Posted on 01/20/2009 5:14:39 AM PST by PurpleMountains
In my opinion, the cultural war between secular-progressives and traditional Americans will become a violent, bloody war if the Democrats in Congress try to criminalize policy differences by trying to punish members of the Bush Administration for attempting (and succeeding) to protect American lives. Obama isn’t saying much, although he appointed Holder, but Pelosi, Conyers, Reid, Holder and others are mouthing some very dangerous thoughts. As a minimum, practices that were originated by Carter and Clinton and merely continued by the Bush Administration (such as rendition and warrantless wiretapping) will be given much publicity, and, beyond that, some of us will be forced to support some violent people we normally shun and despise.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
How about the confiscation of 40% or more of the fruits of one’s labor? Not enough? How much is enough?
Yeah gorilla warfare and asymmetrical warfare could be undertaken and passive resistance could also be tried but you'll be looking at decades of violence. Then again while we were at each other's folks, China could just slip in and occupy our Pacific coast and Alaska...
Last time you get baited into that one, I’m supposin’. cheers, mike
It's not the police who are the problem... It's those giving the orders in contravention of the Constitution.
The rule of law.
That would be whatever law or executive order the POTUS ordered me to fulfill.
By LAW, by the constitution, I am bound to obey his orders. Soldiers are instruments of policy, not makers of.
Who determines if an order is “unlawful”? The soldier? This country is just about evenly divided about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. If every soldier was allowed to determine the legality of orders he did not like we’d have anarchy.
Understand there are legal options available in this country (witness the many successful NRA suits recently) that your scenario is extremely unlikely. If it did happen, I’m not sure what legal choice a soldier would have.
I know what you want me to say - that, damn it all, the troops should rebel and refuse to conduct the order.
Well, to my way of thinking, that would be a tad too Praetorian for me. Civilians control the militray. The POTUS is the LEGAL CIC. The LAW and Constitution say a soldier needs to obey orders from him.
So we have a conundrum. My solutions were two honorable and legal options to protest such actions while still fulfilling my oath before God.
I refuse to subscribe to that vision.
Obama is NOT going to round up 34-40% or more of the population.
And % definitely matters.
Remember that takers of said oath are also legally required to refuse to obey illegal orders.
Perhaps you'll recall the "I was only following orders." defense has generally not been a winning strategy.
The country may be, but Google the Heller Decision. The SCOTUS has determined it is an individual Right (as, imho, they should have).
The Posse Commitatus Act factors in as well.
Yes, I presented you with a tough question. A decision I hope neither you nor any other American soldier will have to make.
When law is the deciding factor, then little changes unless the law does. While the Constitution and the laws can be changed, it is difficult to do so for a reason.
When the whims of men are the deciding factor, a country, and even the world can be turned on its head overnight, which is why I asked which you would follow.
Uhmm....no. Those words are not in the oath. They are not in the oath I or my friends took. Look it up next time before you post, hmmmkay?
Perhaps you'll recall the "I was only following orders." defense has generally not been a winning strategy.
Yeah, well, neither is the "FU CO. I'm not doing that" strategy. Pretty sure the "FU Presint Sir" strategy would be a loser as well. Far more soldiers/sailors have been imprisoned, court martial, and even executed - in Western armies mind you - for NOT following orders, than Nazi's were for following them.
Remember that takers of said oath are also legally required to refuse to obey illegal orders.
Uhmm....no. Those words are not in the oath. They are not in the oath I or my friends took. Look it up next time before you post, hmmmkay?
Perhaps you'll recall the "I was only following orders." defense has generally not been a winning strategy.
Yeah, well, neither is the "FU CO. I'm not doing that" strategy. Pretty sure the "FU President Sir" strategy would be a loser as well. Far more soldiers/sailors have been imprisoned, court martial, and even executed - in Western armies mind you - for NOT following orders, than Nazi's were for following them.
The law, the Constitution, and my oath before God REQUIRE ME to carry out the orders of superiors and the CIC.
...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.
Yeah...not a whole lot of wiggle room there.
Far more soldiers/sailors have been imprisoned, court martial, and even executed - in Western armies mind you - for NOT following orders, than Nazi's were for following them.
That'll be a faint comfort to Lt. William Calley.
Cawlley spent, what two and a half years under house arrest?
Many more have spent similar time for refusing orders.
Suppose the new POTUS issued an executive order, for instance, limiting the amount of carbon emissions for any given region. Suppose in December, he pulled the plug on the Northern Plains, shut down Natural Gas, no electricity, and forbid the use of other carbon based fuels (wood, coal, grain). Needless to say, there would be a problem. If people comply, they die. Any attempt to enforce the EO, and people would riot, at least those who did not freeze to death.
If so ordered, would you enforce the EO?
What I want you to think about is this: that whether the food was taken as taxes and people starved, whether civillians were marched without food or rest until they dropped, whether they were hunted down, or herded into 'fourty and eights' and sent to a camp, these historical examples of genocide were perpetrated by governments on their own people, using either the regular armed forces or special units within their military.
Forces who followed what would be considered in virtually any other context to be illegal orders.
The Ukranian Pogrom, Armenian Genocide, the Killing Fields, and Concentration camps/Gulags were perpetrated under government orders.
Note, please I am not inferring anything about our military forces nor those who serve in them in general, nor you in particular, and I am definitely not trying to draw a parallel between our service people-past or present--and the personnel of other countries' military forces who perpetrated those atrocities.
What I am saying, though, is that the only thing which could keep that from happening here is you, you and others like you, the honorable and just personnel of our armed forces.
I do not trust politicians much, not by any standard.
Eternal vigillance, is, after all, the price of liberty.
There are only a few things which have traditionally stood between the powerful and abuse of that power.
One, the credibly armed populace, (Credibly, because muzzle-loading shotguns will not win many battles, whereas semiautomatic rifles can, under the right circumstances.)
Two, the honorable service rendered to our Constitution and Constitutionally authorized Government by our Armed Forces.
Three, the media, which heretofore would be outraged if any word should leak of such actions, and whose exposure would cause a popular demand that they be stopped.
But, frankly, I no longer place any stock in the Media. If persons whom they deemed to be politically incorrect were to be rounded up and shot or imprisoned, the media would be cheerleaders rather than critics.
Look at the MSM's coverage of the assault on the Branch Davidians at Waco for an example.
There are currently dissenting voices, but for how long?
Even Fox news has slid past the middle, and in less time than we believe, all media assets could form a national echo chamber for anti-conservative, anti-Judeo/Christian, and traditionally anti-American viewpoints.
With a few exceptions, they already do against gunowners, Christians, and we who find homosexuality deviant and disgusting. The assault on President Bush, an eight year long media siege, is an example of the lengths to which the media will go to edit out the good and portray the smallest mistake as world shaking evil.
Media treatment of Sarah Palin comes to mind as well. In the absence of mistakes or wrongdoing, the agenda driven will invent them (TANG Memos).
Now, imagine what they will (continue to) do with the new guy, only he will be able to do no wrong.
After all, that would mean the media would have to admit their error in helping fabricate the entire cult of Obama.
So, if in the name of 'saving the planet' he (literally) froze a couple of million (mostly Christian, conservative) people out in flyover country by Executive Order, it might be lauded as a good start, rather than criticized as genocide or mass murder.
Dissent might never be aired, and after enough "antigovernment" web sites and ISPs were shut down after filtering for content of e-mails, the 'domestic terrorists' who had the temerity to demand heat could be rounded up and reeducated if not summarily eliminated.
Far fetched?
No, at a lower technology level and in another place it has been done, it would be easier than ever, now.
All that took was a large enough group of people to just follow orders.
At what point should the Turkish soldier have refused to march Armenians back and forth to their death? When should the soldier of the Reich have quit stuffing Jews, dissenters, Gypsies, etc. into the freight cars? When did a rebuilding Germany, with its strengthening and renewed economy and national prestige stop being another success story and start festering with such internal evil that it is the standard of evil and totalitarianism by which many are compared today?
It was not the politicians, nor the officers who merely passed the orders on, but the rank and file who carried them out, the people who tolerated it, and the media which made that the popular cause.
I hope no one in our armed forces has to confront such issues. I pray our Constitutional Republic continues and regains its political sanity, but now more than ever, each and every one of us needs to decide.
/soapbox
Skipjack? Same hull?
Man, unless that is a new one, it must be ancient. I remember building a model of it about the same time I built one of the Nautilus, iirc, before the Thresher went down.
Most of the dead were because they didn't agree with those in power.
Yes, but they were also dead because others, devoid of moral fiber or intestinal fortitude, went along with those in power.
We have the ingredients today, here, if the people are disarmed.
We have a large segment of the population which has become superficial, oriented only toward that which feels good and entertains them or fills their bellies. We have a media devoid of principle, with little dissent, echoing and promoting the ideas of a (at least to many) charismatic Socialist, who has promised them things he cannot deliver.
The media will direct the anger produced by that toward their idealogical enemies, and, devoid of moral fiber to restrain the masses, the only limiting factor is the ability of the targeted people to provide armed resistance.
If the Second Amendment is overrun, it will get very nasty out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.