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!
and I would agree that it was a national disgrace, but I am not sure that the order, in and of itself, was "illegal".
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...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?
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 lawfulMore 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.
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.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.
Oh....I dunno.and I doubt that Nixon knew that the Ohio National Guard was planning on opening fire on Kent State students.
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.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 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.....
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?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...
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!
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 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.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.....
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.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?
and you would have been a better officer than the national guard officer who ordered his men to fire.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.
immoral no doubt, but illegal? I dunno.... what law was broken?To me it was very illegal...as well as immoral and a crime against humanity and American citizens.
not at all. you sound emotionally invested in this issue. conservatives are allowed to be emotional.And for the record....I sound like a crying ass liberal tonight huh? LOL
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
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.
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
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
Obviously emmie wouldn't know a CIC if he studied for a thousand years!!!!!!!! Some get it and some don't!!!!!!!!!!
Psychoblues
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!
Makes mucho sense to me, cowgirl.
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