Unintended Consequences, illegal orders

[Walleye]

imported post

I've talked to my father a lot about this subject (a Colonel in the KSARNG), and his take on it is that while an order may be illegal, not everyone will recognize it being as such. He believes that most of the NCOs and COs will recognize the order as being illegal and standing up to it, but a toss up for the enlisted ranks - maybe 50/50.

Of course he pointed out that it's still a mess deciding what an illegal order may be; if the government makes something illegal, then in effect the only objection the military would have would be based on moral grounds. This does highlight that an all-out ban would not be the preferred way to take control, but rather a "reasonable restriction" approach will chisel our rights away until no one thinks it's wrong for the government to tell you to shut up, or that the government can come in and inspect your home at any time, etc. Much depends on the general public perception, and as many of you have noticed, we aren't doing so well out there.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Sonora,

I know how you feel. I have faith that once you walk away and come back you will have cooled off some. You and I both know that stylez is the red dot on the south end of a north bound mule.He depends on the Internet to protect him from his mouth (keyboard), in fact it is most probable that he does not carry and may not even own a firearm. The idea of service in the military or any other national service is completely foreign to him. There is no way he would say the things he says in person to anyone. Like many of the rest of us you will just have to write him off as an Internet ninja.

He usually needs to look things up in a text or ask his professors for the proper responses to posts on this forum. He clearly has never "been there" in almost any of the contexts discussed routinely on this forum. As such he has no idea what he is talking about. He will visit the ground zero monument in New York City and tell people he was there. That is the sum of his actual knowledge.

Kiss him off, you are better than he is. As hard as it is to do, let it go.

Respectfully

Please, tell me more. This self-discovery via other people from an internet forum is fascinating. I'm learning much about myself, continue.

After I'm done learning new things about me, maybe you'll care to address what, exactly, the Iraq and Afgan wars have accomplished for the onlything worth going to war for, domestic security. But wait, before you make yourself look stupid (more stupid?) I'll give you a head start on what not to say...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5375064.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7460-2005Jan13?language=printer

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html

Keep in mind each one of these articles references a DIFFERENT US MADE report, all of which say the same thing, year after year.

Third party, in case you think the US government intelligence agencies are somehow biased against the US government's agenda.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm38.html


http://www.stwr.org/united-states-of-america/the-iraq-effect-war-has-increased-terrorism-sevenfold-worldwide.html




Want to get ridof terrorism?Start bynot doing things that create new terrorists.




Pops that lives a country away just called me out to an E-fight and you think I'M the internet ninja?

I can see him sitting in hisdouble-wide now, rebel flag flying...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Walleye wrote:

Of course he pointed out that it's still a mess deciding what an illegal order may be; if the government makes something illegal, then in effect the only objection the military would have would be based on moral grounds. This does highlight that an all-out ban would not be the preferred way to take control, but rather a "reasonable restriction" approach will chisel our rights away until no one thinks it's wrong for the government to tell you to shut up, or that the government can come in and inspect your home at any time, etc. Much depends on the general public perception, and as many of you have noticed, we aren't doing so well out there.

100% correct

That's why this thread iscompletely irrelevant.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Sonora,

I know how you feel. ...SNIP...

Please, tell me more. SNIP...

I actually don't need to "tell you more..." as I was not talking to you in the first instance. Since I was not telling you anything, it is not possible to tell you "more". It is nice to see that you finally learned how to post links. Too bad they had nothing to do with what I wrote.

But I do seem to have made a very nice bullseye on one of your nerves, so I must be right about you. Sorry about that. But you can always go back to class and ask your proff what to say next.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

But I do seem to have made a very nice bullseye on one of your nerves, so I must be right about you.

Sorry to disappoint you jim, this is the intranetz and I've been around it for a long time. I really don't care what you have to say or who you say it to. You'rea name on a screen. I'm here solely for my own entertainment, and when you no longer interest me I click over to the next tab for new stimulus.

Bravo on the massive side-step though, bravo. Maybe someone else will have the gnads to address it.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

That's why this thread iscompletely irrelevant.

You sure spend a lot of time posting here for this to be an "Irrelevant" thread. Kind of makes you irrelevant by association.

 

[MeBaby]

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

MeBaby wrote:

Not a crutch, a point. Many of the Germans tried at Nuremburg claimed that they were following orders. Many of them were executed. So, yes there would be some that would blindly follow orders, but I believe there would be many more who would not, at risk of all of the above, that you have mentioned. I believe that it would certainly be the worst chaos this country has ever endured.

The other plausible scenario would be the "death of a thousand cuts" where, as someone mentioned earlier, incremental law after law was passed, each on its own not enough to induce enough anger in the populaceto start a revolt, but the sum total of them eliminating the vast majority of guns or owners.

You said "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."

This is not a point as much as accusing me of being a good Nazi.

There are many others ways you could have posted this but you chose to "point and attack" my character on-line. Seems to be the case when someone sayssometing others do not like. We cannot agree to disagree so we call them out and make them the bad guy. Nazi is the easiest term to use as it has a real bad ring.

Your opinion has no foundation except in what you BELIEVED I was addressing was blind orders for anything.

Clearly, I am not for and never wouldbe for following orders in a blind fashion. Some things are clearly wrong and even at an early age we learn thiis.

But it is clear that that many citizens who become soldiers do NOT knowgun laws. This is NOT taught in basic training so how would a platoonof soldiers know to stand up and refuse?

They wouldn't!

Sure, you may get a few salty dogs stand up and refuse and they will be hauled off to confinement. Do you think the rest will want the same?

I am going to doubt it.

Well, if you are really NOT LEO229 incognito I'll say this to you: Things that are written always appear harsher than they are intended (notice that I didn't use any emoticons to indicate any anger or other emotion). So, with that in mind the reference was to the attitude that you seemed to be portraying. If you are looking for an apology, it ain't gonna happpen and I would suggest that if you want to stay in this forum you should toughen your skin up a little.

If you want to play devil's advocate be perpared for people to assume that you are taking a stance in a certain direction (based on what you post) no matter what your username is.



It ain't all about MeBaby, and it sure as Hell ain't all about YOU!

 

[Dustin]

imported post

Walleye wrote:

He believes that most of the NCOs and COs will recognize the order as being illegal and standing up to it, but a toss up for the enlisted ranks - maybe 50/50.

That's BS. I believe it to be the exact opposite. Officers are the man pleasers of the Military. Most of them anyway.

BTW, NCO = Non Commisioned Officer = Enlisted.

 

[MeBaby]

imported post

Dustin wrote:

Walleye wrote:

He believes that most of the NCOs and COs will recognize the order as being illegal and standing up to it, but a toss up for the enlisted ranks - maybe 50/50.

That's BS. I believe it to be the exact opposite. Officers are the man pleasers of the Military. Most of them anyway.

BTW, NCO = Non Commisioned Officer = Enlisted.

Dustin and Sonora Rebel: thanks for your service, gentlemen. Releasing the Iraqi people from the SH regime is a righteous cause.

 

[YllwFvr]

imported post

Forgive me if this was already covered but I'm at work and only had time to peruse the first few pages of the thread and wanted to ask if the gun confiscations in N.O. were covered when it came to Blackwater USA. The Guard has taken an oath yes? And LEOs all over of course but what about a private army some of which are not even americans at all?

I'd have to look it up again but I know I read there were some dispatched to N.O. just not sure how many. And after seeing plenty of videos of them shooting up Iraq with little remorse it makes me wonder how far they would go here?

We all talk about defending our rights with force if necessary but I doubt I would have the guts to face down 5 or more heavily armed menoutside my house who are very well trained in the use of those weapons.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

YllwFvr wrote:

...SNIP

We all talk about defending our rights with force if necessary but I doubt I would have the guts to face down 5 or more heavily armed menoutside my house who are very well trained in the use of those weapons.

Lots of practice, and some help from friends and neighbors. Can you say militia?

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

I'm going to try real hard to not pull this thread too far from it's original topic, but how many of all the would be (i'm gonna fight to the death) posters on here are capable of concealment, and camoflauge? I mean going and remaining truely invisible in the woods, matching your surroundings 100%,, Able to avoid heat sensors if you had to crawl onto a hole in the woods for two or three weeks at a time, could all of you find at least one meal a day, and recognize the edibles versus non edibles in your woods environment??

Who among us could really survive without cell phones, and Coffee lattes, and heat or a roof over your head, I'm not talking about a bug out bag, or some little B.S. survival kit, I'm talking about eaking out a meeger exhistance with your knife, and keeping your sidearm quiet unless it was a life or death situation last resort to send a shot report through the air to alarm would be evils of your location..



Come on folks lemme hearfrom the rambos in ya'll

have ya ever called a wild turkey within arms length ? probably the keenest eyes in the woods..

 

[YllwFvr]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

YllwFvr wrote:

...SNIP

We all talk about defending our rights with force if necessary but I doubt I would have the guts to face down 5 or more heavily armed menoutside my house who are very well trained in the use of those weapons.

Lots of practice, and some help from friends and neighbors. Can you say militia?

I can shoot decently with my AR up to 200 yrds, but Im not trained formally. Now anyone with any military training or LEO experience; would you be at the advantage or disadvantage being in your home with armed assailants outside?

With friends and neighbors it would indeed be a local militia, and if there was advance warning I wouldn't enjoy being on the side that tries to disarm using force, but if these people got to my home without my knowledge and I answered the door and was staring down the barrel of a black rifle??? I'd probably hand over a secondary weapon or try BSing them into believing I dont have anything. They arent getting my 74 unless they break in and fall over it.

I was having a similair debate with a fella off youtube and I asked a buddy of mine in the Marines and he said almost the same thing. They have the right to refuse an unlawful order. Thats if they have a problem with it, or know if there is such a law. He told me about a bill that had just passed stating we cannot be disarmed in an emergency. Basically backing up the 2A when it doesn't need to be backed up at all. I checked the bill online and it went through the house of reps but the next one... Senate? Congress? It failed at that level.

What a sorry state we are in when there needs to be laws to cover our Rights. You would think it's obvious.:cuss:

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wow...

I miss one little thread for a few pages, and suddenly I have a lot of catching up to do in regards to throwing out my 2 cents here: here it goes:

in regards to the legality of the hypothetical order:

while we all ( hopefully) understand that the constitution is something to be followed verbatim, many people don't. in todays political landscape "constitutional interpetation" is the norm. otherwise, how do you explain "gun control measures"?

even though the constitution says " shall NOT be infringed" such "measures" are passed every few years because a politician "interpets" the constitution in such a way that suddenly " shall not be infringed" takes on a whole new meaning. politicians aren't stupid. ifmost weren't silver tongued devils they wouldn't be elected to county dog catcher, let alone senate/House/ executive positions. if and when such an order passes it will be mired in just enough "interpetation" that many wouldn't understand that it was, in fact, unconstitutional.

in regards to the military:

I have the highest respect for the fighting men and women of the armed forces. honestly, many would most likely refuse such an order, recognizing the unconstitutionality, but many others ( just as they would in civillian life) would be swayed by the same "interpetations" of teh constitution that would have allowed such an order to be issued in the first place. what ratio wouldthese to groupsbe? 50/50? 60/40? 80/20? would there be enough to stop the confiscation, or merely to slow it down? that is the truly scary question.

while I have no doubt that many of the higher ranking NCOs would no doubt fight the orders through the chain of command, there are also many younger soldiers who have grown up in the current "nanny" generation who would have grown up being taught of the "flexibility" of the constitution, who would honestly believe that the order was in fact not illegal. the simple fact of the matter is, that the decision will be a hard one for every service member who has to make it, and it will undoubtedly be a stressful situation when the order is relayed to those men and women. servicemen are still humans, and humans have a way of sometimes making bad decisions under stress that they regret later in life.

SouthernBoy wrote:

Just as the slave owners of the South are routinely condemned as criminals today there is little mention of the slave owners of the North or that the first legal slave in the US was owned by a black man in Mass. Although the Nazis were doing what they thought was correct and legal they were wrong.

being a proud Southerner myself ,I found it refreshing that someone else knows the politically incorrect truth regarding Anthony Johnson ( the first slaveholder that you mentioned) however the case was decided in Va, not Mass.

regarding the nazi reference, it is quite appropriate. many nazi soldiers, and in fact citizens merely believed that they were doing what they could for "homeland security"

however regarding the inability to repeal the second ammendment:

unfortunately, you are mistaken. while the founders never believed that their republic would devolve into such a state that the bill of rights would even be considered for repeal, there is no provision in the constitution which safeguards any part of the constitution from repeal or modification ( except for one reference which concerned first and fourth clauses of the ninth section of the first article; however that safeguard contained a sunset provision which has long since passed)



AWD: kiss my grits concerning your little "rebel flag waving" remark. the men who died under that battle flag had more honor and courage than you will ever know.

to everyone else: while AWD is an ignorant troll, he does have a good point concerning the Iraq invasion. that war was based on propaganda (i.e.: the whole WMD thing) but is honestly nothing more than interfering in another nations internal affairs. If the people of Iraq wanted rid of Saddam, they should have taken up that cause for themselves. American servicemen and women shouldn't have to risk their lives for another countries freedom.

Hawkflyer wrote:

Lots of practice, and some help from friends and neighbors. Can you say militia?

while the concept of the general militia was enshrined into the constitution as a safeguard against tyranny, the FED has "interpeted" that idea into obscurity. the very mention of militia is enough to warrant suspicion anymore.

as for the "one step away from being classified as domestic terrorists" remark made earlier, you have no idea how right you are.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

wow...

I miss one little thread for a few pages, and suddenly I have a lot of catching up to do in regards to throwing out my 2 cents here: here it goes:

in regards to the legality of the hypothetical order:

while we all ( hopefully) understand that the constitution is something to be followed verbatim, many people don't. in todays political landscape "constitutional interpetation" is the norm. otherwise, how do you explain "gun control measures"?

even though the constitution says " shall NOT be infringed" such "measures" are passed every few years because a politician "interpets" the constitution in such a way that suddenly " shall not be infringed" takes on a whole new meaning. politicians aren't stupid. ifmost weren't silver tongued devils they wouldn't be elected to county dog catcher, let alone senate/House/ executive positions. if and when such an order passes it will be mired in just enough "interpetation" that many wouldn't understand that it was, in fact, unconstitutional.

in regards to the military:

I have the highest respect for the fighting men and women of the armed forces. honestly, many would most likely refuse such an order, recognizing the unconstitutionality, but many others ( just as they would in civillian life) would be swayed by the same "interpetations" of teh constitution that would have allowed such an order to be issued in the first place. what ratio wouldthese to groupsbe? 50/50? 60/40? 80/20? would there be enough to stop the confiscation, or merely to slow it down? that is the truly scary question.

while I have no doubt that many of the higher ranking NCOs would no doubt fight the orders through the chain of command, there are also many younger soldiers who have grown up in the current "nanny" generation who would have grown up being taught of the "flexibility" of the constitution, who would honestly believe that the order was in fact not illegal. the simple fact of the matter is, that the decision will be a hard one for every service member who has to make it, and it will undoubtedly be a stressful situation when the order is relayed to those men and women. servicemen are still humans, and humans have a way of sometimes making bad decisions under stress that they regret later in life.

SouthernBoy wrote:

Just as the slave owners of the South are routinely condemned as criminals today there is little mention of the slave owners of the North or that the first legal slave in the US was owned by a black man in Mass. Although the Nazis were doing what they thought was correct and legal they were wrong.

being a proud Southerner myself ,I found it refreshing that someone else knows the politically incorrect truth regarding Anthony Johnson ( the first slaveholder that you mentioned) however the case was decided in Va, not Mass.

regarding the nazi reference, it is quite appropriate. many nazi soldiers, and in fact citizens merely believed that they were doing what they could for "homeland security"

however regarding the inability to repeal the second ammendment:

unfortunately, you are mistaken. while the founders never believed that their republic would devolve into such a state that the bill of rights would even be considered for repeal, there is no provision in the constitution which safeguards any part of the constitution from repeal or modification ( except for one reference which concerned first and fourth clauses of the ninth section of the first article; however that safeguard contained a sunset provision which has long since passed)



AWD: kiss my grits concerning your little "rebel flag waving" remark. the men who died under that battle flag had more honor and courage than you will ever know.

to everyone else: while AWD is an ignorant troll, he does have a good point concerning the Iraq invasion. that war was based on propaganda (i.e.: the whole WMD thing) but is honestly nothing more than interfering in another nations internal affairs. If the people of Iraq wanted rid of Saddam, they should have taken up that cause for themselves. American servicemen and women shouldn't have to risk their lives for another countries freedom.

Hawkflyer wrote:

Lots of practice, and some help from friends and neighbors. Can you say militia?

while the concept of the general militia was enshrined into the constitution as a safeguard against tyranny, the FED has "interpeted" that idea into obscurity. the very mention of militia is enough to warrant suspicion anymore.

as for the "one step away from being classified as domestic terrorists" remark made earlier, you have no idea how right you are.

I have to say sir, I do not recall having written that which I have bolded. Can you possiblysend me the link (good Lord, hope I'm not getting mindless here).

Thanks.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

...SNIP

Hawkflyer wrote:

Lots of practice, and some help from friends and neighbors. Can you say militia?

while the concept of the general militia was enshrined into the constitution as a safeguard against tyranny, the FED has "interpeted" that idea into obscurity. the very mention of militia is enough to warrant suspicion anymore.

as for the "one step away from being classified as domestic terrorists" remark made earlier, you have no idea how right you are.

The thread topic is about illegal orders. While some have relegated the militia concept to history, the fact is the militia statutes are still on the books. If the Federal Government interferes with the militia, that would constitute an illegal order. It would also be an illegal use of military force on US Soil.

The reality is that less than 10 percent of the armed citizens are likely to fight back should it come to that. They would be dispatched very quickly, as they would be severely out gunned ass a result of the efforts of the pro "Reasonable restrictions" crowd. People forget that "Miller" actually decided that it is specifically military type firearms that are protected by the Constitution. SO in effect the citizenry has already lost this fight.

 

[Dustin]

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

Dustin and Sonora Rebel: thanks for your service, gentlemen. Releasing the Iraqi people from the SH regime is a righteous cause.

You paid for it :lol:

Honestly though, the new generation over there could careless about this whole shiite vs Sunni Crap. They are just like the generations over here. Every 4 years, they get lazier and lazier. All they want to do is sit around, smoke their huka's and screw around with females. Most if not ALL insurgents are 50 and above, are teenagers. The middle aged class, are soon to be in the next ten years the politicians ofIraq. WHen they are, you can bet Iraq will be changing. Like I said most middleaged adults and 20 yr olds over there DO NOT CARE about Sunni vs Shitte.

I even worked with an Iraqi Lt. Ali. Gave me a pretty nice holster. (They carried Walther P99 BTW) He told me that his girlfriend in Baghdad was Sunni but he was Shitte. He said they couldn't marry b/c his DAD (60+) would not allow it. Then he proceeded to tell me that he wished his dad would DIE! so he could marry his girlfriend. Here comes the crazy part. Almost 2 months later his dad got too close to am Army Convoy in Baghdad and they shot'em up along with his uncle. STILL the Young Iraqi Lt. wasn't mad at the US, he said his dad should have been paying attention. He continued to be a soldier and fight the resistance as if nothing ever happen.

 

[KansasMustang]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

"Suppose the military received orders from the executive office to begin the process of confiscating privately owned firearms. Knowing this would be an illegal order, would they obey this order?"

Now this is a loaded question if there ever was one. First of all who is to say that it is an illegal order. In your opinion it is illegal but not necessarily in the eyes of the Army, Commander in Chief, courts or legislature. What you have asked if is in his opinion he was ordered to perform an illegal orrder would he. There is a lot of difference between an illegal order and one you don't agree with and if you are in the military you bettere know the difference if you refuse.

If ordered to assinate a foreign leader would you do it? As the old joke goes about the four men applying for the job of assassin for the CIA. Each was handed a loaded gun, sent into a room with their wivesand told to killher. The first three came out and said they couldn't do it. The fourth went in and there was all kinds of loud noises and screams until he finally came out. They asked what happened and he said "Well the gun you gave me was loaded with blanks so I had to beat her to death with the chair".

Military personnel take an oath to support the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the LAWFUL orders of the President and those officers appointed above them. The Key Word is LAWFUL. Anything that violates the UCMJ or the Constitution, Code of Conduct, Laws of Land Warfare and Geneva Convention, are considered unlawful orders. IF the President were to issue an order to disarm the genaeral populace it would be an unlawful order, even during a situation of "Martial Law". Most military folks understand well the need for self preservation. And the ones we'll need to worry about are not our military, but UN or some other forces, read that as "Blackwater" or some other mercenaries.

 

[KansasMustang]

imported post

BlueStreek wrote:

This topic does keep coming around and I have commented several time that although some people say the military wouldn't I felt New Orleans proves that they would. I can only hope that the events in N.O. was enough to wake these people up and make them aware of the real law of the land. The Constitution. And that guns in the hands of the citizens is the strongest defense that we have.

It's too bad that too many public servants still think that us common people shouldn't have what the Constitution is suppose to protect.

Firstly,,those were NOT Active duty Federal troops. They if anything may have been National Guard, which were under the orders of the state Governor. Secondly there were Blackwater personnel hired for that job also, get your fact straight before you start throwin stuff out you have no clue on.

 

[tcfla]

imported post


Unbelievable!!

http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/ViewTreaty.asp?Treaty_ID=103615

Where do you find crap like this and then beleive it is true? I have worked for the Military (specwar)for 25 years and have seen/read a lot of crap, however, this takes the cake. There are no arangements with anyone or country for this. Talk about fear mongering.....