What Might Civil War Be Like?

American Thinker ^ | December 20, 2017 | E.M. Cadwaladr

[fwdude]

The thought of Civil War has been in the minds of many people lately, on both sides of the political and cultural divide. This is not a thing to be wished for, though no one should kid themselves into believing it’s impossible either. Let us take a sober look at what such a conflict might entail.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class.

[Sam Gamgee]

Hard to say really? If they refuse in the start there could be court martials and executions from the brass. I assume the highest ranks will stick with the official US government, with soldiers possibly splitting?

[papertyger]

Banal aphorisms aside, I don’t think the police “wish to mess” with ANYBODY.

What they WANT is to not have their boat rocked, like any other employee of the state. And like other employees of the state, they are not above using their position to “punish” those who “rock the boat,” but often with life changing consequences for the originator of their irritation. And this doesn’t begin to touch on what they will do to “civilians” who witness, and (God forbid) pursue redress for, incidences of actual malpractice on the part of police.

Furthermore, I have yet to meet a single working police officer that has, or will, repudiate the practice of lying to a “suspect.” Despite the decision of ANY court to the contrary, our Founding Father’s concept of “the presumption of innocence” can not be reconciled with willful deceit for the purpose of getting a person to incriminate themselves: by definition.

If you are “actively” concocting a lie to get someone to admit something, it is logically impossible to be “presuming” they are innocent. Again, by definition.

I could go on about other practices that are taken for granted, yet antithetical to “American” culture, values, and founding principles, both explicit and implicit, but this example should suffice to demonstrate the “patriotism” of professional law enforcement workers in this country is honorary, not earned.

[Osage Orange]

Read some of Matt Bracken’s books....................

[papertyger]

Chicago isn't federal, and thus doesn't fall into the category of rights violation I am referring to.

If I'm understanding correctly, the distinction SHOULD be moot.

The 14th Amendment is SUPPOSED to prevent the States from violating the Bill of Rights.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "Go back and re-read my comment: 'When and if a leftist Democrat federal government issues orders for any federal government organ to seize citizen firearms, there WILL be war.' "

Sure, I "got it" the first time, and my response is: that's pure fantasy, unless you're talking about a city like Chicago which already seizes many thousands of illegal weapons each year and arrests their owners for possession.

But the Federal government is not going to seize normal weapons from law-abiding voters so long as the constitution is enforced.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Banal aphorisms aside, I don’t think the police “wish to mess” with ANYBODY."

Your own denial aside, that's exactly the case you make.

papertyger: "What they WANT is to not have their boat rocked, like any other employee of the state.
And like other employees of the state, they are not above using their position to “punish” those who 'rock the boat'... "

Years ago as a young man I was briefly a policeman (summer job), and saw nothing in my fellow officers to merit your disdain.
Since then beyond the rare speeding ticket, I've had no contact with police, at all.
And if we just consider those tickets (the last was 25 years ago), I was never stopped for just 5 or even 10 miles over the speed-limit, always much more -- typically I missed seeing the sign lowering the limit from, say, 55 to 30.

Point is: I don't mess with them, they don't mess with me and all is well.
So who is it that wants to go around jerking their chains?

papertyger: "Furthermore, I have yet to meet a single working police officer that has, or will, repudiate the practice of lying to a 'suspect.' "

Whenever I was stopped, at no time did the officer lie about my actual speed or stop me for a minor infraction.
Otherwise I've never met a working police officer.
Well, two of my daughters did marry into retired police officer families... ;-)

[Wonder Warthog]

"If I'm understanding correctly, the distinction SHOULD be moot. The 14th Amendment is SUPPOSED to prevent the States from violating the Bill of Rights.

[papertyger] Oh, I agree completely. The fact that the "Progressives" selectively apply the law only further points up their hypocrisy. But as a society-wide understanding, I think any wide-spread citizen resistance would only happen when a gun-grabbing effort spread outside a single state.

"But the Federal government is not going to seize normal weapons from law-abiding voters so long as the constitution is enforced."

[BroJoeK] And again, what will the military do when that point is reached. "If" Hillary had followed Obama, I think that threshold just might have been reached. Neither Obama nor Hillary give a puff of anal gas for the Constitution, and neither do the Democrats in Congress. Just suppose the legally elected Congress passes, and the legally elected president signs the law and tells the military......"go get the guns".

What does the military do in the face of this blatantly un-Constitutional and illegal order??

[papertyger]

Okay, you don’t see the difference between your cliche and my inference.

Your own “inside” experience is from over a generation ago.

And finally, the only first-hand experience you have of law enforcement since then is of the “traffic control” variety where you don’t even dispute the violation of law.

Why did you reply to my post?

[trisham]

Agreed.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "What does the military do in the face of this blatantly un-Constitutional and illegal order??"

By law the military, or any law enforcement agency, cannot obey unlawful orders, period.

But I agree with your concerns that four years of Hillary following eight years of Barrack may well have been enough to reduce the USA to a third-world banana republic.
Especially with Congress returned to Democrat rule, and the courts to activist judges... well, that's a nightmare I'd rather quickly forget.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Okay, you don’t see the difference between your cliche and my inference."

You first claimed you "don't think the police 'wish to mess' with ANYBODY."
You then went on to demonstrate that's exactly what you think.

papertyger: "Why did you reply to my post?"

Because you are reporting, or fantasizing, police malfeasance that I have no experience of and would never presume absent strong evidence.
Sure, nobody imagines police are 100% perfect 100% of the time, but like President Trump, I think police have gotten a very bad rap in recent years, resulting in more crime, even against police themselves.
I think they need and deserve better public support, especially from our elected leaders.

I take it you disagree?

[Wonder Warthog]

"By law the military, or any law enforcement agency, cannot obey unlawful orders, period."

You keep tap-dancing around the topic. How does the rank and file soldier decide?? Does he blindly follow the "duly elected" chain of command? Or does he follow his oath to the Constitution. Constantly repeating "cannot obey unlawful orders" like a mantra is just ignoring the question.

"But I agree with your concerns that four years of Hillary following eight years of Barrack may well have been enough to reduce the USA to a third-world banana republic. Especially with Congress returned to Democrat rule, and the courts to activist judges... well, that's a nightmare I'd rather quickly forget."

Unfortunately, my mind refuses to forget.

[BroJoeK]

Wonder Warthog: "You keep tap-dancing around the topic.
How does the rank and file soldier decide??
Does he blindly follow the 'duly elected' chain of command?
Or does he follow his oath to the Constitution.
Constantly repeating 'cannot obey unlawful orders' like a mantra is just ignoring the question."

Sorry, but I'm not tap-dancing or ignoring your question, you are ignoring my answer.
It's the correct answer, it's the only possible answer.
All government agencies are charged with obeying and enforcing the law, period.
Commanders cannot issue unlawful orders and if issued such orders cannot be obeyed, period.

You seem to fantasize that means every soldier or police officer needs a lawyer following him/her around to certify that every order issued & received is, indeed, lawful.
That's ludicrous -- broad outlines of lawful behavior are well known, with special training for special situations.

But just so we're certain, you do realize, don't you, that action-adventure movies like, say, Jason Bourne are fantasies?

Fantasy, not real:

[GOPJ]

Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies.

LOL - now that's funny!

[Wonder Warthog]

"You seem to fantasize that means every soldier or police officer needs a lawyer following him/her around to certify that every order issued & received is, indeed, lawful.

Actually, in law, that is precisely the case "if" the order is sufficiently illegal. That is why I pointed out that the Nuremberg precedents specifically rule out the "I was just following orders" defense.

And we're not talking about "every order", but the very specific situation in which a law has been passed by "duly elected authority", and an order issued for the military to deliberately violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

"That's ludicrous -- broad outlines of lawful behavior are well known, with special training for special situations."

Same mantra, slightly different words. WHAT ARE THOSE OUTLINES and WHAT IS THAT "SPECIAL TRAINING FOR SPECIAL SITUATIONS"? And particularly for the SINGLE ILLEGAL SITUATION specified.

"But just so we're certain, you do realize, don't you, that action-adventure movies like, say, Jason Bourne are fantasies?"

Yes, I do.

[MrEdd]

Not a chance in this world.

[papertyger]

You first claimed you "don't think the police 'wish to mess' with ANYBODY." You then went on to demonstrate that's exactly what you think.

Look up "the excluded middle," dude. Not wanting your boat rocked is not the same as what you'll do when it is. It's not that hard a distinction to make.

Because you are reporting, or fantasizing, police malfeasance that I have no experience of and would never presume absent strong evidence.

No one is asking you to "presume," anything. An objective assessment of common standards and practices is all that's expected. But pray tell what "evidence" have you even considered? I just gave you an example of the cognitive dissonance, without which, a cop will not be allowed to advance higher than ticket writer.

It's awfully hard for me to give unqualified support to an entire profession when by all indications that profession requires, either by inclination or by training, one to be a high functioning sociopath.

Furthermore, it's awfully hard for me to give credence to your opinion regarding an entire profession when by all indications you've neither examined, nor had cause to question their occupational standards and practices.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Just watch a few YouTube videos of lawyers speaking on how (and why) to behave when stopped by the police.

[papertyger]

Sorry, but I'm not tap-dancing or ignoring your question, you are ignoring my answer. It's the correct answer, it's the only possible answer.

No, your "answer" is doctrinaire, and therefore does not satisfy the question you're being asked.

That you refuse to admit it is to be expected by virtue of your staking out that position in the first place.

But make no mistake, you ARE tap-dancing around the question by giving a doctrinaire answer.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[Wonder Warthog]

I've never served in the military (4F for Vietnam), but I have many family members who did, some career, both career officer (Lt. Colonel at retirement) and career enlisted (Sgt-Major at retirement, I think). Also have read a number of WWII training manuals.

I simply must believe that "somethere" there is a training manual for recruits that lays out the doctrine of legal and illegal orders, and at least "some" grounds for distinguishing between them. The military that prides itself on training for any and every eventuality simply can NOT fail to have have some such basic information/training on the subject.

They will NOT leave it with "you don't obey illegal orders...period" as the final say (which is to say completely UN-trained on the subject).