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.

 

Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
This says nothing about 'indefinite deployment'. The article specifically states 120 day deployments.
.


The 120-day periods are extentable for indefinite deployment:


And then there is the matter of scenario that allows reservists to be deployed for a promised 120 days, which could be extended based upon request. “We just have to make sure we have the procedures and processes worked out,” Stultz remarked about the specifics that are now being worked out to avoid confusion of authority later on.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Posse Commitatus does NOT, nor has it ever, applied to State guard units. It only applies to active duty military and restricts them from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the use of the military in that role. Posse Commitatus came about at the end of the civil war by an act of Congress, and as such, that act can be amended / changed.

What it does is prevent the federal government from placing state guard units under fedral command unless the criteria is met or is requested and then agreed to by the Govenor. The other criteria would be if a state or city is in a state of rebeliion / insurrection. This was a key issue with Katrina when the Governor refused to place State units under federal command. Bush was told the only manner to bypass was to declare New Orleans / Louisianna in a state of rebeliion, at which point that conversation ended.

When the State / Law Enforcement request assistance, it does not matter if the entity is a nearby departement, a state / county department, another department in another state, or even federal law enforcement / military. So long as the request comes from the lawful agency then any person requested is operating under the authority of that agency.

As an example if something is going down hill and I order a civilian to assist me, that "civilian" is now acting under color of law under my direction and for all intents and purposes is considered a law enforcement officer at that point (some exceptions exist but you get the idea).

So we have 2 issues -
* - Why the push by the Feds to get something like this in place, when its already essentially present?
* - For what purpose?

Any major eent that deals with nuclear chemical or bio is automatically FEderal jurisdiction. Absent that they are going to be stepping all over state sovereignty.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
//. Air force reserves are not state guards.



Well I suppose if they get away with this abomination of our rights we have only the sheriffs office or US marshals left to defend us from corporate America.

If they push this through its only going to be a short while untill shtf i assure you of that. They are slowly but surely breaking our contract that we all are supposed to live by and if they do, they become outlaws in our land and we the people have every right to eliminate them all. This is what our forefathers have bestowed upon us as sovereign citizens of this great land, it's our duty and our right.
edit on 27-5-2012 by LittleBlackEagle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I don't think there real intention is to deploy ground troops.
I’m guessing this is a back door way to legalize the use of spy drones on the American population. And keep them in the skies indefinitely.
Big brother is watching.

edit on 27-5-2012 by murfdog because: spelling



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by silent thunder
 


So we have 2 issues -
* - Why the push by the Feds to get something like this in place, when its already essentially present?
* - For what purpose?


Do you really need to ask?

While I have said before, that I can acknowledge that you have positive intentions, Xcathdra; the degree of faith that you sometimes appear to maintain in your government, is genuinely distressing.

I do not personally believe that the American government should be given any quarter at this point, to be honest. It has been the harbouring point of a successive stream of war criminals and psychopaths.

To anyone who would make apologies for Uncle Sam, I quote an old proverb.

"Do not feel sympathy for the Devil. He has no sympathy for you."



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 

Great news,now we wont have any stalker type people on the streets like georgy zimmerkillmen.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
My concern is the ambiguous wording AGAIN, same as the wording that allows the indefinite detention of Americans is ambiguous.


New authority in this year's Defense Department authorization act allows reservists in Air Force Reserve Command and other reserve components to be called to duty in response to natural disasters or emergencies in the homeland. The law also permits mobilizations for extended periods to support theater security missions around the world.


What kind of emergency? What constitutes an emergency? Anything could be considered an emergency.

Petrus is right, you can't give an inch, ever...for any reason.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I think this is a far more interesting part of the legilsation:



Another change in the 2012 authorization act allows Title 10 reservists to be called to duty to support unnamed overseas contingencies. The reserve components have a long history of deploying members for medical, engineering and other missions to support theater engagement and security cooperation efforts. Typically, they perform these missions as part of their annual tour and on a rotational basis with reservists from other units.

"With this new authority, now we can send them down for much longer periods of time," Stultz said.

As operations wind down in Afghanistan, Stultz said, he hopes reservists will be more available to support combatant commanders' theater engagement campaigns.

A hospital unit, for example, could potentially spend three months rather than a few weeks supporting a medical mission in Central or South America, Africa or Asia. In addition, at the end of that three-month period, another reserve unit could rotate in to replace them.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74


What kind of emergency? What constitutes an emergency? Anything could be considered an emergency.




For these forces to be used, the law specifies that the president must declare an emergency or disaster, and a state governor must request the assistance. Under the new law, some aspects of disaster relief will not change. Civil authorities will remain the first responders. Moreover, if military support is needed, National Guard forces will be the first to step in when called by their state governor. However, if a situation also demands a federal response, reserve forces can step in to assist for up to 120 days.


www.afrc.af.mil...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


That still doesn't define an emergency, stating that the President has to declare the emergency state and a governor has to make the request doesn't ease concern. Obviously we can see how this could have been beneficial during Katrina or the Joplin tornado disaster last year but again I'm concerned that it can be turned right around for awful things. A quick search turned up this article written for the US Justice Foundation. In a time in the US when molotov cocktails are being defined as weapons of mass destruction, we cannot be so quick to dismiss concern or too quick to be reassured.


The new law also appears to repeal, or at least modify, the Posse Comitatus Act, that was passed in 1878 at the end of post Civil War reconstruction. That law is designated as 18 USC 1385, and it prohibits the states of the union, and local governments, from using members of the U.S. Army for law enforcement purposes. It was later amended to include the Air Force, and the Marines, and the Navy are under the same prohibitions, by order of the U. S. Department of Defense. If the critics of NDAA are correct, and members of the United States military can make arrests of U.S. citizens in the United States, then it appears that the intent of the Posse Comitatus law is negated.

In conclusion, the language in the bill appears to be deliberately vague and confusing, and many members of Congress seem to be unaware of what they were actually voting for. However, that does not lessen the impact of a law that gives the President extraordinary powers to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. If Congress can’t be convinced to amend the law to remove those provisions, then the courts must be asked to declare the provisions unconstitutional.

edit on 27-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
There seems to be something really big coming down the pipe and they are prepping for when it hits the fan. They don`t care about the important things like saving money, Fukushima, and corex being used in the Golf. They are doing everything they can to be ready to take to our streets.

Something is going to be happening and I feel they know it and I have felt this way just before Obama was put into office as President.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
My concern is the ambiguous wording AGAIN, same as the wording that allows the indefinite detention of Americans is ambiguous.


New authority in this year's Defense Department authorization act allows reservists in Air Force Reserve Command and other reserve components to be called to duty in response to natural disasters or emergencies in the homeland. The law also permits mobilizations for extended periods to support theater security missions around the world.


What kind of emergency? What constitutes an emergency? Anything could be considered an emergency.

Petrus is right, you can't give an inch, ever...for any reason.


Exactly the point, Kali.

"I do not care for the allegiance of the people; all we ask for is their fear."
-- Adolf Hitler

Psychopathic fascists don't care about emergencies. They know that the non-psychopathic majority do, however; and they also know that fear is the only thing which will motivate non-psychopaths to give them what they want.

What fascists want is power. They want control, purely for its' own sake, and they want to be able to do whatever they like, to whoever they like, whenever they like.

So they lie to the non-psychopathic majority that they need that power, to protect them from threats. The non-psychopaths assume that the psychopaths are also non-psychopathic, and that is the worst and greatest trap that they fall into. Because the non-psychopaths themselves are usually good and kind people, they can't imagine that their rulers are not; so they persistently give them the benefit of the doubt, rationalise for them, apologise for them, and make excuses for them.

I don't do that. I acknowledge that the psychopaths exist, and I acknowledge their evil. Yes, it's dark and it's horrible and it's scary; but we have to acknowledge it. We have to be willing to look them in the eye and see them for who and what they really are, if we are ever going to take our own power back from them, and be free.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
. Because the non-psychopaths themselves are usually good and kind people, they can't imagine that their rulers are not; so they persistently give them the benefit of the doubt, rationalise for them, apologise for them, and make excuses for them..


I don't know. I think normal people are just stupid and easily manipulated, so they are. Their motives are not pure. Its a kind of "Stockholm syndrome." The weak roll over and expose their shaggy bellies, like any good hand-lickin mutt. The more the overloard psychopaths act psycho, the more pathetically eager the US public is to drag itself through the mud and lick its owner's palms like a good doggie.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder

Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets


occupycorporatism.com

...if the Defense Department has their way, a new authorization act will give them the power to order the armed forces to be used against the American public.

Air Force reservists are slated to be the new response team for domestic disturbances. Disseminated from Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and other reserve agencies, these men and women could be called to be first response to natural disasters within the US. The legislation would extend mobilizations for indeterminate periods of time.
(visit the link for the full news article)




You have to understand that the DoD is filled with detached minds.

They forget about basic things like

en.wikipedia.org...

It's not their fault. They are just seduced by billionaire and big corporate far right ideological talking points like any rednecks are living in trailers down south with waist high grass for a lawn and a dozen cars in the driveway that don't run... Their pay just happens to be a little better where most get to live in Arlington, Va with nice homes lining the streets that have manicured lawns.

I don't blame ignorant folks who come up with ignorant ideas like this idea seeking authority to deploy reservists onto American streets even though on the surface it seems to be based on humanitarian reasons. However I do blame the systemic issues that permeate our culture which fosters the ignorance in the first place that leads to goofy ideas like this one.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

What kind of emergency? What constitutes an emergency? Anything could be considered an emergency.



The same sort of thing that has been able to be declared an emergency for for the last 220 years - since the Whiskey Rebellion - anything the President likes, that meets dictionary definition of an emergency, and which Congress or the ?Courts do not overturn (because all such declarations remain challengeable)!

See here for an overview

Note that until 1976 there was no time limit on how long a state of emergency could last for - 2 years max before it has to be redeclared. The USA has been under a constant state of emergency since 9/11 AFAIK - the declaration being renewed by both GWB and BO when it ran out each 2 years.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


You misunderstood my post -

* - Posse Comitatus - I was explaining how that law worked in general. I am not saying it should be repealed / modified to allow for active duty military (or really any matilitary in my opinion) to engage in civilian law enforcement actions. I would prefer tougher legislation that only allowed for a very select / specific reasons in order to allow it and even then only with the consent of the Gov of the state in question.

* - My last 2 questions were not made to support the government or this idea. I was asking those questions in sincere confusion. There is already procedures and laws in place that covers this so im not sure why the government feels the need to modify what already works.

I dont trust the governments intentions in this area. There is absolutely no need for it, it tramples all over state sovereignty and it begs the question - why and for what?

To be honest it looks like the government is attempting to create an end run around the court ruling striking down the detention of US citizens part. This is conviently paralell to that issue and by trying to change designations of active duty military status they are bypassing the court ruling (actually many stemming back to the military comission act of 2006, Hamdi and Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, Jose Padilla and the back and forth between the government and the courts which resulted in Padillia being protected with full rights as a US citizen and not subject to military jurisdiction etc etc etc).

Here is a good example of how this is all supposed to work -
Ala. sheriff says he asked Rucker MPs for help - Wednesday Mar 18, 2009


The Army is investigating the deployment of 22 active duty military police and the provost marshal from Fort Rucker, Ala., to Samson, Ala., following a killing spree by a civilian.

Ten people were killed in the March 10 rampage in southeastern Alabama by a man police identified as Michael McClendon, 28, of Kinston, Ala., where the first killing took place around 3:30 p.m. The shooter took his own life after an exchange of gunfire with police.

Geneva County Sheriff Greg Ward said Wednesday that he requested the MPs in response to an offer of assistance from a lieutenant colonel at Fort Rucker for generators, lights and other equipment.

“The lieutenant colonel called our [911] dispatch to say ‘we’re here if you need us,’” Ward told Army Times in a phone interview from his office in Geneva.

With seven separate crime scenes spanning a 20-mile area, Ward’s force of 12 deputies and about 10 more police from neighboring towns, were becoming overwhelmed, he said.


Completely legal under State Law in that regard. However, this popped -

The investigation into the deployment was ordered by Gen. Martin Dempsey, commanding general of Training and Doctrine Command, because Fort Rucker falls under the command.

A statement released Wednesday by TRADOC said the purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed “is the subject of an on-going commander’s inquiry.”

“In addition to determining the facts, this inquiry will also consider whether law, regulation and policy were followed. Until those facts are determined, it would be inappropriate to speculate or comment further,” Dempsey said.

Ward said he couldn’t have continued his operations without the help of the MPs.

“That lieutenant colonel was not out of place. He called to say ‘we’re here if you need us,” Ward said.


Last I saw the conclusion was the actions violated Federal Law covering the use of the military. However the colonel was not charged or reliieved based on the situation.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
It would be interesting if the federal government say orders reserves out to help say take guns from the public and the state Governor ordered the state national guard out the stop the federal troops.

This might get to be fun in Texas where they have there own state militia.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
They could be preparing for the outrage that is bound to come from attacking Iran because Panetta and the rest of congress is on Israel's leash.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
What is the punishment for breaking the law "Posse Comitatus"

I bet it is not to serious.
Something like a $7,000 fine and or 8 months in jail

Who gets charged ? Only the ones who gave the orders, or do the ones that followed orders
receive charges too ?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Such an event wouldn't last very long. We must keep in mind that many of these soldiers are just doing their job and if they are ordered to be forceful toward their own countrymen then many might well say F YOU to their would be leaders and march right by the sides of those they are supposed to be controlling. Most of these younger soldiers would be very aware of the fact that their isn't much the government could do to punish them for such an act because their isn't very much room in jails and they don't want to bring those overseas home just to face the same risks. I mean in theory they could try to make other soldiers take the unruly ones out but many of them would not be so willing to do so to their own brothers and sisters when they can see that it isn't truly warranted. he leaders in our government may indeed be very greedy and corrupt but they enjoy power and they did not get to where they are by being complete idiots, it would be clear to many of them that such things could have the potential to lead to the collapse of a nation and they do not want that because they would lose their power.




top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join