3rd inf division to assist with "homeland" security

[bj229r]

It makes sense to have ready units who are trained in crowd control--('less-than-lethal-security', is the term) My state of VA has 3 MP companies in its National Guard, and 2 of those are deploying next year to Iraq/Afghanistan, I imagine several states have similar issues. The alternate scenario is a bunch of idiot college students throwing rocks at a bunch of scared kids with rifles...(you'd THINK college students would have been smarter than that)

[Yenny]

I (state your 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God .

I remember saying that!

[Hangtime]

What few people realize is that the Marine Officer swears an oath to defend the constitution above else against "all enemies foreign and domestic"...

I  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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God .

That is not the oath I swore. Mine was markedly different.

"I, (state your full 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 lawful 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."

There is no time limit.

A soldier on active duty in a foreign land doing his duty is a servant of the taxpayer and a hero to our nation. That same soldier, deployed inside the United States and under unlawful orders to supress the rights of the citizens is a mortal enemy of the Republic and an instrument of Tyranny.

I repeat. My oath has no time limit. Tyranny will be resisted; with no small amount of fervor.


Article 92-Failure to obey order or regulation

Text.

"Any person subject to this chapter who-

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

_____________________________ _____________________________ ____
Elements.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.

(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;
(c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) That the accused had certain duties;
(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.

Explanation.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
 (i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;
 (ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
 (iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
(b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.

    (c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.
(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).

(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.
(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Duty to obey order.
 (i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force for the purposes of Articles 89, and 90. See paragraph 13c(1).
 (ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police. See paragraph 15b(2), if the order was issued by a warrant, non commissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.

[humble]

Hangtime that is the oath for a serving enlisted Marine, not the oath an officer takes. An officer in the USMC has an obligation to examine and ascertain that an order is lawful & proper. There is no defense for an officer following an order that violates his oath.

Refer to this item...

(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

It is not lawful for the president to order the military to engage in conduct that is unconstitutional or a violation of recognized federal law. For some reason I think my comments are widely misunderstood. Simply put a significant portion of the USMC at all levels has pondered and dwelled on the distinct possibility that the corps would be deployed in major conflict on US soil. This "debate" is commented on in many places, as a single point of reference "Making of the Corps" gives a good overview (if slightly dated) of the "making of a marine". I am making no predications or comments or even trying to speculate what circumstances might arise....simply stating the cold hard reality that the Corps it self has felt for 20 years or more thats is just as likely that the next major deployment could be in Detroit instead of someplace like Bosnia.

Obviously this is a very difficult thing to grasp and I have no clue how the feeling was arrived at, simply that it exists. As a final point of thought I'll simply point out that in our 1st (and hopefully only) civil war the nations best, brightest and widely viewed as most honorable soldier felt that the orders of the President were a violation of his oath of office and the constitution and accordingly elected to follow will of the State of Virginia.

So my simple question is as follows, if the President orders deployment of the 3rd INF on domestic soil and the CJCS determines that said order is a violation of constitutional or federal law (just using that as an example) what happens?

[Hangtime]

The Constitution happens. As an officer, if you ordered a Marine to open fire on an American Citizen you would be in my eyes and in the eyes of any survivor of such an encounter a traitor to your nation. As would the marines that obeyed your unlawful order. You serve those citizens. You do not attack them. If they are rioting, then civilian authority or militia (National Guard) may, at the disgression of that states govenor, deploy to contain and quell the rioting.
 
This is not a 'that depends on what the definition of 'is' is.' kind of parsing... it's obvious that the intent of the law is.. regular forces, under the command of the president, are not to be deployed to enforce civil law in the states.

Do you forsee a situation in any city where the rioting there would be beyond the abilities of the National Guard or Civilian Law Enforcement to quell? Seriously?

Now.. lets ramp it up a bit... the point at which the President's orders to the Military become lawful to engage the citizens is when he enacts executive order 12919. "Martial Law" .. which is an euphemism for military dictatorship. That's rule by decree, and the Constitution is suspended. Tyranny, sir.

At that point, YOU fellas (active service) have a very tuff decision to make. Order those troops into action against an American population engaged in revolution against a dictator and your are at that moment no different than that dictator.

I've already made my decision. My oath has no time limit, sir. If the President acts to suspend the constitution, then this nation will be in my eyes in a state of rebellion to remove unlawful control of it's government by a man that has stepped away from accountability to the people and has become a law unto himself. Those forces which do not support the will of the people and the Constitution will become enemies of the people.

Choose wisely, sir.

<S!>

[humble]

There in lies the conundrum. I can foresee no scenario that would legitimately require the use of force by active duty military personnel. A breech of civil order of that magnitude would require an almost total break down of civil government. That would mean a discord of a massive nature....

[Hangtime]

Yup. And none of the above commentary is meant in any way to detract from or disparage the honor shown by the proud, honorable and brave men and women who serve this nation in uniform. We owe them all far more than doubts or aspersions.

In them, we all place our greatest trust.

It would be a fine thing indeed if the same could be said of the politicians that place them in harms way.

Thank you, sir. <S!>

[eagl]

I spent 5 years in the Army and I am currently in the guard.  American soldiers would never "attack" their home turf. Thats like calling an artillery strike in your hometown.   If something like a civil war did ever break out the Army would crumble. The Soldiers would escape back to there states to defend their neighbors.  

American Civil War...  Never say never.  Unlikely, but given the sharp division between big-city liberals and everyone else, that also happens to be about a 50-50 split on population but a 10-90 split on actual amount of land occupied, a civil war in the reasonably near future would not surprise me at all.

In fact, I predict that we'll have civil war the day the govt starts rounding up guns.  The only reason you didn't have house to house fighting against the govt in New Orleans when they rounded up the guns is the fact that the hurricane had everyone distracted and there was no advance warning.  But if any local, state, or fed govt tries that in the future, I predict open warfare and at that point the military will be forced to take sides (and the police will be forced to decide if enforcing big-city liberal gun policies is a good reason to force their neighbor to shoot at them).

[bj229r]

There in lies the conundrum. I can foresee no scenario that would legitimately require the use of force by active duty military personnel. A breech of civil order of that magnitude would require an almost total break down of civil government. That would mean a discord of a massive nature....

New Orleans came real close to just that--deadly force wasn't required, but trained soldiers were--everyone is assuming Putinesque actions will happen, but what if they're simply trying to be ready for nightmarish riots, etc as unemployment reaches double digits, stores start closing, banks stop lending and people realize the government can't fix it this time

[Hangtime]

If we're talking civil disturbance, then the city has a civil crowd control force and up scaling options to handle it right up to the National Guard for that state, under the control of it's Governor. We're not talking about a 'kent state' level NG.. the National Guard of today is a mobile force that is as well trained as the regular army... with plenty of tours of duty in Iraq for insurgent control experience.

If we're talking Revolt against an illegal government that refuses to allow elections or is presiding over a fallacious election, then the Troops have a few choices.. remain in barracks till the people clean out the rats next in Washington, side with the people or side with the illegal government that has suspended the constitution.

Which is why an officers oath is missing 'president of the united states' from the allegiance section.. and the constitution is not. That Marine knows who his fealty is to.. and it's not the guy that calls himself 'president' if he's holding that title without the due process provided by constitution.

[Nwbie]

lot of this going around

 

[eagl]

The article apparently scared someone pretty badly...  It has been pulled from the army times site and has not been reposted.

[Hangtime]

that speaks a volume or two in itself, don't it?

[Pooh21]

Civil War 2.0   

fun times ahead