U.S. Army Urges Preparations for Troops to Occupy NYC & Other “Megacities”

originally posted by: proob4
Your pdf link is a malicious threat according to malewarebytes. And it's not official either.
'Mods please delete link!

Ha! SKYPE is a malicious threat according to malwarebytes... What a load of tosh... Guess some really really want the info to vanish huh... Not official pfft hahahah

a reply to: AnteBellum

It's all a bit worrying.

But this part is an eye-opener;

A U.S. Army report warns that American troops need to be prepared to enter New York City and other GLOBAL “megacities”

So the US Army is planning to install itself into major cities around the GLOBE?

WTH?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: AnteBellum

It's all a bit worrying.

But this part is an eye-opener;

A U.S. Army report warns that American troops need to be prepared to enter New York City and other GLOBAL “megacities”

So the US Army is planning to install itself into major cities around the GLOBE?

WTH?

What is so shocking about this? They've been doing this for a long time now... Admittedly mainly to brown folks but soon it'll be coming to a city near you! lol

originally posted by: tavi45
PS if american soldiers are ordered to assault american citizens and they collectively refuse they are now traitors and subject to death. Also that's the start of american civil war except with way way more people, deadlier weapons by orders of magnitude, and most likely intrusion from foreign powers. I bet if a civil war started mexico would reclaim it's territory

Actually, my MOS in the Army was 27D--Paralegal Specialist--and I was responsible for producing charge sheets for courts-martial with an intimate knowledge of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the MCM (Manual for Courts-Martial). That said, disobeying a direct order is not "treason," it is disobeying a direct order. Now, there is always the ability for an attorney to type up their own charge that doesn't necessarily exist in the books, but that rarely happens. My point being is that, yes, if they turn their guns on the people barking out the orders, then that could possibly, loosely be considered treason, but since previous events set precedent, this would probably be called "workplace violence" by our commander-in-chief.

And don't forget, all military members are only trained to follow LAWFUL orders. Following illegal orders--like slaughtering American civilians--would be treated like a crime, even if they were "just following orders."

Maybe the rest of your comment is a logical necessity in order to correct such a wrong as our "leaders" turning on our nation's civilians with lethal force for nefarious intent...except I'm quite certain that Mexico would not be able to "reclaim" its territory (it's not theirs, BTW...they lost it sort of fair and square).

Started a new thread as Part 2 to this one if any of you are interested:
ATS Link: U.S. Army Trains to Battle Anti-Government Dissidents in “Megacities”

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: tavi45
PS if american soldiers are ordered to assault american citizens and they collectively refuse they are now traitors and subject to death. Also that's the start of american civil war except with way way more people, deadlier weapons by orders of magnitude, and most likely intrusion from foreign powers. I bet if a civil war started mexico would reclaim it's territory

Actually, my MOS in the Army was 27D--Paralegal Specialist--and I was responsible for producing charge sheets for courts-martial with an intimate knowledge of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the MCM (Manual for Courts-Martial). That said, disobeying a direct order is not "treason," it is disobeying a direct order. Now, there is always the ability for an attorney to type up their own charge that doesn't necessarily exist in the books, but that rarely happens. My point being is that, yes, if they turn their guns on the people barking out the orders, then that could possibly, loosely be considered treason, but since previous events set precedent, this would probably be called "workplace violence" by our commander-in-chief.

And don't forget, all military members are only trained to follow LAWFUL orders. Following illegal orders--like slaughtering American civilians--would be treated like a crime, even if they were "just following orders."

Maybe the rest of your comment is a logical necessity in order to correct such a wrong as our "leaders" turning on our nation's civilians with lethal force for nefarious intent...except I'm quite certain that Mexico would not be able to "reclaim" its territory (it's not theirs, BTW...they lost it sort of fair and square).

It's nonsense though isn't it? I mean who's laws are they supposed to follow exactly? Their own? lmao... Haven't both "wars" (I like to call it slaughter/murder/genocide but meh) been deemed unlawful by various bodies? Didn't they even change their own laws by saying recently they no longer need congress etc?

If america breaks international law who is going to go get the guilty parties?

All a big song and dance my friend... That's why "law" means nothing to me and I prefer to stick with morals instead... Is it morally justifiable to drop bombs and torture innocent people? Shoot innocent people from helicopters tanks etc... Morally justifiable to use drones and blow people up... Hmmm probably not... Sod the "laws" big fing joke the elite use to hide behind in my opinion....

Just look at how corporations are deemed a "person" by "law" hahahahh yeah sure! Please dont perpetuate the myth that is "law"...

a reply to: tavi45

In uniform or out,WE have a higher authority than to elected officials(WHY do you think they are FIRING so many?),WE KNOW it. If it were not so WE could own the country. That won't work for me either. I 've BEEN under a SGT Mjr. and I doubt a large group on this forum could handle such a dose of reality.
Other than that Mexico will get a very WET deportation trying to take land WE already killed their forces out of.

Sure something like this could be used with good intentions, but here is the main problem: the phrasing of laws and regulations that really have the potential to step over the rights of the populace, think Patriot Act, leave a lot of room for interpretation, and I think this is intentional. While one can read it and think that there might be situations with good reason to use it, there are going to be situations where it could be misused. It all stems from the phrasing. So while something like this could be used in the event of mass riots, looting, murdering, etc., it could also be used for something like the following: something occurs, say a national event where the rights of the people are in jeopardy, and there are mass public demonstrations where people stand up for their rights and demand change...Then the troops come in because the government says it is legal. That is just a single possibility, but there are many other ways something like this can be used. Or misused, depending on whether you believe this to be intentional.

The sentence that talks about people who can influence other people sounds extremely political. And the only way that the majority of the country would be convinced by others is if those others had truth on their side. So it sure sounds to me like this is a horrible thing to be implemented. Whoever said this sounds like martial law without actually calling it that, I think you hit the nail on the head. The people have every right to actually bear arms against the government of the United States if that government is denying them their Constitutional rights. Once they start denying you those rights, the social contract you have with this state is null and void, as the government that was instituted is not the same government any longer. They are basically an enemy of that government, the one that is supposed to be in place. This is because the entire foundation of our Republic is based on the rights of the populace. When those rights go, whether legally or illegally, I say that the government is changing the very nature of our Republic and should be treated as the enemy.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Also a reply to also monkey. Dunno how to group reply if you even can since I'm a noob here.

Maybe laws do work in the military. I know actual legal protection is weakening here for us civilians. It's undeniable.

Even if you do legally object. What then? You resign and go home? In the hypothetical scenario we're already at the point where you've been ordered to march on say NYC. your refusal to obey will either leave you going home to wait for them to come for you or engaged in a military coup. I mean I'm a total civilian. I came on this site because I'm curious about things. Put yourselves in the scenario for real. In the real scenario citing legal codes won't do much, I would imagine.

If america breaks international law who is going to go get the guilty parties?

Actually, it's not the individual Service Member's job to know and abide by international law--that is up to the JAG attorneys and commanders to know in order to properly create legal rules of engagement. The Service Members are then briefed on the rules of engagement and LAWFUL orders are to fall within those parameters. I know all to well that not all commanders, squad leaders, platoon sergeants, etc, always fallow the laws and orders handed down, but you can't always blame the federal government for the (usually) rogue actions of some ignorant people in uniform.

That said, I don't disregard your point--who, indeed, will try to hold America accountable for any purposefully illegal wartime acts? I don't know the answer, but I sure wish it would happen. I wish a lot of BS happening at our federal level would have some sort of accountability. Maybe it's time that the people hold them responsible.

All a big song and dance my friend... That's why "law" means nothing to me and I prefer to stick with morals instead... Is it morally justifiable to drop bombs and torture innocent people? Shoot innocent people from helicopters tanks etc... Morally justifiable to use drones and blow people up... Hmmm probably not... Sod the "laws" big fing joke the elite use to hide behind in my opinion....

Just look at how corporations are deemed a "person" by "law" hahahahh yeah sure! Please dont perpetuate the myth that is "law"...

Seems to me your beef should be with the enforcers of the law and not the laws themselves--you seem to be misdiagnosing the source of the problem. You can laugh at the laws all you want, but that exacerbates the problem, and couple that with your selective interpretation of what happens during wartime, and I can only choose to deem your response as non-constructive ranting.

Don't get me wrong--I'll rant along with the best of 'em, but yours seem to be based on disillusionment caused by relative anomalies in the military. It's hard to take those seriously, especially when I must assume that you have not ever served (just playing the statistical odds, here).

The US military has contingency plans for all kinds of things, likely or unlikely, including a plan to invade Canada. It should be noted though, that after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the city was occupied by regular U.S. Army troops. These soldiers shot looters and blew up buildings to stop the fire. a reply to: sdcigarpig