Unintended Consequences, illegal orders

[Huck]

imported post

Michigander wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

The police are the people you need to worry about the most

I know a treaty was signed with Canada's armed forces to help fight civil unrest in the US, and I've heard people say the same of Mexico, but I've never seen proof. This is the sort of thing worth being concerned about. Especially when you hear Obama and Rahm openly admitting they want their youth brigades established.

I can think of no better way to spark a civil war than for the Obamafuhrer and his cronies tocall inforeign troopsto assault American citizens on our own soil!

I might hesitate, might, to drop the hammer on a Americansoldier attempting to violate my rights but I'll cap a foreign invader in a heartbeat. And as far as I'm concerned armed foreign troops on our soil are invaders!

III

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Soldiers are required to obey orders and have no standing to refuse. There is no exception written in the oath that says "If I feel like it" or "as long as they are legal or justified"

Soldiers are and have been ordered into combat where the known outcome would be their death to accomplish a greater goal.

Wrong. I was trained to disobey unlawful orders.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

"...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;..."

"... All enemies, foreign and domestic."

"... According to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

We've never had a Marxist as CINC before. We haven't had a Presidentblatently circumvent the Constitution since 1861 (pre-Posse Comitatus).

Y'all seem to forget about the seniorNCO's and Petty Officers who actually get the doin' done. 'Won't happen.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Huck wrote:

I can think of no better way to spark a civil war than for the Obamafuhrer and his cronies tocall inforeign troopsto assault American citizens on our own soil!

I might hesitate, might, to drop the hammer on a Americansoldier attempting to violate my rights but I'll cap a foreign invader in a heartbeat. And as far as I'm concerned armed foreign troops on our soil are invaders!

III

+1 If that happens... all bets are off as to my loyalty to the standing US Gummint.

 

[Dom]

imported post

Won't happen

It has happened.

 

[Huck]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Soldiers are required to obey orders and have no standing to refuse. There is no exception written in the oath that says "If I feel like it" or "as long as they are legal or justified"

Soldiers are and have been ordered into combat where the known outcome would be their death to accomplish a greater goal.

However, if the POTUS violates the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold and defend, then the POTUS has violated his oath of office and has become the "domestic" enemy of the Constitution, the same Constitution that the Armed forces have sworn a oath to support and defend.In that casethe Armed Forces are not obligated to follow his orders and would be obligated by their oath to stop the "domestic" enemy; the POTUS. I took that oath myself whenI served in the Military and thishas always beenmyunderstanding of it.

It may be noted that in the oath,the supporting and defending ofthe Constitutionis before the part about obeying the orders of the President and that's because it's the more important part of that oath.

I'm certain that the above is why the Obamafuhrer wants the Armed Forces to swear allegence to the office of the President instead of the present oath, so they cant legallyoppose him when he starts assaulting the Constitution. And he will.

 

[Michigander]

imported post

Huck wrote:

I can think of no better way to spark a civil war than for the Obamafuhrer and his cronies tocall inforeign troopsto assault American citizens on our own soil!

The thing is, if that happened, it would be after some form of terrorist attacks. If you scare the living hell out of the majority, you can get away with a lot of things. Either that or wide spread rioting, perhaps even started Kent State style.

Hopefully time will prove my speculation wrong.:uhoh:

 

[sraacke]

imported post

I think most people get too tied up into thinking about a outright confiscation of guns by military or police. Not likely. What is likely is the administration passing laws as strict or more strict than any we have seen so far along the lines of the Clinton Era AWB and cities such as New York and Chicago. They could point to Heller and say "See, 2A recognizes your right to own A firearm for self defense in the home. You don't need an AK with hi-cap mags to defend your apartment. You don't need 5, 10 or even 20 different guns in your home. One will do. A 5 shot .38 revolver like the security guard at the bank will do just fine. NO hollowpoints. Just 5 rounds of lead ball ammo which you can register with the government and which we will have the right toinspect at any time. Of course, to buy a revolver and your 5 rounds of ammo you will have to pay for and pass a series of applicatons, classes and background checks then be registered into a government data base. Remember that the SupremeCourt ruled that 2Awas subject to resonable restrictions. Nothing unreasonable about any of this. It's for everyone's safety. Think of the children. And don't even thinkabout carrying it outside of your home. You could cause panic or accidently kill a fellow citizen if you fire that thing in public. So, as of the date that the President signs this bill into law you will have 90 days to turn in or dispose ofdangerous weapons like your high cap rifles, your magazine fed pistols and your semiauto shotguns. Those will be considered controlled items similar to the way high explosives are controlled already. Thank you for your cooperation. "

Then, anytime you take your gun out topractice you could be arested for having an unregistered weapon. You would bevilified in the media and a criminal who was a danger to the entire community.

Hide the weapon in your home and then the time comes to defend your life with it. How do you hide the fact that the neighbors just called 911 because you shot a home invader with your now illegal Glock 19?

What if one of your buddies gets arrested for something stupid like pot possession? Think he might try to cut a deal by telling the police that you never turned in your AR-15 that you showed him one day when he was drinking beers with you? Next thing you know you are at work in your cubical farm and the cops yank you up out of your chair and say that they just finished tossing your house and found your "arsonal" inyour bedroom closet. You loose your job, your kids are put in foster care and all your neighbors get to read about how your were just about to snap and kill them all.

You or a neighbor have a housefire or maybe just the smell of burning wires in the walls. The firefighters are in your home while you are either at work or standing out in the yard in your underware. While checking the walls for heat one comes across your unregistered/illegal AK clone. The Fire Chief points you out to a cop doing crowd control and you are soon handcuffed. Oh by the way, your pet was still in the house and died of smoke inhalation. Sorry about that.

See what I'm saying here? There's no need for mass confiscations. Most citizens will comply with the laws passed.They need their jobs and to be able to provide for their families. They aren't going to buck the system. Like inAustrailia, Britian and other countries they will not scream WOLVERINES and revolt. They willregister, turn in or go along with things to make it easier on their families. The few holdouts will be picked up one at a time as they come in routine contact with law enforcement. There will be police willing to enforce these laws just as the police already do in many jurisdictions where similar bans already exist. Think DC.

That's justthe way I see things.

 

[codename_47]

imported post



The question is, how many individuals are going to risk a court martial for treason (punishable by death) to defend the Constitution by disobeying an order?

You will NOT be court martialed for treason for refusing an order.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Dom wrote:

I don't believe the military en masse would refuse an order...history just doesn't support that. When has a U.S. military unit (say even platoon size) refused an order?

The examples in US history include the Bonus Army, Kent State, Hurricane Katrina, the tornado in Greensberg KS, and I'm sure there's more.

Look at what the soldier says at the end of this Katrina video....he doesn't want to have to shoot an American but he will if he has to:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-368034430006732400&hl=en

Also earlier in that video is a commander essentially admitting a violation of the 3rd Amendment.

The question is, how many individuals are going to risk a court martial for treason (punishable by death) to defend the Constitution by disobeying an order? A lot of these guys are 18-20 year old kids. God bless them but part of their job is doing what they're told.

Posse Comitatus, if it even exists anymore, is a Congressional act. All it takes is Congressional exemption or repeal for it to vanish.

Glad someone brought this up. Hell, the military is involved in illegal activity RIGHT NOW. Granted it's not in-country, but it's still illegal. 9/11 and Katrina showed the power of fear and the promise of "safety" toconvince people to do anything or give up anything.Who's to say thenext majordisaster won't?



How many of you guys saying you took the oath and you wouldn't do that yada yada yada, are older gentlemen? The military has changed and so have the people that enlist. It's not the honorable thing to do anymore. People back in the day joined to serve their country, to be patriotic, to defend freedom, it was an honorable military made up of honorable people. Why do kids join now? College money, too lazy for school, get away from home, nothing better to do, easy money, all their friends are doing it, etc. The people that comprise the military are not what they were.

No one disagrees herethat the general population has been dumbed down to the point of near uselessness. Well, guess were people enlist from? The general population. Again, the military of 30 years ago is not the military of today.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Glad someone brought this up. Hell, the military is involved in illegal activity RIGHT NOW. Granted it's not in-country, but it's still illegal.

This has always intrigued me as to how so many illegal activities occur with the blessings of the Executive staff, Congress and the Courts. Seems that is they were illegal then at least one branch or at least one person in those branches would point it out and it be declared illegal.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Glad someone brought this up. Hell, the military is involved in illegal activity RIGHT NOW. Granted it's not in-country, but it's still illegal.

This has always intrigued me as to how so many illegal activities occur with the blessings of the Executive staff, Congress and the Courts. Seems that is they were illegal then at least one branch or at least one person in those branches would point it out and it be declared illegal.

Kind of goes along with the "we are right" US foreign policy. When the US does something internationally, it's legal by default. It's the internationallaws that are wrong. We're never wrong so we're above the standards we hold everyone else to... but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[r6-rider]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

How many of you guys saying you took the oath and you wouldn't do that yada yada yada, are older gentlemen? The military has changed and so have the people that enlist. It's not the honorable thing to do anymore. People back in the day joined to serve their country, to be patriotic, to defend freedom, it was an honorable military made up of honorable people. Why do kids join now? College money, too lazy for school, get away from home, nothing better to do, easy money, all their friends are doing it, etc. The people that comprise the military are not what they were.

No one disagrees herethat the general population has been dumbed down to the point of near uselessness. Well, guess were people enlist from? The general population. Again, the military of 30 years ago is not the military of today.

mostly true. i wasnt one of those kids you mentioned i have wanted to serve since i was about 6, mainly from talking to a bunch of WW2 vets on how great this country is and how everyone should serve at least 2 years to get a glimpse of what this country is about and how men fight to protect it.

i have had a few "bonus baby" friends enlist, they were very cocky about it all til they got back from basic then they got a little bit more understanding on how it all works, but when they got back from war they truly knew what it meant to be in America and have freedom. some problems i have seen with spoiled people (kids) that go to war is most come back with PTSD

 

[darthmord]

imported post

I served in the Navy from 1994 to 1998. My wife was active duty Navy from 1994-2004. She's now a Navy reservist.

We had this very discussion one day in the lab I worked in (sometime between 97-98). The gist of it was that none of us would comply. It's blatantly illegal. Not to mention that many military members own their own firearms.

Though it was brought up that known agitators (everyone in the office looked at me) would be gagged in some form or fashion if such an order were to come out as people like me would prove to be a thorn in the side of those issuing the orders.

Ever have I been accused of possessing an improper attitude and of being willfully disobedient. To which I have always responded "You ain't seen nothing yet".

The fact that the Navy wanted me in says something good about my independent attitude. :lol:

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Glad someone brought this up. Hell, the military is involved in illegal activity RIGHT NOW. Granted it's not in-country, but it's still illegal.

Care to give an example?

How many of you guys saying you took the oath and you wouldn't do that yada yada yada, are older gentlemen?

I don't know what you call an "older gentleman", but I'm 40.

The military has changed and so have the people that enlist.

Really? Please, do tell. I've been out for 3 years, tell me how it's changed in just 3 years time.

It's not the honorable thing to do anymore.

Is that so? Coming from someone who has demonstrated very little honor in the past, I wonder if you even know what that word means.

People back in the day joined to serve their country, to be patriotic, to defend freedom, it was an honorable military made up of honorable people.

Doesn't sound too different from today.

Why do kids join now?

This should be good. Please enlighten us.

College money, too lazy for school, get away from home, nothing better to do, easy money, all their friends are doing it, etc

College money: Well yes, you can get in on the GI Bill. It's a great deal. Many people have earned their degrees this way. Some even go on to earn their commissions and become officers.

too lazy for school: Funny that the same people who are "too lazy for school" are in the military earning money for college. Believe me, there are far easier jobs than military service, and most pay better. More than half of the jobs, including my current one, have been easier than my time in the service, and I was in the Air Force, not one of the "hard" branches.

get away from home: The reason most of us move out on our own instead of living in Mom's basement forever.

This includes "getting away" to third world countries with little or no comforts of home, to defend the rights ofothers, some ofwhom do not appreciate that the only reason that they can go about their shallow lives is because someone else is protecting them from the bad guys. But that's OK, it's still worth it, and more.

nothing better to do: I would have to agree that there are few better things to do than serve your country and fellow man. Defending those at home is truly an honorable profession. Even today I work for a civilian contractor at a Navy base, maintaining aircraft for those that train the pilots how to fight.

all their friends are doing it: This is one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard.This would be why kids get a certain haircut, go to aconcert, or wear certain clothes, not why they choose to enter a career field where they may have to sacrifice their lives.

How many people graduate high school every year? How many enlist in the armed forces? It is hardly true that "all their friends are doing it".

The people that comprise the military are not what they were.

And just how many of these people have you personally met and gotten to know?

No one disagrees herethat the general population has been dumbed down to the point of near uselessness. Well, guess were people enlist from? The general population.

I would suppose that you too, are a member of "the near useless,dumbed down, general population", or are you special in some way that make you superior?

Again, the military of 30 years ago is not the military of today.

You're right, today's military has the highest level of education in history. The people that enlist today are often among the cream of the crop.

If you knew even half as much about the military as you seem to think that you do, you would know that the military often turns people away because they don't have to take just anyone.

Very few jobs in the military will accept you without a High School Diploma.Many won't even accept a GED. The days of going to the military to avoid jail are long gone. Even some minor offenses can disqualify you today.

If you have served in the armed forces, let me know, otherwise you may want to actually do some research and have some idea what you're talking about before you post such irresponsible and stupid remarks.

But then again, it just wouldn't be you if you did that.

 

[Venator]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

I know I'll never see it this far south... but if some Canuck comes a'knockin' for my guns... The war starts here. :X

So what are you a rebel against, anyway? Just curious.

What's the movie quote? "Whatca got?" Or something like that.

 

[dukenukum]

imported post

Evil done under the cover of law is still EVIL

 

[MeBaby]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Soldiers are required to obey orders and have no standing to refuse. There is no exception written in the oath that says "If I feel like it" or "as long as they are legal or justified"

Soldiers are and have been ordered into combat where the known outcome would be their death to accomplish a greater goal.

You would have done well in Germany......... up until they we defeated. You do NOT appear to have any military background if you truely believe this.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Dom wrote:

Won't happen

It has happened.

Ok... Where and when?

 

[Devils Advocate]

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Soldiers are required to obey orders and have no standing to refuse. There is no exception written in the oath that says "If I feel like it" or "as long as they are legal or justified"

Soldiers are and have been ordered into combat where the known outcome would be their death to accomplish a greater goal.

You would have done well in Germany......... up until they we defeated. You do NOT appear to have any military background if you truely believe this.

Um, what does it say in that oath?

"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"

"and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

So if you are told to do something you must do it unless you know for a fact that what you are being told is wrong. And you better be right or your ass is grass!

You risk

• Article 15
• Dishonorable Discharge
• No retirement
• Reduction in grade
• Confinement
• Loss of career

Blatant murder of civilians is obviously wrong. Torture as well. Nobody would hold you at fault for disobeying that order as you know it is clearly wrong.

But if a soldier is ordered to go house to house and take our firearms how does he know if this is right or wrong?

The second amendment says you can have firearms but there are laws that seem to trump that.

• Convicted felons
• Misdemeanor domestic assault
• Protective orders
• Being on the streets of DC
• Dishonorable discharge
• Renouncing your citizenship
• Mental case
• Drug user

It seems that there are situations where you CANNOT be in possession of a firearm. New laws are enacted and the soldiers are probably not up on that.Theydo not need to focus their daily studies on federal and state laws.

So how does a soldier, having no time to research this order, tell his commander he refusesto confiscate our firearms?

It is a rather large risk, huh? He swore an oath, did he not? He better have some compelling reason that is going to back him up during his courts marshal.

We are not talking about killing people so I doubt many soldiers would stand up and refuse. Many want to make a career out of the military and they are going to pick their battles carefully. Fighting to allow us to be armed may not be one of them.

So you can stick your reference to Germany up your balloon knot.

It has been my experience that those that pull out references to Germany on the internet cannot make a valid point on their own and use it as a crutch.

There is nothing in this post that has anything to do with Germany. It is about what soldiers will most likely do when ordered to do so.

A young 20 something soldier is probably not going to buck the order form a 40 something 1st Sergeant, captain or major.