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

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 would refuse to even take up arms against a foreign enemy, let alone domestic, let alone innocent citizens. One of the reasons I left the service in the first place, among many others. I was just stating that not only are some people ok with that, it's the exact reason some people joined the military/police in the first place - to have that type of power and control over others.

All right, I'm convinced that the few ex service types here are not the one or two "bad apples" somebody mentioned earlier. At least you aren't anymore, and appear to be Ghandi like in your rebirth and dismissal of violence.
If there are only one or two, could some one, or all of you, comment on those video posts, as well as say, the pretty famous one where all the cops are sitting around laughing about shooting a lady in the face. I am not asking you to defend these actions (as only a brainwashed automoton idiot, could possibly see anything defensible about shooting unarmed civillians who commit the crime of not dispersing when it's been decided that they have exercised their rights enough for one day, or bullying a kid for the crime of, well, being a kid....).
Merely comment on it, and the mentality you think is required to sustain this attitude of us versus them, that so many of you seem to be victim of.
It looks like a lot of bad apples and a couple of real peaches to me, and I remain unconvinced that the lot of them would be utterly enthusiastic about the prospect of bustin' a few pussy civillian heads, correct?

By the way, following an "illegal" order?
What exactly is an illegal order?
Like going to war against an entire country, illegal, or like, "Hey those kids threw rocks at us, lets shoot them", illegal.?
Maybe, just rounding up people who don't agree with the guvmint?

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 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.

-----

Could you give an example of a situation that you're thinking of?

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?

First of all you're giving no context for why such an order would be given. Secondly, one doesn't receive a mission briefing of- "okay- today the mission is to go kill everyone with an even address, and tomorrow's mission is to get the ones with odd addresses."

Thirdly, soldiers don't operate in the type of environment where failure to perform a task results in execution/arrrest by a member of your unit.

You're giving an unrealistic question to an unrealistic scenario. We in the military don't operate under Orwellian conditions. Soldiers also aren't idiots. They can think for themselves, and recognize a BS 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.

This isn't a scenario that you're ever gonna have to worry about as a civilian or as a service member. THERE IS NO PLAN TO PUT CIVILIANS INTO FORCED LABOR CAMPS, or to shoot civilians, or to shoot fellow soldiers who won't shoot civilians. You need to stop reading crap websites, and go meet some real life soldiers and cops, and you'll see the folly of such propositions.

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


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 morthn1waytoskinacat

I remain unconvinced that the lot of them would be utterly enthusiastic about the prospect of bustin' a few pussy civillian heads, correct?

Well then you are sorely misinformed. You need to spend less time watching Youtube or reading paranoia talking points, and more time interacting with other people.

reply to post by BlueRaja

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...)

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]

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?

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


I don't know why you are wondering if something like this could ever happen from Military personnel. IT HAS HAPPENED.

In May of 1970, 4 unnarmed protesters at Kent University in Ohio, were shot and killed by National Guardsmen.

Maybe I am dating myself here, either that, or people have short memories!

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Enthralled Fan]

reply to post by BlueRaja


I am going to disagree with you on the National Guard not being given orders to shoot at Kent State. A tape has been produced from the incident where it can plainly be heard that they were given orders to shoot.

There is also an eyewitness account from a person who was shot by the name of Alan Canfora who has another story to tell.

I'm a former Air Force brat and spent the first 18 years of my life on various Army and Air Force bases around the world. And I have to say, I wonder about this myself. And not because I think people serving their country in the military would just up and act on government orders without thinking, but because what precedes events like Kent State is powerfully devisive rhetoric that serves to dehumanize the targets of government oppression, thus making it "easier" to see them as less than human, as enemies.

And I feel that with enough of this type of hate mongering, people can be manipulated into doing just about anything. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, the atmosphere before the war in Iraq was frightening for any person against the invasion. I pondered this question during that time. In fact, during that time preceding the Iraq invasion, with all the hateful devisive rhetoric heard everywhere, I wondered if neighbor could be induced to actually turn against neighbor, if asked to do so. Maybe you had to be here to understand the atmosphere. At the time, I was volunteering for a domestic violence organization, which since its inception, had a dove holding an olive branch symbol on their stationery. It was in this atmosphere that they removed this symbol of peace from their stationery, due to threats.

So, I don't know. I'm still wondering.

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat



I am retired military, Coast Guard, and a retired Federal Correctional Officer. I would only take a life to protect another.

For example... the guy who shot up the City Council meeting in the St. Louis suburb of Kirkwood, Mo. last week. If I had been armed, and in that room... I would have definitely tried to take the shooter out.

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!

Please realize that most cops and soldiers are very good people who have devoted their careers to public service. There are some real stupid jerks in each of these services, and the rot is from the head down. But most are just as proud to be an American as I am, and they would never support the actions you propose. They would be on the side of the people, and would try to save and protect as many citizens as they could at the risk of their own life. Not only would they be a target to the martial law drones, but they would also be a target of some whack-job they were trying to defend.

reply to post by BlueRaja

A- were the National Guardsmen given an order to shoot protesters? NO!
They F'd up due to lack of training.

Lack of training is no excuse. They wore the uniform, they were trained. Besides that, someone issued the order to fire. The guns didn't go off accidentally.

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.

It would be of there was a riot in progress. Say for example if a group of unarmed "terrorists" were storming a food-storage facility because they were starving. And don't try to argue that such a situation is not feasable. If this economy goes where I think it's going, you can bet there will be food riots.

Or what if a group of unarmed civilians overran a government building in protest. Say perhaps, the Capitol building. You can bet they would be fired upon, and any soldier who refused such an order would likely be executed if things were bad enough for civilians to riot in the Capitol.

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?

The entire case for invading Iraq hinged on the word of an un-vetted source. His info was never corroborated, and he refused to even speak with the US directly.

Our leadership knew there was a strong possiblity that there were no WMD's, that they had no solid intelligence, so they deliberately "hyped" the weak info they had. I do not blame everyone who had anything to do with intelligence gathering. I blame the leadership.

reply to post by yankeerose


Once again, i refer to the video of all the cops laughing at shooting an unarmed women in the face. I don't see a bunch of good people just trying to do their job.On top of it, the only regret shown was the fact that the video got out. I suggest that this attitude is a lot more ingrained in the police than it isn't.

reply to post by yankeerose

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!

Perhaps you would not knowingly participate. Of that I have no doubt. There are very few who would. The problem is that you may be loading people onto a train for what has been presented to you as a very legitimate reason.

The same goes for the invasion of Iraq. No one who has served believes that they are or were part of an imperial and criminal enterprise. But the fact remains that the US invaded a sovereign nation without cause. Having a hunch is not enough reason to go to war and kill a million people. If the truth was known at the time, I have no doubt that many servicemembers would have refused their orders.

Some of the comments in this thread break my heart, honestly.

To the poster who insinuated that I purposefully didn't answer the question as to whether or not I would kill our own citizens: I didn't directly answer the question because it is so absurd I didn't think stating the obvious was necessary. So a resounding "No Sir" would have been my answer.

How some can think what they think about the men and women I served with is heart breaking.

But that's okay. I know the difference between sheep and shepards.

reply to post by morthn1waytoskinacat


Yes I did watch that video on another thread. What I found most upsetting was the guy who was the leader indicating that the incident was funny. Like I said before... if the leadership stinks, your going to get goof balls who will jump through hoops to make him happy. That does not mean that every officer there approved or condoned what happened. Ever hear of nervous laughter? I bet some of those guys knew TSWHTF, and would welcome that leader and his pals being fired.

I also want to point out my opinion that many of the bad leaders and goof ball cops belong to a certain secret "male only" society that protects and promotes it's members throughout law enforcement and the military. They are practically untouchable unless they screw up so bad, the other brethren have no other choice but to cut their losses and let them be fired. This statement is only based on my career in law enforcement and what I witnessed of this certain groups actions.