When To Shoot The Colonels

WebWarriorOnline ^ | 2 January 2010 | Tom Baugh

[VR-21]

At ease, Marines, and be seated" orders the gruff Gunnery Sergeant. "Now turn to Chapter 8 in your Military Constitutional Law text," he continues. "Today we discuss the appropriate conditions for shooting a colonel who is issuing an order which would violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Our first scenario involves gun seizures..."

Absurd, isn't it, to think that this sort of education is conducted among our armed forces? Yet, millions of citizens indulge this unspoken fantasy each time they imagine that the military exists to preserve our freedoms.

When I was at the Naval Academy in the mid-80s, and a Marine officer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, discussion of such issues was considered taboo. One fellow junior officer even scoffed that "Congress can change that Constitution any time they like." This isn't to say that there wasn't an undercurrent among most of the warfighters that issues such as gun control and preservation freedom of speech might one day pose a crisis of command. Yet this undercurrent was kept carefully concealed, and tended to become a more and more uncomfortable subject as the ranks of one's company became more elevated. Fortunately, with the Soviets and the threat of global thermonuclear war, these issues seemed far removed and safe from serious discussion.

Not so today. In the aftermath of Katrina, armed and uniformed soldiers patrolled the streets and disarmed Americans. Some uniformed soldiers were captured on film lamenting that "I can't believe that we're doing this to Americans." Yet, they did it anyway, lamentations notwithstanding. But why?

[fr_freak]

The training and indoctrination used in our armed forces is essentially foolproof. Our guys will follow orders, period. If the order is to shoot you or me, you or I will be shot.

I was an Army grunt. I disagree with your assessment. I'd say the 50% number is roughly correct. The guys that go into the service don't become robots because of any indoctrination. They hold the same values and morals that they came in with, albeit with a broader perspective. I have faith that at least half would refuse blatantly unlawful orders, especially when directed at American citizens.

Now, the LEOs, on the other hand...

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

Police and National Guard Disarm Civilians

More Katrina gun confiscation, by the Nat'l Guard, police, sheriff's dept., Coast Guard

[Big_Harry]

If the military or the law enforcement community launch an assault against the civilian population, (not the traffic stop tasering of old women that seems to be the rage now a days), then the oath that I took on August 10, 1966 which has not been renounced in any form or fashion, allows me to use whatever means necessary to protect the Constitution. I sincerely hope the grievances that we have against the government will be resolved peacefully, and to a happy conclusion, but now is the time to firmly rehearse in your mind just what actions you will take if and when the worst case comes on us.

[The_Reader_David]

Nope, not even that: 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress need ratification by 3/4 of the several states to change the Constitution.

[Joe Boucher]

Come on Trapped in LA,
“If those countrymen had been armed it would have been another story”
You been to south central lately?
How about San Fernando?
:-)

[Joe Boucher]

Hey Senior Chief,
Thanks.
And GOD bless.
Ya old fart/

[Rashputin]

Our guys will follow orders, period. If the order is to shoot you or me, you or I will be shot

Only a grunt really understans the meaning of, "better you than me Mike Foxtrot". Regards

[jonno]

bookmark

[VR-21]

Thanks Froedrick, I haven’t seen most of that, and it reminds me of the old saying...”When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

[Mariner]

This says nothing of how the Active Duty and Reserve forces would react to an insurgency along the lines of Iraq.

Many would be gung-ho at first...and many, over varying periods of time would decide to abandon their posts to go home or join the insurgency.

The KEY to such movement would be the insurgency would have to be perceived as as holding the high moral ground.

No women, no kids. Don't damage the means of production/distribution. Focus on the apparatus of government ONLY. Reach out to the cops...allow them to patrol the streets to keep the peace IF they "look the other way".

Punish only the forces of oppression. Win the hearts and minds of the people.

[Grut]

...an unlawful order violates the UCMJ and need not be obeyed - in fact, the recipient of the order is under an affirmative duty to disobey it.

True enough, but back in '72 I was at an official briefing on Guam where an Air Force BG said "I cannot imagine I would ever be given an unlawful order by my superiors." So the theory might lack something in practice.

[VR-21]

I bounced on Andy’s runways a time or two that year. Agana’s as well. One gallon duty free.

[xarmydog]

I believe that if the Government were to fire on their own people,bad things would happen.Fathers,Mothers,and many family trained prior service,would not take kindly to that.
They would avenge and woe be unto the people in charge who issued the order.
Training during the Viet Nam war,many tacticts were taught to control riots,crowds,etc.,being a young grunt it was your duty,which many fellow soldiers followed through without any questions.Including me.
Being a few years older now,yes I would have some questions as to the orders given.
Example,If a soldier finds out a member of his family who he or she loved to pieces was gunned down by his fellow soldiers,how far is his loyalty going to drop??
Is any REAL MAN or WOMAN going to be able to do their job?
Not unless they have their own issues.

[Grut]

I bounced on Andy’s runways a time or two that year. Agana’s as well. One gallon duty free.

LOL! Do you remember seeing the 'dip' in the runway at Anderson for the first time? Migawd, B-52Ds on their takeoff roll would lose ten knots of airspeed when they hit the uphill part.

[oneolcop]

In a similar discussion on another forum, I pointed out that THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF OATH KEEPERS.

There are orders we will not obey. I suggest all who are interested visit the Oath Keepers website.

[Big_Harry]

Keep your head down my friend.

[VR-21]

"Being a few years older now,yes I would have some questions as to the orders given."

I've long sensed an interesting dichotomy sometimes between the attitudes of active duty and separated.

[VR-21]

"Do you remember seeing the 'dip' in the runway at Anderson for the first time?"

Come to think of it I do, though I wasn't a pilot (I was an enlisted aircrewman). The last time I landed at Anderson, we brought blankets, food and supplies for refugees in mid 74 (I think). What a tumultuous time that was.

[VR-21]

Those who live up to the ethos of the Oath Keepers will always have my respect and gratitude. Theirs will be a path fraught with danger, and their legacy will be that of the men who flew B25’s off the Hornet, and the men from Gonzales.

[xarmydog]

When Americans turn,nothing good will come out of it.It will leave us vulnerable to any nation that thinks they have an opportunity.
I pray that day never comes.