Active Duty and Vets, Would You Follow an Order to Attack Civilians?

[avnate 335]

To be fair to both sides of this Katrina discussion.... a lot of what happened was driven by factors of a local nature. I thinks it's safe to say that unless you are from the area (know the people intimately (way of life) as some of us from there do) and/or were there.... anyone who is trying to understand what happened is at a distinct disadvantage.

 

Seeing as this thread is pitching and yawing....To spell it out for everyone, the answer to the OPs question (as with Katrina) will be based on SA (Situational Awareness). IF you don't understand that then you'll have to wait and experience it if this topic ever came to realization. Till then, as it is spelled out, the question is vague and cannot be answered to satisfy any civilian enough to give them a warm and fuzzy.

[YOT 3,743]

I personally would not fire upon another, unless I was in eminent danger, my family or friends were in danger, or, if I completely understood the circumstances, and another was in danger, if that helps anything.

 

 

My question is what exactly does that mean to you? Aren't we all "in eminent danger" if we lose our freedoms?

[going12220 125]

ORDERS, WE DON'T NEED NO STINK'N ORDERS.

[308SAIGA 55]

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

• Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

This obviously doesn't apply to law enforcement, but using the military against civilians is a prima fascia unlawful order. In this case the burden of proving that it IS a lawful order falls on the one giving the order.

 

So I stand by my vote. If you order me to defend the Constitution by attacking American civilians you better be ready to defend your order and possibly yourself against me.

 

 

 

Just my 2 cents, it does not matter what the law says if no one upholds it. There are many soldiers out their that will do as ordered, I was posting one day on ARFCOM, and a US marine sniper stated he would do as orderd and would kill civilians. Of course it opened a huge can of worms, not only did he state who he was, what unit he was with but he had his own website just for that.... (intimadation). He pulled it after about 2-3 days of controvercy, you ask if they will(?), you bet your sweet ass they will.

[avnate 335]

As I remember the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to DHS and Coast Guard. Also one may want to review and ponder the National Defense Authorization Act as well.

[going12220 125]

2 words:

 

Kent State

[Remek 771]

I personally would not fire upon another, unless I was in eminent danger, my family or friends were in danger, or, if I completely understood the circumstances, and another was in danger, if that helps anything.

 

 

My question is what exactly does that mean to you? Aren't we all "in eminent danger" if we lose our freedoms?

Eminent danger to my life and/or limb. I won't lose a even a finger to someone acting with intent to harm me.

 

I am sorry, I should have said eminent danger to my life/limb. Eminent, as in, no way to avoid it unless I act to harm them to stop them.

[Ronswin 26]

This from Military.com on unlawful orders:

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

 

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

 

The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

 

Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, the public outcry in the United States following this very publicized and controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.

In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment).

 

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

 

Take the case of Michael New. In 1995, Spec-4 Michael New was serving with the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army at Schweinfurt, Germany. When assigned as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission about to be deployed to Macedonia, Spec-4 New and the other soldiers in his unit were ordered to wear United Nations (U.N.) Helmets and arm bands. New refused the order, contending that it was an illegal order. New's superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Ronswin

[magsite20 1,664]

Something I’ve seen over the past several years is: military member charged with whatever offence has in part of the defense that they were mildly retarded. I’m not talking suffered from PTSD just plain mildly retarded.

So we have some NCOs that are leading people in their missions that in theory might not be qualified to purchase a firearm when some of the restrictions they have discussed get passed into law. So given an order they may or may not have the best skill set for deciding right from wrong.

 

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

I'd worry more about the random civvy out there -- at least all mil personnel has had effective training...

[Garys4598 1,065]

Why do you think Janet Napolitano wants to label (if it hasn't already officially been done so within some friggen classified White House document) all military veterans as potential terrorists?

 

(This is a rhetorical statement.)