Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/21/2002 12:38:32 PM EDT
my question is, if you were ordered to kick in a door and take away weapons from citizans, or if you were ordered to fire on citizans, would you comply with the order? (sorry i about bad spelling. my PC is seriously messed up and i am about to have to reboot it.)
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:42:36 PM EDT
I thought about this a lot when I was in the guard and the whole waco/ruby ridge thing came up. We were in an MP unit and I thought it would be the type of mission we would get. I decided that I would not comply unless there was an FBI or ATF team covering me at the time the orders were given. If so, I would stop obeying the orders as soon as they moved on to another area.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:43:19 PM EDT
No Aviator [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:46:55 PM EDT
Nope.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:47:07 PM EDT
Hell f*ck no.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:52:46 PM EDT
HELL NO! BTW, what ever happened to the "Posse Commitatus" (excuse the spelling, it may be incorrect)? I may be mistaken but, I was under the impression that it was illegal to use federal troops (not Nat'l Guard) against our civilian citizenry. I remember the oath, one of the few who paid attention, "foreign and domestic..." but could this "legally" happen? Just my $.02.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:53:17 PM EDT
Nope. Now I work on an AFB as a civilian, and I recently had the opportunity to ask one of their security people the exact same question. He said he'd never really considered it, but that he would not enforce this kind of operation. But he was a gun enthusiast, so he had some stake in it... it's those mindless jackbooted LEO/Military sycophants that are just concerned with punching their ticket that worry me. Molon Labe!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:55:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AGERanger: HELL NO! BTW, what ever happened to the "Posse Commitatus" (excuse the spelling, it may be incorrect)? I may be mistaken but, I was under the impression that it was illegal to use federal troops (not Nat'l Guard) against our civilian citizenry. I remember the oath, one of the few who paid attention, "foreign and domestic..." but could this "legally" happen? Just my $.02.
View Quote
That's the way it's supposed to be, however incidents have proven otherwise... Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some military units involved with Waco?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:00:44 PM EDT
No, but then I was an Operations Specialist and spent most of my time either maintaining machinery or watching a radarscope. Though I almost had to disarm a sailor (in civvies) who was holding an M14 that a parade detail was bringing back to their ship. Well this guy decided that shouldering the rifle and taking aim at the police boat next to us was an okay idea, finger on the trigger and all. The E-5 next him must have saw that I was about to grab the gun and chewed him a new hole. Some of the worst safety handling I’ve ever seen was on a navy ship.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:01:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:10:10 PM EDT
No! No! No! I would rather be shot in the back myself then be forced to shoot another American for doing nothing more than exercising his God given and constitutional right to protect himself or herself. Gunner1X Proud Vet Dallas, Texas
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:11:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:38:04 PM EDT
No. When I enlisted, I swore an oath to defend against all enemies, both forgin and domestic. 'nuff said echo6
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:45:37 PM EDT
No Way !
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 1:56:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 1:57:12 PM EDT by Boom Stick]
[size=5]No![/size=5] By the way, here is a sumary of posse comitatus....... [b]POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.[/b] If that time came, you can bet the laws will OK the use of the military to deal with [i]domestic[/i] terrorists. Plus, those domestic terrorists wont be terrorists until the media spread the word and politicians jump on the band wagon. Just look at how and what happened to the Branch Davidians.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:04:10 PM EDT
Thanks for the clarification on the Posse Comitatus Act, gentlemen. My answer is still, "no way".
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:09:19 PM EDT
[grenade] NO![puke]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:42:59 PM EDT
Thankfully, I'm a Corpsman and don't participate in offensive operations directly. Although I am part of a USMC Platoon. But, if called upon to do what you said, the answer would be a steadfast [b]NO[/b]. Somewhere in the UCMJ (not sure specifically) there's a provision that allows one to refuse an illegal order. I'm sure someone on this board will eloaborate. Either way, I'll take my chances in a Courts Martial rather than have the blood of civilians on my hands.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 2:46:37 PM EDT
Of course not... ...and this gets the award for the most trite, over-posted, favorite topic of the tin-foil crowd. Enough, already.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:45:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 5:46:29 PM EDT by Happyshooter]
Of course not... ...and this gets the award for the most trite, over-posted, favorite topic of the tin-foil crowd. Enough, already.
View Quote
I disagree. These issues did come up, at least in a related way, for the unit of Texas guardsmen who were ordered to turn over their armored vehicles to federal storm agents at Waco. The unit complied, and many children died screaming, burning to death.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:48:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:51:32 PM EDT
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:57:35 PM EDT
Only in a Rosie O donut dream. No.....................................no
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:04:32 PM EDT
.......against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Obviously anyone/everyone the government wants shot will be an enemy. I would guess that at least 80% of the military would fire if so directed.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:12:24 PM EDT
Thats a Negatory Purgatory !!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:20:24 PM EDT
The real question would be: Do they have nicer weapons then me? Seriously, I assume you're referring to US Citizens? Because our boys are well versed in the act kicking in doors to seize citizen's weapons already. Just not citizens of this country. And if they get fired upon while doing this, guess what? They can call in fire support, or maybe a bulldozer or two to level your house with you and your family in it. But that kind of stuff only happens to other people in far away lands.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:00:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: .......against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Obviously anyone/everyone the government wants shot will be an enemy. I would guess that at least 80% of the military would fire if so directed.
View Quote
If the government is to declare some one a enemy of the state, or maybe an entire state itself, then who will stand in their way to make sure s are not killed.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:06:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:27:49 PM EDT
If everyone in the military takes an oath to defend the constitution, then why are they over seas playing peace-keeper while the bill of rights is being whittled away day by day?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:30:38 PM EDT
Now? Nope. However, when I actually was in uniform I cannot be certain what I would have done. The fact of the matter is that most soldiers are thoroughly propagandized prior to being tasked to a mission. Depending upon how the orders were phrased and backed up, what sort of back story was provided, etc. I cannot say how I would have reacted as a young infantryman. I'd hope I would have the wisdom to see through the mess and propaganda and make the courageous decision. I also hope that enough Sargents, Lieutenants, Captains, Majors, LTC's Colonels and Generals had the sense and wisdow to refuse the order as well, thus demonstrating to the powers that be that their orders were illegal and would be resisted. If the mission was narrowly defined, I find it likely that US troops, even pro-gun and conscientious troops would comply with orders. Likely phraseology would be something like: Domestic terrorists, intention and capability to commit armed rebellion against the US government, assassination plans in place, suspicion of arms smuggling in support of terrorism, etc., etc., etc. Those are all things custom tailored to get a patriotic soldier's blood boiling. Throw in "child endangerment and abuse and they'll be plain old hot to go. Especially if the information is hidden from them that what constitutes terrorist behavior and intents under the ultimate commander's opinion is ownership of firearms and having been critical of governmental gun control schemes. Their leaders have NO responsibility to fill them in on those details since they are not pertinent to the tactical execution of the mission. That said, this scenario won't be played out in the near future. There is still a TON of support for private firearms ownership in the US. Any such mission would meet with massive congressional resistance and rebellion because it would offend a lot of us. However, this is a PR game. If we shoot ourselves in the foot by backing the wrong horses out there and radicaliozing ourselves in the eyes of John Q. Public, we are screwed and we'll inevitably find ourselves facing a 2nd Amendment repeal movement. Our best defense against that is positive PR and making sure the Republican party regains control of the Senate and maintains control of the house. That will allow The Republicans (who are by no means free of gun control plans, but are at least less prone to it) to control the legislative agenda, and will help to ensure that conservative judges get appointed to the federal bench. Conservative judges on the bench mean more positive results in federal firearms related cases and a much better chance that we'll build pro 2nd Amendment precedent in case law. This will help us build a more positive image if we are not persecuted endlessly for imagined crimes and the law supports individual firearms rights. With enough conservative federal judges in place, especially in the Supreme Court, we stand a better chance of weathering the next inevitable liberal president and legislature. It's not checkers we are playing here and not even chess, we are playing Vulcan three dimensional chess and we need to outplay the anti's in all dimensions.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:47:40 PM EDT
NEVER!!! JarheadGunner.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:02:58 PM EDT
Hears a question for you. Who do you work for the government or the people? I was called "stupid" because I work for the people and not a government. I will defend my country against all enemys foreign and domestic. We also hold the right to disobey unlawful orders. I for one will not. (If it's not worth fighting and dying for it not worth beleiving in.)
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:04:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 8:10:46 PM EDT by lordtrader]
I will respectfully decline that order. Of course that would depend on what the alegged crime would be.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:05:31 PM EDT
No
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:11:18 PM EDT
not no but hell no. c co 1-15 infantry 3rd Bde 3rd ID Ft Benning, Ga 1995-1999
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:14:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 8:18:09 PM EDT by AlClenin]
Is it true that when you enlist you have to sign a form saying you would attack us citizens if ordered during a time of war or face dishonorable discharge? I was chatting with an navy friend tonight who says he had to fill out such a form when he enlisted.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:18:08 PM EDT
Never seen such a form. Hell no, I would not kick in doors to take weapons away from citizens, nor fire upon them.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:27:57 PM EDT
Hell no. If that ever happened I'd have to be reclassified as a conscientious objector. Although I would bust a door down to a DU convention and tape their mouths shut.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:41:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:59:56 PM EDT
In answer to the thread question, NOPE, but an unofficial test given a few years back to marines at 29 Palms MCB showed that over 25% would. [url]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no20/vo11no20_survey.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:49:00 PM EDT
No but look at the type of board you're asking this question on....
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:54:42 PM EDT
My answer would be no. However, please remember that the average soldier would follow orders especially after being attacked, or being brainwashed to attack the (traitors, badguys, terrorists, etc.) Soldiers in combat fight for their unit, and for survival, not for any lofty ideals. Also, most of the killing today is done at a distance, and it is always easyer to push a button, than to push a bayonet. Thinking that American troops would not attack other American is wishful thinking, IMHO
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 10:00:50 PM EDT
Would I have? No. "And to obey the LAWFUL orders of the officers appointed above me, and of the President of the United States." In all honesty, I would also have declined the order to deploy that has now gotten Michael G. New in trouble. I'm an AMERICAN soldier, dammit! FFZ
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 10:06:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 10:16:45 PM EDT
See the problem with that scenario is that it is way too simple. If the order came to disarm citizens, break into their homes and arrest them just for owning weapons then I believe the majority of military personnel would have serious second thoughts. But it's not going to happen this way. The soldiers will be going after "suspected terrorist members or sympathizers that are a clear danger to national security." With a backstory like that and not knowing the complete story many,if not all military members, would follow the assault order. Most of the time the guys and gals in the field have no clue as to what's really going on. They are told a spin and are expected to follow orders. Fritz exUSN AT1
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 11:17:35 PM EDT
I believe this problem is covered in the "Laws of Armed Conflict" (LOAC) briefing that is required(supposed) to be given to address how potentional enemies are engaged in whatever area they unit is operating in. In nearly all cases it is expressly forbidden to engage unarmed civilians or non-combatants. If they are attacking you,aiding the bad guys in attacking you, spying or otherwise participating in action against you then they are combatants and get what they deserve. The Articles of War cover the same ground. It is unlikely that within the US the military would want to get involved in this can of worms. Unless the protections of the Constitution were set aside thru martial law this type of activity is going to be illegal as hell in the states no mattter who orders it. And lastly since it is an illegal order it does not have to be obeyed. It of course will be reviewed later in a formal hearing or court martial. This was long but it means NO, and if you said NO, you have some legal protection and the doctrine is such that you could explain yourself the powers that be and justify saying NO. Take your foil hat off, its ok.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 11:24:13 PM EDT
NO.
Top Top