Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Modas on October 08, 2008, 10:13:04 AM
-
I was reading the army times webpage and came across this article..
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...eland_090708w/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...eland_090708w/)
Is there something they know that we don't??
Another link to a forum discussing the above article. A lot of interesting comments.
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1568518 (http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1568518)
in case you don't want to click the link..
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.
“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”
The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.
Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.
Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.
The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.
In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.
The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.
“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.”
The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).
“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”
While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.
“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.
Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.
Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.
Other branches included
The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.
Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.
A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.
In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.
There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
One of the things Vogler said they’ll be looking at is communications capabilities between the services.
“It is a concern, and we’re trying to check that and one of the ways we do that is by having these sorts of exercises. Leading up to this, we are going to rehearse and set up some of the communications systems to make sure we have interoperability,” he said.
“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”
-
No more different than the National Guard being deployed in emergency situations at home
Paranoid gobbledygook is all it is.
-
Keep telling yourself everything will be fine.
It seems to me that it is illegal for federal troops to operate on U.S. soil. Oh well we don't use that old rag The Constitution any more.
It seems the powers that be don't want to take any chances that the people will get upset and take their power away.
-
Keep telling yourself everything will be fine.
It seems to me that it is illegal for federal troops to operate on U.S. soil. Oh well we don't use that old rag The Constitution any more.
It seems the powers that be don't want to take any chances that the people will get upset and take their power away.
Its not illegal for them to operate on U.S. soil (what a crock!) but it would be illegal if Congress tried to billet them in your home.
-
I'm currently in 3rd I.D. and what kick in the nuts, while I'm at home after being deployed for 14 months in Iraq I have to be ready at the drop of a hat to run off and play national gaurdsman... so much for trying to re-connect with family and freinds! And before you know it I'll be packing my bags for trashganistan!
-
Well if theres ever a massive Chem/Bio attack all the Police Officers will be dead and your going to need somebody trained to be effective in a CBW environment. I havnt seen a chem/bio suit since I left the military.
-
Is there something they know that we don't??
Maybe in about 27 days or so.
-
Federal i.e. regular troops should NOT operate on American soil. That is the reason for the National Guard. Regular army troops used in this way just increases my fears of a future police state status in this country. I get bad vibes from this. Of course, if they are going to do this, could they at least station them on our Southern Border with Mexico??!! :furious
-
While its not in any way illegal for the US to deploy "active duty" troops at home in a security role as mentioned its never been done and is unusual. what is significantly more alarming in my mind is the fact that use of combat troops at home has been very widely and informally discussed in the Corps going back almost 2 decades. multiple articles appeared in the Marine Gazette in 1994 alone outlining the belief that the next major war the Marines fought would be on US soil. This prospect and the disconnect between much of the military and the population at large is fundamental to the classic study "The Soldier and the State" by Samuel Huntington among other works.
The average tenure of an active duty soldier is now over 7 years, without any question many (especially Marines) have a very strong loyalty to the Corps and social order. The decision by some liberal universities to ban ROTC (along with many other variables) has further eroded any commonality between active duty military personnel and many of the people they "protect". 75%+ of active duty officers and possibly a greater % of enlisted personnel view the armed forces as being closer to the spirit and intent of the constitution and our founding fathers then either local or national civil government. For anyone not familiar with the mindset of a serving Marine it might be worth googling or picking up a novel by Gene Duncan.
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 (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 .
-
Good post Snap!!!!
<--Veteran.....
U.S. is IMHO definatley feeling some changing winds blowing....I'd keep an eye on this issue.
-
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 .
Obviously the Dept of homeland security hasnt gotten around to editing that yet. LOL
Hmmm.
Maybe we can get them to turn their guns on Washington before we go completely down the toilet. :rock
-
My bad. Posse Comitatus isn't an amendment to the constitution. It's just a federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385).
-
I think this will help explain .
HR5122 also known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was signed by the president on Oct 17, 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 1076 Text of Hr5122 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". Removing the legalese from the text, and combining multiple sentences, it provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any state of the United States the president determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation. As of 2008, these changes were repealed, changing the text of the law back to the original 1878 wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068,) however in signing H.R. 4986 into law President Bush attached a signing statement which indicated that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal.
seems like they can do anything they want in a "emergency". I like the last line :O
-
What may be hard to understand is that it is entirely possible (although highly unlikely) that a scenario might arise where the Corps (and US armed services as a whole) could take a stance against a duly elected civil government in the event of a constitutional crisis. On two separate occasions in the last 15 years the chairman of the joint chiefs has spoken out clearly against specific US policy. If we study history we can see numerous examples of a professional army looking to its own leadership for guidance in times of political unrest. The interrelationship between state and federal government is legally convoluted since the nations founders were deeply divided over states rights in relation to the powers of the federal government. As predicted the federal government has constantly eroded the rights of the individual states...however each states national guard stands in effect as its own militia. (BTW the Texas national guard is the 5th largest standing army in the world). Once federalized a national guard unit is not supposed to be deployed domestically in active service.
However this is a direct conflict with both the oath of office for both the President...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And the Military. The issue of deploying troops domestically is in possible response to a break down of order or period of unrest or attack that would trigger the following..preserve, protect, and defend.
The real issue would occur when/if the military has a wide spread belief that the threat actually comes from the President of civil government.
-
Maybe in about 27 days or so.
i bet no one gets that one :rofl
-
*I* got it.
-
In my opinion the chances of a military takeover in this country, based on Politics or any other reason, is lower then any other country on earth. It just couldn't happen in America. I know that may disappoint some of you conspiracy junkies but Ive been on both sides of the fence and its as close to impossible as you can get. First off 99% of the soldiers would tell their General to bugger off and then they would side with the citizenry. But it would never even come to that.
The only possibility of any of this happening is if in event of a terrible domestic emergency and then, and only then, would the military be empowered lawfully. I'm talking like in case of a nuclear attack or something like that. It could never be done unlawfully.
I was both in the military and stationed in a country where the military overthrew the civilian Govt. and took power. Its actually laughable to think such an even can happen here in America. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, coast guard, and marines, simply wouldn't obey such orders and the conspirators would be arrested on the spot.
-
In my opinion the chances of a military takeover in this country, based on Politics or any other reason, is lower then any other country on earth. It just couldn't happen in America. I know that may disappoint some of you conspiracy junkies but Ive been on both sides of the fence and its as close to impossible as you can get. First off 99% of the soldiers would tell their General to bugger off and then they would side with the citizenry. But it would never even come to that.
The only possibility of any of this happening is if in event of a terrible domestic emergency and then, and only then, would the military be empowered lawfully. I'm talking like in case of a nuclear attack or something like that. It could never be done unlawfully.
I was both in the military and stationed in a country where the military overthrew the civilian Govt. and took power. Its actually laughable to think such an even can happen here in America. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, coast guard, and marines, simply wouldn't obey such orders and the conspirators would be arrested on the spot.
Mt brother retired from the Army about 8 years ago, he told me 1/2 the enlisted were gang bangers or wanna be - gangbangers. Was that just the frustrations of a lifer sergeant or is it fairly true?
-
No where near half, not even close, but yes, there is a problem. The military is comprised of every cross section of people that America has to offer, including bad eggs that keep some of their bad habits. The vast majority are honorable people doing some of the hardest jobs this country has.
-
If my memory serves me correctly, weren't U.S. Marines used to guard mail trains against robbers in the US in the 1930's...and weren't Federal Troops used in Washington, D.C., under the command of then Colonel Douglas A. MacArthur, used to dislodge protesting US WWI Veterans encamped in Washington, D.C. ? My memory may not reflect this accurately, however, I do know for a fact that the Oath I took upon enlisting in the Armed Forces of the United States (and I did so twice) included the following words..." to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic...".
-
may get crazy but i bet there will be alot of conflicts of enterest, who are they supposed to defend? or are they just there to prevent civil unrest?
sad when they side with local law, over the people, unless it is an actual problem other than with the election! time will tell!! cant be good tho!!!! :pray
-
Mt brother retired from the Army about 8 years ago, he told me 1/2 the enlisted were gang bangers or wanna be - gangbangers. Was that just the frustrations of a lifer sergeant or is it fairly true?
Dont know, wasn't in the army. In USAF we didn't have any, at least in my day. My gut tells me %50 is way, way high. Just cause the kid is a minority that listens to rap doesn't make him a gangsta. But...I deal with real gangstas.
For years I worked an airport detail on my days off and daily came into contact with many, many young Americans with bags packed, en route to basic training. I was almost always impressed with the quality of the young troops were getting. Unless the military has changed that much since my day, and I doubt it, justice can be pretty swift on screwballs. There aint no Johnny Cochran riding in on his white horse. I'd be willing to bet anything USAF still doesn't have any gang problem of any kind, and the army/marines are nowhere like your brother says. But the military, like a Police Dept., is a reflection of the society it comes from. We have gangbangers on Police Dept.s, Mobsters...ect too.
But once youv been in the US military you do learn what a joke it is that a coup could happen here. Even during the terrible days of the Cold War and World Wars it never came close to happening. The foundations of Democracy are to strong here.
-
If your referring to what I posted your missing the point entirely. This is not a question of a possible mutiny by the military as much as an observation that if civil disorder erupts that the armed forces owe actual allegiance to the constitution above the elected government.
-
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. :aok
-
If your referring to what I posted your missing the point entirely. This is not a question of a possible mutiny by the military as much as an observation that if civil disorder erupts that the armed forces owe actual allegiance to the constitution above the elected government.
I guess I am confused as to your point then. Doesn't the constitution say that the commander in chief is the president?
If you aren't suggesting a military takeover possibility, what is your concern?
-
Gentlemen...three days ago, an astronomer in the Canary Islands detected what appeared to be a large asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
-
Gentlemen...three days ago, an astronomer in the Canary Islands detected what appeared to be a large asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Seems like there is one coming - this blog talks about the heated air and the storms it could cause
http://blog.professorastronomy.com/
-
I guess I am confused as to your point then. Doesn't the constitution say that the commander in chief is the president?
If you aren't suggesting a military takeover possibility, what is your concern?
My original post speaks to the actual thoughts, training, interest and reading material of serving officers and enlisted personnel in the USMC. The average PFC is better versed in the constitution, current affairs and world politics then 80% of current US college graduates (and most members of congress). A typical Marine NCO has more authority on the battlefield then most field grade officers in other services.
I actually have no "concern" at all, I'm simply providing information that the topic of deployment within the United States on a war footing is/has been widely discussed within the Corps even at the boot camp level. At a broader level the interplay of the standing military in times of domestic unrest with civilian authority is a constant area of study at the think tank level.
As a single point of reflection, both the President and the armed forces are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution above all else. The Presidents authority as commander in chief flows from this oath. On multiple occasion the CJCS has publicly spoken against the policies of the President and the Nation. What do you think a constitutional crisis is? or what it entails? My comment is an observation that in times of civil stability and peace the Judicial Branch is the final arbitrator of constitutional correctness. In a time of political unrest and constitutional crisis we may just find that the actual determination of what is constitutional "correctness" may in fact turn out to be the CJCS.
-
:noid Here's todays conspiricy :noid
October 14, 2008. (Hey that's next week), Operation Vigilant Shield will commence. Pretty big stuff people. This event coincides with something on a much grander scale. I won't tell you what it is, but here's a hint from an old episode of Outer Limits. "IT'S A COOKBOOK!"
Google this: October 14, UFO
It's a Freakin' Riot :rofl :rofl
-
. First off 99% of the soldiers would tell their General to bugger off and then they would side with the citizenry. But it would never even come to that.
Thats what Im saying.
Maybe they will decide to defend the constitution,side with the citizenry and turn their guns on Washington to restore the Constitution.
Ehh I can dream
-
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)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!>
-
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....
-
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!>
-
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. :aok
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
lot of this going around
:noid
-
The article apparently scared someone pretty badly... It has been pulled from the army times site and has not been reposted.
-
that speaks a volume or two in itself, don't it?
-
Civil War 2.0 :rofl
fun times ahead