Posted on Jan 3, 2016
If any President asks you to direct your military efforts against the People, would you obey the order?
16.2K
96
56
2
2
0
I am distinguishing between the individual or small group of terrorists and the individual or group that is defending the Constitutional rights afforded ALL Americans.
Political Science
Orders
Office of the President (POTUS)
What Would You Do
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 27
2
2
0
It depends on how an administration defines terrorist or individuals actions. The current vp, biden along with a majority of democrats, believes tea party participants are terrorists. So, the question is, if the government declared the tea party or occupy movement as terrorists and ordered the military to intervene in a protest/rally, would/should the military respond?
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/sources-biden-likened-tea-partiers-to-terrorists-060421
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/sources-biden-likened-tea-partiers-to-terrorists-060421
Sources: Biden likened tea partiers to 'terrorists'
But he denies he joined others in using the term.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - we definitely differ. I believe the adninistration looks suspiciously at police brutality and abuse of power, not the police. And I don't believe this administration rebels against law and order. In fact, to examine the issue of the illegal actions of a amall number of police is standing up for law and order.
I find it interesting that some groups who rail against what they perceive to be violations of their individual rights irt gun ownership seem so willing to overlook and excuse violations of individual rights by the police. I guess it makes a difference to them whether the rights being violated are theirs or someone elses.
So the administration gets accused of blaming all veterans or all police when they surface an issue with a small minority of those groups. But in a way I guess it should be expected given those same people readily blame all muslims for the actions of the terrorists. I guess they can't understand that the POTUS wouldnt overgeneralize the actions of the few to the group as a whole the way they do.
I find it interesting that some groups who rail against what they perceive to be violations of their individual rights irt gun ownership seem so willing to overlook and excuse violations of individual rights by the police. I guess it makes a difference to them whether the rights being violated are theirs or someone elses.
So the administration gets accused of blaming all veterans or all police when they surface an issue with a small minority of those groups. But in a way I guess it should be expected given those same people readily blame all muslims for the actions of the terrorists. I guess they can't understand that the POTUS wouldnt overgeneralize the actions of the few to the group as a whole the way they do.
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LTC (Join to see), this administration sees police brutality where there isn't any, as in Michael Brown's death in Ferguson MO for instance, or the situation with Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in Cambridge Mass, and other cases like them across the nation. They are predisposed to see police criminality and the criminals' "innocence" in this administration.
In the same way they are predisposed to see the danger posed by veterans. It is the suspicion of the "other" on the part of our community organizer-turned-POTUS. You can take the man out of the "hood", but you can't take the "hood" out of the man. He doesn't like police or the military.
And as far as lawlessness goes, look at this administration's record on immigration law or drug laws - and that doesn't even count the way this administration has abused his power by using the IRS and the Justice Department to go after his political "enemies". This is the most lawless administration in my lifetime.
See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/02/obama-administration-lawlessness-the-top-five/
In the same way they are predisposed to see the danger posed by veterans. It is the suspicion of the "other" on the part of our community organizer-turned-POTUS. You can take the man out of the "hood", but you can't take the "hood" out of the man. He doesn't like police or the military.
And as far as lawlessness goes, look at this administration's record on immigration law or drug laws - and that doesn't even count the way this administration has abused his power by using the IRS and the Justice Department to go after his political "enemies". This is the most lawless administration in my lifetime.
See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/02/obama-administration-lawlessness-the-top-five/
Obama administration lawlessness: the top five
Number one is refusing to comply with the War Powers Act when bombing Libya.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Lawless: The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law...
In "Lawless", George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein offers a scholarly and unsettling account of how the Obama Administration has undermin...
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Professor Turley: "Obama Is at War with the Rule of Law!"
On Wednesday evening, Nov. 13th, a debate was held on the issue of our country's use of drones abroad for targeted killing purposes. Law Professor Jonathan T...
This is not just the view on the right - it is the view of important minds on the left as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kKTYHJ3gw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kKTYHJ3gw
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There is a actual example of this issue from the last week of Nixon's reign
I was the 2nd Armored Div chemical officer at Ft Hood when we were issued a order to deploy under Operation Garden Plot.. all went well during the first 24 hours but when questions about why we were loading live ammo began. It didn't take long for troops to slow their pace and finally stopped.
Word had reached the units about the mission to place the govt under military control . After several hours all officers were given a twx that countermanded Nixon's order and we were to stand down unless all members of the joint chiefs approved, in writing! I still have that twx in my files.
This may happen again, soon!
I was the 2nd Armored Div chemical officer at Ft Hood when we were issued a order to deploy under Operation Garden Plot.. all went well during the first 24 hours but when questions about why we were loading live ammo began. It didn't take long for troops to slow their pace and finally stopped.
Word had reached the units about the mission to place the govt under military control . After several hours all officers were given a twx that countermanded Nixon's order and we were to stand down unless all members of the joint chiefs approved, in writing! I still have that twx in my files.
This may happen again, soon!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If I could go against terrorist cells and gangs, then sure, but not rioters or protesters. That would be like starting up a Boston Massacre in 1770.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Lets turn this around a little. There is enough refugees to start a small Army that could cause major damage to out citizens. Many cities are already divided into races with "Mayors" running them. Think Amarillo Texas. That could be a internal conflict within our borders. Would military action be called then?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As the armed forces aren't allowed to be used as a police force in the states. Id say that that would be an unlawful order.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm going to respectfully decline to answer that question. Methinks we could all potentially see that being answered in real time on the Western side of the Nation. Hoping it doesn't come to that though.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
You have the right, NO, OBLIGATION to follow all LAWFUL orders. An order to use military might against those defending the Constitution against a foreign or domestic enemy is, in my opinion, an UNLAWFUL order and must not be obeyed. To obey such an order makes you as culpable as the individual issuing said order.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I guess you have fight for what you believe in. If you think the government has done something unconstitutional then do what you think is right. I will be right here commenting on it! Hey someone has to live to tell what happened!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think there is enough information here to answer yes or no. As mentionex already, Legal orders should be followed ans illegal orders should not. It could be argued that the multiple times the National Guard has been deployed domestically to deal with riots are examples of "military effort" directed at the people exercising "free speech" yet I don't see a problem there.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would refuse any order that violated Posse Comitatus. If congress has given the president authority specific or general, or a judge had issued a decision I would have no problems directing military efforts against U.S. Citizens.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google