom..

now just imagine for a second that .. yeah.. maybe some people will evolve and get super powers and save the rest of us from other ab-normal occurrences.. suchas.. the iraques.. i mean suchas.. and the..
i mean.. such as.. alien invaders.. massive monstrous godzilla tyrannosaurs...

you name it.. whatever it takes to get YOU the public.. to say "holy $#@#!... people are flyin around savin my ass from being eaten by a gian t monster or saving me from bein squirted out like from an OFF can from a flyin saucer!..." yeah.. that's when you''ll accept illumination as the core reality religion... the core gnosis.. the science of spirituality.....



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Let's say you or they come and round us or me up,
What if I don't like the conditions of the place will they or you let me leave? or am I stuck here till I'm let out.

you can explain it and try to justify it, but it still smells very fishy

I think I'll pass on the re education thing. I'll live my way, free and by myself.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
classic psy-ops pretend to give the enemy your formulated plan in a leaked document just about anybody can read chalk it full of false information and blur the lines between peaceful intent and preparation but leave in bits to make people assume there is more to it.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Army Admits Re-Education Camp Manual "Not Intended For Public Release"


www.survivalcentral.net

Fort Leonard Wood Public Affairs director Tiffany Wood has provided the first official response to the shocking U.S. Army document that outlines the implementation of re-education camps, admitting that the manual was “not intended for public release” and claiming that its provisions only apply outside the United States, a contention completely disproved by the language contained in the document itself.

After a reader sent Wood a link to where the manual, entitledFM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF), can be downloaded on thearmy.mil website (but only by military employ
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.dailypaul.com...
www.infowars.com...
edit on 9-5-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)


First link is broke dude.

I wonder what we will be getting "re-educated" about? Sounds painful. What if we decide to spit in their faces and tell them to piss off? Wonder what would happen...



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
This only has one use...

For use in the CONUS.

If it were intended for international use why would DHS and FEMA be involved?

TPTB have been putting their ducks in a row for years. Now they are 95% complete.

All that is missing is CISPA's take over of the internet and the 30,000 DHS controlled surveillance drones that could cover any location in the CONUS in a matter of minutes. That would be 1 drone for every 126.5 square miles if all were airborne at the same time. Flying at 50,000 ft the could cover the entire area and zoom in at a moments notice.

Still think we are living in the land of the free home of the brave?


The Star Spangled Banner

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


Are we a nation of slaves or are there a few freemen left in the land of the fee and home of the slave?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mytheroy
 



Let's say you or they come and round us or me up,


Okay.


What if I don't like the conditions of the place will they or you let me leave?


To be blunt - that is going to depend upon who is setting the policy for that camp. Every camp will be headed up by an officer paygrade of some kind (or a civilian official counterpart). Every command is a little different - some officers like to exercise their authority, while others are really just acting as go-fers for their superiors.

It is also going to depend upon the reasons the camps were activated, as well. If you were just out setting fire to other people's #... then you're probably not going to be allowed to leave of your own volition. If it's part of disaster relief - more than likely you will; provided there isn't a specific circumstance preventing that (such as a murder or rape charge within the camp that can, essentially, put it on lock-down while the investigation is carried out).

If it's a war time setting - the camp is going to fall under THREATCON and FPCON standards (presuming the military is running it). During any time at Delta - no one is going to be coming or going. Other factors may influence this - if the camp has problems with people going outside the camp getting kidnapped or killed (for whatever reason) - then they will likely be a lot less inclined to let people leave.

But - like I said - it really kind of depends. Chances are, if someone has to come round you up at gunpoint... you're not going to be allowed to leave. Generally speaking - this would not be done without some legitimate pretense... but as humans are, there is the possibility for that to not be the case. Choose your battles wisely.


I think I'll pass on the re education thing. I'll live my way, free and by myself.


There is nothing about re-education. That is merely a hyperbolic argument put forth by insecure people.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Sure it's re-education.

They educate you about how they own you, and you will stay where they tell you.

And you get to learn about how you aren't free, and about how people don't care about human life they just care about themselves.
edit on 10-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Sure it's re-education.

They educate you about how they own you, and you will stay where they tell you.

And you get to learn about how you aren't free, and about how people don't care about human life they just care about themselves.


I've got one question for you... but I have to stretch this out to make it more than a single-line post.

In my time; I've met a considerable number of people within the military. I would hazard a guess that they are roughly 75% small-government conservative/libertarian (kind of splitting hairs).

Taking into account that the current U.S. Military has, between its active and reserve components - (1,456,862 + 1,458,000 = ) 2,915,362 - of which, only 30-40% of are combat/security trained/capable (most are logistical support and maintenance for crew) - and that's a high estimate (consider 80% of the Air Force and Navy are barely trained to hold a hand gun).

Current U.S. population sits well over 380,000,000 with an estimated arms proliferation of around 50%.

Might I ask... who is "they?"
edit on 10-5-2012 by Aim64C because: Forgot to add U.S. population statistics.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Current U.S. population sits well over 380,000,000 with an estimated arms proliferation of around 50%.


The they is the government.
And that's an interesting statistic.
However unless everyone get together to fight.
The fighting will be slow and costly.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 



The they is the government.


Alright. There are roughly 5,000 total government seats, including state governments (not getting into city and county level as that has all the power of a student council election... even though it should be the most pertinent authority in regards to government).

Now... like I said... figure that roughly 75% of the military are pretty hard-core small government advocates... and that only 30% of them are combat capable... that means 25% of 30% - or about 7% of the military (which is roughly 3 million in total...) so you're looking at about 225K in the military who are combat qualified and not inherently at odds with the national government's expanding power base.

That means that, at the absolute most - two hundred twenty-five thousand people in the military (of the roughly 3 million) will even consider expanding government authority. I'm going to guess that, even to the most government-loving among them... detention camps for citizens are going to be a very hard sell.


However unless everyone get together to fight.


Fight who?

A group of, maybe, 5,000 ideologically aligned pro-dictator soldiers who are scattered across the planet?

That's enough people to put a little meat to a skeleton crew for a Nimitz class carrier (they'd still be a thousand eight-hundred short, or so).


The fighting will be slow and costly.


What fight?

The one where about 99% of the military bitch-slaps the pro-global-authoritarian cult?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

The one where about 99% of the military bitch-slaps the pro-global-authoritarian cult?


That's silly. More than you think are more willing to follow orders (or their paychecks and livelihood) than rebel against their boss.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
This only has one use...

For use in the CONUS.


BS. Perhaps you could take the time to actually examine what it is you are criticising instead of just parroting the BS that has already been written?


If it were intended for international use why would DHS and FEMA be involved?


The manual gives some guidance to the military when the military are asked to help civilian agencies.

There is a specific section on working in the USA - it is not actually hidden at all as you seem to think - from the index


Chapter 10

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

Section I - Humanitarian Assistance
Operational Environment
Rules of Engagement
Legal Considerations
Military Police Support
Section II - Emergency Services
In Continental United States
Outside Continental United States


You can check the contents from the hyperlinks in that index.


Do you think the military should not give aid to FEMA et al if asked?


edit on 10-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 



That's silly.


Oh?


More than you think are more willing to follow orders (or their paychecks and livelihood) than rebel against their boss.


And who will be giving what orders?

The President will give his orders to the Chief of Naval Operations (the secretaries - while listed as part of the chain of command - are only delegated authorities of the president - not actually steps in the chain of command... sort of like how senior enlisted can give a By Direction to carry out an officer's duties in his/her absence).

The Chief of Naval Operations (or the counterpart for the various services) will say... what?

"Yes, Mr. President?"

Let's say he's tripping balls, and agrees to go along with blatant treason. He issues the orders down to several fleet admirals. Of them - how many are going to agree to go along with blatant treason? Each of those fleet admirals will pass the orders down to about four admirals in command of battle groups. Each of whom will be sitting there, contemplating the magnitude of the actions they take. They will then pass this down to individual shipboard commands (we're talking the combat strength of the Navy, here - and this really isn't much different than chain-of-command break-down for other services and their combat structures).

When you look at it all - there are only about six or seven leaps of command between me (one of innumerable E-5s) and the President, himself. The chain of command can, thus, be very efficient (doesn't mean it works out that way in practice... but whatever).

That's just to get a combat force willing to move - and several dozen individuals are involved multi-laterally before it even gets down to the O-7 level of decision-making.

Now... you might say: "Aim, they won't get paid if they disobey orders." Possibly... but what's getting paid good for when you have to lock another battalion's CO's family up (and half of that command's enlisted families?)

The fact is that the overwhelming percentage of the military would be against this. Even if they initially decided to be neutral and allow the few that were in support of it to start... it would be impossible for them to remain neutral - and they would eliminate the threat as a result.

You also have to figure - it's not enough to have men with rifles. Those men need to be fed, clothed, -paid- , housed, transported, supplied with gear/ammunition, and medically treated. All of those functions are supported by other commands and individuals. An agency empowered by congress may sign my checks... but a little YN3 can # my whole pay world up by getting them to sign a check for nothing.

As an AT - I can ensure not a single pilot returns from a sortie. Sure - some part of the system may be in alignment with the pro-authoritarian movement and decide to hit me up on charges... but I can take several billion dollars worth of equipment and trained operators out of commission without so much as a single shot.

Without some kind of ... clone soldiers... this "order 666" is just not going to fly.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Could you imagine the creators of our world finally returning and we have detainment camps waiting for them., That would put the icing on top of the cake for human ignorance!



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by grey580
 



The they is the government.


Alright. There are roughly 5,000 total government seats, including state governments (not getting into city and county level as that has all the power of a student council election... even though it should be the most pertinent authority in regards to government).


That you know about.
I'm sure there's more that we don't know about.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 



That you know about.
I'm sure there's more that we don't know about.


. . .

That makes no sense.

The point is - you have 5,000 politicians who -might- be able to get 5,000 armed soldiers with some supporting idealists to provide logistical support....

To try and enslave a population of three hundred million.

They have two battalions (by time you include support) with, perhaps, some armor and mechanized assets to support. That -might- be enough to lock down a city like Columbia, Missouri. They could possibly secure parts of a city like St. Louis... but forget about New York.

And enact an "order 666" ... I defer to the roflcopter.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


How about private security firms and possible foreign intervention?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous404
 



How about private security firms


What about them?

Let's say, somehow, you were able to offer such a huge pay-check to these private security firms that they would forsake any principles they may have in order to go to work trying to enslave the entire U.S. Population.

I don't have numbers for private security - but the type capable of carrying out the activity you are talking about (IE: not obese rent-a-cops) are in short supply. You might be able to pull together roughly 10,000. So, you might be able to lock down St. Louis with a total of 15,000 running security.

Keep in mind, every station must be manned 24/7. While you can run 2 duty sections on 12 hour shifts - those run morale into the dirt after about a week. Into the bedrock after a month... and straight through an event horizon after three months. You can't sustain 12-hour duty cycles (because work is actually closer to a 16 hour affair at that point). You need at least 3 duty sections to hold a long-term security watch. So, take your necessary watch stations to secure an area and multiply by a bare minimum of three.

You'll want to multiply by about four or five to ensure you can hold down the watch for a longer period of time - for say a year or more(people die in combat situations; and in peaceful situations - they get in trouble and end up sent home, get sick, or otherwise get stripped from your ranks with no replacements).

Further... in terms of private security... they don't benefit from a world unified under one government in the long term.

Also, figure that the government isn't the only contract offer on the market. I can contract Xe Services (or whatever they are, now) just as readily. For my own private security - or to hire them to protect my neighborhood... or even the neighborhood they have friends and family in.

Do I have to out-pay the government to get a soldier of fortune to defend the society he/she grew up in? No. If I offer enough to cover his/her expenses; there isn't a practical number that could be offered to get them to consider taking a different contract.


and possible foreign intervention?


Somewhat possible - but that will require far more pro-globalist sentiment from our nation. Interestingly enough - the trend seems to be reversing as a lot of younger generations are not as keen on globalist agendas as the children of the 60s and 70s seem to have been thus far.

As it stands now - it's not possible (as in - it's not going to happen within the next three months because there's nothing in play to make it happen).

Five years from now, that may be a different story - but it will not come as a surprise to you.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Your post makes sense.
However if you look at places like china and russia.
You would think the population could rise up at any time and take over.
But they don't.

The ones in power stay in power.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join