Military: fire on US citizens!

[Gus McCrae]

You would be surprised at how many would. I would guestimate that at least 95% would without hesitation.

What is the basis for your guestimation?

 

[Leonidas]

You would be surprised at how many would. I would guestimate that at least 95% would without hesitation.

Based on what research?

In other other words, is that a scientific wild ass guess, or just a wild ass one?

 

[JNieman]

I'm gonna go ahead and say it's mostly "ass"

 

[DBMJR1]

If you place your faith in American heroes like MacArthur, Patton, or Eisenhower, don't.

They all were responsible for marching troops against US Veterans in 1932.

 

[X Zombie]

If you see me in uniform running towards you, don't shoot. I'm seeking refuge.

Challenge: Bayou
Password: Shooter

 

[Leonidas]

Nope. Last I heard, they were all still dead.

 

[JBE]

I think I figured out Garrow's source....stay with me here...

He read it on one of the same blogs that yrdawg reads....

 

[sandman7925]

The troops that won't, will be shot.. The troops that will, will eventually be shot for treason..

No. Treason doesn't work that way in America

 

[DBMJR1]

Nope. Last I heard, they were all still dead.

LOL. That's why I used the word, 'like'.

American Generals have, in the past, ordered troops against US citizens. The troops obeyed those orders. What has changed?


If any resistance is to be successful, it's going to require leadership, coordination and organization. Find a leader, and you will have your revolution. Try Gen Petraeus, or someone similar.

Me? I used to be a soldier. I've fought my campaigns. I'm too old and crippled. It's hard to carry a rifle on crutches. I have no illusions of grandeur left in me.

 

[JNieman]

What's changed since WW1, WW2? Kent State was a big deal, for one. The vietnam era brought a whole new perspective to the military and what wars actually look like, to the civilian world. I think there's been significant advancement in the separation of military powers and domestic law. Legislation has been very recent in this realm, too.

 

[10November1775]

Based on what research?

In other other words, is that a scientific wild ass guess, or just a wild ass one?

Based on both. History as well as my personal experiences with my time in service. I'm not saying that I think that service members have low morals or value in the rights of citizens (just the opposite I would say). But they don't have the luxury of ideological debate in certain situations. A grey area becomes black and white when shtf. Like I said my "guestimation."

 

[DBMJR1]

In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USCS Sec. 1385) making it illegal for the government to deploy its military against *civil disturbances.* Since the passage of this law, and despite its provisions, there have been at least 114 instances of use of U.S. military against its own citizens participating in *unrest,* 1878–1994 (Sweeney, A Handbook of American Military History, pp. 102-269)


On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order." Source

*if we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.* *Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future*, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.


So. Do I think that the US military would act, on US soil, against US Citizens? Absolutely I do.

If you place your faith in young Privates refusing to obey those orders, you have already lost.

 

[JNieman]

You realize that 2006 amendment was repealed in 2008, right?

 

[Bayoupiper]

.

 

[DBMJR1]

You realize that 2006 amendment was repealed in 2008, right?

If it came to a vote tomorrow, how do you think Mary Loretta Landrieu and Cedric Richmond would vote?

It would take a mere days to give the President the authority to act, or, by executive order, he could do it himself. The precedence has been set by the fact that this was, at one time, law.


Edit: I'm going to hobble out to my ballistic laboratory and make some bullets now.

 

[Jack]

The troops that won't, will be shot.. The troops that will, will eventually be shot for treason..

So it's not just police it's uniforms in general? Are nurses evil too?

 

[SeventhSon]

So it's not just police it's uniforms in general? Are nurses evil too?

Nope, but some are naughty.

 

[Emperor]

In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USCS Sec. 1385) making it illegal for the government to deploy its military against *civil disturbances.* Since the passage of this law, and despite its provisions, there have been at least 114 instances of use of U.S. military against its own citizens participating in *unrest,* 1878–1994 (Sweeney, A Handbook of American Military History, pp. 102-269)


On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order." Source

*if we face a period of persistent global conflict as outlined in successive National Security Strategy documents, then Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.* *Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future*, was written by Kevin Benson, a retired Army colonel who teaches at University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Jennifer Weber, a history professor at University of Kansas and a Civil War historian.


So. Do I think that the US military would act, on US soil, against US Citizens? Absolutely I do.

If you place your faith in young Privates refusing to obey those orders, you have already lost.

Kudos to you for actually trying to use facts, but American politicians have prostituted these laws for so long where they parse words and phrases for their own gain, that I doubt ANY regular Joe Human knows that any of it means anymore.

Go with Occam's Razor!

 

[10November1775]

Just so I am clear, my comment is not an indictment on the character of service members. It is just the way the military works. You follow orders, you don't get to choose which ones you will follow.

 

[Leonidas]

Sure you do. No soldier is obligated to obey illegal orders. Else the Nuremberg trials were a horrible injustice.