Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Jefferson, Georgia
    Posts
    2,734
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    172557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crin63 View Post
    I mentioned this in another post but it bears repeating here.

    I was training a guy as a mechanic and some kind of survey had recently come out where servicemen were asked if they would ever fire upon an American citizen if given the order. This guy had just gotten out of the 101st if I remember correctly so I asked him his opinion. He said that yes he would fire upon an American citizen if the order was given to do so. His rationale which I completely and totally disagree with was that if he was given the order to fire on a citizen then that the person was or had to be a domestic enemy or the order would not have been given. He said he swore to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have to say, I was more than a little shocked at that response.
    Again I repeat this is a gray area I realize.

    I know a young man who I asked that question to lately also. He is also an airborne youngster of age 19. His answer was the opposite. He said he would never fire on an American citizen who was unarmed.
    If you continue to think the way you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got!

    A government big enough to provide you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    maine, for now.... Merida, Mexico in 2011
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emmett View Post
    Yes Virgil, perfectly. However I don't believe any of the students had M-16 rifles.....or any other weaponry aimed at Guardsman. It was consemned as a national disgrace and it most certainly was.
    and I would agree that it was a national disgrace, but I am not sure that the order, in and of itself, was "illegal".

    My point was in relation to your statement about "lawful orders" and whether an officer who refuses to carry one out should resign.
    Should Lt. Calley have refused the order from Capt. Medina? Was there ever an order given since Medina denied it?
    IMO, Calley should have refused to carry out Medina's order, if one was given and then, at a disciplinary hearing, he could make his case that, in his opinion, the order was not lawful...

    More directly my point, NO, I would never turn my weapon on or order the firing on, ANY American citizen at any time unless weapons were being used by the person. Even then there are questions actually.
    a gang setting fire to government buildings? who refused to stop when confronted by an armed force? I dunno.... I think that I might order a detachment to fire on such a group, and if I did, I think that the order would be lawful

    It is the duty of any enlisted / officer in the US military to protect and defend any American citizen at all times. That includes their right to gather and protest. The gray becomes the zone in which disturbance develops, such as Kent State or many of the other examples we could sit here and think of. However at NO time should a member of the US military follow an order to shoot his weapon at an unarmed American citizen. Furthermore I can assure you Nixon knew exactly what was going on in Kent, Ohio on that day.
    Like I said, men "armed" with zippos lighting piles of stuff that would cause damage or injury, I would disagree. At Kent State, the students had begun hurling objects at the guardsmen... tear gas cannisters and rocks... those certainly aren't as lethal or effective as rifles, but they are not totally harmless either... and I doubt that Nixon knew that the Ohio National Guard was planning on opening fire on Kent State students.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Jefferson, Georgia
    Posts
    2,734
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    172557

    Default

    and I doubt that Nixon knew that the Ohio National Guard was planning on opening fire on Kent State students.
    Oh....I dunno.

    a gang setting fire to government buildings? who refused to stop when confronted by an armed force? I dunno.... I think that I might order a detachment to fire on such a group, and if I did, I think that the order would be lawful
    I would not. That is the clear difference in our opinion here. The guardsman were highly trained fighters, they could have quelled the situation without killing unarmed students. There had to be another way.

    I can't help but mention it but you are sounding like some you have critisized here. Where is all that anti-violence rhetoric now? I'm just saying.....


    IMO, Calley should have refused to carry out Medina's order, if one was given and then, at a disciplinary hearing, he could make his case that, in his opinion, the order was not lawful...
    This means it is OK then to disobey an "unlawful" order. I made that point a few posts back and you said an officer who does not carry out an order should resign. That would have been difficult for Calley...would it not?

    I know that circumstances are different in each situation and it is easy to play armchair quarterback in these circumstances but I hold my policy, those buildings were nowhere near as important as a human life......especially a basic child. I would have ordered the men to engage in hand to hand and stop the uprising using shields and batons. It HAS been done before, police did it all the time.

    and I would agree that it was a national disgrace, but I am not sure that the order, in and of itself, was "illegal".

    To me it was very illegal...as well as immoral and a crime against humanity and American citizens.



    And for the record....I sound like a crying ass liberal tonight huh? LOL
    If you continue to think the way you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got!

    A government big enough to provide you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    maine, for now.... Merida, Mexico in 2011
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emmett View Post
    I would not. That is the clear difference in our opinion here. The guardsman were highly trained fighters, they could have quelled the situation without killing unarmed students. There had to be another way.
    highly trained guardsmen? LOL Clearly, you did not spend any time anywhere near a national guard drill weekend during the 60's and 70's.

    I can't help but mention it but you are sounding like some you have critisized here. Where is all that anti-violence rhetoric now? I'm just saying.....
    I have NEVER been anti-violence. I am a retired career military officer. I LOVE the military and I fully support the use of force when it is appropriate. Was it appropriate at Kent State? of course not, but I am not sure it was unlawful.

    This means it is OK then to disobey an "unlawful" order. I made that point a few posts back and you said an officer who does not carry out an order should resign. That would have been difficult for Calley...would it not?
    No one in uniform is ever required to carry out an unlawful order, and I NEVER said otherwise. I said that it an officer could not carry out the orders of the president and the orders of the officers appointed over him - and the assumption is that those orders are lawful - then the officer should immediately resign his commission. If Calley was given an order to massacre defenseless, passive civilians who posed no threat to him or his unit, such an order would have been unlawful and he should have refused to obey it and the subsequent disciplinary hearing would have determined the unlawful nature of the order and the rectitude of his disobeying it.

    I know that circumstances are different in each situation and it is easy to play armchair quarterback in these circumstances but I hold my policy, those buildings were nowhere near as important as a human life......especially a basic child. I would have ordered the men to engage in hand to hand and stop the uprising using shields and batons. It HAS been done before, police did it all the time.
    and you would have been a better officer than the national guard officer who ordered his men to fire.

    To me it was very illegal...as well as immoral and a crime against humanity and American citizens.
    immoral no doubt, but illegal? I dunno.... what law was broken?

    And for the record....I sound like a crying ass liberal tonight huh? LOL
    not at all. you sound emotionally invested in this issue. conservatives are allowed to be emotional.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maineman View Post
    No one in uniform is ever required to carry out an unlawful order, and I NEVER said otherwise. I said that it an officer could not carry out the orders of the president and the orders of the officers appointed over him - and the assumption is that those orders are lawful - then the officer should immediately resign his commission. If Calley was given an order to massacre defenseless, passive civilians who posed no threat to him or his unit, such an order would have been unlawful and he should have refused to obey it and the subsequent disciplinary hearing would have determined the unlawful nature of the order and the rectitude of his disobeying it.
    Assumed lawful by whom?...the order giver? The order receiver is the one who has to make a determination of whether an order is lawful. If, after the fact, it turns out the order receiver's determination was incorrect, there might be consequences.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,505
    Thanks (Given)
    23714
    Thanks (Received)
    17273
    Likes (Given)
    9550
    Likes (Received)
    6006
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Disobeying legal orders:

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punit.../a/mcm90_2.htm

    Illegal orders:

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm

    Figure that out in a few minutes, imagine the mind-frame of an 18-20 year old.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    maine, for now.... Merida, Mexico in 2011
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    Assumed lawful by whom?...the order giver? The order receiver is the one who has to make a determination of whether an order is lawful. If, after the fact, it turns out the order receiver's determination was incorrect, there might be consequences.
    of course.

    the military person who receives an order must first make the individual determination as to whether the order is lawful or not. If it IS lawful, the oath taken upon induction requires them to follow that order.

    As I said, if a military officer cannot, in good conscience, follow the lawful orders of his chain of command, he should resign immediately.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emmett View Post
    Yes Virgil, perfectly. However I don't believe any of the students had M-16 rifles.....or any other weaponry aimed at Guardsman. It was consemned as a national disgrace and it most certainly was.

    My point was in relation to your statement about "lawful orders" and whether an officer who refuses to carry one out should resign.

    Should Lt. Calley have refused the order from Capt. Medina? Was there ever an order given since Medina denied it?

    More directly my point, NO, I would never turn my weapon on or order the firing on, ANY American citizen at any time unless weapons were being used by the person. Even then there are questions actually.

    It is the duty of any enlisted / officer in the US military to protect and defend any American citizen at all times. That includes their right to gather and protest. The gray becomes the zone in which disturbance develops, such as Kent State or many of the other examples we could sit here and think of. However at NO time should a member of the US military follow an order to shoot his weapon at an unarmed American citizen. Furthermore I can assure you Nixon knew exactly what was going on in Kent, Ohio on that day.
    Game, set, and match Emmett. Virgil is running around in circles, ducking and dodging all the incoming artillery

    IF Virgil was ever in the service, and was an officer (I can't see such an arrogrant asshole like him being in a position of authority) he knows damn well shooting unarmed CIVILIANS in NOT a lawful order and should never be obeyed

    Another trait of any military officer is being able to lead, inspire, and earn the respect of those who serve under him. In Virgil's case, he could not lead a horse to water


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Bottom line is that the individual obeys or disobeys an order at their own peril. It is quite clear that any order directing a criminal act is unlawful and in some case that is pretty easy to determine (if a captain orders his men to rob a bank it is not too difficult to tell that captain to piss off). The cases where it is not so clear (an order to shoot at civilians who are engaged in violence though unarmed) is that tough situation where we place soldiers in a moral quagmire.

    Each situation is different and soooo circumstantial it is almost impossible to answer hypothetical questions like those posted above.

    One more thing: The National Guard troops at Kent State were very different soldiers from the soldiers we have in the National Guard currrently. The Guardsmen of the 60's and early 70's had a less than stellar reputation and they earned it. The Guadsmen of today are very different and are some of the best this country has to offer...they have a great reputation and they earned that too!
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    maine, for now.... Merida, Mexico in 2011
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    Bottom line is that the individual obeys or disobeys an order at their own peril. It is quite clear that any order directing a criminal act is unlawful and in some case that is pretty easy to determine (if a captain orders his men to rob a bank it is not too difficult to tell that captain to piss off). The cases where it is not so clear (an order to shoot at civilians who are engaged in violence though unarmed) is that tough situation where we place soldiers in a moral quagmire.

    Each situation is different and soooo circumstantial it is almost impossible to answer hypothetical questions like those posted above.

    One more thing: The National Guard troops at Kent State were very different soldiers from the soldiers we have in the National Guard currrently. The Guardsmen of the 60's and early 70's had a less than stellar reputation and they earned it. The Guadsmen of today are very different and are some of the best this country has to offer...they have a great reputation and they earned that too!
    I concur on every single point in this post. well said.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Obviously emmie wouldn't know a CIC if he studied for a thousand years!!!!!!!! Some get it and some don't!!!!!!!!!!



    Psychoblues

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Jefferson, Georgia
    Posts
    2,734
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    172557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoblues View Post
    Obviously emmie wouldn't know a CIC if he studied for a thousand years!!!!!!!! Some get it and some don't!!!!!!!!!!



    Psychoblues
    Great point PB, now there is some real sunstinative dialogue.
    If you continue to think the way you have always thought, you will continue to get what you have always got!

    A government big enough to provide you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have!

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Makes mucho sense to me, cowgirl.



    Quote Originally Posted by emmett View Post
    Great point PB, now there is some real sunstinative dialogue.
    How's that "sunstinative" thing working out for you?

    Get a freaking grip on yourself, emmie. You are an uneducated and incapable and rather stupid SOB but you really can't help any of that. But,,,,,,,,the facts remain.

    Do you always squeal like that when you've been stuck??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!



    Psychoblues

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums