[fitz4609]

This is for the National Guardsmen primarily.
Would you assist in disarming US civilians after a flood or tornado or hurricane?

[KNEESINTHEBREEZ]

If given the order to I would follow that order.

[fitz4609]

If the civilian leaders had no legal authority to order the confiscation of weapons from the citizens would it be a legal order?
Should the burden rest on the officers in charge since they have sworn to uphold the constitution?

[KNEESINTHEBREEZ]

Originally posted by fitz4609
If the civilian leaders had no legal authority to order the confiscation of weapons from the citizens would it be a legal order?
Should the burden rest on the officers in charge since they have sworn to uphold the constitution?

I think you answered your own question (the first one).

[nothing]

I took an oath to uphold and defend the Costitution. So that would be an unlawful order and I would not follow it. Most of the guys in my company feel the same way.

[fitz4609]

Ok Kneesinthebreeze, if newly elected Prez Hilary Clinton signed an executive order that disarmed all US citizens you would follow that order?
No problems? I can't believe that.

[KNEESINTHEBREEZ]

Originally posted by fitz4609
Ok Kneesinthebreeze, if newly elected Prez Hilary Clinton signed an executive order that disarmed all US citizens you would follow that order?
No problems? I can't believe that.

Well, I served under Bill Clinton and there was plenty that I had problems with. However, if a lawful order is given it is my duty to follow it.

[jmshady]

Originally posted by fitz4609
Ok Kneesinthebreeze, if newly elected Prez Hilary Clinton signed an executive order that disarmed all US citizens you would follow that order?
No problems? I can't believe that.

Ok, are you a judge?, are you a Politician, or are you a Soldier?

We have the different branches of Goverment for a reason. If a president passes a law without congress then congress can veto it. If congress agrees but it is unconstitutional then the supreme court can strike it down. If it passes all the branches then it is constitutional and it is my duty to uphold it and carry out my orders.

The what if game can be played for a long time with alot of different ****. Bottom line is an order is lawful if it will pass the moral test. I am not an executioner nor am I a "bully". I am a Soldier.

That is almost like saying that since a Soldier has a problem with what is going on on Iraq they should question the leadership. I would hope to God that every Soldier would have a problem with doing the job they were trained to do in war since that is the last resort. However a soldier should not question the reasons and just do their damn job. When you retire and go into politics you can argue it not while you wear the uniform.

[Horned Toad]

Zarqawi thought he was following some kind of moral orders also. Its one thing for a soldier to go fight on foreign soil, I would think it would be quite another to use those same tactics here in the US against the citizens they are supposed to protect. But with the very limited outcry over the taking of guns in New Orleans, its only a matter of time before the tool that kept us free in gone

[jmshady]

Originally posted by Horned Toad
Zarqawi thought he was following some kind of moral orders also. Its one thing for a soldier to go fight on foreign soil, I would think it would be quite another to use those same tactics here in the US against the citizens they are supposed to protect. But with the very limited outcry over the taking of guns in New Orleans, its only a matter of time before the tool that kept us free in gone

I am not saying that it would not make my stomach turn Ranger Horned Toad. I am saying that who the hell am I to question a lawful order. The courts struck down the ordinance in SF and they did the right thing. Maybe it was a bad analogy I do not know. As ong as someone is not ordering me to kill innocent civiliansor the like i do not have to agree but do have to follow the order.

[fitz4609]

Ok, you are not executing civilians so far so good.
Lets say the civilian govt says to destroy the radio station
and and start loading some of the disorderly types into box cars for transport to a camp.
You still OK with that?
Your a soldier and the SCOTUS will fiquire it all out later.
No decisions that you have to make? Personal decisions at that time in your presence?
Ray Nagin could lawfully make those orders. Right?

[WIG19]

The Code of Conduct applies to operations as well as captivity. You are obligated to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over you. You are not obligated to obey an order you know to be unlawful. Rather, you are obligated to report it. That's the theory.

None of the above gets you a pass on personal moral grounds for things like missing movement because you personally feel a conflict is "unlawful" - policy disagreements & the like - because there are other avenues for addressing those. However, absent martial law, 'nothing' pretty much said it for me. Many people stand mute for many things because they don't know the difference. It's important to educate Soldiers in all this; this business of being an American is tough and there are choices to make. I know that my civic compass is much more grounded now than it was 30+ years ago, and don't know how I would've responded then.

I know today that I would not let myself be used to conduct un-Constitutional repression of American citizens. If senior, I'd want to see some pretty hefty words from the SCOTUS embedded in the mission statement, because RoE need to define what my Soldiers do if some citizen (I don't know if he's law-abiding or not) stands at the front door of his home and politely refuses to surrender his hunting rifle. Avoiding My Lai isn't the issue; avoiding Kent State is. The situation in NOLA was simply & completely hosed.

[Cav]

O.K. lets say it like this:

As a Guard soldier you are told to disarm the local people. You follow the order, or argue it.

You say you dont want to take the weapons as its against the constitution.

Your NCO says that the Governer says is not a normal situation and people are being killed by these people running the streets with weapons. Do you follow the orders of the Governer, or what you think might be right?

The City you are working in also has a law that forbids weapons in the open on the streets, and this is what you are told you will be taking. Do you keep law and order in the city by helpng with enfocement of laws to save lifes, or what you think might be right?

Its one thing to storm an area and take guns for no reason, its another to follow lawfull orders in a time of declared disaster.

If you can not follow lawfull orders, you need to find out about Unit level justice durring time of activation.

[WIG19]

Originally posted by Cav
O.K. lets say it like this:

As a Guard soldier you are told to disarm the local people. You follow the order, or argue it.

You say you dont want to take the weapons as its against the constitution.

Your NCO says that the Governer says is not a normal situation and people are being killed by these people running the streets with weapons. Do you follow the orders of the Governer, or what you think might be right?

The City you are working in also has a law that forbids weapons in the open on the streets, and this is what you are told you will be taking. Do you keep law and order in the city by helpng with enfocement of laws to save lifes, or what you think might be right?

Its one thing to storm an area and take guns for no reason, its another to follow lawfull orders in a time of declared disaster.

If you can not follow lawfull orders, you need to find out about Unit level justice durring time of activation.

To your credit, you're getting a bit more specific in terms of mission statement than threadstarter.

[jmshady]

Originally posted by fitz4609
Ok, you are not executing civilians so far so good.
Lets say the civilian govt says to destroy the radio station
and and start loading some of the disorderly types into box cars for transport to a camp.
You still OK with that?
Your a soldier and the SCOTUS will fiquire it all out later.
No decisions that you have to make? Personal decisions at that time in your presence?
Ray Nagin could lawfully make those orders. Right?

Hell no, Ray Nagin cannot nor can any mayor make those policies and orders to military troops. You seem to me to be fishing here. Lay out what you are really asking and stop the what ifs.

Martial law is declared by the President only if I recall. Local and State goverment do not have that athourity. Besides if a Military unit is given the order then it has hit the fan more than likley. If you are worried about the Goverment deciding tomorrow to get rid of all guns you watch too many movies.

[fitz4609]

No, I'm not fishing. I am trying to find out where this generation of soldiers stands regarding disarming civilians.
About 15 years ago a Marine major conducted a poll of some 600 men. The question was along the line of; would you disarm US civilians?
The answer as reported in an issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine was and overwhelming NO.
Less than a year ago I watched the California Highway Patrol tackle an eldery woman while a squad of the Oklahoma National Guard stood and watch.
I understand there were exigent circumstances, but she was hardly running amok on the streets.
No I'm not worried about the government taking my guns away tomorrow, but in the coming years?

[Cav]

Originally posted by jmshady
Hell no, Ray Nagin cannot nor can any mayor make those policies and orders to military troops. You seem to me to be fishing here. Lay out what you are really asking and stop the what ifs.

Martial law is declared by the President only if I recall. Local and State goverment do not have that athourity. Besides if a Military unit is given the order then it has hit the fan more than likley. If you are worried about the Goverment deciding tomorrow to get rid of all guns you watch too many movies.

The thread starter said "LAWFUL ORDERS" he also said "GUARD" last I checked the National Guard fell under that states Govener unless you know more. The Governer calls and orders his troops. The Governer and Mayors can set there local laws when they need laws and can declair emergencies.

Look at California gun laws or your own city's for laws that are not from the federal government that you can go to jail for.

Posse Comitatus does not mean National Guard troops cant take action in the US.

[td.trmntr]

To: fitz4609

Have you ever served in the military? Since you are trying to pin down an answer from " the current generation of soldiers" I'm curious to know if you've ever worn a uniform. Are you possibly confusing soldiers with politicians? This is hardly the way to conduct a scientific poll. I don't like the tone of your questions. It reminds me of the late 60's when dope-head hippies hung out in airports and spit on servicemen returning from Vietnam because they wanted to protest the war. Soldiers follow their orders under the uniform code of military justice. Also, soldiers are not paid to listen to abuse thrown out by civilians. If you don't like what future administrations may or may not do about your gun rights, take it up with them. The fact that soldiers like us have bled and died for this country are the reason you have your rights in the first place.

[Minuteman]

This is why our Constitution requires civilian control over the military.

If the military defies the civilan orders, that is also unlawfull. Issuing unlawful orders is also a crime.

This is why it is so serious that the "police chief" in new orleans illegally declared martial law, and used that as an excuse to break more laws. He illegally declared himself a military power above civilan laws. He should have been arrested that day. He even tried to form a "tribunal" to "get" the officers who deserted.

He has yet to be arrested. That is very dangerous to our Republic for the reasons above.

[jmshady]

Originally posted by td.trmntr
To: fitz4609

Have you ever served in the military? Since you are trying to pin down an answer from " the current generation of soldiers" I'm curious to know if you've ever worn a uniform. Are you possibly confusing soldiers with politicians? This is hardly the way to conduct a scientific poll. I don't like the tone of your questions. It reminds me of the late 60's when dope-head hippies hung out in airports and spit on servicemen returning from Vietnam because they wanted to protest the war. Soldiers follow their orders under the uniform code of military justice. Also, soldiers are not paid to listen to abuse thrown out by civilians. If you don't like what future administrations may or may not do about your gun rights, take it up with them. The fact that soldiers like us have bled and died for this country are the reason you have your rights in the first place.

+1

After rereading your posts, there is something i feel needs to be addressed. I was a lowely NCO and I do not take orders from a Civilian authority. I take orders from my Chain of Command. And *******it anyone under me will carry out those orders or suffer the punishment. Your question would be one for Generals and the like. Any Soldier, you "nothing" that would not carry out the orders given needs to be beat down and discharged under a Bad Conduct discharge. Soldiers do not get to make policy just enforce it. In the case of the NG it is a bad day when they are called up as a "Police" force. Sometimes temporary conditions need to be met and that is life. No one is going to change the constitution over night so you can rest easy. If you do not like it, well you do live in a free country, you have the right to leave anytime you want. As for me I will continue to accept that those in charge will take the neccasary steps to preserve my freedom in the long run even if it means that for today things might be a little stricter.

[JohnNC]

Well, first off, we need to understand what is meant by "lawful order."

I have 19 years of active service, eight of them enlisted. As a commissioned officer, I have had four commands: two company commands and two Special Forces detachments. Just saying that to establish my credentials in the UCMJ department, and we are talking UCMJ. And it is the same UCMJ for all of us, Guard, Reserve, or Regular Army.

A soldier has the absolute obligation to obey any lawful order. An unlawful order is defined, in layman´s terms, as an order that, if obeyed, would constitute a criminal act. In other words, I say, "Joe, go shoot that unarmed grandmother." If he obeys, it is clearly a murder. That is an unlawful order, and any reasonable person can see that. Joe has an absolute obligation to refuse that unlawful order.

But if I give an order that may or may not be outside my authority to give, but does not constitute a clear criminal act, Joe has to obey. I might be in the wrong, I will be held accountable, but this does NOT constitute an unlawful order.

The system is built this way to support military discipline and the chain of command, and to prevent every soldier from becoming a guardhouse lawyer. "Sir, you can´t tell me to do that. Legal precedence in US v Smedlap as well as Title whatever USC..." Maybe so, Joe, but not your call to decide. Shut up and do it.

So to answer the question above, that is a question to be decided WAY above any of our paygrades. If I received that order from competent military authority, I would be legally bound to obey it, as would we all.

I may not be as diligent in enforcing that order as I would be in obeying my other orders, I may find a way to passively resist that order (what do you expect from an SF guy) but refuse it outright? No way.

Now, don´t start flaming me as a gungrabber, please. I am a life member of the NRA and and definitely a "cold, dead fingers" guy in my private life. I am simply stating facts.

We don´t like all of our orders, we question them in private, but only in the most extreme circumstances are we allowed to disobey them. Have you guys seen that Lieutenant in the news who is refusing to deploy to Iraq because he says it is an illegal war? Well, it is the same legal principle involved. He (and in the above situation, we) don´t have the authority to make those decisions. Let the lawyers and the generals fight it out. That´s what they are there for.

[Cav]

Originally posted by jmshady
I was a lowely NCO and I do not take orders from a Civilian authority. I take orders from my Chain of Command. And *******it anyone under me will carry out those orders or suffer the punishment.

I guess you never worked in Iraq for OIF, or supported Rita/Katrina where orders came from Non Military "Civilians". Disobay them and your chain of command would use UCMJ on you. As a soldier you follow orders as long as they are not clearly criminal. If you dont agree with an order and dont follow it, then you are in violation and any action needed may be taken against you.

PS: look in a dictionary and see what makes a "Civilian".

[jmshady]

Originally posted by Cav
I guess you never worked in Iraq for OIF, or supported Rita/Katrina where orders came from Non Military "Civilians". Disobay them and your chain of command would use UCMJ on you. As a soldier you follow orders as long as they are not clearly criminal. If you dont agree with an order and dont follow it, then you are in violation and any action needed may be taken against you.

PS: look in a dictionary and see what makes a "Civilian".

I never once had a Civilian give me an order in Iraq. My Orders come from my Chain Of Command not a civilian. If it does not come from the appropiate military source it is not an order. I was never NG so I do not know how it works for them. Unless my Chain of command gives me an order to "work" for those civilians then they have no authority over me or my men. The Military is seperate from the civilian side for a reason.

[fitz4609]

Thank you John in NC for putting that in a way I could not.
Shoot unarmed Grandma = unlawful order easy
Disarm everyone on Elm street = difficult to determine at local level
My fear is that one day soon the avg Joe will not recognize burn the library, blow the radio station and disarm the civilians as fundamentally an illegal order.
And great to say sort it out later but with every civilian disarmed who will listen?
Any to the previous poster that questions my motives I can tell you that I did serve 79 to 83 RA, 83 to 89 NG, 89 to 92 USAF all honorable discharges. After Clinton's drawdowns and cut backs I went on to serve my country by going to places other health care providers would not consider. Indian reservations in east Mt, Immigration health in Ca and Federal Prisons.
I am not a Ranger, Green Beret, Seal, Spec Operator, or combat commando. Nor, do I pretend to be any of these things.
But I have served in the military and I have seen changes. I just wanted to have a little open dialouge on this issue.
By the way I have not seen any hippies in years.

[JohnNC]

Originally posted by fitz4609
Thank you John in NC for putting that in a way I could not.
Shoot unarmed Grandma = unlawful order easy
Disarm everyone on Elm street = difficult to determine at local level
My fear is that one day soon the avg Joe will not recognize burn the library, blow the radio station and disarm the civilians as fundamentally an illegal order.
And great to say sort it out later but with every civilian disarmed who will listen?

I can understand your concern, but I think you can rest easy on that one. Fundamentally, our guys really try hard to do what is right. He might not always be able to articulate it, but Joe knows right from wrong. Remember, we are the good guys. I can´t imagine any of our NCO´s going along with that, nor our junior officers. And I would think that if it came to such blatant Constitutional violations, our General officers would refuse to obey them.

Now, if you ordered us to sack the Clinton library, on the other hand.....