The military is being used to protect our freedoms
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Fair enough. The sound weapon has already been used against Americans:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vuk0dYovR5o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
and there are more toys that have yet to be broken out. The variables can and probably will change so we shall see.
One thing I do know for a fact is that when the government no longer functions, it is the duty of its citizens to alter, abolish, and or replace it with something that does. We wrote that right into our Declaration of Independence and it holds as true today as it did when it was written.
To be clear, I do not advocate for abolishing our government by force.....yet.
Very well said. You're evoking memories of my own military days. Also liked your point about dissenters being deemed "terrorists"--that's our trigger word these days.
To this day I still tell employees, who are getting conflicting directions from two or more managers, to "follow your last given order", lol.
As long as the order is lawful you have a valid point. Unlawful orders should be ignored and both you and Magna left that out. I see he added a couple of paragraphs since I responded to his initial comment but that changes nothing. A lawful order is defined as an order given by a competent higher authority that any reasonable man would not consider to be contrary to the laws of the United States of America.
Firing on unarmed civilians is considered murder 'round these parts.
Laws can be changed in an hour, the executive order, or martial law, come to mind. But anyway, again, I'm not arguing that no soldiers would refuse to shoot. The way these things seem to play out, long term, is that a sufficient number of officers privately determine that they're all of like mind and that they reject their current orders from above, so then they split off--the coup. Unfortunately, typically many civilians have already been killed before such consensus is reached.
I think there are too many variables to even discuss this logically in a forum. Variables such as, what is the intent of those revolting (overthrow,resignations, etc.), how much of the population are participating in and supporting the revolt, what kind of violence if any are those revolting performing, what elected officials are supporting the revolt, has the government acted outside the constitution in detaining or harming a large number of citizens, etc.
Before we can have any reasonable discussion of what the military (and/or police forces) would do we would need to know the answers to these and many other questions.
I also believe of all nations in the world today the U.S. would be the least likely for the military to suppress the general population.
(yes, I watched that movie from a few years ago where Bruce Willis was a general who declared marshall law in NYC. Scary food for thought considering the power to detain citizens the President now has.)
One last point. Many places where the military and a civilian army are killing each other there are tibal or ethnic differences between different parts/populations that deeply hate each other. That doesn't exist in the U.S. We are all brothers (except for the democaps, of course.)
Before we can have any reasonable discussion of what the military (and/or police forces) would do we would need to know the answers to these and many other questions.
I also believe of all nations in the world today the U.S. would be the least likely for the military to suppress the general population.
(yes, I watched that movie from a few years ago where Bruce Willis was a general who declared marshall law in NYC. Scary food for thought considering the power to detain citizens the President now has.)
One last point. Many places where the military and a civilian army are killing each other there are tibal or ethnic differences between different parts/populations that deeply hate each other. That doesn't exist in the U.S. We are all brothers (except for the democaps, of course.)
Despite the "laws of probability? In any case I'm not sure that's a good example, I don't recall too many Japanese-Americans being shot.
This IS a pretty good example. Although it ALSO seems to confirm a point made by me and others that not all in the US military will blindly follow the feds. They will instead follow their heart. For example there were those living in the north that fought for the Confederacy, and Vice versa of course. General Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. army to fight for the Confederacy. He valued his home state of Virginia over the union.
But point taken just the same.
Soldiers are not compelled to follow any unlawful orders. Period.
Your unfounded assumption is unfounded. Your opinion is just that. A lawful order is any order given by a competent higher authority that any reasonable man would not consider to be contrary to the laws of the United States of America. That's the definition I was taught and unless you can reference a publication showing it has been altered since I was in, I'd say you are talking out of your ass. Murdering unarmed citizens is considered murder, hence, unlawful. Since you were only in for three years, you probably did not have much experience giving orders..unless of course you were an officer. However, I rather doubt that since an officer would know the difference between a lawful order and one that was not.
Thanks for the lesson on the UCMJ but my point stands. Unlawful orders should not be followed. I have given you examples of unlawful orders that should not be followed. If you follow unlawful orders you are also guilty of a crime. Surprised you left that out of your diatribe.
In case you were unaware, we live in a completely different world than the one we lived in during the 1800's and during the early part of the last century. The main difference is the internet. People all over the planet can share ideas instantly and that is something that empowers citizens across the globe (the Egyptian uprising comes to mind). The internment of the Japanese was eventually found to be unconstitutional (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Endo)
Yes yes, that all important buzzword "terrorism" that has been used and abused so much that it can now literally be applied to anyone who disagrees with the government. Heck, the MIAC report labels Ron Paul supporters as potential terrorists. The DOD considers protests "low level terrorism". Out of curiosity do you consider a peaceful protest low level terrorism?
Terrorist. It is the label of all labels. To quote Ronald Reagan, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Charges would not doubt be levied against those that disobeyed orders, unlawful or otherwise, and it would take the highest character to be able to say no when your government is ordering you to do something illegal.
It is good to know that organizations like the Oath Keepers exist and are way ahead of where this seems to be going. Government propaganda no longer has the same power it once had. In fact, it is fast losing its power because we have been bombarded with so many lies and distortions, coupled with unconstitutional power grabs by our federal government like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA.
To put it short, you don't know what would happen anymore than I do. You can state your opinion as fact all you like but that doesn't make it so.