It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LordBucket
scientist assures us that he has worked with others who he believes would follow orders of this sort, but also fails to say whether he would personally be willing or unwilling to carry them out.
I'm convinced that the few ex service types here are not the one
or two "bad apples" somebody mentioned earlier.
Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by COOL HAND
So you are saying that members of the military, national guard, etc can only arrest someone in the United States if martial law is declared?
I beg to differ with you if that is what you were trying to have people believe.
-----
Originally posted by LordBucket
The question was...if you were personally issued an order to kill and/or place under arrest, United States citizens here on US soil, during an announced condition of martial law...would you obey the order, or would you refuse to obey the order?
If you were to refuse such an order it is extremely likely that you would then be in the receiving end of this position, with your fellow soldiers having to decide whether or not they would be willing to kill and/or arrest you. Understanding what you would face whether you were to obey such orders, or refuse to obey them...would you carry out such an order?
Originally posted by LordBucket
I'm convinced that the few ex service types here are not the one
or two "bad apples" somebody mentioned earlier.
Maybe. But we've had one "yes" and two "no"s. One out of three willing to shoot unarmed US citizens is very likely enough to cause some major problems.
I suppose the next logical question would be:
"If the order were given to round up US citizens and place them in forced labor camps, and the order were given to shoot those who didn't obey...and one in three of your fellow soldiers chose to carry out the order...even if you chose not to, what would you do instead?"
Those unwilling to fire an unarmed civilians might very well also be unwilling to fire on the soldiers who are firing on unarmed civilians.
It's not an easy scenario.
I propose that we, as a race, choose to not experience it.
Originally posted by morthn1waytoskinacat
I remain unconvinced that the lot of them would be utterly enthusiastic about the prospect of bustin' a few pussy civillian heads, correct?
An illegal order=unlawful order, (i.e. go shoot some US citizens who disagree with the government, shoot that soldier over there who is refusing to shoot civilians, etc...)
Originally posted by jackinthebox
How about US citizens who are demonstrating against a war? Again I cite the Kent State Massacre.
A soldier who refuses an order in war time does so at the peril of being executed as a traitor. This was true for the Nazis as well. If they had refused their illegal orders, they would have been shot or sent to a death camp.
EDIT to add: And how about invading a soveriegn nation base on deliberately falsified intelligence? Is that not illegal?
[edit on 2/13/0808 by jackinthebox]
A- were the National Guardsmen given an order to shoot protesters? NO!
They F'd up due to lack of training.
B- you might want to check your facts about refusing orders vis a vis being charged with treason. Refusal to shoot an unarmed civilian is NOT under any circumstances a case of treason.
C- are you saying that all the intel was not only false, but knowingly false by not only the intel analysts, but the civilian and military leaderships, and that everyone involved lied intentionally?
Would I fire on a group of American citizens protesting against our Government? Absolutely NOT! Would I help to round up American citizens and load them on to boxcars for no good reason (such as trying to get them out of a terrible forest fire or some other natural disaster) Absolutely NOT!