Will Military Follow Orders???

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...

This is most excellent. More servicemen should sign.

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

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).

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.

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.

That makes you the first progressive Confederate I've ever heard of.

At 10/22/2009 9:34:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
progressive Confederate

I suspect something somewhere in JBlake is being inconsistent.

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.

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.