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.

 

German court widens army's internal crisis role

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

German court widens army's internal crisis role


www.bbc.co.uk

The German military will in future be able to use its weapons on German streets in an extreme situation, the Federal Constitutional Court says.

The ruling says the armed forces can be deployed only if Germany faces an assault of "catastrophic proportions", but not to control demonstrations.

The decision to deploy forces must be approved by the federal government...

...The judges had in mind a terrorist incident involving armed attackers in public places...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I could hardly think of a more necessary measure. What with regular occurrences of Arab forces bursting onto the streets of major German cities, causing mayhem and holding the nation to ransom. It's about time they changed the constitution...

On the other hand, the German people may prove less keen. They are known for their skepticism when it comes to military intervention of any kind, never mind on their own streets. So what on earth could be driving such a drastic measure?


www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Very secure environment but at least you won't be killed, didn't read the entire article yet soldiers would have to be on every single street in Germany? Anyway always enjoy German chocolate coffee, amazing stuff! :-)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by corporateslave
 


It's more a case of creating a legal basis for deploying troops on the streets in response to some ostensible 'threat'. (Nothing to do with any false flag / collapse of the Euro, etc. It's all for your own good, as you say, just to keep everyone nice and safe. How kind. Why don't other countries demand troops on the streets for the sake of equality?..)




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Yeah right, anyone remember the riots in the UK last year? The general public were calling for the army to used to quell the violence, little did most of them realise that for that to happen civilian rights would have been suspended and we would have to be under martial law. This is probably just a pre-cursor for future events



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
one can compare that to using the national guard within the US
the german government needed to clarify exactly WHEN to deploy troops on there own territory and for what purpose.

as in other nations too the left wing does a major outcry about deploying troops on internal affairs at all.
i guess the clarification they now did is a good compromise to satisfy all needs.

No need for an outcry that this is in response to a current situation within Europe at all.
The discussion about that topic started years ago, already, after the decision was made to allow germany to have an own army again, back in the 50's
edit on 17-8-2012 by TMJ1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FFS4000
 


Exactly. Troops are for national defence, and are heavily armed for the purpose of protecting the populace in the face of invasion/ attack from overseas. Not for brandishing weapons on the streets. Unless they are controlled by a junta.



reply to post by TMJ1972
 



No need for an outcry that this is in response to a current situation within Europe at all.

They are clearly trying to justify this change on the back of the idea that there is now a real need for troops to be available on the streets. The move has not happened in a vacuum.

Police forces already have what it takes to deal with major incidents. The idea that troops are needed for deployment by the government on home soil is a wake up call.



edit on 17/8/12 by pause4thought because: added 2nd response



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Something is going down in the future and it will be world wide. Just start connecting the dots. The SSA in the US buys ammo, FDA buys ammo, NOA buys ammo, Homeland Security buys more rounds than you could fire in a year. New field manuals for detention camps run by the military, NDAA letting the active military be used inside the US.

Now Germany, what about France and Great Britan? Russia just sent 3 female punk rockers to prison for 2 years each under Hooliganism. Because they prayed to Mother Mary to protect Russia from Putin.

Someone or something wants the human race in shakles. And no Mr. Biden it's not Romney or Ryan.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by corporateslave
 


It's more a case of creating a legal basis for deploying troops on the streets in response to some ostensible 'threat'. (Nothing to do with any false flag / collapse of the Euro, etc. It's all for your own good, as you say, just to keep everyone nice and safe. How kind. Why don't other countries demand troops on the streets for the sake of equality?..)



Your really blindfolded, consider military bases are everywhere , the only difference is live soldiers. We are being watched on the internet and cameras in certain areas of interest. If your scared of your own military you shouldn't live there lol because regardless they have your information unless your hideing something eh?

Anyway reading to much fema camp threads will make your paranoia rise, I get paranoia to though as it could be a sign of war especially with soldiers around...so yea?
edit on 17-8-2012 by corporateslave because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TMJ1972
 



No need for an outcry that this is in response to a current situation within Europe at all.
The discussion about that topic started years ago, already, after the decision was made to allow germany to have an own army again, back in the 50's


The issue isn't as clear as you make it seem, in my opinion.

Because of the ban on armed forces that was applied to Germany after World War 2, the Germans made all their defensive efforts directly applied to law enforcement (police).

That's why the German police is one of the best in the world. Their preparation is close to the preparation of an army.

I don't see this as an alerting development, to be honest. I think it's the just normal process of Germany getting back it's rights as a nation, and developing it's own internal protocols.

The fact that they are under pressure and must be careful about what they say or plan, is a good thing.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


So what?

What's the difference between veteran soldier in police uniforms wielding machine guns and tactical gear and a soldier wielding machine guns and tactical gear. Nothing. Many countries, like Germany and the USA are already under military policing. I view Martial Law as more of a formality.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



What's the difference between veteran soldier in police uniforms wielding machine guns and tactical gear and a soldier wielding machine guns and tactical gear. Nothing.

Fair question. But as I've intimated already, it tends to be dictatorships that utilise the military to enforce their will on populations. Troops on the streets in a civil context can project intimidation and some degree of loss of civil liberty, which many would see as a serious issue.

If it were merely an issue of a response to some outrageous violent attack the police would be perfectly capable of doing the job — precisely because they either have armed response teams or, as you say, because they are armed already. The constitutional change to put troops on the streets would arguably only make sense if they were anticipating some atrocious, unthinkable event on an unimaginable scale. Neither that nor the imposition of martial law are small matters, RP, surely. Martial law always entails loss of civil liberties — possibly even the suspension of democratic government.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join