Would they follow orders?
Oct 1, 2013 11:26:34 #
I often wondered why the people in Germany before and during WW2 carried out the orders issued by their government to attack and murder their fellow citizens. Not just Germany, it happened in Russia and China and Cambodia and Burma and South Africa etc as well.
Would it happen here?
Would it happen here?
Oct 1, 2013 11:50:05 #
Bigmac495
Loc: Indiana
boofhead wrote:
I often wondered why the people in Germany before and during WW2 carried out the orders issued by their government to attack and murder their fellow citizens. Not just Germany, it happened in Russia and China and Cambodia and Burma and South Africa etc as well.
Would it happen here?
Would it happen here?
Military people take a oath to defend the constitution ( Not people ) and to obey the orders of the President and officers above them . So they coulld be ordered to k**l Americans on our home soil and according to their oath I think they just might carry that out or face court martial !!
Oct 1, 2013 12:02:01 #
Dave
Loc: Upstate New York
There is a law against military force being used at home - Posse Commitas I believe - however, there is some evidence that not all Commander-In-Chiefs strictly adhere to the law of the land. It may be he finds it too confining.
Oct 1, 2013 12:08:01 #
Oct 1, 2013 12:18:09 #
Dave wrote:
There is a law against military force being used at home - Posse Commitas I believe - however, there is some evidence that not all Commander-In-Chiefs strictly adhere to the law of the land. It may be he finds it too confining.
Obama is replacing the laws as he goes along. He is also replacing Generals that he does think will follow his orders.
He just made a speech to the UN and I haven't seen any comments about what he said in the last part of his speech.
Obama said:
"This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.
And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. Ive made it clear that even when Americas core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone."
Oct 1, 2013 12:52:29 #
(quote=UsedHorseSalesman)Obama is replacing the laws as he goes along. He is also replacing Generals that he does think will follow his orders.
He just made a speech to the UN and I haven't seen any comments about what he said in the last part of his speech.
Obama said:
"This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.
And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. Ive made it clear that even when Americas core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone."(/quote)
That sounds noble. Wh**ever is done to prompt it, whether it is legal or not, what will our soldiers do when ordered to fire on their fellow citizens? Will they pull the trigger or refuse?
He just made a speech to the UN and I haven't seen any comments about what he said in the last part of his speech.
Obama said:
"This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the international community will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.
And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. Ive made it clear that even when Americas core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone."(/quote)
That sounds noble. Wh**ever is done to prompt it, whether it is legal or not, what will our soldiers do when ordered to fire on their fellow citizens? Will they pull the trigger or refuse?
Oct 1, 2013 13:03:26 #
I think, or maybe would like to think, that American soldiers would not fire on American citizens. However there has been talk of the Blue Hats (UN Soldiers) on American soil. The speech indcates that is a possibility. He used the word States not Countries. He also apears to ask for help in any situation that may arise.
Oct 1, 2013 13:26:05 #
These guys (ABC) are not soldiers but obviously think they are. Does it indicate a mind-set that would allow them and the real military to fire on the citizens? Look at the summary in the final paragraph:
COLLEGE GIRLS, BOTTLED WATER AND THE EMERGING AMERICAN POLICE STATE
Jul. 12, 2013 12:01am
JOHN W. WHITEHEAD - THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
John W. Whitehead is president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. Whitehead also drafted anti-drone legislation which is making its way through state and local legislatures.
What do college girls and bottled water have to do with the emerging American police state? Quite a bit, it seems.
Public outcry has gone v***l over an incident in which a college student was targeted and terrorized by Alcohol Beverage Control agents (ABC) after she purchased sparkling water at a grocery store. The girl and her friends were eventually jailed for daring to evade their accosters, who failed to identify themselves or approach the young women in a non-threatening manner.
What makes this particular incident significant (other than the fact that it took place in my hometown of Charlottesville, Va.) is the degree to which it embodies all that is wrong with law enforcement today, both as it relates to the citizenry and the ongoing undermining of our rule of law. To put it bluntly, due in large part to the militarization of the police and the equipping of a wide range of government agencies with weaponry, we are moving into a culture in which law enforcement officials have developed a sense of entitlement that is at odds with the spirit of our Constitutionin particular, the Fourth Amendment.
The incident took place late in the evening of April 11, 2013. Several University of Virginia college students, including 20-year-old Elizabeth Daly, were leaving the Harris Teeter grocery store parking lot after having purchased a variety of foodstuffs for an Alzheimers Association sorority charity benefit that evening, including sparkling water, ice cream and cookie dough, when they noticed a man staring at them as they walked to their car in the back of the parking lot.
According to a local newspaper account:
Daly said she and her friends were terrified when a man and woman in street clothes began knocking on her car windows in the darkened Harris Teeter parking lot When Daly slipped her keys into the ignition to crack the windows, a male agent yanked at the door handle, banged on the window and yelled at the women to exit the vehicle When he began to yell, other men positioned themselves around the car and the woman yelled at Daly to go, go go, court records state. One drew a gun. Another jumped onto the hood of the car as Daly and her friends dialed 911 to report the incident, according to the records. The women apologized repeatedly minutes later when they stopped for a car with lights and sirens on, prosecutors said. Dalys passenger said she was handcuffed without explanation and did not get one until a Charlottesville police officer arrived.
They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform, stated Daly. I couldnt put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were terrified.
It wasnt until police arrived with flashing sirens and lights that Elizabeth finally learned the identity of her attackers they were ABC agents. Likewise, it wasnt until the arrival of the police that the ABC agents were able to delve into the contents of the girls groceries, revealing their suspected contraband to be cans of LaCroix sparkling water.
Despite the fact that Daly and her friends did exactly what any young woman should do when confronted by threatening individuals in a dark parking lot, they were handcuffed and forced to spend the night in jail, with Daly being charged with three feloniestwo counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer and one count of eluding policecarrying a potential of fifteen years in jail.
In justifying the agents actions, ABC officials point to a protocol that relies on agents having reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to approach individual(s) they believe have violated the law.
Either ABC officials are being deliberately disingenuous or they dont understand that there is a distinct difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property. Then again, this distinction is often overlooked by many law enforcement officials.
In the context of police encounters with citizens in public places, probable cause is required in order for police to conduct surveillance or search an American citizen. The standard of probable cause requires that government agents and/or police have reliable evidence making it probable, i.e., more likely than not, that a crime has been committed by the person to be searched.
Reasonable suspicion, in contrast, requires less in terms of evidence and allows an officer to rely upon his experience and instincts, which, as we have seen, can often be wrong. Yet even at the lowest reasonable suspicion standard, an officer must have specific articulable facts supporting his belief that criminal activity is being engaged in mere hunches or good faith on the part of the arresting officer is never sufficient.
While this particular incident did not end in senseless violence, it very easily could have if Daly had confronted her pursuers with any of the legally available non-lethal weapons young women are encouraged to carry today as a defensive measure.
Indeed, as incidents across the nation make clear, law enforcement officials are increasingly responding to challenges to their authority by using their weapons. For example, in Long Beach, California, police responded with heavy firepower to a perceived threat by a man holding a water hose. The 35-year-old man had reportedly been watering his neighbors lawn when police, interpreting his grip on the water hose to be consistent with that of someone discharging a firearm, opened fire. The father of two was pronounced dead at the scene.
These are not isolated overreactions on the part of rogue officers. As I document in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, they are emblematic of a growing tension over the use of militarized police to perform relatively routine tasks, resulting in situations fraught with danger to both civilians and police alike. From full tactical SWAT teams executing no-knock search warrants on the homes of law-abiding citizens over nothing more than a suspicion that the occupant owns a gun to the unlawful arrest and forced institutionalization of decorated military veterans over Facebook posts critical of the government, the events described above are becoming all too familiar in cities and towns across the country.
Moreover, in light of shooting incidents across the country involving unarmed citizens and heavily armed police, increasing numbers of Americans are understandably concerned about wh**ever factors, whether its an arsenal of militarized weapons and an increasing reliance on lethal weapons or insufficient training in nonviolent conflict resolution, are contributing to a seemingly trigger happy tendency on the part of some law enforcement officials.
This begs the question, what constitutes a threat to an officer or resisting arrest?
Among the charges levied at Daly were that she allegedly assaulted an officer and attempted to elude police, never mind that the assault constituted her car brushing against plainclothes, unidentifiable officers who had been banging on the windows and climbing on her car. It is particularly telling that ABC officials believe [t]his whole unfortunate incident [involving Daly] could have been avoided had the occupants complied with law enforcement requests.
The key word here is comply meaning to obey, submit or conform. Increasingly, law enforcement officials operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question. Anything short of compliance is now perceived as resistance and a potential threat.
For example, Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them dehumanizing stares and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable. According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, thats a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.
This mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be neutralized is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. It also serves to chill the First Amendments assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Its bad enough that the police now look like the militarywith their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weaponsbut they function like them, as well. No longer do they act as peace officers guarding against violent criminals. And no more do we have a civilian police force entrusted with serving and protecting the American people and keeping the peace.
What we are dealing with is a militarized government entity that has clearly lost sight of its overarching duty: to abide by the dictates of the U.S. Constitution and act as public servants in service to the taxpayers of this country rather than commanders directing underlings who must obey without question.
COLLEGE GIRLS, BOTTLED WATER AND THE EMERGING AMERICAN POLICE STATE
Jul. 12, 2013 12:01am
JOHN W. WHITEHEAD - THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
John W. Whitehead is president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. Whitehead also drafted anti-drone legislation which is making its way through state and local legislatures.
What do college girls and bottled water have to do with the emerging American police state? Quite a bit, it seems.
Public outcry has gone v***l over an incident in which a college student was targeted and terrorized by Alcohol Beverage Control agents (ABC) after she purchased sparkling water at a grocery store. The girl and her friends were eventually jailed for daring to evade their accosters, who failed to identify themselves or approach the young women in a non-threatening manner.
What makes this particular incident significant (other than the fact that it took place in my hometown of Charlottesville, Va.) is the degree to which it embodies all that is wrong with law enforcement today, both as it relates to the citizenry and the ongoing undermining of our rule of law. To put it bluntly, due in large part to the militarization of the police and the equipping of a wide range of government agencies with weaponry, we are moving into a culture in which law enforcement officials have developed a sense of entitlement that is at odds with the spirit of our Constitutionin particular, the Fourth Amendment.
The incident took place late in the evening of April 11, 2013. Several University of Virginia college students, including 20-year-old Elizabeth Daly, were leaving the Harris Teeter grocery store parking lot after having purchased a variety of foodstuffs for an Alzheimers Association sorority charity benefit that evening, including sparkling water, ice cream and cookie dough, when they noticed a man staring at them as they walked to their car in the back of the parking lot.
According to a local newspaper account:
Daly said she and her friends were terrified when a man and woman in street clothes began knocking on her car windows in the darkened Harris Teeter parking lot When Daly slipped her keys into the ignition to crack the windows, a male agent yanked at the door handle, banged on the window and yelled at the women to exit the vehicle When he began to yell, other men positioned themselves around the car and the woman yelled at Daly to go, go go, court records state. One drew a gun. Another jumped onto the hood of the car as Daly and her friends dialed 911 to report the incident, according to the records. The women apologized repeatedly minutes later when they stopped for a car with lights and sirens on, prosecutors said. Dalys passenger said she was handcuffed without explanation and did not get one until a Charlottesville police officer arrived.
They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform, stated Daly. I couldnt put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were terrified.
It wasnt until police arrived with flashing sirens and lights that Elizabeth finally learned the identity of her attackers they were ABC agents. Likewise, it wasnt until the arrival of the police that the ABC agents were able to delve into the contents of the girls groceries, revealing their suspected contraband to be cans of LaCroix sparkling water.
Despite the fact that Daly and her friends did exactly what any young woman should do when confronted by threatening individuals in a dark parking lot, they were handcuffed and forced to spend the night in jail, with Daly being charged with three feloniestwo counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer and one count of eluding policecarrying a potential of fifteen years in jail.
In justifying the agents actions, ABC officials point to a protocol that relies on agents having reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to approach individual(s) they believe have violated the law.
Either ABC officials are being deliberately disingenuous or they dont understand that there is a distinct difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property. Then again, this distinction is often overlooked by many law enforcement officials.
In the context of police encounters with citizens in public places, probable cause is required in order for police to conduct surveillance or search an American citizen. The standard of probable cause requires that government agents and/or police have reliable evidence making it probable, i.e., more likely than not, that a crime has been committed by the person to be searched.
Reasonable suspicion, in contrast, requires less in terms of evidence and allows an officer to rely upon his experience and instincts, which, as we have seen, can often be wrong. Yet even at the lowest reasonable suspicion standard, an officer must have specific articulable facts supporting his belief that criminal activity is being engaged in mere hunches or good faith on the part of the arresting officer is never sufficient.
While this particular incident did not end in senseless violence, it very easily could have if Daly had confronted her pursuers with any of the legally available non-lethal weapons young women are encouraged to carry today as a defensive measure.
Indeed, as incidents across the nation make clear, law enforcement officials are increasingly responding to challenges to their authority by using their weapons. For example, in Long Beach, California, police responded with heavy firepower to a perceived threat by a man holding a water hose. The 35-year-old man had reportedly been watering his neighbors lawn when police, interpreting his grip on the water hose to be consistent with that of someone discharging a firearm, opened fire. The father of two was pronounced dead at the scene.
These are not isolated overreactions on the part of rogue officers. As I document in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, they are emblematic of a growing tension over the use of militarized police to perform relatively routine tasks, resulting in situations fraught with danger to both civilians and police alike. From full tactical SWAT teams executing no-knock search warrants on the homes of law-abiding citizens over nothing more than a suspicion that the occupant owns a gun to the unlawful arrest and forced institutionalization of decorated military veterans over Facebook posts critical of the government, the events described above are becoming all too familiar in cities and towns across the country.
Moreover, in light of shooting incidents across the country involving unarmed citizens and heavily armed police, increasing numbers of Americans are understandably concerned about wh**ever factors, whether its an arsenal of militarized weapons and an increasing reliance on lethal weapons or insufficient training in nonviolent conflict resolution, are contributing to a seemingly trigger happy tendency on the part of some law enforcement officials.
This begs the question, what constitutes a threat to an officer or resisting arrest?
Among the charges levied at Daly were that she allegedly assaulted an officer and attempted to elude police, never mind that the assault constituted her car brushing against plainclothes, unidentifiable officers who had been banging on the windows and climbing on her car. It is particularly telling that ABC officials believe [t]his whole unfortunate incident [involving Daly] could have been avoided had the occupants complied with law enforcement requests.
The key word here is comply meaning to obey, submit or conform. Increasingly, law enforcement officials operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question. Anything short of compliance is now perceived as resistance and a potential threat.
For example, Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them dehumanizing stares and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable. According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, thats a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.
This mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be neutralized is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. It also serves to chill the First Amendments assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Its bad enough that the police now look like the militarywith their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weaponsbut they function like them, as well. No longer do they act as peace officers guarding against violent criminals. And no more do we have a civilian police force entrusted with serving and protecting the American people and keeping the peace.
What we are dealing with is a militarized government entity that has clearly lost sight of its overarching duty: to abide by the dictates of the U.S. Constitution and act as public servants in service to the taxpayers of this country rather than commanders directing underlings who must obey without question.
Oct 1, 2013 13:53:50 #
boofhead wrote:
I often wondered why the people in Germany before and during WW2 carried out the orders issued by their government to attack and murder their fellow citizens. Not just Germany, it happened in Russia and China and Cambodia and Burma and South Africa etc as well.
Would it happen here?
Would it happen here?
Group-think is an amazing phenomenon. The breakdown in any social group into us and them is immediate and usually unconscious. It does not, of course, always cause the dire results of the Holocaust and it can help to bring into focus the bigger picture through the contrast. Yet trouble begins when the "them" becomes less than or other and not simply different than "us.". Like the Jews in N**i Germany, the demonizing begins, very similar to what many do here to their opposites. A simple difference of opinion becomes a call to arms. The psychological needs for acceptance and belonging, very strong in many, pushes critical thinking and reason aside to be part of. Repeated slogans and epitaphs replace dialogue and understanding. Those out on the fringe, already angry over wh**ever and looking to ease their pain, take these behaviors as approval of drastic action. It gets very messy after that.
Oct 1, 2013 14:35:51 #
boofhead wrote:
I often wondered why the people in Germany before and during WW2 carried out the orders issued by their government to attack and murder their fellow citizens. Not just Germany, it happened in Russia and China and Cambodia and Burma and South Africa etc as well.
Would it happen here?
Would it happen here?
Good question, Yes it could, but only by mindless democrats..hay it's going on right now.
Oct 1, 2013 14:53:36 #
cold iron wrote:
Good question, Yes it could, but only by mindless democrats..hay it's going on right now.
Your comment is an example of the problem boofhead wrote about and not an answer to the question.
Oct 1, 2013 14:57:10 #
Mikki
Loc: Ohio
Obama is not sure the military will k**l Americans. Most military that I know have said they will not follow that order. That is why Homeland Security is at present training the civilian army that Obama spoke about before he was elected. Also, why do you think we have had Russian troups training at American bases? If you can remember Waco, Janet Reno broke federal law (Posse Comitatus) and should have been prosecuted, but wasn't. General Clark coordinated that slaughter. Nothing the government does or will do surprises me anymore.
Oct 1, 2013 23:48:13 #
In response to; "Military people take a oath to defend the constitution ( Not people ) and to obey the orders of the President and officers above them."
ONLY the first half is correct (absolutely). The second half is only "provisionally" correct: according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The "(UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
In response to: "So they could be ordered to k**l Americans on our home soil and according to their oath I think they just might carry that out or face court martial !!
Some will, but I believe MOST will NOT! Only those that are (1.) more afraid of court-martial than repulsed by murdering fellow Americans or (2.) brain-washed into believing that these people are "actual" threats
ONLY the first half is correct (absolutely). The second half is only "provisionally" correct: according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The "(UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
In response to: "So they could be ordered to k**l Americans on our home soil and according to their oath I think they just might carry that out or face court martial !!
Some will, but I believe MOST will NOT! Only those that are (1.) more afraid of court-martial than repulsed by murdering fellow Americans or (2.) brain-washed into believing that these people are "actual" threats
Oct 2, 2013 00:11:17 #
dave t wrote:
In response to; "Military people take a oath ... (show quote)
dave, I was a marshall at demonstrations during the 60s, trained by the Quakers for non-violent protest. It was part of my training to look to quell both sides in case of a confrontation. I was six months back from Nam when I accidentally met up with some Quakers in a demonstration in downtown NYC. (I am a Bronxite.)
What I witnessed in those few years, which included the "People's Park R*******n" in Berkeley, convinces me that any group which is officially labeled as a recognised threat to or just at odds with the government, those assembled by government, federal, state, or county authority to confront these people will k**l them if ordered to do so. Maybe without orders.
Lawful assembly is the least honored and appreciated of our rights. Look at what happened to the Vets of WWI, miners, and railroad workers.
People who do this are "agitators" and firmly stamped as enemies. They are washing the dirty linen of America in public. An egregious breach of etiquette and patriotism. Such is beneath contempt and worthy of any aggressive action.
Oct 2, 2013 08:58:40 #
didymusdo wrote:
Your comment is an example of the problem boofhead wrote about and not an answer to the question.
It's clean you do not understand the question..
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.