Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Will Military Follow Orders???

Twistedgypsychild
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 8:06:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is my first post as I just joined. Hope to spark some conversation!

Should a revolution happen, would the military obey orders to fire on armed civilians or would they go against what they took an oath to and try to disarm the armed citizens?

OATH KEEPERS, active military and other law enforcement personnel have come together to say "NOT ON OUR WATCH" and have listed a declaration of things that they WILL NOT obey when and if this occasion does happen.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.


Read More Here: http://oathkeepers.org...
Twistedgypsychild
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 8:17:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/22/2009 8:16:17 PM, JBlake wrote:
This is most excellent. More servicemen should sign.

I thought so. Their site is even more amazing, although they have been criticized.

Jamie
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 9:15:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm surprised at you, Blake, Clause 5, if this oath is signed widely, is essentially a kinder way to say "Let's have a new confederacy, except without the racism." I can see why the oath would be promoted-- but not by a mainstream progressive like you, except insofar as one hasn't thought about it. Its argument for clause 8 is also on shaky ground-- the same reasoning that declares domestic peacekeeping the sole province of the militia would also declare it of repulsing of invasions-- indeed, it would declare that it is unconstitutional that any branch of the military other than militia perform any military duties at all. If anything, the article should be read as merely limiting the militia to the aforementioned task, the part where it mentions "land and naval forces," though I shudder at the thought ideologically, is legally, considering the context, every bit as broad as the commerce clause. I'm not a lawyer, but something tells me no important group would hire a lawyer who would tell them that crap unless they were trying to pull something fishy (like, I don't know, trying to make sure that their pet revolution has nothing but militia to face).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 9:19:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Granted, considering who this group is, I don't really care how questionable their legality is if they were going to accomplish what they wanted. The government they are telling us in legalese that they want a revolution to make is probably one I'd get along with much more than this one. But it's not going to work, so I may as well be honest about it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 9:31:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/22/2009 9:15:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm surprised at you, Blake, Clause 5, if this oath is signed widely, is essentially a kinder way to say "Let's have a new confederacy, except without the racism." I can see why the oath would be promoted-- but not by a mainstream progressive like you, except insofar as one hasn't thought about it.

hen you don't know me so well. I acknowledge the ability of states to secede from the union if they so choose - provided that they either pay for federal property within their territory, or allow the U.S. to continue running it; and that those leading secession have a mandate from the people of the territory to secede.

Of course, I would hope that the states would remain in the current combination. I would be in favor of working diplomatically to attempt to keep them in the union. But I recognize their ability to leave.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 9:34:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That makes you the first progressive Confederate I've ever heard of.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 9:48:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/22/2009 9:34:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
progressive Confederate

I suspect something somewhere in JBlake is being inconsistent.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 9:53:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/22/2009 9:48:20 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 10/22/2009 9:34:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
progressive Confederate

I suspect something somewhere in JBlake is being inconsistent.

What do you think a human is? Consistent? Ha.

Its not hard to be a "progressive Confederate" though. All it means is espousing the view that you wish to be separate from the larger Union - that doesn't necessarily inflict a conservative or progressive bias. You can establish the terms of departure quite liberally, and as he said, he only agrees with the idea if there were popular support behind it, as opposed to simple authoritarian musings of leaving, damned whether or not they have the support to from those within the boundaries of the new country.

But, unless "Confederate" means support for slavery, etc., then that is quite different.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 10:08:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Don't misunderstand me. I am not a confederate. I am not in favor of a confederacy. I am simply a federalist who recognizes the right of a territory or region to secede from the federation should its population decide it. But while they are in the federation they are bound by it and the decisions made by it. As I also mentioned, if they decide to secede, then federal property within the territory remains federal property until they pay for it or work out some other sort of agreement with the U.S. And of course they would no longer receive the benefits from the union - but if they leave I presume that to be the point.

I assure you there is no inconsistency. I do realize that most "mainstream progressives" would disagree with me on this point, but that does not mean there is an inherent inconsistency.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 11:13:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I didn't say there was an inconsistency-- though in actual fact if it were legal to secede the results would not be good for progressive policies, as the states seceding would be doing so to enact conservatism :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 11:39:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/22/2009 11:13:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't say there was an inconsistency-- though in actual fact if it were legal to secede the results would not be good for progressive policies, as the states seceding would be doing so to enact conservatism :P

I know that you did not say that, but Rezzeaaux did. I was responding to you both in one post.

I don't think any state will get enough support for secession in the foreseeable future. Though I would agree with you that conservatives are more likely to than progressives. It isn't necessarily true that losing a few conservative states would be so disastrous for progressive policy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 10:06:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Obama seems to think little island tax havens and little European tax havens already are disastrous for progressive economics.

Let's see what happens with South Carolina or Texas?

And that's just in the immediate future. There is a fairly significant group of libertarians trying to concentrate and basically take over New Hampshire, though that will take a while before it could possibly result in secession, especially since secession as a goal is *officially* disavowed (probably just to avoid negative attention from the law though).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 8:02:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Isn't secession perfectly constitutional, despite Lincolns excesses. lol though maybe we can say he did it to kill slavery, despite his protestations.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 7:36:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Umm... military members already take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to " I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".

I would imagine military members publicly taking oaths that might differ from that would be grounds for court marshal.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:11:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 7:36:37 AM, Floid wrote:
Umm... military members already take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to " I will obey the orders of the President of the United States

I am totally bringing this up the next time Hitler's army is talked about in class.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:21:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Note the according to law and regulations part in the one that does talk about such orders.

This includes the Constitution among other things, some of them unfortunate.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 8:22:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And no. Nothing in the constitution has a termination of membership clause as far as I can tell, short of specifically amending the constitution for your release.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 2:11:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
lol. It's says it wont' blockade 'American' cities. Would they blockade cities of a state attempting to unlawfully secede?

Besides, their rise during Obamas presidency and their appearance in the movie Fall of the republic: The presidency of Barack Obama

More anti-constitutional Glenn Beck BS about Obama.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.