Is there any military or police members here who can answer this question?

reply to post by BlueRaja

Then we're in agreement on constructionism being the way that the Constitution "should be" interpreted. The problem as I pointed out is when you have differences of legal interpretation, where they read in things/read out things, that appear obvious to the casual observer.

Agreement, yes. But the modern "interpretations" are in fact illegal, despite the statutes imposed. You can't "interpret" something to have a precisely opposite meaning. You can claim that it is "legal," but that falsity is what I am exposing here. The current practises of our judicial system are in fact illegal. They are allowed only as a matter of public policy under military authority. The military authority over our courtrooms is designated by the gold fringe attached to the national flag and displayed in our courtrooms. Only the military has the authority to display the flag in such a manner.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states:
b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.
Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states:
c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:
(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;

(4) each military courtroom;

(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellited schools;
(8) each reception station.

[edit on 3/5/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by KMFNWO


There is certainly a world of difference between what we would hope we would do, and what we would actually do. If the order went out to fire on civilians, the orders would be followed by those who believe in the system they have sworn to represent unto death. As long as the government is still considered to be the voice of the people, the orders will be followed, even if it means killing some of the people.

And even if the truth is realized by some at the last minute, it will be too late. If you are ordered to advance on a crowd, and then given the order to fire, you will do so out of self-preservation, even if you belive the action is morally/politically incorrect.


[edit on 3/5/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
And even if the truth is realized by some at the last minute, it will be too late. If you are ordered to advance on a crowd, and then given the order to fire, you will do so out of self-preservation, even if you belive the action is morally/politically incorrect.

That all depends on what the crowd is doing.

Are they acting in a threatening manner? Are they shouting threats? Are they brandishing weapons?

reply to post by jackinthebox


I agree with you completely. Our boys will "largely" do what they are ordered to do regardless of what that order is.

That having been said. I know of a great many who won't, and today believe the majority won't "Why" the truth movement. Never before has information been so readily available. I have seen it work, and I have taken part in the process of awakening. More and more people who would be considered the enemy are aware of our concerns and see our points, if not completely accept them.

At any rate a great number of them as a result will not engage their citizenry.

reply to post by COOL HAND

Are they acting in a threatening manner? Are they shouting threats? Are they brandishing weapons?

An active crowd could be considered threatening. Their very presence might be considered a threat.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
An active crowd could be considered threatening. Their very presence might be considered a threat.

So you would consider a large crowd of old ladies protesting the war to be a threat just because they are there?

How about a bunch of school kids that are approaching you?

reply to post by KMFNWO

At any rate a great number of them as a result will not engage their citizenry.

But I believe they still may, given the right circumstances, which I am sure are already being planned. They may refuse to engage after the "first time." But even there, the situtation may have already deteriorated to the point of no return, so that they remain silent, again in the interest of self-preservation. Especially if dissent becomes a capital offense.

Then there is also the consideration of the suspension of free speech and free press under martial-law. If a soldier heard about civil uprising being put down elsewhere in the country, that soldier or police officer even, might decide not to report for duty when their turn came. But under a media balckout, fear would rule the day, and those in uniform would have little choice but to trust the leaders whom they serve.

reply to post by COOL HAND

How about a bunch of school kids that are approaching you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.foxnews.com...

Obvioulsy, the situtation did not turn deadly in this case. We are not yet under a media blackout though. Even without a blackout, an agent provacateur could have turned this into an incident of "domestic terror" by a gang of unruly students.

In the case of little old ladies protesting, they may indeed be considered a threat, if dissent had already been characterized as a deadly offense under martial-law. Keep in mind, that such provisions are already in place under the Patriot Act. Also keep in mind that everyone in uniform today, still chooses to serve, knowing that there is a strong possibility that the full measure of the Patriot Act will be applied.



[edit on 3/5/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/5/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Given the right set of circumstances anybody might fire on someone, so that's not really answering the OP's question. There's a difference between self defense, and blindly following an order to shoot people that aren't a threat.

reply to post by BlueRaja

Given the right set of circumstances anybody might fire on someone, so that's not really answering the OP's question. There's a difference between self defense, and blindly following an order to shoot people that aren't a threat.

The order would not be given in the first place if the "right set of circumstances" were not in place that leadership could rely on such an order being carried out.

If you ask me would I knowingly commit state-sanctioned murder just because I could get away with it, the answer would be no. I'm sure there are some people who would, but not very many I'm sure.

I think the question cuts right to the core of our faith in the system though. Would you trust that your superior had rendered an accurate judgement based on information you may not be privy to, and thereby issued an order that you might otherwise question?

reply to post by jackinthebox


The scenario you're providing isn't realistic. We don't line up in formations like the Civil War, and wait for orders to fire. You wouldn't have some political officer around controlling the troops. The troops would have their ROE, and unless the specifications laid out in the ROE were met, you wouldn't have folks firing. If the ROE were jacked up, and said you will engage the people of Smallville regardless of the threat they pose, it'd be obvious to everyone that something was wrong. Most likely you'd have a squad leader/section leader/platoon Sergeant in charge of elements of troops, and there might be a Lieutenant around(if it were a Platoon). They'd react to the situation, and only to the situation if the ROE were met.

reply to post by BlueRaja


I did not outline any specific scenario, but there might very well be a firing line in the case of a police action.

There might also be a scenario in which a fictitious threat were introduced. A biological threat let's say. With a standing order that anyone who tries to leave town be prevented form doing so by all means necessary, including the use of deadly force. Or maybe that 24-hour curfew be enforced under the same such authority.

Let me give another example. This is obviously a fictitious sequence, but I think it will illustrate the dilemma.



[edit on 3/5/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by BlueRaja


We may have had a real-life scenario recently, where members of the military did step up and resist what they deemed to be an illegal order.

There is still a lot of confusion surrounding the incident, but I am talking about the B-52 flight armed with nuclear missiles. It has been reported that they were ordered to attack Iran, and that they refused the order. Furthermore, there were more than several mysterious deaths of involved personnel in the month leading up to the incident.

Here are a few links on the subject.

U.S. Rogue Nuke! (someone please debunk)
Air Force Omits Nuke Error From 2007 Incidents List

Originally posted by jackinthebox
We may have had a real-life scenario recently, where members of the military did step up and resist what they deemed to be an illegal order.

There is still a lot of confusion surrounding the incident, but I am talking about the B-52 flight armed with nuclear missiles. It has been reported that they were ordered to attack Iran, and that they refused the order. Furthermore, there were more than several mysterious deaths of involved personnel in the month leading up to the incident.

Here are a few links on the subject.

What?

You have got to be kidding me. Can people really be that stupid where they could think that.

Where is the proof of this thing you claim?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
There might also be a scenario in which a fictitious threat were introduced. A biological threat let's say. With a standing order that anyone who tries to leave town be prevented form doing so by all means necessary, including the use of deadly force. Or maybe that 24-hour curfew be enforced under the same such authority.

Don't you think that they will use non-lethal means to keep people there, or do you just think the military goes straight for the lethal response in all situations?

reply to post by COOL HAND

Don't you think that they will use non-lethal means to keep people there, or do you just think the military goes straight for the lethal response in all situations?

It depends on the order given. If an Marine is ordered to "close and save," their mission would be to secure the area and save lives. But there is a second ROE however, "close and secure," in which the authorization of deadly force is inherent.

EDIT to add:

SFOR, Operation Constant Guard, and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit ROEs

1. You may use minimum force, including opening fire. . .
2. Minimum force—if you have to open fire, you must:
• Fire only aimed shots
• Fire no more rounds than necessary




[edit on 3/6/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
It depends on the order given. If an Marine is ordered to "close and save," their mission would be to secure the area and save lives. But there is a second ROE however, "close and secure," in which the authorization of deadly force is inherent.

It is entirely possible to secure an area without resorting to deadly force.

I have never heard of "close and save or secure" as part of the ROE.

EDIT to add:
SFOR, Operation Constant Guard, and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit ROEs
1. You may use minimum force, including opening fire. . .
2. Minimum force—if you have to open fire, you must:
• Fire only aimed shots
• Fire no more rounds than necessary

Since when did deadly force = minimum force?

Where did you actually get those "ROE's" from? They do not sound like ones that have been approved by JAG.

You should have show these as a better example:
Example 4: Marine Corps
WARN THEM
Verbal warnings
SCARE THEM
Show of force, including use of riot control formations and positioning of armored vehicles—blocking of access.
FORCE THEM
Use of:
• Riot control agents (when authorized)
• Warning shots (after an order to halt is given)
• Deadly force (ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT) Source: These and other ROEs are in CLAMO's "Rules of Engagement Handbook for Judge Advocates" (1 May 2000)
source

See how they use deadly force only as a last resort?

reply to post by COOL HAND

Where did you actually get those "ROE's" from? They do not sound like ones that have been approved by JAG.

Actually, the R'sOE I posted can be found in your own source.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Actually, the R'sOE I posted can be found in your own source.

I was hoping you found them at another place so I can confirm the existence of those ROEs.

They seemed odd to me, and the example I posted seemed a much better one to use to describe ROEs.

reply to post by COOL HAND

They seemed odd to me, and the example I posted seemed a much better one to use to describe ROEs.

Much preferred perhaps. But not exclusive.

The point is, that the military does not need much "excuse" to use deadly force. Neither does a police officer for that matter. There doesn't even have to be a deadly threat. A perceived threat makes the use of deadly force legal, as does the perceived intent of someone to commit a felony.