following lawful orders
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Joined
·
184 Posts
If given the order to I would follow that order.
Joined
·
184 Posts
I think you answered your own question (the first one).
Joined
·
184 Posts
Well, I served under Bill Clinton and there was plenty that I had problems with. However, if a lawful order is given it is my duty to follow it.
Ok, are you a judge?, are you a Politician, or are you a Soldier?
We have the different branches of Goverment for a reason. If a president passes a law without congress then congress can veto it. If congress agrees but it is unconstitutional then the supreme court can strike it down. If it passes all the branches then it is constitutional and it is my duty to uphold it and carry out my orders.
The what if game can be played for a long time with alot of different ****. Bottom line is an order is lawful if it will pass the moral test. I am not an executioner nor am I a "bully". I am a Soldier.
That is almost like saying that since a Soldier has a problem with what is going on on Iraq they should question the leadership. I would hope to God that every Soldier would have a problem with doing the job they were trained to do in war since that is the last resort. However a soldier should not question the reasons and just do their damn job. When you retire and go into politics you can argue it not while you wear the uniform.
Joined
·
18 Posts
Zarqawi thought he was following some kind of moral orders also. Its one thing for a soldier to go fight on foreign soil, I would think it would be quite another to use those same tactics here in the US against the citizens they are supposed to protect. But with the very limited outcry over the taking of guns in New Orleans, its only a matter of time before the tool that kept us free in gone
I am not saying that it would not make my stomach turn Ranger Horned Toad. I am saying that who the hell am I to question a lawful order. The courts struck down the ordinance in SF and they did the right thing. Maybe it was a bad analogy I do not know. As ong as someone is not ordering me to kill innocent civiliansor the like i do not have to agree but do have to follow the order.
Joined
·
827 Posts
Ok, you are not executing civilians so far so good.
Lets say the civilian govt says to destroy the radio station
and and start loading some of the disorderly types into box cars for transport to a camp.
You still OK with that?
Your a soldier and the SCOTUS will fiquire it all out later.
No decisions that you have to make? Personal decisions at that time in your presence?
Ray Nagin could lawfully make those orders. Right?
Lets say the civilian govt says to destroy the radio station
and and start loading some of the disorderly types into box cars for transport to a camp.
You still OK with that?
Your a soldier and the SCOTUS will fiquire it all out later.
No decisions that you have to make? Personal decisions at that time in your presence?
Ray Nagin could lawfully make those orders. Right?
The Code of Conduct applies to operations as well as captivity. You are obligated to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over you. You are not obligated to obey an order you know to be unlawful. Rather, you are obligated to report it. That's the theory.
None of the above gets you a pass on personal moral grounds for things like missing movement because you personally feel a conflict is "unlawful" - policy disagreements & the like - because there are other avenues for addressing those. However, absent martial law, 'nothing' pretty much said it for me. Many people stand mute for many things because they don't know the difference. It's important to educate Soldiers in all this; this business of being an American is tough and there are choices to make. I know that my civic compass is much more grounded now than it was 30+ years ago, and don't know how I would've responded then.
I know today that I would not let myself be used to conduct un-Constitutional repression of American citizens. If senior, I'd want to see some pretty hefty words from the SCOTUS embedded in the mission statement, because RoE need to define what my Soldiers do if some citizen (I don't know if he's law-abiding or not) stands at the front door of his home and politely refuses to surrender his hunting rifle. Avoiding My Lai isn't the issue; avoiding Kent State is. The situation in NOLA was simply & completely hosed.
atriot:
None of the above gets you a pass on personal moral grounds for things like missing movement because you personally feel a conflict is "unlawful" - policy disagreements & the like - because there are other avenues for addressing those. However, absent martial law, 'nothing' pretty much said it for me. Many people stand mute for many things because they don't know the difference. It's important to educate Soldiers in all this; this business of being an American is tough and there are choices to make. I know that my civic compass is much more grounded now than it was 30+ years ago, and don't know how I would've responded then.
I know today that I would not let myself be used to conduct un-Constitutional repression of American citizens. If senior, I'd want to see some pretty hefty words from the SCOTUS embedded in the mission statement, because RoE need to define what my Soldiers do if some citizen (I don't know if he's law-abiding or not) stands at the front door of his home and politely refuses to surrender his hunting rifle. Avoiding My Lai isn't the issue; avoiding Kent State is. The situation in NOLA was simply & completely hosed.
atriot:
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
O.K. lets say it like this:
As a Guard soldier you are told to disarm the local people. You follow the order, or argue it.
You say you dont want to take the weapons as its against the constitution.
Your NCO says that the Governer says is not a normal situation and people are being killed by these people running the streets with weapons. Do you follow the orders of the Governer, or what you think might be right?
The City you are working in also has a law that forbids weapons in the open on the streets, and this is what you are told you will be taking. Do you keep law and order in the city by helpng with enfocement of laws to save lifes, or what you think might be right?
Its one thing to storm an area and take guns for no reason, its another to follow lawfull orders in a time of declared disaster.
If you can not follow lawfull orders, you need to find out about Unit level justice durring time of activation.
As a Guard soldier you are told to disarm the local people. You follow the order, or argue it.
You say you dont want to take the weapons as its against the constitution.
Your NCO says that the Governer says is not a normal situation and people are being killed by these people running the streets with weapons. Do you follow the orders of the Governer, or what you think might be right?
The City you are working in also has a law that forbids weapons in the open on the streets, and this is what you are told you will be taking. Do you keep law and order in the city by helpng with enfocement of laws to save lifes, or what you think might be right?
Its one thing to storm an area and take guns for no reason, its another to follow lawfull orders in a time of declared disaster.
If you can not follow lawfull orders, you need to find out about Unit level justice durring time of activation.
Hell no, Ray Nagin cannot nor can any mayor make those policies and orders to military troops. You seem to me to be fishing here. Lay out what you are really asking and stop the what ifs.
Martial law is declared by the President only if I recall. Local and State goverment do not have that athourity. Besides if a Military unit is given the order then it has hit the fan more than likley. If you are worried about the Goverment deciding tomorrow to get rid of all guns you watch too many movies.
Joined
·
827 Posts
No, I'm not fishing. I am trying to find out where this generation of soldiers stands regarding disarming civilians.
About 15 years ago a Marine major conducted a poll of some 600 men. The question was along the line of; would you disarm US civilians?
The answer as reported in an issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine was and overwhelming NO.
Less than a year ago I watched the California Highway Patrol tackle an eldery woman while a squad of the Oklahoma National Guard stood and watch.
I understand there were exigent circumstances, but she was hardly running amok on the streets.
No I'm not worried about the government taking my guns away tomorrow, but in the coming years?
About 15 years ago a Marine major conducted a poll of some 600 men. The question was along the line of; would you disarm US civilians?
The answer as reported in an issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine was and overwhelming NO.
Less than a year ago I watched the California Highway Patrol tackle an eldery woman while a squad of the Oklahoma National Guard stood and watch.
I understand there were exigent circumstances, but she was hardly running amok on the streets.
No I'm not worried about the government taking my guns away tomorrow, but in the coming years?
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
The thread starter said "LAWFUL ORDERS" he also said "GUARD" last I checked the National Guard fell under that states Govener unless you know more. The Governer calls and orders his troops. The Governer and Mayors can set there local laws when they need laws and can declair emergencies.
Look at California gun laws or your own city's for laws that are not from the federal government that you can go to jail for.
Posse Comitatus does not mean National Guard troops cant take action in the US.
To: fitz4609
Have you ever served in the military? Since you are trying to pin down an answer from " the current generation of soldiers" I'm curious to know if you've ever worn a uniform. Are you possibly confusing soldiers with politicians? This is hardly the way to conduct a scientific poll. I don't like the tone of your questions. It reminds me of the late 60's when dope-head hippies hung out in airports and spit on servicemen returning from Vietnam because they wanted to protest the war. Soldiers follow their orders under the uniform code of military justice. Also, soldiers are not paid to listen to abuse thrown out by civilians. If you don't like what future administrations may or may not do about your gun rights, take it up with them. The fact that soldiers like us have bled and died for this country are the reason you have your rights in the first place.
Have you ever served in the military? Since you are trying to pin down an answer from " the current generation of soldiers" I'm curious to know if you've ever worn a uniform. Are you possibly confusing soldiers with politicians? This is hardly the way to conduct a scientific poll. I don't like the tone of your questions. It reminds me of the late 60's when dope-head hippies hung out in airports and spit on servicemen returning from Vietnam because they wanted to protest the war. Soldiers follow their orders under the uniform code of military justice. Also, soldiers are not paid to listen to abuse thrown out by civilians. If you don't like what future administrations may or may not do about your gun rights, take it up with them. The fact that soldiers like us have bled and died for this country are the reason you have your rights in the first place.
This is why our Constitution requires civilian control over the military.
If the military defies the civilan orders, that is also unlawfull. Issuing unlawful orders is also a crime.
This is why it is so serious that the "police chief" in new orleans illegally declared martial law, and used that as an excuse to break more laws. He illegally declared himself a military power above civilan laws. He should have been arrested that day. He even tried to form a "tribunal" to "get" the officers who deserted.
He has yet to be arrested. That is very dangerous to our Republic for the reasons above.
atriot:
If the military defies the civilan orders, that is also unlawfull. Issuing unlawful orders is also a crime.
This is why it is so serious that the "police chief" in new orleans illegally declared martial law, and used that as an excuse to break more laws. He illegally declared himself a military power above civilan laws. He should have been arrested that day. He even tried to form a "tribunal" to "get" the officers who deserted.
He has yet to be arrested. That is very dangerous to our Republic for the reasons above.
atriot:+1
After rereading your posts, there is something i feel needs to be addressed. I was a lowely NCO and I do not take orders from a Civilian authority. I take orders from my Chain of Command. And *******it anyone under me will carry out those orders or suffer the punishment. Your question would be one for Generals and the like. Any Soldier, you "nothing" that would not carry out the orders given needs to be beat down and discharged under a Bad Conduct discharge. Soldiers do not get to make policy just enforce it. In the case of the NG it is a bad day when they are called up as a "Police" force. Sometimes temporary conditions need to be met and that is life. No one is going to change the constitution over night so you can rest easy. If you do not like it, well you do live in a free country, you have the right to leave anytime you want. As for me I will continue to accept that those in charge will take the neccasary steps to preserve my freedom in the long run even if it means that for today things might be a little stricter.
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
