posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by murphy22
I would like to add:
Things that are said or implied by government agencies are not always as they sound. Take the famous police saying "to protect and serve". Protect
and serve what? The people? There are many court decisions defining/ruling they have no legal obligation to protect you. They defend and protect what
ever incorporated city they happen to be employed by.
The US military does not protect the US. citizens either, never has been their job. They protect the form of government, COTUS and the territory that
it holds. That is the only legal obligation the military has. There is in no part of "The Oath" that says anything about deffending the people.
The Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the military for law enforcment. Can anyone here say that line has not been blurd? However it does along with
the COTUS allow for use of military durring a time of war on our own soil.
SO if we are at war, why is the military not "deffending" the country?
Why is there a civilian/government agency being raised, armed and trained as a defence againt "enemy combatants"? Which "legally" some of us can
now be tagged just for questioning the government. Does not mean we will be, yet. But the law is there and in place should they wish to use it. This
bothers no one?
If the government feels it needs to create a paralell military to the one it already has for survival, we all should be asking why?
So giving to civilian law enforcment the tools and weapons of the military..... does?
The laws of recent time have defined the US as a "battle ground" legally, through color of law, we have been at war for many years. There are laws
in place that allow for the military to be used on US soil in times of "war" are we at war in the US?
There is a much deeper plan being formed here.