PDA

View Full Version : Obama just created civilian military




Dequeant
01-31-2009, 12:46 AM
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
01-31-2009, 03:02 AM
The American people spoke before they truly listened and now they deserve what they get. I hope this gets spread far and wide and people wake up and do something before it is too late, if it is not already!

hillbilly123069
01-31-2009, 04:27 AM
It was once said,"Forgive them,for they know not what they do."
But the most atrocious acts are yet to come.Especially if Obama manages to get the military oath switched from the Constitution to the off./president.This is too much power for 1 man.What we need to do is campaign some people into congress in 2010,if it's not too late for that.Some think it's later than we know.

anaconda
01-31-2009, 05:15 AM
Without so much as a vote in congress....
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26480



Falling under the DOD, and not being required to take an oath.........these guys will be completely under the authority of the president. A force "as strong as the U.S. Military" that answers only to the executive branch.

Is it just me, or did the Rubicon just get crossed?

Alea iacta est

I would say it qualifies as a Rubicon. But I think there have been other Rubicons. Such as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Federal Reserve Act, 16th ammendment, 9-11, etc.

PatriotLegion
01-31-2009, 06:42 AM
I agree that many lines have been crossed, what is it going to take for a mass demonstration on DC? How many patriots live within driving distance to DC that can demonstrate that we are the people and we would stand for a Nanny State, forced labor, or what ever genius ideas that King BO has blessed us with.

sevin
01-31-2009, 09:44 AM
Can anyone confirm this with a link to an official government site? The only proof in the article are links to infowars and prisonplanet, one of which doesn't even work.

Lucille
01-31-2009, 09:55 AM
Can anyone confirm this with a link to an official government site? The only proof in the article are links to infowars and prisonplanet, one of which doesn't even work.

It has a DoD (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52840) link.

LiveToWin
01-31-2009, 10:04 AM
We already have a Civilians Military

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNZrAe0IuNk

Catatonic
01-31-2009, 10:11 AM
How is this not a private army?

Cinderella
01-31-2009, 10:45 AM
::just shit her pants::

pacelli
01-31-2009, 10:59 AM
The directive, which is effective immediately, states that civilian employees of the DoD will be asked to sign agreements stating that they will deploy in support of military missions for up to two years if needed.

First, it impacts civilian employees of the DoD. Not all civilian employees in the US. Second, they must agree by signature to the directive.

constituent
01-31-2009, 11:03 AM
what is it going to take for a mass demonstration on DC?

lol, they already had one, it was called "the inauguration."

Dequeant
01-31-2009, 11:13 AM
First, it impacts civilian employees of the DoD. Not all civilian employees in the US. Second, they must agree by signature to the directive.


Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilian employees, either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.

Involuntarily doesn't sound very optional to me. Even if it were, while they may be "asking" current employees.......it will undoubtedly affect the decision to hire someone or not eventually. When that happens, while it may be "optional" on paper, in practice, you don't get the job without agreeing.

After all, Obama can't have a force "as strong as the U.S. Military" without that force being able to deploy.

Catatonic
01-31-2009, 11:56 AM
Isn't this just an update to existing policy?

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf

"Reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 1404.10 (Reference (a)) under a new title to establish the policy through which an appropriately sized subset of the DoD civilian workforce is pre-identified to be organized, trained, and equipped in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities for operational requirements. These requirements are typically away from the
normal work locations of DoD civilians, or in situations where other civilians may be evacuated to assist military forces where the use of DoD civilians is appropriate. These employees shall be collectively known as the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05 (Reference (b)). "

Dequeant
01-31-2009, 12:14 PM
Isn't this just an update to existing policy?

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/140410p.pdf

"Reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 1404.10 (Reference (a)) under a new title to establish the policy through which an appropriately sized subset of the DoD civilian workforce is pre-identified to be organized, trained, and equipped in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities for operational requirements. These requirements are typically away from the
normal work locations of DoD civilians, or in situations where other civilians may be evacuated to assist military forces where the use of DoD civilians is appropriate. These employees shall be collectively known as the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05 (Reference (b)). "

That IS the item we are talking about. Look at the date on the document.

Aratus
01-31-2009, 12:16 PM
skills draft? expeditionary force? citizens militia? like national guard units may come home?

Catatonic
01-31-2009, 12:58 PM
That IS the item we are talking about. Look at the date on the document.

Crap, you're right. So how exactly is this new directive different from the previous directive put in place in 1992? Thats what I was looking for, but I can't find it.

LiveToWin
01-31-2009, 01:18 PM
So how exactly is this new directive different from the previous directive put in place in 1992?

Sheep will line up in droves for this to be drafted because obama asked.

porcupine
01-31-2009, 01:52 PM
What are you going to do about it? Write more angry letters?

danberkeley
01-31-2009, 02:32 PM
Communism anyone?

Truth Warrior
01-31-2009, 03:26 PM
Can I get a badge and wear a funny hat? :D

heavenlyboy34
01-31-2009, 03:28 PM
Can I get a badge and wear a funny hat? :D

Can I arrest cops for walking too slow or some other absurd thing? :D;)

danberkeley
01-31-2009, 03:37 PM
If we all became cops, who would we arrest?

Truth Warrior
01-31-2009, 03:43 PM
If we all became cops, who would we arrest? Politicians, lawyers and wannabes. :D

Catatonic
01-31-2009, 11:55 PM
What are you going to do about it? Write more angry letters?

"Dear (representative),

Due to your support of a civilian stasi, I will not be sending you a fruitcake this christmas. I hope you've learned you lesson.

Ta-ta,

(Catatonic)"

A good draft letter, everyone is welcome to copy it.

Tatsit
02-01-2009, 10:30 PM
Well, I just added it to my home page - sad thing, the sheeple will think this is peace corps

Tatsit
02-01-2009, 10:31 PM
"dear (representative),

due to your support of a civilian stasi, i will not be sending you a fruitcake this christmas. I hope you've learned you lesson.

Ta-ta,

(catatonic)"

a good draft letter, everyone is welcome to copy it.

lol!

Pauls' Revere
02-02-2009, 01:03 AM
The last paragraph was enough for me.

One such program has seen hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers recently trained and dispatched as "Terrorism Liaison Officers" in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for "suspicious activity" which is later fed into a secret government database.

hillbilly123069
02-02-2009, 05:09 AM
..

LittleLightShining
02-02-2009, 09:35 AM
If Bush did this...

I'm flabbergasted at the lack of interest in this. Obama's voters better be the first ones to go.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2009, 09:59 AM
Ok, so I was just discussing this with a friend and she said that this is only for defense department employees.

libertarian4321
02-04-2009, 12:22 AM
How is this not a private army?

Calm down, folks, you are completely missing the ball on this one.

This isn't a "civilian army"- its a system to get government civilians to deploy to war zones when needed.

They won't be toting machine guns. They'll be cooks, drivers, engineers, doctors, nurses, bean counters, paper pushers. In other words, they will be government civilian employees doing the same CIVILIAN jobs that they currently do on bases here in the USA.

This is in response to the Iraq and Afghan wars where the DoD couldn't find enough civilians willing to serve in those war zones without offering them huge bounties to do so. Now, certain positions will be designated as "deployable", so any person who takes that position must indicate in advance that he will be willing to work his CIVILIAN job in a "war zone."

For example, a GS-12 government environmental engineer working in San Antonio must be willing to serve overseas. He'll be the same middle aged civilian engineer with no military training that he was in San Antonio, but he'll be working in Baghdad (or whatever). He ain't going to be out patrolling the streets gunning people down...

Dequeant
02-04-2009, 05:11 PM
Calm down, folks, you are completely missing the ball on this one.

This isn't a "civilian army"- its a system to get government civilians to deploy to war zones when needed.

They won't be toting machine guns. They'll be cooks, drivers, engineers, doctors, nurses, bean counters, paper pushers. In other words, they will be government civilian employees doing the same CIVILIAN jobs that they currently do on bases here in the USA.

This is in response to the Iraq and Afghan wars where the DoD couldn't find enough civilians willing to serve in those war zones without offering them huge bounties to do so. Now, certain positions will be designated as "deployable", so any person who takes that position must indicate in advance that he will be willing to work his CIVILIAN job in a "war zone."

For example, a GS-12 government environmental engineer working in San Antonio must be willing to serve overseas. He'll be the same middle aged civilian engineer with no military training that he was in San Antonio, but he'll be working in Baghdad (or whatever). He ain't going to be out patrolling the streets gunning people down...


In July 2008, Barack Obama, then the presidential front runner, called for a "civilian national security force" as powerful as the U.S. military.

Explain to me how a "civilian national security force" means civilians deploying doing the same thing they do now? When you're done with that, explain to me how a bunch of cooks, drivers, engineers, and doctors can be "as powerful as the U.S. Military". Obama's words, not mine......just laying reality out there for you.


How is this not a private army?

Don't let the obamazombies cloud the water, a "civilian national security force" is exactly (verbatim) what he has said he wants.

Catatonic
02-04-2009, 07:51 PM
Don't let the obamazombies cloud the water, a "civilian national security force" is exactly (verbatim) what he has said he wants.

Don't worry, I've been on this forum long enough that having a reference to libertarianism or ron paul in one's screenname doesn't trick me.

Unless Obama somehow got massive libertarian support :)

The legislation in the OP is a revised version of legislation that was enacted in the early 90's. If anyone has a copy of the original version, I'd be very interested in seeing it, to see exactly what changes were made.

Dequeant
02-05-2009, 08:36 PM
Oh yea, just so an issue like this isn't lost to naysaying

Here's the exact quote, straight from the horse's mouth. That "Change" poster on his platform has never been creepier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

libertarian4321
02-12-2009, 12:55 AM
Explain to me how a "civilian national security force" means civilians deploying doing the same thing they do now? When you're done with that, explain to me how a bunch of cooks, drivers, engineers, and doctors can be "as powerful as the U.S. Military". Obama's words, not mine......just laying reality out there for you.

Don't let the obamazombies cloud the water, a "civilian national security force" is exactly (verbatim) what he has said he wants.

I suspect Obama may have chosen poor words last summer- but whatever he said at that time has NOTHING to do with what the DoD is doing now.

The DoD release says:

"The Defense Department is forming a civilian expeditionary workforce that will be trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of military missions worldwide, according to department officials.

The intent of the program “is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements,” according to a Defense Department statement. "

That means government CIVILIANS- paunchy middle aged GS12's, not Rambos- to support the military so that the military can carry out "operational requirements".

Support means doing the stuff I talked about before- logistics, engineering, and the like- work that can be performed by CIVILIANS so that the guys with guns (the military) can be freed up to carry out military operations.

The creation of this group a few days after the inauguration wasn't because of some dream or mandate Obama tossed down a couple of weeks ago- the planning for this began years ago.

It was designed to fix a very serious problem encountered in Iraq- the DoD simply could not find enough DoD employees to deploy to Iraq, no matter what kind of incentives they offered- no one wanted to go there, even at double and triple their normal salary.

Having put in 27 years in the military, and spent a good portion of my civilian career as a DoD consultant, I know exactly why this plan was implemented.

You guys can twist yourselves into knots over this, and create all kinds of horrific scenarios, but you're going off the deep end again. This has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a huge group of armed government civilians as some of you are imagining.

Frankly, the idea is completely absurd- if you've ever been in an office full of government civilian workers, you'd know that 98% of them would be utterly worthless in any sort of military role. Most of them just want to sleepwalk their way through the day, collect a pay check, and wait for their pension (which is why we pay so much for our government, and get so little out of it).

Truth Warrior
02-12-2009, 06:57 AM
Isn't "civilian military" just another frickin' bogus oxymoron? :rolleyes:

tommyzDad
02-12-2009, 07:49 AM
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set......" Obama told a Colorado Springs audience.

Sure. Darwin Mayflower was after the same thing: WORLD DOMINATION!!!!!

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2203/worlddominationwl8.jpg

constituent
02-12-2009, 10:16 AM
Isn't "civilian military" just another frickin' bogus oxymoron? :rolleyes:

naaah, it's a semantic attempt at recasting the 2nd amendment (what dems like to call a "provisional right") via "well regulated militia."

this will be their militia, well regulated.

Truth Warrior
02-12-2009, 01:14 PM
naaah, it's a semantic attempt at recasting the 2nd amendment (what dems like to call a "provisional right") via "well regulated militia."

this will be their militia, well regulated. So all future civilian casualties will now be military casualties. Or vice versa?

I'm confused.

But STILL not enough to vote. :D

constituent
02-12-2009, 02:44 PM
So all future civilian casualties will now be military casualties. Or vice versa?

I'm confused.

But STILL not enough to vote. :D

as long as they're dead i don't think tptb will care what we call 'em.

Truth Warrior
02-12-2009, 02:49 PM
as long as they're dead i don't think tptb will care what we call 'em. Casualties includes the injured. :(

TPTB will call it "collateral damage". :p :rolleyes:

torchbearer
02-12-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm creating my own civilian military to protect against his.

Bontemps
02-13-2009, 12:23 PM
i've gotta get off my ass and buy a weapon, or seven.

constituent
02-13-2009, 12:46 PM
i've gotta get off my ass and buy a weapon, or seven.

love the moniker.

Original_Intent
02-13-2009, 12:52 PM
Well this is absolutely great - rampant unemployment and then hire them into "jobs" where they could be deployed overseas to fill support roles for the military.

This just sounds too good to be true.