Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers, page 4

reply to post by buddha

---

Yeah

Right

I remember being in the army drinking with some buddies and talking about what it would take to start a revolution and how we could go about it but it was stupid drunk talk and I never gave it a second thought. Just talking about it was probably violating some rule of the UCMJ now that I think about it and I am glad no one heard us talking. What these guys did is serious stuff and I will be paying close attention to this story as it develops. I do not know why anyone is surprised though just look at the rhetoric that is being thrown around on a daily basis.


Seals removed one threat Video of Billboard
(I saw this and thought what a stupid add and it makes it look like the military are behind them.)

ATS Thread

Sorry cant seem to post the video

(From the thread you will see many people interpreted this differently)





The only thing that surprises me is this is the first incident I have heard of considering I used to hear guys talk about it in almost every unite I have served in. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion it is about this presidency I will tell you I never served in the military under Obama.

I do not know if these guys were planning on a revolution or what but this is something to be concerned about. Never underestimate what a group of people can do if they are willing to throw away their lives in the attempt. I think that is why so many people refuse to believe 911 were perpetrated by a small group of people because it is a scary thought. Much scarier than the idea that only a huge organization like illuminati or N.W.O. could pull off such a thing. No matter what you chose to believe if you are truly open minded then you will at least admit that it could be just as they say. People have asked me before about if I thought there would ever be another civil war or revolution and I have always answered honestly. If not in my lifetime probably shortly thereafter.


Disclaimer: I DO NOT ENDORSE THE ACTIONS OF THESE SOLDIERS. I have not read every post on here yet but this kind of caught me off guard so I wanted to post my thoughts on the subject while it was fresh. BTW it does make me kind of paranoid admitting on a on line forum that myself and other soldiers have even talked along those lines even if it was drunk stupid blowing off steam kind of talk but people should know that it does happen. Not about assassinating the president but there was talk about revolution.

Oh man I am prepared for the flames.

reply to post by Maxmars

---

When I was stationed at H.A.A.F. there were a couple people in my unite that were affiliated with gangs and one that was in a militia that I knew about. This was many years ago but there was a big problem with gangs, racism is quite rampant in that area on both sides so this could very likely be a neo nazi or skinhead militia. The base was run down the soldiers barracks were like slums it was the worst duty station I had ever served at. The base was over crowded but I was lucky enough to be able to live off base otherwise it would have been even worse. The ammunition point that was talked about in the article could very well be overtaken by an armed group they are called ASPs ammunition supply point and there is no armed guard. We often did group maneuvers at FT Stuart and their ASP was not under armed guard either.
Most people do not realize that unless soldiers are actively training at a range they do not carry weapons and even if they are they are not issued live ammo. M.P.s are the only ones armed. I will also mention we had several shootings on the base while I was there. One soldier tried to kill the 1stSgt by rigging his office door with a grenade and managed to get off Scott free because of a technicality. The place was bad enough that I decided to ETS instead of re upping for another tour because I would have to stay there for another year even when I volunteered for another combat tour.(I got out for 4 months then re-enlisted from another state. I am sure some things have changed but both H.A.A.F. and FT Stuart were both pretty rough. The town around Ft Stuart is little more than pawnshops, strip joints and bars with a few shady car dealerships in between the closest real town is Savannah where H.A.A.F. is and I am sure many people know about the darker side of that city. I am sure some things have changed but more than likely it is still a rat hole.

Military funding hardly ever goes to standard of living especially for the Army or Marines (Marines have it worse) but that does not justify in any way what these soldiers did or planed but what I am trying to convey is that many soldiers are disillusioned at some point in the military and from what the article said their leader looked for soldiers that were in that state to recruit I can imagine on those bases it would be fairly easy to find as many as he wanted. The article stated that they did not know how many were in this group I have a feeling it was much bigger than people think. I am not sure what else to make of this.

From reading what little info was in the article I can say everything they had planned was more than plausible except assassinating the president.



I wish I could believe this was made up or a false flag that would be much more favorable than it being true but I am certain this is the real thing.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by HUMBLEONE

---

A tangent discussion but I agree.

I just wonder, even with insurance money, how these guys did it. They were Privates. The four of them combined don't make $87,000 a year.

Pauley said Aguigui funded the militia using $500,000 in insurance and benefit payments from the death of his pregnant wife a year ago. Aguigui was not charged in his wife's death, but Pauley told the judge her death was "highly suspicious."

First page of atricle

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
This is CLEARLY Treason and as such is punishable by firing squad. I volunteer to be on the firing line when these POS get convicted.

This is not treason. Treason is clearly defined in Article III. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution. They allegedly comitted two murders (maybe three depending on state law), conspiracy to commit murder and several other less serious crimes, but not treason.

Actually what they were plotting to do is considered High Treason, in fact.

They were military with plans to assassinate the Commander in Chief.

From Wikipedia:
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by djr33222

Originally posted by Doc Gator

Originally posted by CT_Flyboy
This is CLEARLY Treason and as such is punishable by firing squad. I volunteer to be on the firing line when these POS get convicted.

This is not treason. Treason is clearly defined in Article III. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution. They allegedly comitted two murders (maybe three depending on state law), conspiracy to commit murder and several other less serious crimes, but not treason.

Actually what they were plotting to do is considered High Treason, in fact.

They were military with plans to assassinate the Commander in Chief.

From Wikipedia:
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 28-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

That is English law, not US law. We don't have high treason or petty treason. Only treason as defined by the Constitution in Article III section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Treason requires an overt act. Not just planning.

reply to post by Doc Gator

---

I see...

I was thinking there was some conspiracy to commit treason sort of thing.

Being convicted of what they are charged with is a decent alternative though.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by Doc Gator

---

I see...

I was thinking there was some conspiracy to commit treason sort of thing.

Being convicted of what they are charged with is a decent alternative though.

A lot of people don't understand the requirements for a treason conviction. It is a very high standard, which it why it is so rarely used. And that is a very good thing. Otherwise, most of us would be sitting in jail (or worse) for "thought crimes".

And I agree, it's much better to get them now than to let them carry out their plans so treason charges can be filed. Prosecutors may decide to go with some form of an insurrection charge but that is a stretch.

reply to post by maria_stardust

---

If you tend to turn angry, instead of crying because of sorrow, it's rather a more logical end. Some time in their teen years, most guys quit crying over everything. The emotions are still there, they're just coping with it differently. And that different isn't always healthily expressed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, what I can see this useful for is DETAINING the half of the US soldiers who won't confiscate guns from US citizens. Because if it came down to that, half of the military would revolt over it, and attempt to take out the power behind the request.

reply to post by Doc Gator

---

Ironically, the law is rather loose when it comes to 'adhered to enemies of the state'.

One can be charged with treason by giving aid and comfort to enemies.

So if a person is the friend of someone in a terrorist organization, knowingly or not, they can be considered being involved in treasonous activities...

It is a stretch but still applicable.

Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags

Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags

Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags

Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags

Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas
  Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags

TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags

Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags

Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: