Military Says No Presidential Authorization Needed To Quell “Civil Disturbances”

[zerodahero]

http://www.infowars.com/military-say...-disturbances/

[Old-T]

I forgot how psychotic Jones is.

It's too bad, because hidden among lots and lots of stark raving mad items he occasionally has one or two things worth reading (some of the cell phone recording ones).

But 99% of the time he is a wacko who believe privacy and the individual person's rights 100% override security. 100% of either--security or privacy--is the wrong approach because it leads to anarchy or dictatorship.

[RedLeg505]

I just have to ask. Having served 20 years before retirement, and having TAUGHT Law of Landwarfare classes to new recruits, where the "I was just following orders" excuse was debunked ala Nuremburg Trials... what makes these people think the American Military will blithely follow such orders to "put down civil unrest"? Or to shoot fellow American citizens? I know I wouldn't have.

[Guest062716]

The DoD instruction is 42 pages long, and may be found in its entirety here:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302521p.pdf

From that instruction, on page one, it clearly states DoD policy as:


4. POLICY. It is DoD policy that:

a. DoD shall be prepared to support civilian law enforcement agencies consistent with the needs of military preparedness of the United States, while recognizing and conforming to the legal limitations on direct DoD involvement in civilian law enforcement activities.

b. Support of civilian law enforcement agencies by DoD personnel shall be provided in accordance with sections 112, 351, 831, 1116, 1751, and 1385 (also known and hereinafter referred to as “The Posse Comitatus Act, as amended”) of title 18, U.S.C…




Perhaps he forgot to read page 1.


There was some a$$hat during Clinton years that wrote an article about how the military was prepared to launch a coup against the president. I found the notion, that our professional military leadership would even entertain violating all that we find sacred, repulsive.


Respectfully,


OldSarge




P.S. Hey Old-T.

[Old-T]

Hey Sarge, good to see you. Hope all is well with you, and with a certain nice lady down your way.

It is amazing--and disturbing--how little basic research some folks like Jones (and the OP?) do before babbling at the mouth. Thanks for pointing out some reality to them. Same to you, RedLeg.

[Sidewinder]

OldSarge, hypothetical question: If the President of the United States orders the troops to do something that is specifically prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America, what obligation do the troops have?

[Guest010619]

"As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course."
Secretary of State General Alexander Haig

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I just have to ask. Having served 20 years before retirement, and having TAUGHT Law of Landwarfare classes to new recruits, where the "I was just following orders" excuse was debunked ala Nuremburg Trials... what makes these people think the American Military will blithely follow such orders to "put down civil unrest"? Or to shoot fellow American citizens? I know I wouldn't have.

A big part of the problem, IMHO, is the system for selecting cadets to the academies. The sort of people would Feinstein and Reid would appoint would just click their heals and obey, "What difference does it make?".

Appointments to the military academies should be open to US citizens based on academic test scores and physical abilities, with no regard to quotas, and with NO part played by politicians.

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

OldSarge, hypothetical question: If the President of the United States orders the troops to do something that is specifically prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America, what obligation do the troops have?

Sidewinder, let me tell you what I told my soldiers when I taught the "Law of LandWarfare" class to them in Basic.

It is up to each individual person to make the choice when asking themselves "Is that a LEGAL order?" And then be ready to accept the consequences. If you believe the order is illegal, it is your duty to NOT obey it. If I order you to shoot a prisoner, are you bound to obey it? The answer is no, but then I have the right to put you up for a court-martial because you disobeyed an order. If you were right, the court finds you not guilty and I go to prison for giving an illegal order. If you weren't, they find you guilty and you go to prison.. but only YOU can make that choice at the crucial moment.

So... given that, if an order came down from higher to "shoot that guy up on the stage for inciting a riot" when it appears all he is doing is exercising his first amendment free speech right, I have to decide if that's a legal order that I must obey or not.

For me, given the hypothetical just stated, I would have disobeyed that order and ordered my soldiers to do the same.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I just have to ask. Having served 20 years before retirement, and having TAUGHT Law of Landwarfare classes to new recruits, where the "I was just following orders" excuse was debunked ala Nuremburg Trials... what makes these people think the American Military will blithely follow such orders to "put down civil unrest"? Or to shoot fellow American citizens? I know I wouldn't have.

I can't see it either. Local Law enforcement agencies are the best bang for your buck when it comes to controlling civil unrest. I might can see a state National Guard being involved. Some of these scenarios that I've heard about just seem a bit extreme in terms of the Military involving themselves with Law Enforcement. They both have entirely different disciplines.

[JD Barleycorn]

Just because someone says the "military" is behind something doesn't mean it's true. Even if some politically officer wrote those words (usually it is the Congress that approves the rules of engagement and I suspect the Congress would be involved here) doesn't mean the troops will follow them.

[Yssup Rider]

SNICK

[Yssup Rider]

This was before false Alex Jones was assaukted in Seattle

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by acp5762

I can't see it either. Local Law enforcement agencies are the best bang for your buck when it comes to controlling civil unrest.

BUT that's only when the cops are not ordered by the mayor/governors to STAND DOWN and give the rioters their spaces to riot and burn.

[Yssup Rider]

You DO realize you're responding to a four year old thread, right?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!