Do you think that a nation's military should fire on her own citizens?
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
March 16, 2009 9:22am CST
Hello All,
Given the state of global unrest, I welcome international perspectives on this issue as well. The particular referenced website is focused on the U.S. Constitution, though any nation's rule of law vs. political cult of personality would similarly apply.
I was recently introduced to a website that I'd like to get your take on. It is titled "Oathkeepers: Guardians of the Republic". The site is a declaration to The People of America that those who have taken the oath to protect the Constitution will NOT carry out any order that violates that Constition. Essentially, their pledge is that their loyalty is to this nation's rule of law, as opposed to the current politicians, regardless of political affiliation.
From the site:
"Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and that oath will be kept. We won’t “just follow orders."
... we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders
[i]"There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.
We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.
Help us win it."[/i]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]"Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey
Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4.. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances."[/i]
(Read the full declaration here)
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
____________________________________________________________________________________
[b]My questions to you are:
1. What are your thoughts about this site and its message?
2. Why do you suppose this declaration would have been penned on Sunday, March 8, 2009? To put it another way, why now? What do you think their reasoning or motivation is?
3. Do you support their cause? Why? Or, why not? [/b]
Thanks! I look forward to each of your replies.
Some other 'light' reading for the so inlined:
Uniform Code of Military Justice:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
Posse Comitatus
U.S. Code Title 18 : Section 1385
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1385
§ 331. Federal aid for State governments
§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html
OK, so this really isn't "light reading", at all. A snorefest is more like it. Though, it's always nice to have access to the background of an issue. So, if you were so inclined, and read any part thereof ... "Wake up"! (chuckle, chuckle)
2 people like this
7 responses
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
16 Mar 09
I strongly suspect this site of being covertly funded or at least monitored by the US GOVERNMENT. (The owners of this site would not necessarily be in on it!) The object would be to evaluate the overall general attitudes of US military personnel and to identify the biggest trouble makers.
BTW: Technically, the site is not necessary as US military personnel already are under orders to disobey illegal orders.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
16 Mar 09
It has long been a tactic of counter insurgency operations for the government that fears an attack to covertly found their own opposition groups just for the purpose of seeing who joins and to keep track of them. When the time seems appropiate, the sucker insurgents who joined the secretly government founded opposition are taken care of in some imaginative and creative manner that further benefits the government. Tryants are much more clever than most imagine.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Hello Red,
You may be right. There is simply no way to know -- ever.
Like Sndcain, you're right. Our military personell do have the right to refuse illegal (and I believe) immoral orders. Though, what if bills or treaties are crafted and signed into law that violate the constitution. How then do our military personell decide what is an illegal order?
I have posed two hypothicals above. One to Spalladino and the other to Sndcain.
The first is based on Islamic Sharia Law councils having been created in the UK, and what would happen if such a move is attempted in say ... Michigan, or among the Somali Muslim Communities in Wisconsin or the Twin Cities? We already have the instances of public "Charter Schools" being sued for ignoring the charter laws and creating religious training schools. D'ya remember Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy?
www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6758
Or:
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11132
www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017552.php
The other is the terrifying prospect that John Kerry and this current Senate buddies might just be able to finally ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty -- despite it's outrageous tenets which violate our Constitution. Ratifying that treaty would divide our military in two: those who support the Constitution, and those who support the "living, breathing adaptations" like the Law of the Sea Treaty. Yup, the same BS that they tried to ratify in October 2007, and many times before. It dates back to the Nixon era and has been defeated more times then I can count -- only because there were never enough Socialists in our Senate before!
[i]"Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) — which creates an “International Seabed Authority” and an “International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,” which set up and oversee what have been described as “mandatory dispute resolution tribunals.” Those tribunals will have jurisdiction over “protection and preservation of the marine environment.” And nations that sign the treaty “shall” (in other words, it is mandatory) “enforce” all laws necessary to “control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.”
In other words, any alleged sea pollution that supposedly originates from within the land borders of the United States shall be subject to legal action under the aegis not of U.S courts, but of tribunals controlled by these foreign bodies."[/i]
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/more-on-the-meddling-land-of-the-sea-treaty/
2 people like this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Hi Red, I agree with you and said so earlier. I believe that anyone who joins this little group is in trouble no matter how sincere they are. Even though they are under orders to obey illegal orders, it takes a lot of guts to disobey an order. I distinctly remember Nam.
Shalom
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Hello ladyluna,
To answer the question in your subject line, of course I don't believe they should but it has happened in the past in a non-war environment. I'm recalling the innocent students killed on the campus of Kent State University by members of the National Guard. When tensions run high the unthinkable can sometimes become reality but that situation was out of control and those troops panicked.
As for the declaration you posted, I agree that members of our military could have a problem by joining that site but I would also hope that the sentiments expressed are already in their hearts. This is a very different time from, for instance, the years during which the civil war was fought. Our country was divided by ideals yet, time and again, neighbor refused to fire upon another neighbor who happened to be wearing a different color uniform. These were two armies fighting against each other...not our own military vs citizens. I find it literally impossible to believe that any member of our military would willingly turn against the American people in the ways listed in that declaration regardless of who gives the order.
Something my husband once told me about being in Vietnam springs to mind. He said that, as in Iraq, it was hard to tell who an enemy was by looking at them. When an American soldier looks at an American citizen [s]he sees his/her mother, father, sister, brother, wife, husband, child or neighbor...not an emeny. I can't imagine any honorable serviceperson turning those faces into an enemy. That would take a massive amount of mind control.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Hello Spalladino,
I imagine that we'd have to search every corner of the nation to find that one voice who didn't get queasy or feel a bit weak when remembering Kent State. But, let's turn this into an upside down hypothetical, OK?
What if an immigrant community here in the USA were to do what has already been done in the UK? What if an immigrant community here were to assert say, Sharia Law?
You said: "I find it literally impossible to believe that any member of our military would willingly turn against the American people in the ways listed in that declaration regardless of who gives the order."
So, what if in the hypothetical these immigrants who have obtained US Citizenship, and have subsequently had children born on US soil should suddenly begin imposing cultural law over our rule of law? Should our military "turn against" legal citizens then?
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
16 Mar 09
spallidino, justa quick note on the kent state incident. These were national guard under the command of the governor, though their actions were atrocious, it isn't quite the same, these were state troops, but it does spaek to a danger we must be aware of and hopefully, raise awareness among our military personal of the oath they took.
2 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Thanks for including that, x, and yes I am aware that they were state troops. My point was that, while this horribly atrocious act did occur, it was the result of panic and poor training and was the only time that our militay has fired on citizens. I do agree that our military members should always be reminded of the oath they took but I also believe that it would be nearly impossible for any of them to use force, intimidation or to inflict harm on a fellow American unless the situation was extremely dire. I could fire on a foreign invader in a hot minute but I could never fire on a fellow American unless I felt my life, or the life of someone else, was in danger. I have to believe that our military feels the same about the citizens of this country. To feel otherwise is not honorable and honor is the cornerstone in the heart of every veteran I know.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
16 Mar 09
1. What are your thoughts about this site and its message?
I think it is a good site and that it's message is very important. History shows us how quickly a government and it's military can turn on the very people it is supposed to serve.
2. Why do you suppose this declaration would have been penned on Sunday, March 8, 2009? To put it another way, why now? What do you think their reasoning or motivation is?
I think this is being done now because they have realized that we are in a very dangerous time for Americans. When people disagree with the government, they can now be considered terrorists thanks to things like the Patriot Act.
Our Congress has been out of control for a while, and even the republicans have enough liberals in the party that believe in big government, and government control of the people.
We have Tea Parties cropping up all over the country, and people are angry. Our government has turned against us, our economy is collapsing, and we have a President that is partying nearlly every night in the White Housse.
On top of all that, this President is buddies with domestic terrorists, he is turning against our allies, and trying to appease our enemies.... while at the same time he is trying to block all attempts to determine his eligibility for that office... and he does not believe in the Constitution.
We have Bills being considered in Congress for FEMA camps that are large enough to hold large groups of people complete with education and medical facilities, and designed for long term containment of these people... and we have several existing FEMA camps scattered throughout the country.
We already have a history of putting a perceived enemy into these camps, as we did that to the Japanese-Americans during WW2.
Then we had the Branch Davidians who were murdered by the government over trumped up weapons and child abuse charges, and just last year another religious group was set upon by the government because of a false report from out of state.
There have been people that say we need to be regulated, and I saw that statement right here on myLot.
The list is endless... but there has been so much happen lately, that we are headed for some kind of civil disturbance. People are getting angry and scared, and our government is becoming increasingly domineering and demanding. I think a revolution is coming.
On top of all of that, there has been an active agenda in America for most of the last 100 years to turn us into a socialist/communist country, and we are closer now than we have ever been.
3. Do you support their cause? Why? Or, why not?
Yes, I do support their cause.
I support it because I believe in individual rights, including the right to live my life in the manner I choose, to worship in the manner I choose, to make my own decisions, and to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong... without interference from the government and a bunch of social engineers who are out to destroy our way of life. I believe in the Constitution, the right to bear arms, and the right to overthrow an oppressive government.
I believe in Freedom, Liberty, and Equality... and I believe in the God under which this nation was founded.
In short, I believe in the things that made this country great, and the ideals that this country was founded upon.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Not long... Look at the President's response to the original Tea Party reference from that guy in the trading pit.
He was not amused.
1 person likes this
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Excellent discussion as usual M'lady.
Many people don't get it why we need the right to bear arms in this country. It's to prevent just such a thing happening. Unlike many other nations, we don't have military shooting citizens because the citizens can shoot back. As to why would this site come along at this time?? Maybe it's because we have a POTUS that wants to disarm his subjects. And that's exactly what we would be without the Second Amendment. Subjects, not Citizens.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Well, thank you for putting your thinking cap on and joining us Morethanamolehill.
You're right. We don't have a military that goes around shooting our own. Though if we see a chasm form in the military (Constitutional Constructionists vs. Living Breathing Document-iers) then how long will we continue to enjoy that reality of our military not shooting our own?
Believe me, I respect the folks behind the website immensely. I value and appreciate that they line up as I and so many Americans do, in defense of the vision of our Founding Fathers. Though, what they've done here is to draw a line in the sand. In this case a line that I support. However, what can be used for good can also be used otherwise. Case in point, the Patriot Act. If used as a tool by honorable folks, who rely on inanimate computers monitoring for key words, as opposed to Human ears listening in on Human conversations, then it's fine. Though, put that tool in the hands of the dishonorable and ....
Yes, the Second Amendment is the final arbiter. Though, how does this implied 'split' in military loyalty play out if the Living Breathing Document-iers finally win out, and amend the Second Amendment to the point that our gov't surrenders to the will of the UN to disarm the private citizen?
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Mar 09
".... AND for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
- [i]The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
In Congress, July 4, 1776[/i]
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Hello Lady,
Wow, Anyone actively in the military could get into a lot of trouble for joining this site. Anyone ex-military who currently has a clearance of any kind could lose it real quick. Maybe Obama wanting to chat with the Taliban could have something to do with the site being initiated. Possibly the whole economy going to the dogs and the possibility of the Gov. eventually Nationalizing the majority of the major companies with this finantial bailout business.
I do agree with most of the points made in the Declaration. My only problem with it is, who is going to be making the decisions. Who is going to be in charge and will they then in turn make worse decisions.
Shalom~Adoniah
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Greetings Adoniah,
"My only problem with it is, who is going to be making the decisions. Who is going to be in charge and will they then in turn make worse decisions."
Excellent questions!
Might I add a few more?
Will those who usurp the right to decide what is and what is not Constitutional bother to ask We The People what we think? Or, will they seek the counsel of the SCOTUS? What then becomes of the notion of elections?
Like you, I agree with much of what seems to be the heart of the motivation behind this effort. Though, your last sentence/question becomes the real meat and potatoes:
"Who is going to be in charge and will they then in turn make worse decisions?"
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Mar 09
I wanted to add that there are no clear answers.
Politicians can be corrupted. The static truths of our Constitution cannot. They can be assaulted, though the cannot be 'bought'. As inanimate declarations they are not subject the the whims and fancies of Human frailty. Which of course means that they similarly cannot adapt to situational application.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
18 Mar 09
There are a few things that everyone seems to be leaving out of this scenerio. While Bush was in office, he had a lot of "just in case" emergency things passed. One of them was, that if we were at active war while he was still in office, he could extend his presidency indefinitely. There are others. They were slid right past us, not spoken about, and we were not given any choice or info about them. But, now Obama has the benefit of them. We should, as a people affected by them, find out what they are and how to dispose of them.
Shalom
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
16 Mar 09
LadyLuna,
The average person reading this post might think it was a little far-fetched seeing the title. They might poo-poo the notion that our military would ever be deployed to violent tasks here on our own soil, but consider this;
We are entering possibly the worst recession/depression since 1929. I truely believe there may come a time when people in many areas of this country might become violent in the name of self-preservation and the well-being of their family. Let's face it, wouldn't everyone fight to survive?
I believe what we see here on this website is a group of forward thinking people who see the time coming when they might be asked to do the unthinkable and want it to be known up front they will not be coerced into committing atrocities against their fellow Americans.
The present administration and congressional majority believe it must be done their way or the high-way and I see this all falling apart when their policies and ideals do exactly the opposite of what was intended. I believe their elitist beliefs will then lead them down a path of forcing their will and policies on America or else and when America bows-up, this is where I see these people drawing the line.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
16 Mar 09
Greetings Sir Rodney,
You make an excellent point that this uncomfortable question may not be nearly the work of fiction that some might believe.
I clearly see the concern of the group (behind the website) to quash any idea that they would support globalism over nationalism. Though it gets a little stickier as we explore the ramifications of this declaration.
For example: "(they) want it to be known up front they will not be coerced into committing atrocities against their fellow Americans". And, who could argue with that, right? Though what happens if Aztlan Reconquista were to carry out their goal of annexing the Southwestern USA, or some part thereof.
"Under the euphuism 'Hispanic Homeland' and 'Nation of Aztlan,' activists from numerous organizations including Mexican American Legal Defense and La Raza (The Race) activists are attempting to annex large portions of SW United States to Mexico. "Republica del Norte," the Republic of the North, which would include the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado, along with several current Mexican states, is "an inevitability" says Charles Truxillo, professor, University of New Mexico. He further states the new "Hispanic Homeland" should be brought into being "by any means necessary."
http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm
Who is American and who isn't? We've got the State of California (just last month) declaring that they will no longer arrest any illegal aliens unless they commit a crime on US soil. Isn't that a defacto assignment of legal residence? So, if Congress were to authorize Posse Comitatus or if the Insurection Law was invoked for say an all out hellishness in say Houston or San Francisco (known sancturary cities) then how would our military be able to follow orders without violating the law?
1 person likes this
@Bluepatch (2476)
• Trinidad And Tobago
17 Mar 09
Hell, no !
But, and there are always buts, in order to save a life or protect someone or valuable property anyone can fire on anyone.
I don't see that this is a really disputable point. You need to protect people and property at all times.
In reality it doesn't matter who fires because bullets all do the same thing anyway.
So, in an emergency, why not ?
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
17 Mar 09
You have an interesting take on this, Bluepatch.
"I don't see that this is a really disputable point."
Perhaps you don't, but many of our courts absolutely do. Do you remember Joe Horn of Texas and the "Castle Doctrine" debate?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/01/nation/na-shoot1
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
17 Mar 09
Bluepatch, you should be aware that in our country, it is illegal for the federal military to enforce law on United States soil. We do not use our military in such a way. What is an indisputable point is that to allow this would be creating a police/martial state and is totaly at odds with our constitution.
