Pentagon Deploying 20,000 Troops In U.S.

Originally posted by jaycen420

Originally posted by Elostone
Seem that in the past 6 months here on ATS, the more vehemently and passionately the dis-info agents and sock puppets decry and attempt to debunk a thread, the more on my radar that issue becomes.
The subject matter of the OP in this thread is now foremost on my radar.

ETA: I find it especially important when their frothy passion to debunk causes them to completely forget how to spell to the point of near unreadability!

LOL you noticed the misspelling too, Yea there are always people out there trying to discredit whatever they can. Especially if its close to the truth. Kinda makes ya wonder huh?

Lets see... Your OP source claims 20k US troops are to be deployed.

Please point out where they are currenly stationed?
Please point out where they are currently deployed - Which US city?
Please explain why your source is leaving out some key information?
Please explain how an article from 2008 means gloom and doom in 2011?
Why drag something up from 2008 and use it now?

Fearmongering maybe?
Pushing an Agenda?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Its a symptom of mental illness, specifically schizophrenia.

ATS attracts it like a dumpster attracts flies.

Like a dumpster there may be something of value buried in ATS, but you have to dig past the flies and garbage to get to it.

I find it very odd that this story comes out the SAME day that Twitter has erupted in a s**tstrom with the hashtag #f**kyouwashington. Also comes at the same time people have really started to call for the occupation of Wall Street in September and Freedom Plaza in Washington DC in October.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by jaycen420

Originally posted by Elostone
Seem that in the past 6 months here on ATS, the more vehemently and passionately the dis-info agents and sock puppets decry and attempt to debunk a thread, the more on my radar that issue becomes.
The subject matter of the OP in this thread is now foremost on my radar.

ETA: I find it especially important when their frothy passion to debunk causes them to completely forget how to spell to the point of near unreadability!

LOL you noticed the misspelling too, Yea there are always people out there trying to discredit whatever they can. Especially if its close to the truth. Kinda makes ya wonder huh?

Lets see... Your OP source claims 20k US troops are to be deployed.

Please point out where they are currenly stationed?
Please point out where they are currently deployed - Which US city?
Please explain why your source is leaving out some key information?
Please explain how an article from 2008 means gloom and doom in 2011?
Why drag something up from 2008 and use it now?

Fearmongering maybe?
Pushing an Agenda?

ok first of all they said they would be trained for 2011...and what year is it??
i never said they were deployed anywhere...now that is misinformation from you.
you just keep trying to derail this thread to no avail.
well im done with arguing with you,
waste of my time..moving along now

Everyone seems to be very nervous over the word 'deployed"'. Well I am stationed in Texas and several months aga I was "deployed" about 2 miles down the road to another base (well annex). 'Deployed' is a term used to describe when we are going somewhere other than our normal workplace for training that usually has to do with combat type exercises. It also describes when we are sent to another country to help out in war. For example, I know a few people who have recently been deployed to Spain and Germany. They are not there for training and did not move there permanently, but our there working in hospitals that cater to those injured in the Middle East.

Now, if the people in charge are planning to do something bad/evil like an attempt to make a militarized state, I am totally against it. I am also getting out of the military do to many reasons, but one being that I am against the wars. So, please take this information about current military lingo however you please.

Peace

Its not paranoia, its placing myself for a moment in the right frame of mind and simple logic. They will need a million troops to deal with the economic fallout (real or percieved) that is at our door steps. Maybe pounding at our doors as we type?
Hardly fearmongering on my part. I'm NOT with the Pentagon nor have I ordered the troops into US cities.

I dont think 20 000 is anywhere near enough. That is such a tiny amount considering the geographical area involved.

What it seems they are going for is a 'home guard' type of set up. Just like the UK had during WW2. A force capable of defending the country if the bulk of the military is engaged overseas. It's only common sense.

All this hoo-hah about civil unrest and riots etc. economic collapse...etc. What utter nonsense.

They are just trying to make sure we dont get invaded.

and seriously.. are folk ready to start burning things up if their benefit checks dont arrive? thats just great for the rest of us who have to pay more taxes to clean up the bloody mess.

Originally posted by the seeker_713g

I beg to disagree, but the Posse Comitatus strictly forbids the deployment and use of the military on American soil unless it is to defend from invasion or enemy attack;

and to all those that kept poo-pooing the reports of extra troop and military, chalking it all up to national guard training, perhaps some re-thinking is in order...

all I can say is i hope everyone has made at least some basic preparations towards food storage and other basics...


seeker

It seems the DHS disagrees and now refers to the Posse Comitatus Act as something "mythical:"

www.homelandsecurity.org...

The article at www.homelandsecurity.org... claims the entire Posse Comitatus Act is:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

with the writer, Brinkerhoff, stating:

The quotation above is the much-discussed Posse Comitatus Act in its entirety. That is it! That is all there is to it.

Yet, we have at this link the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and it certainly seems to encompass more than Mr. Brinkerhoff claims: www.dojgov.net...

So, while i agree with your opening sentence, it would seem that the DHS does not agree with us.

WASHINGTON POST: "BY SEPTEMBER 2011"

www.washingtonpost.com...

The 2008 Washington Post article describes the decimation of the
Posse Comitatus Act, telling about the phases to make sure that by **September 2011** there will be 20,000 troops in the US for 'just-in-case'. Ya know. Goll, what amazing coincidence timing.
The usual disasters and some unspecified domestic crisis. (Like economic collapse?)

Originally posted by simone50m
WASHINGTON POST: "BY SEPTEMBER 2011"

www.washingtonpost.com...

The 2008 Washington Post article describes the decimation of the
Posse Comitatus Act, telling about the phases to make sure that by **September 2011** there will be 20,000 troops in the US for 'just-in-case'. Ya know. Goll, what amazing coincidence timing.
The usual disasters and some unspecified domestic crisis. (Like economic collapse?)

ughhh...

Posse Commitatus

Martial Law - US

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.[citation needed] Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Anything dealing with a nuclear / Chemical / Biological incident inside the US is by law under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Now, since we see its not a violation of the US Constitution, what else can you guys find to fear monger with?

reply to post by dgtempe


If the country goes to hell after we default, we will need more than one million people to subdue the mobs.

Combined, the US military and law enforcement is roughly 4 million and that still may not be enough. In a worse case scenario, we would need numerous Sheriff posses, military conscripts, contractors, volunteers, vigilantes, and militia to restore order in all major cities. Heck we may have to request help from NATO if it totally went to hell and even then it may be to only secure necessary infrastructure, e.g. the Northeast Corridor, and let the rest of the country burn itself out.

I wonder how they feel the need to be on top of a "nuclear chemical or biological incident" by Sept. 2011? They must have those Remote Viewers back to work, and some damn good ones apparently!

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


the constitution is quoted as being a breathing document, set up to change with the times. it also is set up to work for the people when done right and against the people when manipulated with a play on words.

i do not believe a word of this.

second doesnt either

reply to post by Xcathdra

Wow, this thread is developing quickly and among much speculation and as you say fear mongering, your comments have been the most accurate and real to me. Cheers to you.

Just a question for everyone else. Leaders at the top of the military chain of command cannot allow entire units to sit idle while stateside. Every one must have a mission. Would you rather 20,000 of your troops go somewhere like Afghanistan and patrol roads, waiting to hit that next IED, or stay here stateside with a purpose such as training to respond to emergencies that occur within our borders?

Let me ask it a bit differently, which do you think Ron Paul would go with?

Until you see tanks rolling up into major intersections, I wouldn't worry about this - But what worries me is the attitude of some posters who seem adamant against seeing troops active stateside. Where would you rather see them go?

Finally, do you really think the military would deploy stateside before some specific event were to occur? No, in response to an event maybe, yes. Train for anything and everything we can consider a threat before it happens? Yes.

So my Washington Post article is.........what. Chopped liver

reply to post by Xcathdra


Of course the comitatus act is not part of the constituion in the first place.

And secondly, it allows for use of federal troops for law enforcement when authorised by congress and has always done so!

CT's tend to ignore both of these of course... they are inconvenient facts that get in the way of their paranoia!

reply to post by jaycen420


If the Pentagon sends troops in to keep us all in check, then good. Because that'll add 20,000 more for our side if things really go crazy. I mean, are they forgetting who makes up the military?? It's hilarious, really.
So I say send them in - I can make dinner for a bunch! Heck, I'll make dessert too - just have to adjust my recipes for 20,000 or so.
All but one of my son's friends have just joined the military, so I might know some of them personally.
Ahhhhh - stupid, stupid Washington D.C. I feel kinda bad for them sometimes, you know? Off in their own world... They're so lucky that we're so lazy. They better hope we don't get our fat butts off our couches any time soon.....

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by tonyinawareness

 

As I said before, Nuclear, Chemical and Biological incidents will fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Any and all other disasters are the perview of the state and only the state. The FEderal Government, namely FEMA, has no authority unless A. The State requests FEMA activation and response and B. The President declared a federal disaster to authorize a FEMA response.

Maybe you didn't realize what has happened to your government but your country is in a "state of emergency" right now and if the president wanted to he could deploy through FEMA a whole bunch of garbage. The amount of power FEMA has is tremendous has grown exponentially over the last 15 years.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Just because a State requess doesnt mean FEMA assistance will be granted. FEMA cannot, and neither can the federal government for that matter, respond to a state incident without being requested.

Your state rights are already striped away in many areas, for example check this video out. ( I have a hard time with embeding if summone could help me out thank you) [yvid]

I just wonder, whats the deal with "By September 2011". Is that just.....some random thingee?