PDA

View Full Version : Would you have forced Americans into concentration camps at gunpoint in the 1940s?



Pages : [1] 2

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 12:57 AM
I believe this is the most important discussion facing the military today, because our government is trending in this same direction now with the NDAA legislation. But we're not talking about the NDAA here, we're talking about the situation in the 1940s. Please feel free to study up on President Franklin Roosevelt's order to have the military force 70,000 American citizen men, women, and children into concentration camps absent charge or trial and then put yourself in that situation, and indicate whether you would have obeyed the order or not had you been told to fix bayonets and go door to door rounding up Americans to put on buses to take them to the camps. I will provide some information as a starting point.

Please note, the reason a third option (I Don't Know) has been included is because from previous discussions, it's clear that some have taken that position, stating that they don't know if they would have forced their American neighbors and their children into concentration camps in that situation. Some have said they don't know what they would have done. Of course, they have the full weight of history as a benefit, so based on that information, they should know what they would do if put into that exact same situation today. Some want to punt on the question, however, just as I assume by the same logic they would also punt if I asked them if they would rape somebody this weekend (they apparently can't know anything about what they would do until put in that situation, a position I hope they tell the investigator during their next security clearance investigation).

So here are some facts about the military forcing Americans into concentration camps in the 1940s:

1. The military took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

2. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

3. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

4. Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

5. The government did not charge any of these Americans with a crime as a pretext to their incarceration, and they were not provided a trial and were not sentenced by a jury of their peers prior to being imprisoned in the camps.

6. At the point of the President's order, the judiciary had not ruled on whether such an order was lawful or not. Similarly, if you were to get an order today to go into Wal-mart and shoot every person wearing a hat, that order would also have not been ruled upon by the judiciary (ie, whether or not it's lawful for the military to shoot every hat wearer in a Wally World).

So you're given the order to force American citizens at gunpoint into concentration camps, absent charge or trial. Do you obey the order, or do you refuse it as an unlawful order in accordance with the oath you took to our Constitution?


http://youtu.be/oUrpIFp7EMA

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 01:42 AM
I believe this is the most important discussion facing the military today, because our government is trending in this same direction now with the NDAA legislation. But we're not talking about the NDAA here, we're talking about the situation in the 1940s. Please feel free to study up on President Franklin Roosevelt's order to have the military force 70,000 American citizen men, women, and children into concentration camps absent charge or trial and then put yourself in that situation, and indicate whether you would have obeyed the order or not had you been told to fix bayonets and go door to door rounding up Americans to put on buses to take them to the camps.

Loaded question that's just begging for argument. I think it's entirely situational.

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 01:43 AM
I believe this is the most important discussion facing the military today, because our government is trending in this same direction now with the NDAA legislation. But we're not talking about the NDAA here, we're talking about the situation in the 1940s. Please feel free to study up on President Franklin Roosevelt's order to have the military force 70,000 American citizen men, women, and children into concentration camps absent charge or trial and then put yourself in that situation, and indicate whether you would have obeyed the order or not had you been told to fix bayonets and go door to door rounding up Americans to put on buses to take them to the camps.

Loaded question that's just begging for argument. I think it's entirely situational.

Robert F. Dorr
10-05-2012, 01:50 AM
You can argue whether Roosevelt's decision was justified.

Many of the Japanese who were rounded up were not American citizens.

Some were active supporters of the Japanese government and cheered when Japanese forces achieved victories early in the war.

These were not concentration camps. These people were detained, not exterminated.

This of course, as Bru writes, is what you're asking for.

Banned
10-05-2012, 02:18 AM
Loaded question that's just begging for argument. I think it's entirely situational.

Loaded question maybe... but no... its NOT situational.

Any time you are ordered to commit a crime, the answer should be "NO". The situation is irrelevant... ESPECIALLY if American citizens are involved.

Banned
10-05-2012, 02:19 AM
Loaded question that's just begging for argument. I think it's entirely situational.

Loaded question maybe... but no... its NOT situational.

Any time you are ordered to commit a crime, the answer should be "NO". The situation is irrelevant... ESPECIALLY if American citizens are involved.

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 03:42 AM
Loaded question maybe... but no... its NOT situational.

Any time you are ordered to commit a crime, the answer should be "NO". The situation is irrelevant... ESPECIALLY if American citizens are involved.

But doesn't the new proposed law make it not a crime?

Absinthe Anecdote
10-05-2012, 04:58 AM
In the context of the events of 1941 and early 1942 I'm sure I would have followed that order. Not saying that is the right choice but thinking from the perspective of a soldier and imagining the biases the average American Joe would have been operating under I think yes, I would have followed the order.

No one briefed those soldiers on the constitution before they were sent out to round those people up. Fear, uncertainty, and our own propaganda played a big factor on the minds of those young men back in 1942.

PYB,

I think that you made this thread to spur thought on an issue you believe our nation may wrestle with again. But the way you framed the question made me answer yes.

It might be better if you came up with a "what if" scenario in a contemporary setting.

I'd like to think that I wouldn't ignore the constitution or deprive a fellow American of their liberty.

I'm just being honest when I say that I could be blinded by anger, fear or a string of events that could lead me into making the wrong choice.

If you say that couldn't happen to you; well, I question how honest you are being with yourself.

CrustySMSgt
10-05-2012, 05:08 AM
Agree with AA, back then no one questioned authority. Look at those studies where they put people in a room and were told they were shocking the shit out of someone and because someone told them to, they kept upping the juice and hitting them again. People back then didn't question authority like they do today.

But even today, we're still involved in a bunch of shady stuff that could qualify as unconstitutional, but because we're ordered to do it, we do. Guantanamo is a perfect example... while they aren't Americans (most of them? Are we still holding anyone that is?), we are still holding people without due process, but the military follows orders and keeps on guarding them.

Sure, it would be different if we rolled in to the town off base and started rounding people up... no doubt there would be a lot of resistance. No doubt I'd have followed the order in 1942; today, who knows. I'd like to think we'd never be placed in that situation, given the differences the last 70 years have brought about. I just don't see it happening in the near future.

Pavegunner72
10-05-2012, 05:18 AM
Makes you wonder what the US purchased that prison in Illinois for.

raider8169
10-05-2012, 05:54 AM
With what I know how I would refuse it because it is well known you can refuse an unlawful order. If we are at war to the point where we were during WWII it might be different. Still while I voted no, situations could arise where I may have to.

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 06:16 AM
Well I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that if it were a certain group of people raising hell that I didn't approve of than yes...I would round them up and take them in. That's why for me it is entirely situational. Nothing is ever written in stone for me...I do what I think is the right thing and I'll ignore a peice of paper if I feel it doesn't apply. Not everything is black or white.

F4CrewChick
10-05-2012, 06:45 AM
We do not have martial law. We have posse comitatus. We have a constitution we take an oath to defend. We do not have a dictator. We have free will. We have Article 90 of the UCMJ. This would clearly be an illegal order and as an officer (former) it would be my duty to bring such an order into question.

Any questions?

VFFTSGT
10-05-2012, 07:16 AM
Here's another hypothetical situation...where would you stand if you were in the position that the USS Colorado is on Last Resort?

http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/last-resort

CrustySMSgt
10-05-2012, 09:35 AM
Here's another hypothetical situation...where would you stand if you were in the position that the USS Colorado is on Last Resort?

http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/last-resort

Being in the business of decoding and validating EAMs, I could one day be in a similar situation (though there are few enlisted jobs where I'd be actually in a position to execute independantly)... I'll have to go back to the 3rd choice of "I don't know" on this one... it may have been a valid EAM, but the fact that it was transmitted over a secondary net, when the primary was up and running and out of the blue I got one over the secondary, it'd have me questioning it.

TVANSCOT
10-05-2012, 11:48 AM
1. The military took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.



I have said it before and I will say it again, the Oath is useless because it contradicts itself, you simply quoted the first part, but here is the next: "of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"... DOMESTIC... then there is this: "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".... so basically your screwed no matter what.

No where in the oath or in the regulations or UCMJ does it tell how us WHO decides what enemy might be domestic, foreign is pretty easy to figure out but domestic... it requires you to fall back to the next part of the oath.

ConfusedAirman
10-05-2012, 12:02 PM
Not enough info for too biased of a question. All orders and responses are based on the law (as dictated by the Constitution) but neither the law nor the Constitution are so perfect and absolute that any one person, including myself, can say with absolute certainty that any particular law or order is lawful. I reserve the right to make a judgement at the time and will accept my fate if my decision and subsequent response is later determined to be unlawful by the US legal system.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 02:41 PM
Many of the Japanese who were rounded up were not American citizens.

The poll discusses the 70,000 American citizens - that is why I used that number, and not the larger number that included non-American citizens. The 70,000 were all American citizens.


Some were active supporters of the Japanese government and cheered when Japanese forces achieved victories early in the war.

Source? What does "active support" mean? What does "cheering" mean, and is that protected speech?


These were not concentration camps. These people were detained, not exterminated.

There is a difference between death camps, and concentration camps. These were in fact concentration camps, and President Roosevelt and many others referred to these camps as concentration camps. http://americanhistory.si.edu/perfectunion/non-flash/internment_permanent.html

"As a member of President Roosevelt's administration, I saw the United States Army give way to mass hysteria over the Japanese...Crowded into cars like cattle, these hapless people were hurried away to hastily constructed and thoroughly inadequate concentration camps, with soldiers with nervous muskets on guard, in the great American desert. We gave the fancy name of 'relocation centers' to these dust bowls, but they were concentration camps nonetheless."

—Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, Washington Evening Star, September 23, 1946

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 02:45 PM
Well I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that if it were a certain group of people raising hell that I didn't approve of than yes...I would round them up and take them in. That's why for me it is entirely situational. Nothing is ever written in stone for me...I do what I think is the right thing and I'll ignore a peice of paper if I feel it doesn't apply. Not everything is black or white.

Quoted for posterity. Thanks for the honesty.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 03:06 PM
But doesn't the new proposed law make it not a crime?

No law passed by Congress, short of a Constitutional Amendment, can controvert the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. So any law passed that says, "Go ahead and ignore the Fifth Amendment" is unlawful, even though it will be treated as lawful by one or more branches of government. It also puts the military in the position of having to honor their oaths to the Constitution, if they are principled, or going with the flow if they are not.

imported_Sgt HULK
10-05-2012, 03:06 PM
If this was december or January 1941 and I was ordered into that very same situation you bet your sweet ass I would, shit some of them cheering may not have made it to the camp.

If another 9/11 happens and we are told to take to the streets to round up those who cheer our pain and death etc, give me the gun lets go do it. both legal and illegal aliens

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 03:08 PM
If this was december or January 1941 and I was ordered into that very same situation you bet your sweet ass I would, shit some of them cheering may not have made it to the camp.

If another 9/11 happens and we are told to take to the streets to round up those who cheer our pain and death etc, give me the gun lets go do it. both legal and illegal aliens

Sgt Hulk, interesting. We're talking about American citizens. Are you also saying that you would take the streets with your gun and "do it" to American citizens who are cheering our pain and death?

imported_Sgt HULK
10-05-2012, 03:11 PM
I'm saying that if our domestic enemies became a threat to our way of life and the order was given.

Its time to go to work.

If pearl harbor happens and those people take to the streets to party and celebrate the fact that you, bru, and the rest of my brothers in arms are dying at the hands of thier countryman ( american citizen or not) yep round em up.

If you tell me to go get the 80 yr old guy next door sitting on the porch shelling green beans. No I have no reason to personally or legally.

there are far too many variables in this questions and too many what if';s can spin this

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 03:40 PM
In the context of the events of 1941 and early 1942 I'm sure I would have followed that order. Not saying that is the right choice but thinking from the perspective of a soldier and imagining the biases the average American Joe would have been operating under I think yes, I would have followed the order.

The question is about what you would do now, given the full benefit of history. With everything you know now, if this exact same situation presented itself, would you obey or not?


No one briefed those soldiers on the constitution before they were sent out to round those people up.

Still they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Not knowing it, and yet swearing to God you will support and defend it, is a pretty shoddy defense don't you think? If you're ordered to secure the ECP from imminent attack and asked if you can be counted on to do it, and you say, "I swear it - you can trust me!" and then later after the flight line is destroyed you throw up your shoulders and say, "I didn't know what the ECP was or where it was, and I didn't think to find out" - is that a good defense? Is that the defense you want to take?


Fear, uncertainty, and our own propaganda played a big factor on the minds of those young men back in 1942.

Again, the question is how you would have handled it given what you know now. You mentioned fear. Courage means doing the right thing when you are afraid. Courage does NOT exist when a person is not afraid. What I take from your answer is that if you are afraid to do right, then you will not do right.


I'd like to think that I wouldn't ignore the constitution or deprive a fellow American of their liberty.

I'm just being honest when I say that I could be blinded by anger, fear or a string of events that could lead me into making the wrong choice.

If you say that couldn't happen to you; well, I question how honest you are being with yourself.

Everybody has a breaking point. Most people will do what they need to do to survive. That's not lost on me.

But breaking simply because you need a job? Selling out your country and your oath before God, because you might face jail time? Violating your oath for a credit card payment?

I find it interesting that we have heroes like Bud Day who endured years and years of torture and imprisonment, and who could have went home like some of the others who cooperated with the VC and came home to an Air Force promotion to full bird....and yet we have others who wouldn't refuse to violate the civil liberties of their neighbors while they know they are doing wrong, simply because they might be kicked out of the military, or at the very worst, put in jail.

I appreciate the honesty.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 03:46 PM
People back then didn't question authority like they do today.


Sure, it would be different if we rolled in to the town off base and started rounding people up... no doubt there would be a lot of resistance. No doubt I'd have followed the order in 1942; today, who knows.

Why do you not know? Why would you have followed the order in the 1942? Thanks for the honesty.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 03:51 PM
With what I know how I would refuse it because it is well known you can refuse an unlawful order. If we are at war to the point where we were during WWII it might be different. Still while I voted no, situations could arise where I may have to.

Obviously in the question posed, we would be at war to the point we were in WWII - that is the situation presented. So you voted no, but you say you might obey if we were at war at the point in the war we were in WWII (we were), so is your vote really a "I don't know?"

What kind of situations could arise where you would obey the order to point your weapon at American citizen men, women, and children and force them into concentration camps without charge or trial?

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 03:53 PM
We do not have martial law. We have posse comitatus. We have a constitution we take an oath to defend. We do not have a dictator. We have free will. We have Article 90 of the UCMJ. This would clearly be an illegal order and as an officer (former) it would be my duty to bring such an order into question.

Any questions?

One question, would you refuse the order or not? You say you would bring the order into question, but does that mean you would refuse to obey it?

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 04:00 PM
Not enough info for too biased of a question.

How is a question asking you what you would do, biased?


All orders and responses are based on the law (as dictated by the Constitution) but neither the law nor the Constitution are so perfect and absolute that any one person, including myself, can say with absolute certainty that any particular law or order is lawful.

You cannot say with absolute certainty that any law or order is lawful?

So if you were given an order to duct tape a peaceful protestor breaking no laws to prevent them from speaking, then go and burn down their church, then go their home and confiscate their legally owned weapons, then live in their house during peacetime as a military soldier, and then hang that person for treason without them getting a trial or a jury of their peers......you wouldn't be able to say with absolute certainty that the order is unlawful?


I reserve the right to make a judgement at the time and will accept my fate if my decision and subsequent response is later determined to be unlawful by the US legal system.

Why wait? Why not study now so you can make a better decision, being that you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and therefore by studying it now you will be in a better position in the future to do the lawful thing?

Jamethon
10-05-2012, 04:06 PM
Why do you not know? Why would you have followed the order in the 1942? Thanks for the honesty.

As weird as it may sound, I think most people wouldn't follow an order like that today versus 1942 because of the internet. Access to information which makes us smarter as a whole. Back then, everyone was aware of the war and what we had to do to win, but not a lot of extra information was available other than the news. Today if you have questions about ANYTHING, you can just google it and find an answer. Everyone knows that we are there because of terrorism but if you question the truth in the matter you can just google it.

The Taliban used to be our friends? We never left after we helped them? They wanted us to leave? We supplied them with weapons? WE ARE DROPPING BOMBS AND MISSILES IN PAKISTAN?? I doubt you would find that on Fox News... The internet provides a lot of information (not just for porn).

And that is just an example as to why I think that some (not all) military members would refuse to follow those orders regardless of the repercussions.

Regardless of what people may SAY that offends someone or our country.. we have freedom of speech. And we cannot have a president who picks and chooses it.

"As President of our country and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will always defend their right to do so."

I don't think he can pick and choose when that applies. Don't tell other countries that we can say whatever we want, but turn around and tell us that we can't.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 04:14 PM
As weird as it may sound, I think most people wouldn't follow an order like that today versus 1942 because of the internet. Access to information which makes us smarter as a whole. Back then, everyone was aware of the war and what we had to do to win, but not a lot of extra information was available other than the news. Today if you have questions about ANYTHING, you can just google it and find an answer. Everyone knows that we are there because of terrorism but if you question the truth in the matter you can just google it.

The Taliban used to be our friends? We never left after we helped them? They wanted us to leave? We supplied them with weapons? WE ARE DROPPING BOMBS AND MISSILES IN PAKISTAN?? I doubt you would find that on Fox News... The internet provides a lot of information (not just for porn).

And that is just an example as to why I think that some (not all) military members would refuse to follow those orders regardless of the repercussions.

Regardless of what people may SAY that offends someone or our country.. we have freedom of speech. And we cannot have a president who picks and chooses it.

"As President of our country and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will always defend their right to do so."

I don't think he can pick and choose when that applies. Don't tell other countries that we can say whatever we want, but turn around and tell us that we can't.

That does sound a bit weird given the responses in this thread.

So would you have obeyed the order or not?

imnohero
10-05-2012, 04:16 PM
With the full benefit of history and hind-sight: Of course not. It's easy to say with knowledge of the consequences and clarity of history that it was wrong.

However, you are conflating hindsight with foreknowledge in asking "would you do the same today?" The problem is that in a similar situation today, we don't have the benefit of history to inform us. The situation you pose is that of individual judgement vs. chain of command on who is or is not an "enemy." Essentially, this the "conscientious objector" situation.

The situational details of a modern analogous situation would certainly dictate the actions of a number of military members, including the knowledge of history of the Japanese Internment.

Jamethon
10-05-2012, 04:22 PM
That does sound a bit weird given the responses in this thread.

So would you have obeyed the order or not?

I think if I was just a regular soldier back then, I probably would have. With how conservative our country was and how pro-american everyone must have been after Pearl Harbor that there would have been no question. Now-a-days? Probably not. Unless there was some sort of uprising and terrorism from within the United States, why would there be a need to?

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 04:27 PM
However, you are conflating hindsight with foreknowledge in asking "would you do the same today?" The problem is that in a similar situation today, we don't have the benefit of history to inform us. The situation you pose is that of individual judgement vs. chain of command on who is or is not an "enemy." Essentially, this the "conscientious objector" situation.

I don't think this is the conscientious objector situation at all.

If you are ordered to kill everybody wearing hats in a Wal-Mart in down town Phoenix, and I tell you they are the enemy, and that's all the information you have, well then certainly you do not have the benefit of history of that situation (we never do, obviously). But you do have other things. You have the law and the Constitution and you have your knowledge of both depending on how much study you put into it.

If I refuse to do so, and I would, I'm not a conscientious objector by a long shot. I've killed hundreds of the enemy, but I won't do this. I'm not a conscientious objector, it's that I'm a professional military officer and not a thug.

You make a great point - that studying what happened in the 1940s when our military unlawfully rounded up American citizens and threw them into concentration camps, can help us be ready if called to do something similar.

CrustySMSgt
10-05-2012, 04:32 PM
You make a great point - that studying what happened in the 1940s when our military unlawfully rounded up American citizens and threw them into concentration camps, can help us be ready if called to do something similar.

Given how infrequently we've been attacked on our soil, which affects the level of "buy in" people have, it is tough to come up with a comparable situation, but given tensions at the time, you could easily transpose Pearl Harbor with 9-11... what if the order was given to go door to door and round up all the Muslims, citizens or not, in New York, DC, or wherever. I can see no circumstances where that would be an order anyone would act on. But that's essentially what happened in 1942. Given that context, I'd have to change my answer to your original question, knowing what I know now, no, I would not follow said order.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 04:33 PM
I think if I was just a regular soldier back then, I probably would have.

Again, the question is with what you know now, you're put into that situation (knowing what you know now). So being a "regular soldier" as we all are, you would have obeyed? Why?


With how conservative our country was and how pro-american everyone must have been after Pearl Harbor that there would have been no question.

So politics and popular opinion/prejudice would lead you to go with the flow?

So I'm assuming you would have hung black Americans or at least cheered it not too long ago if you lived in the South, because that was the way the wind blew, and the path of least resistance?


Now-a-days? Probably not.

So you would have thrown Americans into concentration camps absent charge and trial in the 1940s, but today you probably wouldn't. What's the difference, and why is there some doubt as to whether you'd throw your neighbors into concentration camps today?

CrustySMSgt
10-05-2012, 04:37 PM
Given how infrequently we've been attacked on our soil, which affects the level of "buy in" people have, it is tough to come up with a comparable situation, but given tensions at the time, you could easily transpose Pearl Harbor with 9-11... what if the order was given to go door to door and round up all the Muslims, citizens or not, in New York, DC, or wherever. I can see no circumstances where that would be an order anyone would act on. But that's essentially what happened in 1942. Given that context, I'd have to change my answer to your original question, knowing what I know now, no, I would not follow said order.

OK, I guess the significant difference would be the fact that we were attacked by a nation, not members of a religion/unaffiliated terrorist group. Still doesnt change my changed answer... lol

Jamethon
10-05-2012, 04:51 PM
Again, the question is with what you know now, you're put into that situation (knowing what you know now). So being a "regular soldier" as we all are, you would have obeyed? Why?
Knowing what I know now? Of course I wouldn't have obeyed the order. It wasn't lawful.



So politics and popular opinion/prejudice would lead you to go with the flow?

So I'm assuming you would have hung black Americans or at least cheered it not too long ago if you lived in the South, because that was the way the wind blew, and the path of least resistance?


Politics/popular opinion would have affected my opinion because that is what I would have known. It wouldn't be a moral decision, it would have just been the norm.

And as for your second question, who knows? I can't answer for what I would have been a part of. My family doesn't originate from the south and weren't slave owners. But for those who grew up and had a great influence by their family who did the same, what difference would they know? BTW, it's "hanged" not "hung" in this situation.



So you would have thrown Americans into concentration camps absent charge and trial in the 1940s, but today you probably wouldn't. What's the difference, and why is there some doubt as to whether you'd throw your neighbors into concentration camps today?

I already stated why I wouldn't now. The Internet. The access to information that makes it easier to open your eyes and realize it is wrong. Why there is some doubt now?

I don't see "all enemies foreign and domestic" as those who just say bad things about us. Planned, attempted or actual acts of terror is what that means (to me). If uprising starts happening and American citizens start trying to revolt with violence then they should be arrested. Not to the extent of concentration camps, an actual due process.

imnohero
10-05-2012, 05:01 PM
I don't think this is the conscientious objector situation at all.

If you are ordered to kill everybody wearing hats in a Wal-Mart in down town Phoenix, and I tell you they are the enemy, and that's all the information you have, well then certainly you do not have the benefit of history of that situation (we never do, obviously). But you do have other things. You have the law and the Constitution and you have your knowledge of both depending on how much study you put into it.

If I refuse to do so, and I would, I'm not a conscientious objector by a long shot. I've killed hundreds of the enemy, but I won't do this. I'm not a conscientious objector, it's that I'm a professional military officer and not a thug.

You make a great point - that studying what happened in the 1940s when our military unlawfully rounded up American citizens and threw them into concentration camps, can help us be ready if called to do something similar.

Being ordered to kill everyone in wal-mart is not analogous to the Japanese Internment. The closest modern equivalent is the invasion of iraq, based on faulty intel of WMD. In hindsight, with the clarity of history, Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the united states. So was the invasion of Iraq a legal order? In hind-sight, likely not.

That is the level of personal vs. organizational judgement you are asking people to make. Not the clear-cut decision to "go kill people in walmart" that you suggest.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 05:14 PM
Being ordered to kill everyone in wal-mart is not analogous to the Japanese Internment.

No, but it is analogous to whether or not a person follows an order without regard to the law.


The closest modern equivalent is the invasion of iraq, based on faulty intel of WMD. In hindsight, with the clarity of history, Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the united states. So was the invasion of Iraq a legal order? In hind-sight, likely not.

It was a lawful order. There is a difference between stupid orders, and unlawful orders. Going to Iraq was lawful, even though very stupid and even though it hurt the security of the United States. In contrast, going to Libya on day 61 was unlawful, even though it wasn't nearly as harmful to America but it was still unlawful.


That is the level of personal vs. organizational judgement you are asking people to make. Not the clear-cut decision to "go kill people in walmart" that you suggest.

The clear cut decision is whether you follow the law and the Constitution, not whether or not it's a good idea. It is pretty clear cut.

Banned
10-05-2012, 05:17 PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought "PYB, you've overstepped yourself. That was a pretty loaded question!"

Then I log on again today - and see all these poor souls acting all muddled about a really simple question - would you violate the rights of fellow Americans and commit a terrible crime against them if you were ordered to do so?

There is no doubt in my mind that if martial law was declared tomorrow, our military would carry it out mindlessly and without question... even these "libertarians" who ramble on and on about "fighting tyranny"... these very same people would sheepishly start herding Americans into camps.

VFFTSGT
10-05-2012, 05:21 PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought "PYB, you've overstepped yourself. That was a pretty loaded question!"

Then I log on again today - and see all these poor souls acting all muddled about a really simple question - would you violate the rights of fellow Americans and commit a terrible crime against them if you were ordered to do so?

There is no doubt in my mind that if martial law was declared tomorrow, our military would carry it out mindlessly and without question... even these "libertarians" who ramble on and on about "fighting tyranny"... these very same people would sheepishly start herding Americans into camps.

That is was you get when you have a people who care more about security than freedom. In this case, the security of one's paycheck, benefits, and retirement. Very few people are in the military because they want to protect America's freedom and uphold the Constitution... The majority of the military probably hasn't even read it.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 05:22 PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought "PYB, you've overstepped yourself. That was a pretty loaded question!"

Then I log on again today - and see all these poor souls acting all muddled about a really simple question - would you violate the rights of fellow Americans and commit a terrible crime against them if you were ordered to do so?

There is no doubt in my mind that if martial law was declared tomorrow, our military would carry it out mindlessly and without question... even these "libertarians" who ramble on and on about "fighting tyranny"... these very same people would sheepishly start herding Americans into camps.

Agreed. We hire people who just want a job, who muddle their oaths of office and don't care to know what they are pledging, and then we fail to educate armed military personnel on the Constitution or why it matters, why it's special, why it's important and then when our elected officials violate the law (as FDR did), the people who get proclaimed heroes and have their food bought for them by the old lady, turn around and show they will lock that old lady up and violate her rights rather than take a stand for principle and make good on the oath they swore.

The infidelity thread shows how many of us take oaths seriously or have basic integrity (although to be fair, not everybody who is married makes that vow).

It's interesting to see some of the rationalizations by those with even a lot of time under their belts. Hell, Bru even has a bachelor's degree!

Based on the majority of answers I see in this thread, if I were a law abiding patriotic American citizen, I would be absolutely scared shitless of my military and I would fear that the money I pay them to protect my rights, is being wasted by cowards with no character.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 05:23 PM
That is was you get when you have a people who care more about security than freedom. In this case, the security of one's paycheck, benefits, and retirement. Very few people are in the military because they want to protect America's freedom and uphold the Constitution... The majority of the military probably hasn't even read it.

Quoted for posterity. Nailed it.

imnohero
10-05-2012, 05:26 PM
The clear cut decision is whether you follow the law and the Constitution, not whether or not it's a good idea. It is pretty clear cut.

To be blunt, you're argument may hold true in simple situtation, but it is a false dichotomy in complex ones where the law is not as clear. I'm sorry that you don't see this.

ConfusedAirman
10-05-2012, 05:28 PM
How is a question asking you what you would do, biased?

I guess the bias interpretation is based on a known history of your posts and your OP essay with the question that clearly identifies your position. But I will back off my bias statement if it bothers you.


You cannot say with absolute certainty that any law or order is lawful?

So if you were given an order to duct tape a peaceful protestor breaking no laws to prevent them from speaking, then go and burn down their church, then go their home and confiscate their legally owned weapons, then live in their house during peacetime as a military soldier, and then hang that person for treason without them getting a trial or a jury of their peers......you wouldn't be able to say with absolute certainty that the order is unlawful?

Probably a bad choice of words for me to say "any law or order". My idea here is more that the legal system gets to say what is "lawful" simply because that is the role we gave our legal system. I know this is circular logic with inherent flaws but such is the case with probably every legal system developed by man. The only other option is to write laws but then let everyone interpret and enforce on their own which wouldn't work too well for society as a whole.

I will close with a question - why should whether an order is legal or not be the only reason to disobey? Legal implies man's laws - whether a federal law or the Constitution itself. What would one do with an order they perceived to simply be wrong, whether legal or not? I don't know the details behind the detainment camps. Could they have been legal under martial law or similar? I don't believe your references to the 5th and 6th Amendments fully support your position that the detainment camps violated the Constitution. The 6th Amendment is concerned with criminal prosecution and I think you will admit that the detained persons never committed a crime. But that does leave the 5th Amendment which, as you quote, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". Note that it does NOT say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property", END OF SENTENCE. Persons can be so deprived WITH due process of law and that occurs everyday throughout our country as criminals are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned according to written law. But what if we write a law that says that under certain circumstances the standard laws we live by day-to-day are suspended and someone or some power has the authority to decide who to imprison or kill? That would then make such actions legal but I might choose to ignore orders based on such a law based on my own moral code and not a legal code.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 05:29 PM
To be blunt, you're argument may hold true in simple situtation, but it is a false dichotomy in complex ones where the law is not as clear. I'm sorry that you don't see this.

I like blunt. But so far we've talked about only two situations. One was rounding up American men, women, and children absent charge or trial and throwing them into concentration camps. You agreed this was unlawful and you would not do it. The other was a hypothetical order to go into Wally World and shoot everybody wearing a hat.

If you want to make your point on "complex situations" and explain your use of the term "false dichotomy," then I would suggest you make yourself clear. Perhaps use an example from history, or bring up your own hypothetical.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 05:42 PM
I guess the bias interpretation is based on a known history of your posts and your OP essay with the question that clearly identifies your position. But I will back off my bias statement if it bothers you.

Doesn't bother me. I just want to know how me asking you a yes or no question relates to being "biased." I do have a viewpoint certainly, but I don't think that biases you answering a simple question.


Probably a bad choice of words for me to say "any law or order". My idea here is more that the legal system gets to say what is "lawful" simply because that is the role we gave our legal system. I know this is circular logic with inherent flaws but such is the case with probably every legal system developed by man. The only other option is to write laws but then let everyone interpret and enforce on their own which wouldn't work too well for society as a whole.

But there are laws that you are expected to follow. As a representative of the government, you are not to take somebody's life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. That is law you swore to uphold. Or do you mean that each individual situation has to go to court and be ruled upon for its specifics, before you can know whether or not you should follow an order? For example, if you are given the order to shoot everybody with a hat in Wally World, and the court has not yet ruled on that situation (because they don't know about it, and nobody has brought suit, and jumped through all the legal hoops), you then assume it must be lawful, despite the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution? You know, the courts can't make an individual ruling for every single situation (whether or not the military can shoot Americans in Wally World wearing hats, whether or not they can shoot people in Wally World wearing hats AND a bracelet). There has to be a point of common sense, where people can be expected to take a law, and think for themselves. For example, "The Fifth Amendment says I cannot take the life of people without the due process of law, and it makes no caveat for those who wear hats, so it applies."


I will close with a question - why should whether an order is legal or not be the only reason to disobey? Legal implies man's laws - whether a federal law or the Constitution itself. What would one do with an order they perceived to simply be wrong, whether legal or not? I don't know the details behind the detainment camps. Could they have been legal under martial law or similar? I don't believe your references to the 5th and 6th Amendments fully support your position that the detainment camps violated the Constitution. The 6th Amendment is concerned with criminal prosecution and I think you will admit that the detained persons never committed a crime. But that does leave the 5th Amendment which, as you quote, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". Note that it does NOT say "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property", END OF SENTENCE. Persons can be so deprived WITH due process of law and that occurs everyday throughout our country as criminals are arrested, convicted, and imprisoned according to written law. But what if we write a law that says that under certain circumstances the standard laws we live by day-to-day are suspended and someone or some power has the authority to decide who to imprison or kill? That would then make such actions legal but I might choose to ignore orders based on such a law based on my own moral code and not a legal code.

You can disobey for whatever reason you want, and suffer the consequences. You swore to, and are legally required to, disobey unlawful orders, not orders that are lawful but you think are immoral. That is a key difference.

Yes, Americans can have life, liberty, and property taken with the due process of law. That did not happen in the example of the Americans in the 1940s we're discussing, therefore it was unlawful.

As to your questions about "what if a law was passed" that said they could arrest or kill whoever they want - you say that would make it legal. It would not make it legal, because it would violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The law is like a chain of command, and our Constitution is the top dog. Any law, short of a Constitutional Amendment, that contradicts the Constitution is unlawful and should not be followed.

bonacwolverine9497
10-05-2012, 06:18 PM
To me "domestic" enemies are anyone who orders you to violate the constitution. If someone is violating the constitution, that is where the dosmetic enemy comes into play. The problem is, president, judges, lawyers, and congress have either outright disregarded the constitution or watered it down by the laws and executive orders for about a century now. Even in the military now it second fiddle. One day ask your shop for a show of hands how many people have read the constitution, I did and it blew my mind. But they all know the Airmens creed. How can you know that you are given an unconstitutional order if haven't read the thing? Perhaps the most important oath we take in the military, and it is not even discussed in any PME or professional development seminar. I brought this up at the NCOA recently and I got a deer in the headlights look from everyone.

Whats crazy is wit this whole global war on everything, we are blurring the lines of one of the greatest docmuents ever written. War in Libya, IMO and of many others blatant violation of article 4 sect 8 clause 11, any act of war must be declared by congress. But the Pres says that UN approval is all that it is needed. Panetta said the same thing about Syria in testimony before Congress. Congress has abdicated its responsibiity, only Clint Sessions, Ron Paul, and a handfull of others made a stink about it. Rant over...sorry

We have been going down a very dark path over the past eleven years when it comes to the Constitution, and I am sure this poll will reflect as much. Just ask this question among your co-workers, you will be surprised the answers they give. Like Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

ConfusedAirman
10-05-2012, 06:28 PM
I understand individuals need to use common sense and their own perceived knowledge of the law when making decisions, but those perceptions are not necessarily correct, no matter how much they believe them to be. You have heard me say it before, but our Constitution and 200+ years of case law gives the Supreme Court the final legal say on interpretation of the law and the Constitution itself. That power actually starts with lower courts and travels up to the Supreme Court for the final opinion. You may not agree with that concept nor agree with how the Supreme Court interprets a law or the Constitution. And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion and to go down swinging that something the Court decides is illegal according to the Constitution. But at the end of day, your opinion will not matter much because it will still be your opinion against the official opinion of the United States of America.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 06:35 PM
To me "domestic" enemies are anyone who orders you to violate the constitution.

That's also how I define a domestic enemy of the Constitution. If the domestic enemy is not threatening the Constitution, then they are not the domestic enemy of our oath.


If someone is violating the constitution, that is where the dosmetic enemy comes into play. The problem is, president, judges, lawyers, and congress have either outright disregarded the constitution or watered it down by the laws and executive orders for about a century now. Even in the military now it second fiddle. One day ask your shop for a show of hands how many people have read the constitution, I did and it blew my mind. But they all know the Airmens creed. How can you know that you are given an unconstitutional order if haven't read the thing? Perhaps the most important oath we take in the military, and it is not even discussed in any PME or professional development seminar. I brought this up at the NCOA recently and I got a deer in the headlights look from everyone.

Whats crazy is wit this whole global war on everything, we are blurring the lines of one of the greatest docmuents ever written. War in Libya, IMO and of many others blatant violation of article 4 sect 8 clause 11, any act of war must be declared by congress. But the Pres says that UN approval is all that it is needed. Panetta said the same thing about Syria in testimony before Congress. Congress has abdicated its responsibiity, only Clint Sessions, Ron Paul, and a hadnfull of others made a stick about it. Rant over...sorry

We have been going down a very dark path over the past eleven years when it comes to the Constitution, and I am sure this poll will reflect as much. Just ask this question among your co-workers, you will be surprised the answers they give. Like Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Well said. One small thing I'd add is that Congress doesn't have to declare war, they can authorize it, or the POTUS can go it alone for 60 days, via the War Powers Resolution which was passed under the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution.

Great comment though. Your experience matches my own. When we see an economic disaster that is far greater than the Great Depression, and we will, and people take the streets in massive protests like they've done around the world - it will be very interesting to see what orders are given, and who mans up for their nation and who looks out for #1 and shirks their oath.

bonacwolverine9497
10-05-2012, 06:42 PM
That's also how I define a domestic enemy of the Constitution. If the domestic enemy is not threatening the Constitution, then they are not the domestic enemy of our oath.



Well said. One small thing I'd add is that Congress doesn't have to declare war, they can authorize it, or the POTUS can go it alone for 60 days, via the War Powers Resolution which was passed under the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution.

Great comment though. Your experience matches my own. When we see an economic disaster that is far greater than the Great Depression, and we will, and people take the streets in massive protests like they've done around the world - it will be very interesting to see what orders are given, and who mans up for their nation and who looks out for #1 and shirks their oath.

Thanks, the only thing is that Libya lasted much longer than 60 days, and I would say that Libya was not a threat to our National secuirty. It may be now, since we opened up the country to every terrorist in North Africa.

Either way we are on the same page. With the devaluing of the dollar, inflation, the attack on the petro dollar, QE infinity, and the bubble in treasuries right now..it is only a matter of time. There is a massive currency war going on right now, and if we lose this Americans are going to think 2008 was a picnic. Countries are already exchanging oil in there native currencies, not the dollar. It will only take someone like Russia to offer a counter currency pegged to gold that includes other oil and gas producing nations and then we are screwed.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 06:54 PM
I understand individuals need to use common sense and their own perceived knowledge of the law when making decisions, but those perceptions are not necessarily correct, no matter how much they believe them to be. You have heard me say it before, but our Constitution and 200+ years of case law gives the Supreme Court the final legal say on interpretation of the law and the Constitution itself. That power actually starts with lower courts and travels up to the Supreme Court for the final opinion. You may not agree with that concept nor agree with how the Supreme Court interprets a law or the Constitution. And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion and to go down swinging that something the Court decides is illegal according to the Constitution. But at the end of day, your opinion will not matter much because it will still be your opinion against the official opinion of the United States of America.

It's an interesting view that you have, that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution for us in the military, and that we don't have an obligation or a responsibility to independently know it and what it means ourselves. Couple issues with this view:

1. Article Six of our Constitution requires both SCOTUS justices and military officers (executive officers) to swear an oath to support the Constitution. It does not require executive officers to swear an oath to the interpretations of those judicial officers, and it does not require the judiciary to swear an oath to the interpretations of the executive officers. Both groups are EQUALLY required to support the Constitution (not the other branch's interpretation of it).

Just last weekend I was at a function with several of our SCOTUS justices. Fortunately, I know a couple of them and I have the benefit of private discussions from time to time. I've never brought this particular point up in any of those discussions, and while I'd be interested to get the opinion of a judicial officer, it doesn't change my duty as an executive officer. Still, here is what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Joseph Story had to say on the matter in his book, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States published in 1833:


The constitution, contemplating the grant of limited powers, and distributing them among various functionaries, and the state governments, and their functionaries, being also clothed with limited powers, subordinate to those granted to the general government, whenever any question arises, as to the exercise of any power by any of these functionaries under the state, or federal government, it is of necessity, that such functionaries must, in the first instance, decide upon the constitutionality of the exercise of such power. It may arise in the course of the discharge of the functions of any one, or of all, of the great departments of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The officers of each of these departments are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it. Whenever, therefore, they are required to act in a case, not hitherto settled by any proper authority, these functionaries must, in the first instance, decide, each for himself, whether, consistently with the constitution, the act can be done.

It would be very convenient if this wasn't the case, and we wouldn't have to make tough decisions that might inconvenience ourselves or our paychecks, but that is what we signed up for when we took the oath. We are government servants, not employees of Enron. It's time we take our responsibility seriously and start earning the paycheck we get from taxpayers (and being good at your primary duty doesn't cut it, nor does having a boss who likes you).

2. You don't actually operate on your professed view that you can't know if something is legal or not until a judicial officer tells you it is so. If you are walking in the BX and you want to steal a candy bar, you don't call up a judge and ask them if you can or not. You know the law. The law is clear, and you are required to follow it. If somebody higher ranking than you tells you to steal a candy bar and bring it to him, you are expected to know that is illegal and to refuse that order. This should be common sense.

3. You might argue that the law doesn't cover everything and that is true. Can you steal the candy bar if you're really hungry? What if you drive a Corvette? Does the law still apply for those who drive a Corvette? No court has ruled on that particular instance of theft. So how do you know if you can take the candy or not? It's no different when it comes to killing women and children in My Lai, or whether you're ordered to assassinate or imprison Americans without charge or trial - you are expected to know the law. You don't get to phone the Supreme Court and get their opinion of what you should do, to keep your word to God and the taxpayer when you swore the oath. As a side note, the SCOTUS also refused to provide Presidents legal advice - even Presidents are expected to know and abide by the law, and the High Court refuses to give legal advice to guide the decision of the Commander in Chief.

Your view is clever, but it is absolutely incorrect. If you are not comfortable with the level of responsibility you agreed to when you joined the armed service, then you should find another source of employment where somebody above you will gladly do your thinking for you, and where you won't be required to risk yourself by making a tough call.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 06:56 PM
Thanks, the only thing is that Libya lasted much longer than 60 days, and I would say that Libya was not a threat to our National secuirty. It may be now, since we opened up the country to every terrorist in North Africa.

Libya was unconstitutional on day 61 and all who participated from that point on, violated their oaths.

imnohero
10-05-2012, 07:06 PM
OK, here is a hypothetical.

An extreme libertarian militia group, centered in Idaho, but with supporters throughout the CONUS, begins attacking government facilities and military bases. They take control of the Idaho government, police force, disband the ID national guard, except the loyalists. During a similar time-frame, sympathizers grab control of several army depots (include a chemical munitions disposal facility). This group, american citizens all, are threatening the safety and security of the government and the american people. They advocate Idaho succession and overthrow of the american government.

The POTUS authorizes military action to retake Idaho and capture and detain all sympathizers and supporters across the country. Casting a wide net, the JCS decides to initially detain anyone physically or financially connected to the group and sends orders down the chain.

Airman Snuffy (a security policeman) 10 layers down the chain of command is ordered to assist the national guard in Alabama in this process. Is he following a lawful order?

VFFTSGT
10-05-2012, 07:13 PM
OK, here is a hypothetical.

An extreme libertarian militia group, centered in Idaho, but with supporters throughout the CONUS, begins attacking government facilities and military bases. They take control of the Idaho government, police force, disband the ID national guard, except the loyalists. During a similar time-frame, sympathizers grab control of several army depots (include a chemical munitions disposal facility). This group, american citizens all, are threatening the safety and security of the government and the american people. They advocate Idaho succession and overthrow of the american government.

The POTUS authorizes military action to retake Idaho and capture and detain all sympathizers and supporters across the country. Casting a wide net, the JCS decides to initially detain anyone physically or financially connected to the group and sends orders down the chain.

Airman Snuffy (a security policeman) 10 layers down the chain of command is ordered to assist the national guard in Alabama in this process. Is he following a lawful order?

Don't have an answer for you but do have a history lesson...

Our founding fathers were rebels.

Those that supported them equaled about 1/3 of the population at the time if I remember correctly.

bonacwolverine9497
10-05-2012, 07:18 PM
Libya was unconstitutional on day 61 and all who participated from that point on, violated their oaths.


However this wasn't a war, it was a "kinetic action." Just kidding. If what you say is the case, are there not high level officers in the military expressing the same concerns we are, or have they abdicated has well? This is what I question everyday. If someone of my relatively low rank and education has these concerns why are there not any GO's out there who have more rank and education than me questioning them as well? Or has everyone sold out? These same GO's probably will have no reservations about ordering the detention of American citizens.

VFFTSGT
10-05-2012, 07:26 PM
However this wasn't a war, it was a "kinetic action." Just kidding. If what you say is the case, are there not high level officers in the military expressing the same concerns we are, or have they abdicated has well? This is what I question everyday. If someone of my relatively low rank and education has these concerns why are there not any GO's out there who have more rank and education than me questioning them as well? Or has everyone sold out? These same GO's probably will have no reservations about ordering the detention of American citizens.

You mean the ones that eventually leave the military and go work for and/or head major defense contractors?! Yeah, we have high level officers expressing their concerns... :doh ...their concern for the continued existence of what is commonly refered to as the Military Industrial Complex.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 07:33 PM
OK, here is a hypothetical.

An extreme libertarian militia group, centered in Idaho, but with supporters throughout the CONUS, begins attacking government facilities and military bases. They take control of the Idaho government, police force, disband the ID national guard, except the loyalists. During a similar time-frame, sympathizers grab control of several army depots (include a chemical munitions disposal facility). This group, american citizens all, are threatening the safety and security of the government and the american people. They advocate Idaho succession and overthrow of the american government.

The POTUS authorizes military action to retake Idaho and capture and detain all sympathizers and supporters across the country. Casting a wide net, the JCS decides to initially detain anyone physically or financially connected to the group and sends orders down the chain.

Airman Snuffy (a security policeman) 10 layers down the chain of command is ordered to assist the national guard in Alabama in this process. Is he following a lawful order?

Good question. I'll do some research and post more. My hunch is that Airman Snuffy is following a lawful order, because the Constitution gives Congress the power in Article I, Section 8 "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "to make all laws which may be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (including the power to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections)." Article II, Section 2 states that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

As these guys have attacked federal facilities, I would imagine that Congress has passed laws which they deem "necessary and proper" to execute the power of the Commander in Chief of the militia, to suppress insurrection. I don't know off hand, but I'm sure they already have passed laws making that clear. So the answer is to be found in laws passed by Congress. The Constitution certainly does not prohibit the POTUS from using military force against an insurrection.

As to going around the nation trying to nab "sympathizers" and those who've given financial support to the group, but who are not engaged in Insurrection - the POTUS could have them arrested (whether or not military could be used would depend on the laws of Congress - Possee Comitatus might have a loop hole for such action), and then they would have to be tried in court (for treason or for another crime). The POTUS could not just indefinitely detain them or plug them with Hellfires from a drone. That would be a failure of due process.

But for those who are actively participating in Insurrection, attacking bases and such. Cleared hot.

That is a separate question, however, from a state that does NOT attack the federal government, and yet wishes to secede from the union. In that case, the POTUS has no right to keep them from seceding peacefully, despite the shoddy opinion of Texas v. White.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 07:36 PM
You mean the ones that eventually leave the military and go work for and/or head major defense contractors?! Yeah, we have high level officers expressing their concerns... :doh ...their concern for the continued existence of what is commonly refered to as the Military Industrial Complex.

"Commanders are not martyrs. We didn’t make it this far by telling it like it really is."
- Raymond Hammel, Are Professional and Integrity Only a Myth?

bonacwolverine9497
10-05-2012, 07:37 PM
You mean the ones that eventually leave the military and go work for and/or head major defense contractors?! Yeah, we have high level officers expressing their concerns... :doh ...their concern for the continued existence of what is commonly refered to as the Military Industrial Complex.


I totally agree, but I am new to these forums and I thought I was the only one that sees through this stuff. Its good to know that you are not alone. I listen to IKe's farewell speech at least once a month to see if I missed something or misinterpreted, but he is pretty blatant in his warning.

I also am concerned that even questioning certain things now, and you considered a loon, traitor, extremeist and all sorts of derogatory comments. Its funny that those of who are loyal to our biggest oath are considered extreme.

imnohero
10-05-2012, 07:41 PM
Good question. I'll do some research and post more. My hunch is that Airman Snuffy is following a lawful order, because the Constitution gives Congress the power in Article I, Section 8 "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "to make all laws which may be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (including the power to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections)." Article II, Section 2 states that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

As these guys have attacked federal facilities, I would imagine that Congress has passed laws which they deem "necessary and proper" to execute the power of the Commander in Chief of the militia, to suppress insurrection. I don't know off hand, but I'm sure they already have passed laws making that clear. So the answer is to be found in laws passed by Congress. The Constitution certainly does not prohibit the POTUS from using military force against an insurrection.

That is a separate question, however, from a state that does NOT attack the federal government, and yet wishes to secede from the union. In that case, the POTUS has no right to keep them from seceding peacefully, despite the shoddy opinion of Texas v. White.

What do you mean research, I thought this was a clear cut question?

Just to make it more complex for you, the "insurrection militia" says that they are the ones upholding the constitution and that it is the government that has failed and is constitutionally illegitimate. In fact, they've made such a good case of it, that all the "anti-goverment" militia across the US have gathered under one banner.

Amn Snuffy, personally, tends to agree with the Idaho group, but is sworn to uphold the constitution AND follow lawful orders. What is Amn Snuffy to do, because it seems his oath tells him to fight for the insurrection AND the government. Who's propaganda does he believe when choosing whether to detain other American citizens?

Pullinteeth
10-05-2012, 07:52 PM
You can argue whether Roosevelt's decision was justified.

Many of the Japanese who were rounded up were not American citizens.

Some were active supporters of the Japanese government and cheered when Japanese forces achieved victories early in the war.

These were not concentration camps. These people were detained, not exterminated.

This of course, as Bru writes, is what you're asking for.

I think you are confusing concentration camps with extermination camps....


However, you are conflating hindsight with foreknowledge in asking "would you do the same today?" The problem is that in a similar situation today, we don't have the benefit of history to inform us. The situation you pose is that of individual judgement vs. chain of command on who is or is not an "enemy." Essentially, this the "conscientious objector" situation.

Fun fact, during WWII consientious objecters were either forced to perfom labor or were imprisioned.

VFFTSGT
10-05-2012, 07:54 PM
I totally agree, but I am new to these forums and I thought I was the only one that sees through this stuff. Its good to know that you are not alone. I listen to IKe's farewell speech at least once a month to see if I missed something or misinterpreted, but he is pretty blatant in his warning.

I also am concerned that even questioning certain things now, and you considered a loon, traitor, extremeist and all sorts of derogatory comments. Its funny that those of who are loyal to our biggest oath are considered extreme.

Welcome. :)

Well, this is the MO of liberals, democrats, socialist, and even republicans...hell, pretty much anyone who's point you reject with objective facts and/or points of view......because they cannot refute you...so they have to denounce, demonize, marginalize, and neutralize you.


“The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses,whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time so they may absorb information;and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind.” –Adolph Hitler,Mein Kampf (1925)

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 07:55 PM
I totally agree, but I am new to these forums and I thought I was the only one that sees through this stuff. Its good to know that you are not alone. I listen to IKe's farewell speech at least once a month to see if I missed something or misinterpreted, but he is pretty blatant in his warning.

I also am concerned that even questioning certain things now, and you considered a loon, traitor, extremeist and all sorts of derogatory comments. Its funny that those of who are loyal to our biggest oath are considered extreme.

I've experienced what you're talking about enormously. I was once ordered by an AETC squadron commander, to not discuss the Constitution with my officer students. This particular commander had no combat time and had spent nearly his entire career in AETC.

I've been accused of being the next Maj Nidal Hassan by a retired O-6, simply for telling officers they need to be ready to disobey unlawful orders should they get them, based on their own personal knowledge of the Constitution.

Our service has a great many inferiors in it, and many of them make rank. Be that as it may, that doesn't change our obligation to obey the law and to support our Constitution. Our service has people scared to talk. You don't want to be labeled a potential Active Shooter based on the third grader quality pamphlets they hand out, still we've got to get our comrades thinking about these issues. If we don't, those we work with will do a great deal of harm to our country, just as they did in the 1940s.

And just to bring the Ike discussion back into the original topic (like seven degrees of Kevin Bacon):


http://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 07:57 PM
And here is Ike's brother talking about sending Americans to concentration camps:


http://youtu.be/_OiPldKsM5w

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 08:02 PM
What do you mean research, I thought this was a clear cut question?

So if the Constitution grants power to Congress to pass laws on a subject, and if I don't have those laws memorized, then the question is somehow complicated? You know cutting the grass isn't complicated, but it would still require me to get up and start the lawn mower.

I think my answer was pretty sufficient after taking a few minutes to thumb through the Constitution. But I can't thumb through the laws of Congress that quickly.


Just to make it more complex for you, the "insurrection militia" says that they are the ones upholding the constitution and that it is the government that has failed and is constitutionally illegitimate. In fact, they've made such a good case of it, that all the "anti-goverment" militia across the US have gathered under one banner.

Amn Snuffy, personally, tends to agree with the Idaho group, but is sworn to uphold the constitution AND follow lawful orders. What is Amn Snuffy to do, because it seems his oath tells him to fight for the insurrection AND the government. Who's propaganda does he believe when choosing whether to detain other American citizens?

Amn Snuffy should uphold his oath to the Constitution and follow lawful orders. How is that making it more complex?

ConfusedAirman
10-05-2012, 08:07 PM
It's an interesting view that you have, that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution for us in the military, and that we don't have an obligation or a responsibility to independently know it and what it means ourselves.

Not saying you can't interpret the law and act on your interpretation. Your interpretation may be right. Just that at the endof the day the legal system will have final say whether your interpretation was legal no matter how right you or anyone else believes you were.



2. You don't actually operate on your professed view that you can't know if something is legal or not until a judicial officer tells you it is so. If you are walking in the BX and you want to steal a candy bar, you don't call up a judge and ask them if you can or not. You know the law. The law is clear, and you are required to follow it. If somebody higher ranking than you tells you to steal a candy bar and bring it to him, you are expected to know that is illegal and to refuse that order. This should be common sense.

Yes, you give an example of a very clear law and there should not be a problem. Not all laws are that way, to include the Constitution. When not clear, you make the best judgement possible and hope there is no problem. If there is a problem then the legal system may get involved and tell you if you were right or wrong. The same applies to situations where you may think the law is perfectly clear but the legal system disagrees with your interpretation.


Your view is clever, but it is absolutely incorrect. If you are not comfortable with the level of responsibility you agreed to when you joined the armed service, then you should find another source of employment where somebody above you will gladly do your thinking for you, and where you won't be required to risk yourself by making a tough call.

I have always been comfortable to do my thinking. I base my actions on my own judgement, knowledge of the law and, more importantly, what I believe to be right and wrong. In my current situation I don't steal because I believe it would be wrong and not because the law says it is illegal. But my situation could change where I might steal and either not believe it to be wrong, or believe the outcome outweighs the moral crime. But I would have to say that the same reasoning might apply to the killing of innocent people or imprisoning American citizens. You seem willing to live your entire life by your oath to the Constitution. I live my life by my own moral compass and hope and pray that aligns with our Constitution and the American way of life simply because I love this country. Maybe that means I did not take my oath seriously but if such an attitude renders one unfit for military service, we will really have a hollow force.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 08:17 PM
I have always been comfortable to do my thinking. I base my actions on my own judgement, knowledge of the law and, more importantly, what I believe to be right and wrong. In my current situation I don't steal because I believe it would be wrong and not because the law says it is illegal. But my situation could change where I might steal and either not believe it to be wrong, or believe the outcome outweighs the moral crime. But I would have to say that the same reasoning might apply to the killing of innocent people or imprisoning American citizens. You seem willing to live your entire life by your oath to the Constitution. I live my life by my own moral compass and hope and pray that aligns with our Constitution and the American way of life simply because I love this country. Maybe that means I did not take my oath seriously but if such an attitude renders one unfit for military service, we will really have a hollow force.

I disagree with you completely that your own personal view of morality trumps our Constitution or our laws. That's a fine way to conduct yourself as a private citizen, but it absolutely wrong as a public servant.

I'm sure many people thought it was morally right to lock up Americans in the 1940s without charge or trial. That's fine for private citizens to think that, but not as an armed government actor. We are a nation of laws, not men. We are required to obey the law. We don't have to agree with it, but it's the law. I didn't agree with doing seven deployments to Iraq or shooting poor Iraqis on the first night, who I knew were just poor schmucks trying to feed their families, who had no interest in fighting us, but were forced to man their posts by the fanatical Republican Guard and Saddam. I killed a bunch of them that night. Was that moral? I don't know. Was it lawful? Yes.

There was once a SCOTUS decision about a million dollar dam project that was put on hold because of some little endangered species minnow in the river called a Snail Darter. Went up to the High Court with one side saying it was stupid and a waste of millions to stop the project for this fish, simply because it was on Congress' list of endangered species. The court ruled to stop the project, and the Chief Justice quoted in his opinion a segment from Sir Thomas Moore:


The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal....I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain-sailing, I can't navigate, I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh there I'm a forester... What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?... And when the last law was down, and the Devil was turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - Man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down... d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

The law, not your own personal morality, is key to being a faithful public servant.

DWWSWWD
10-05-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't think we have any constitutional law attorneys in here. The Supreme Court can't even agree on the interpretation of the constitution so I think it would be tricky for Amn Snuffy to give it a shot. The folks in the 40s had the benefit of first hand knowlege of the atrocities being committed by the Japanese soldiers and the knowlege that sympathizers lived among us. That was then. We'd probably not take a similar approach just as we'll probably not drop another nuclear bomb.

In a more recent example were soldiers not asked to disarm American citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Is that lawful? It is contrary to my elementary interpretation of my right to bear arms.

Regarding Posse Commitatus... Do we use active duty military advisors to assist with domestic issues? You bet. What is the definition of advise? Are they always used only in that role?

jconners [Stolen Valor]
10-05-2012, 08:41 PM
No, I would resign my RA commission and persuade my superiors that I be reassigned pending my release from the service.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 08:43 PM
I don't think we have any constitutional law attorneys in here.

Nor do we need them. Our oath isn't to the opinions of Constitutional law attorneys.


The Supreme Court can't even agree on the interpretation of the constitution so I think it would be tricky for Amn Snuffy to give it a shot.

Tricky or not, that's the oath he took. Sometimes war and such things are tricky and take effort.


The folks in the 40s had the benefit of first hand knowlege of the atrocities being committed by the Japanese soldiers and the knowlege that sympathizers lived among us. That was then. We'd probably not take a similar approach just as we'll probably not drop another nuclear bomb.

So if we have first hand knowledge of Muslims chopping off our journalist's heads over there, then it's ok or understandable for us to send Muslim Americans into concentration camps now because they might "sympathize" with the enemy?


In a more recent example were soldiers not asked to disarm American citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Is that lawful? It is contrary to my elementary interpretation of my right to bear arms.

No it was not lawful. It was a violation of the Second Amendment. As usual, exceptional folks honored their oaths, while the majority of inferior cowards went with the flow.


http://youtu.be/2HRZfvtYlCY


Regarding Posse Commitatus... Do we use active duty military advisors to assist with domestic issues? You bet. What is the definition of advise? Are they always used only in that role?

As long as they are following the law set out by Congress, it's not an issue. It wasn't until after the Civil War that Congress passed PC to keep the military from being used as a domestic law enforcement body.

Shrike
10-05-2012, 09:13 PM
I'd force them into concentration camps for a Klondike Bar.

F4CrewChick
10-05-2012, 09:39 PM
I answered the poll question and commented on that question only. After reading the OP, I can understand why people are saying 'yes' to following that particular order. For myself, I cannot see myself NOT questioning that order despite the time period, 07DEC41, etc. We were at war with Germany and Italy as well but they weren't rounding up German and Italian Americans...

In response to RFD, most Japanese AMERICANS lost virtually everything because of being interned. It was and continues to be yet another racistblight in our history as a nation. When formal apologies and ''restitution" were FINALLY issued, it was woefully inadequate and can never make up for that horrible, blatantly unconstitutional breach. I really can't see how others can't see this was a very clear-cut moral issue--even in 1941.

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 09:49 PM
If somebody ordered me to arrest members of the Westboro Baptist Church tommorrow I'd be in the process of cleaning my weapons and ironing my uniform right now to prepare. I would have absolutely no qualms about it. I don't think George Washington would have any with me doing it either.

Robert F. Dorr
10-05-2012, 09:53 PM
In response to RFD, most Japanese AMERICANS lost virtually everything because of being interned. It was and continues to be yet another racistblight in our history as a nation. When formal apologies and ''restitution" were FINALLY issued, it was woefully inadequate and can never make up for that horrible, blatantly unconstitutional breach. I really can't see how others can't see this was a very clear-cut moral issue--even in 1941.

I don't see this issue as being quite so clearcut, especially in the context of the time. Some of your Japanese AMERICANS (emphasis yours) were working for the other side.

However, I am still scratching my head over the "enemies, foreign and domestic..." I don't think I've ever known what that means, and this thread has brought me no closer.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 10:26 PM
If somebody ordered me to arrest members of the Westboro Baptist Church tommorrow I'd be in the process of cleaning my weapons and ironing my uniform right now to prepare. I would have absolutely no qualms about it. I don't think George Washington would have any with me doing it either.

Right, a CMSgt in the Air Force, with all that PME and experience, thinks there would be no problem with the military arresting American citizens because the government doesn't like either 1) their religion, or 2) how they exercise their right to free speech, or 3) how they exercise their right to protest.

Did I get that right? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 10:33 PM
I don't see this issue as being quite so clearcut, especially in the context of the time. Some of your Japanese AMERICANS (emphasis yours) were working for the other side.

That makes sense. Did you know that some newspaper men were working for the other side? I need you to turn yourself in, where I will transport you and your family to a concentration camp. What do you mean that doesn't mean you worked for the other side, just because others like you did? Why hasn't the FBI showed up to arrest you? What's my evidence?

Just get on the bus before I shoot you, Bob.


However, I am still scratching my head over the "enemies, foreign and domestic..." I don't think I've ever known what that means, and this thread has brought me no closer.

I think the key point is found in the text of the oath itself, "...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Is the alleged domestic "enemy" threatening the Constitution of the United States? If the answer is no, and no further action is required to support and defend the Constitution from them, then they are not the subject of the oath.

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 10:40 PM
Right, a CMSgt in the Air Force, with all that PME and experience, thinks there would be no problem with the military arresting American citizens because the government doesn't like either 1) their religion, or 2) how they exercise their right to free speech, or 3) how they exercise their right to protest.

Did I get that right? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yep, you got it absolutely spot on...except I'm a former CMSgt and I don't speak for or represent the Air Force as a uniformed member anymore.

Oh...and I was always kind of weak in PME. I was kind of a square peg in a round hole there when it came time to try and fit in there. Don't get me wrong, I had some fun in PME...but I gave many some head scratching moments.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 10:48 PM
I would have absolutely no qualms about it [using military to arrest peaceful law abiding church members in the United States]. I don't think George Washington would have any with me doing it either.

Here are a few thoughts from George Washington:

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

“A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

I particularly like this one: “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

“Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

This one seems appropriate to this thread: "We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience. ”

“The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

“It is better to be alone than in bad company.”

And:


To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.

Gentleman.

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

So, yeah. George Washington would likely have no problem with you as a military man arresting church people you don't agree with, because you don't like their speech, or their religion, or their exercising their right to protest. I'm sure that's why he was on the front lines and labored in combat for so long, to make sure we had a government that felt as comfortable as you do, violating our constitutional rights.

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 10:50 PM
Yep, you got it absolutely spot on...except I'm a former CMSgt and I don't speak for or represent the Air Force as a uniformed member anymore.

Copy, recently retired CMSgt still subject to recall, and receiving retirement pay, and still subject to the UCMJ who spends a fair amount of time posting on an Air Force Times forum. Sorry for any confusion.

BRUWIN
10-05-2012, 10:54 PM
Copy, recently retired CMSgt still subject to recall, and receiving retirement pay, and still subject to the UCMJ who spends a fair amount of time posting on an Air Force Times forum. Sorry for any confusion.

That's perfectly ok.

imnohero
10-05-2012, 11:00 PM
I don't see this issue as being quite so clearcut, especially in the context of the time. Some of your Japanese AMERICANS (emphasis yours) were working for the other side.

However, I am still scratching my head over the "enemies, foreign and domestic..." I don't think I've ever known what that means, and this thread has brought me no closer.

The first phrase of the oath is:


I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

against enemies, foreign and domestic? To think this through: I might begin with the idea that an enemy of the constitution may understandably be foreign (as in an invading army). A concept that is easy to imagine and grasp. But what is a domestic enemy of the constitution? Here I must open my thinking to understand what a "domestic enemy" might be.


Is it anyone that verbally or in writing advocates against the constitution? Does that include congressmen advocating for an amendment? Any amendment or one that fundamentally changes the form and function of the republic? (E.g. The 12th and 23rd)
Is a domestic enemy just those radical militia survivalist guys that talk big about the government is unconstitutional (because of the 12th and 23rd)?
Is it people of the same ethnicity as those we are at war with, even if they havn't done anything?
Is it only people that take direct action against the government? (e.g. Timothy McVeigh)
Is it anyone that the government says it is?


More importantly, for the enlisted airman, how do we discern between these groups and possibilities if the entire chain of command above us agrees that a particular domestic/citizen/group is "the enemy?"

The officer oath is somewhat different because it doesn't include the enlisted phrasing of "obey the orders of the...."

Quite frankly, this is the rock and the hard place that enlisted personnel are in, because it is possible that they are being given a legal order to act against a declared "domestic enemy" while at the same time they might believe strongly that the order is in violation of the constitution.

The idea that an enlisted person could make a determination that a person or group that is declared as a "domestic enemy" isn't one and then disobey what appears to be a lawful order, on the grounds that the order is lawful but unconstitutional, is perhaps asking too much. Enlisted personnel do not function as individuals, they function as part of a system, in which they are supposed to be able to trust the judgement of the officers appointed over them. And while this is dangerously close to the "I was just following orders defense"... I see a fine line here, especially when officers fail in THEIR duty to defend the constitution.

But back to the discussion at hand, what is a "domestic enemy?" There is no official definition. Which leaves us, essentially, with only the last option, a domestic enemy is anyone that the government says it is. So then, what if the government becomes the enemy of the constitution? What is the military supposed to do, coup d'etat?

bonacwolverine9497
10-05-2012, 11:15 PM
This sort of relates to what we are talkinig about.


http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/01/will-u-s-troops-fire-on-american-citizens/

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 11:16 PM
Some tidbits from current Air Force material.

The current Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) CBT has these gems:

"...you can presume an order to perform a military duty is legal; but, following an order that an ordinary person would know to be illegal is not excusable." And:

"What should you do if you think you have been given an illegal order? First, ask for clarification. Maybe the order was unclear, or you did not understand it. If you still think the order is illegal, try to get it withdrawn. If the order is not withdrawn and you feel the order will violate LOAC, you must disobey the order. If others obey the order, you have the duty to report the LOAC violation."

This is good stuff because it paints the reality. The command has told you the order is legal and everybody else is doing it. You'd be the only person to say no, and you'd be doing so on what you *think* and what you *feel* - no need for a phone call to the Supreme Court, no need to be a constitutional scholar. It's your responsibility to study the document and to be able to recognize an unlawful order, nobody is going to spoon feed you, and most certainly not the government. You are still duty bound to refuse unlawful orders even when the command, and their JAGs, and the POTUS, and everybody who can make your life a living hell says the order is lawful. Still, if it's not lawful, you are obligated to refuse to obey it whatever the consequences. That is why we are a service, and not a business. If you are willing to risk being a POW in war with our foreign enemies, then this really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Also, an essay called Three Important Documents, which was required reading for Squadron Officer School PME (but was pulled due to some religious language) offers:

"...the principle of obedience is consistent with the fact that officers have moral or discretionary authority. The authority to exercise such discretion in obeying an order is there, but officers must be careful when invoking it." And:

"In defining an officer‘s authority, we must also define its limits, which are of four kinds. First, commanders have only as much authority over their subordinates as the people of this country give them... Second, commanders do not have the authority to order subordinates to perform any act that is basically unlawful... Third, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in part that ―No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… If a commander is to give a valid and enforceable order to perform an act which might result in loss of life or serious injury, there must exist some compelling military necessity to act..."

And by regulation, in DoD 5100.01 in section 3a, the very first function of the armed forces is to:

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

PickYourBattles
10-05-2012, 11:17 PM
But back to the discussion at hand, what is a "domestic enemy?" There is no official definition. Which leaves us, essentially, with only the last option, a domestic enemy is anyone that the government says it is. So then, what if the government becomes the enemy of the constitution? What is the military supposed to do, coup d'etat?

A domestic enemy of the Constitution is one who would have you violate the Constitution. What to do? Refuse to violate the Constitution.

Coup?? No. Violating the Constitution yourself, to correct the problem of somebody else violating the Constitution, is not the solution.

Simply refuse to violate the Constitution. That's all you have to do.

VFFTSGT
10-05-2012, 11:26 PM
Some tidbits from current Air Force material.

The current Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) CBT has these gems:

"...you can presume an order to perform a military duty is legal; but, following an order that an ordinary person would know to be illegal is not excusable." And:

"What should you do if you think you have been given an illegal order? First, ask for clarification. Maybe the order was unclear, or you did not understand it. If you still think the order is illegal, try to get it withdrawn. If the order is not withdrawn and you feel the order will violate LOAC, you must disobey the order. If others obey the order, you have the duty to report the LOAC violation."

This is good stuff because it paints the reality. The command has told you the order is legal and everybody else is doing it. You'd be the only person to say no, and you'd be doing so on what you *think* and what you *feel* - no need for a phone call to the Supreme Court, no need to be a constitutional scholar. It's your responsibility to study the document and to be able to recognize an unlawful order, nobody is going to spoon feed you, and most certainly not the government. You are still duty bound to refuse unlawful orders even when the command, and their JAGs, and the POTUS, and everybody who can make your life a living hell says the order is lawful. Still, if it's not lawful, you are obligated to refuse to obey it whatever the consequences. That is why we are a service, and not a business. If you are willing to risk being a POW in war with our foreign enemies, then this really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Also, an essay called Three Important Documents, which was required reading for Squadron Officer School PME (but was pulled due to some religious language) offers:

"...the principle of obedience is consistent with the fact that officers have moral or discretionary authority. The authority to exercise such discretion in obeying an order is there, but officers must be careful when invoking it." And:

"In defining an officer‘s authority, we must also define its limits, which are of four kinds. First, commanders have only as much authority over their subordinates as the people of this country give them... Second, commanders do not have the authority to order subordinates to perform any act that is basically unlawful... Third, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in part that ―No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… If a commander is to give a valid and enforceable order to perform an act which might result in loss of life or serious injury, there must exist some compelling military necessity to act..."

And by regulation, in DoD 5100.01 in section 3a, the very first function of the armed forces is to:

"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

Are you kidding me?! No one pays attention to the any CBT much less the LOAC CBT.

Just like the FP CBT...the AF does things all the time that is contrary to what the FP CBT teaches us. The most significant/high profile case I can point to is the bus incident in Germany.

sandsjames
10-05-2012, 11:34 PM
A domestic enemy of the Constitution is one who would have you violate the Constitution. What to do? Refuse to violate the Constitution.

Coup?? No. Violating the Constitution yourself, to correct the problem of somebody else violating the Constitution, is not the solution.

Simply refuse to violate the Constitution. That's all you have to do.

Taking action to stop the violation?

imnohero
10-05-2012, 11:47 PM
While that is a nice bit of the LOAC, you know as well as I do that orders that is a false comparison. For one things, LOAC governs international armed conflict against foreign enemies, not armed action against US Citizens.

That bit about officer authority and duty is good, but only reenforces my point that the situation for enlisted is different than for officers, because we have an oath to do two things, defend the constitution AND obey orders.

You maintain that an order that violates the constitution must necessarily be unlawful. What I am saying is that from the enlisted perspective, that is not necessarily so clear.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 12:21 AM
While that is a nice bit of the LOAC, you know as well as I do that orders that is a false comparison. For one things, LOAC governs international armed conflict against foreign enemies, not armed action against US Citizens.

False comparison between what? I posted it because the service teaches us that we have to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Unlawful when hunting cave dwellers on the other side of the world, and also unlawful orders that put our countrymen here at home at risk. If we are expected to disobey orders that are unlawful because they violate international laws, then we damn sure are expected to refuse orders that violate our constitutional law.


That bit about officer authority and duty is good, but only reenforces my point that the situation for enlisted is different than for officers, because we have an oath to do two things, defend the constitution AND obey orders.

It's the same for Es and Os. Both Os and Es (via the UCMJ) are required to obey the lawful orders of those above them. Both are required to disobey unlawful orders. Both will face a government, commander, shirt, chain of command, and the full weight of the POTUS if an unlawful order comes down. Both will risk court martial and possible jail time, and a possible felony for life, and dismissal from the service. Both risk the same. Cowards will shirk at the risk, and great men and women will do what is right for their nation having pondered being in a POW camp if captured in combat. When you think of it like that, it's no big deal at all and those timid souls should be sure to never meet an American POW who gave so much more for their nation.

Or a Civil Rights activist from the 60s. But I digress.


You maintain that an order that violates the constitution must necessarily be unlawful. What I am saying is that from the enlisted perspective, that is not necessarily so clear.

Yeah, I maintain that because it's absolutely true. If an order violates the Constitution, then it absolutely is unlawful. As I've said before, and as should be crystal clear to any American but especially one that works for the government, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. The Constitution created the government, it created Congress, it creates their ability to make law - and the supremacy clause means that no law can override the Constitution. Again, this should be common sense.

And that's true from an officer or enlisted "perspective" because your perspective doesn't change jack about the fact violating the Constitution is illegal, regardless of what anybody has to say.

Banned
10-06-2012, 01:00 AM
OK, here is a hypothetical.

An extreme libertarian militia group, centered in Idaho, but with supporters throughout the CONUS, begins attacking government facilities and military bases. They take control of the Idaho government, police force, disband the ID national guard, except the loyalists. During a similar time-frame, sympathizers grab control of several army depots (include a chemical munitions disposal facility). This group, american citizens all, are threatening the safety and security of the government and the american people. They advocate Idaho succession and overthrow of the american government.

The POTUS authorizes military action to retake Idaho and capture and detain all sympathizers and supporters across the country. Casting a wide net, the JCS decides to initially detain anyone physically or financially connected to the group and sends orders down the chain.

Airman Snuffy (a security policeman) 10 layers down the chain of command is ordered to assist the national guard in Alabama in this process. Is he following a lawful order?

Without doing any research - I would say that would be justifiable, just as it was in the Civil War. Combatants declaring war against the United States, so using the military to put them down would be perfectly Constitutional.

However, the Constitution would still restrict our response. Let's say the rebels were Mormon. Would that make it okay for me to shoot/torture/detain every Mormon I see?

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 01:05 AM
Without doing any research - I would say that would be justifiable, just as it was in the Civil War. Combatants declaring war against the United States, so using the military to put them down would be perfectly Constitutional.

Who took military action first during the Civil War? Pretty sure it was the Union. The South was an immoral shit hole, as it remains mostly today. But the South was right, and they did have the right to secede. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says states cannot secede, or that the federal government can hold states hostage. The Texas v. White one line "argument" that the preamble says "more perfect union" is no constitutional defense, not by a long shot, and certainly does not compare to the fact the Constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states. The power to secede or not is NOT discussed in the Constitution, therefore that power is reserved to the states.


However, the Constitution would still restrict our response. Let's say the rebels were Mormon. Would that make it okay for me to shoot/torture/detain every Mormon I see?

I agree that during an insurrection (not a secession), the government's justified military action would still be restricted by the Constitution.

Robert F. Dorr
10-06-2012, 01:17 AM
This discussion illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing an act of war from a crime. Some have made an argument that the attack on the World Trade Center was a crime while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of war. For a "domestic" enemy to cross the line from criminal to combatant, the bar would have to be high. Timothy McVeigh would not qualify. He was a criminal.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 03:03 AM
This discussion illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing an act of war from a crime. Some have made an argument that the attack on the World Trade Center was a crime while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of war. For a "domestic" enemy to cross the line from criminal to combatant, the bar would have to be high. Timothy McVeigh would not qualify. He was a criminal.

The discussion about American citizens in the 1940s imprisoned without charge or trial, and without even suspicion of any kind of unlawful activity (as in individual suspicion), makes it tough to distinguish between an act of war and a crime? I don't understand.

They didn't commit any crimes or acts of war. What's to distinguish? The only wrong doing was the government's violation of the Constitution and common sense.

imnohero
10-06-2012, 03:04 AM
This discussion illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing an act of war from a crime. Some have made an argument that the attack on the World Trade Center was a crime while the attack on the Pentagon was an act of war. For a "domestic" enemy to cross the line from criminal to combatant, the bar would have to be high. Timothy McVeigh would not qualify. He was a criminal.

You have hit the nail on the head here. How is a soldier or airman to distinguish between criminal and combatant? Men and women "in the trenches", as it were, that are not experts in either criminal or military law. We have no firm definition of "domestic enemy", and there isn't any clear cut line between criminal and combatant, even if the bar is high, it's an unknown height.

Who's judgement is he or she supposed to rely on, his own or that of the officers and analysts and whoever, that are supposed to be making these determinations? If you're an officer in the Pentagon that's one thing, but as an enlisted grunt we rely on and trust in the good judgement of the officers. So if the chain of command and the officers we trust and rely on say that some person or group is an enemy and a combatant...american citizen or otherwise...we are pretty likely to obey, even if we have personal doubts, exactly because we aren't in a position to form a legitimate legal objection to such and order.

Banned
10-06-2012, 04:51 AM
Who took military action first during the Civil War? Pretty sure it was the Union. The South was an immoral shit hole, as it remains mostly today. But the South was right, and they did have the right to secede. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says states cannot secede, or that the federal government can hold states hostage. The Texas v. White one line "argument" that the preamble says "more perfect union" is no constitutional defense, not by a long shot, and certainly does not compare to the fact the Constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states. The power to secede or not is NOT discussed in the Constitution, therefore that power is reserved to the states.

You're right. And if I recall from my readings, there was very little interest among Northern voters to fight and die to keep the South in the fold... what screwed the Confederacy was their attack on Fort Sumter - so initiated hostilities, and caused enough public outrage to fuel Lincoln's war effort.

So I agree with you, the Constitution allowed the South to secede - and perhaps the war set some unfortunate precedents - but it was a serious strategic blunder on the part of Johnny Reb that did him in. An attack on the United States, however small, has never yielded good results.


You have hit the nail on the head here. How is a soldier or airman to distinguish between criminal and combatant? Men and women "in the trenches", as it were, that are not experts in either criminal or military law. We have no firm definition of "domestic enemy", and there isn't any clear cut line between criminal and combatant, even if the bar is high, it's an unknown height.

Who's judgement is he or she supposed to rely on, his own or that of the officers and analysts and whoever, that are supposed to be making these determinations? If you're an officer in the Pentagon that's one thing, but as an enlisted grunt we rely on and trust in the good judgement of the officers. So if the chain of command and the officers we trust and rely on say that some person or group is an enemy and a combatant...american citizen or otherwise...we are pretty likely to obey, even if we have personal doubts, exactly because we aren't in a position to form a legitimate legal objection to such and order.

Simple answer. Whatever the hysteria of the day - there's never an excuse for rounding people up in internment camps.

Its understood that one of us make the wrong decision - be it confusion or fear, or just plain old getting caught up in the moment... but there's no justification for uncertainty while sitting in our comfy chairs in front of the computer. If you're uncertain now... well, the odds of making the right choice in a combat situation are that much smaller.

sandsjames
10-06-2012, 04:58 AM
Simple answer. Whatever the hysteria of the day - there's never an excuse for rounding people up in internment camps.

Its understood that one of us make the wrong decision - be it confusion or fear, or just plain old getting caught up in the moment... but there's no justification for uncertainty while sitting in our comfy chairs in front of the computer. If you're uncertain now... well, the odds of making the right choice in a combat situation are that much smaller. Seems very simple in theory. Of course we all know what we SHOULD do and would hope to do. But when the shit hits the fan, we just can't know. That's the problem with this entire scenario. We can speak in hypotheticals all day long, and some can try to sound as valiant as possible but, in reality, not one single person can say with 100% certainty how we'd react.

CrustySMSgt
10-06-2012, 06:05 AM
Based on the majority of answers I see in this thread, if I were a law abiding patriotic American citizen, I would be absolutely scared shitless of my military and I would fear that the money I pay them to protect my rights, is being wasted by cowards with no character.

Call me a coward, sheep, or whatever you like... but as sandsjames, we can speculate all day long about what we would or wouldn't do, but until the time comes where we're given an order, how we'd respond will be driven by the information we have at the time. The Libya example was mentioned above; so on day 61, if ordered to generate an air craft, process crew orders, load bombs on an F-16, or whatever, how many people refused that order? While I could be wrong, given it hasn't been on the front page of the paper, I'm betting zero. Not the first time we've rolled past day 60, yet I haven't seen the military shut down and refuse to execute the ATO.




Seems very simple in theory. Of course we all know what we SHOULD do and would hope to do. But when the shit hits the fan, we just can't know. That's the problem with this entire scenario. We can speak in hypotheticals all day long, and some can try to sound as valiant as possible but, in reality, not one single person can say with 100% certainty how we'd react.

indeed.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Seems very simple in theory. Of course we all know what we SHOULD do and would hope to do. But when the shit hits the fan, we just can't know. That's the problem with this entire scenario. We can speak in hypotheticals all day long, and some can try to sound as valiant as possible but, in reality, not one single person can say with 100% certainty how we'd react.

SandsJames, will you cut your wife's head off in the future, if she were to insult or offend you? Or can you not know what you would do if put in that situation, because your principle easily gives way to emotion at the time (fear, anger, etc)? Just wondering.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 01:11 PM
Call me a coward, sheep, or whatever you like...

I did no such thing. I notice in your neg rep (good on you for signing it btw), that you think that me implying we have many cowards and inferiors in the military is crossing the line. I disagree. I think it's important for those of us in the military to call out the institution when it's failing to train or act to defend the nation. I think the defense of the nation is important, and I'm unconcerned with those who get their feelings hurt while being a liability to the defense of the nation.


but as sandsjames, we can speculate all day long about what we would or wouldn't do, but until the time comes where we're given an order, how we'd respond will be driven by the information we have at the time.

Tell that to the investigator during your next investigation. If they ask if you would take violent action to overthrow the government, or if you would sell secrets to our enemies for money, make sure you let the person know that you can't say for certain - that it depends on the details of the situation at the time.


The Libya example was mentioned above; so on day 61, if ordered to generate an air craft, process crew orders, load bombs on an F-16, or whatever, how many people refused that order? While I could be wrong, given it hasn't been on the front page of the paper, I'm betting zero. Not the first time we've rolled past day 60, yet I haven't seen the military shut down and refuse to execute the ATO.

So it wasn't a violation of the Constitution because the press didn't tell you it was? You didn't take an oath to the press' interpretation of the Constitution.

Lot of responsibility shirking in this thread...

CrustySMSgt
10-06-2012, 01:29 PM
I did no such thing. I notice in your neg rep (good on you for signing it btw), that you think that me implying we have many cowards and inferiors in the military is crossing the line. I disagree. I think it's important for those of us in the military to call out the institution when it's failing to train or act to defend the nation. I think the defense of the nation is important, and I'm unconcerned with those who get their feelings hurt while being a liability to the defense of the nation.
Didn't hurt my feelings... I'm just saying to call the thousands who have given their lives and place themselves in harm's way every day cowards because of your assumption as to how they'd handle a hypothetical situation BS.



Tell that to the investigator during your next investigation. If they ask if you would take violent action to overthrow the government, or if you would sell secrets to our enemies for money, make sure you let the person know that you can't say for certain - that it depends on the details of the situation at the time....

Apples & oranges



So it wasn't a violation of the Constitution because the press didn't tell you it was? You didn't take an oath to the press' interpretation of the Constitution.

Lot of responsibility shirking in this thread...

Read what I said again... I SAID I didn't hear about the masses of military members and units refusing to comply with the unconstitutional order to execute an ATO against Libya on "day 61." I also didn't hear about it on the intel sites I read regularly, I didn't hear about it through my chain of command, and most importantly, I didn't hear about it of Facebook, so I KNOW it couldn't have happened... lol

So, are you saying everyone who got up on "day 61" and followed the orders of the day is a coward, a criminal, and should be brought up on charges, all the way up to the commander in chief?

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 01:50 PM
Didn't hurt my feelings... I'm just saying to call the thousands who place themselves in harm's way every day, yet are unconcerned with their oaths to the Constitution and may lock up their American neighbors in concentration camps without charge or trial, because to refuse and unlawful order might mean negative consequences for them, cowards is BS.

Fixed it for you.


Apples & oranges

Apples and oranges? How do you figure? You said you won't know if you'd follow an unlawful order to violate the Constitutional rights of your American neighbors until you're in that situation. So how on earth could you know if you will break the law by selling secrets to our enemies, until you're put in that position? I'd really like to know how you know this now, despite not being put into that situation.

Could it be because it's unlawful and you will follow the law and you will not unlawfully harm the Americans who pay your bills by selling secrets to the enemy, and even if inconvenient, you will do the legal thing? Or can you not know until some agent walks up to you and makes the offer, you know, depending on the information you have at the time (like the price he's offering)?


Read what I said again... I SAID I didn't hear about the masses of military members and units refusing to comply with the unconstitutional order to execute an ATO against Libya on "day 61." I also didn't hear about it on the intel sites I read regularly, I didn't hear about it through my chain of command, and most importantly, I didn't hear about it of Facebook, so I KNOW it couldn't have happened... lol

Ok, not sure if we're in Comedy Hour now or what. It appears you are saying somebody didn't TELL YOU it was unlawful, and you can't be expected to research the law yourself before hand to better fulfill the obligation in the oath you took.


So, are you saying everyone who got up on "day 61" and followed the orders of the day is a coward, a criminal, and should be brought up on charges, all the way up to the commander in chief?

Go back and take a look at what I said if you're not sure, there is a scroll bar to the right of your screen.

CrustySMSgt
10-06-2012, 01:56 PM
You obviously know much more about what I have to say than I do, so feel free to change this to whatever you'd like it to say... I'm out.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 02:06 PM
You obviously know much more about what I have to say than I do, so feel free to change this to whatever you'd like it to say... I'm out.

Graceful exit so that you don't have to answer how you don't know if you will break the law when it comes to locking up your neighbors in concentration camps until you're in that situation, yet you know that you won't sell secrets to our enemies now without being in that situation.

Good timing on your departure. That line of questioning probably wouldn't have worked out well for you.

imnohero
10-06-2012, 03:27 PM
I see we have arrived at the beginning of the end of another PYB thread. Once people start making valid arguments against his position, he goes to the "cowards and failures" thing, and playing stupid. <sigh>

sandsjames
10-06-2012, 03:37 PM
I see we have arrived at the beginning of the end of another PYB thread. Once people start making valid arguments against his position, he goes to the "cowards and failures" thing, and playing stupid. <sigh>

It's a recurring trend. For some reason he thinks these reactions are any different than they would have been at any point over the past couple hundred years. He's not just calling us cowards, he's calling millions of people who have served throughout generations cowards, unless he's assuming that military members in past wars/conflicts would have answered any different. I'm impressed he stayed civil as long as he did this time but, as usual, it's all beginning to devolve.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 03:54 PM
I base my actions on my own judgement, knowledge of the law and, more importantly, what I believe to be right and wrong. In my current situation I don't steal because I believe it would be wrong and not because the law says it is illegal. But my situation could change where I might steal and either not believe it to be wrong, or believe the outcome outweighs the moral crime. But I would have to say that the same reasoning might apply to the killing of innocent people or imprisoning American citizens. You seem willing to live your entire life by your oath to the Constitution. I live my life by my own moral compass and hope and pray that aligns with our Constitution and the American way of life simply because I love this country. Maybe that means I did not take my oath seriously but if such an attitude renders one unfit for military service, we will really have a hollow force.

Quoted for posterity.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 03:55 PM
I see we have arrived at the beginning of the end of another PYB thread. Once people start making valid arguments against his position, he goes to the "cowards and failures" thing, and playing stupid. <sigh>

I called nobody in this thread a coward or failure. Please post evidence otherwise.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 03:58 PM
It's a recurring trend. For some reason he thinks these reactions are any different than they would have been at any point over the past couple hundred years. He's not just calling us cowards, he's calling millions of people who have served throughout generations cowards, unless he's assuming that military members in past wars/conflicts would have answered any different. I'm impressed he stayed civil as long as he did this time but, as usual, it's all beginning to devolve.

Please don't take your position (that you don't know if you will violate the Constitution and throw Americans into concentration camps unlawfully because, in your words, "fight or flight" might take over) and then apply your values and your actions and your character to everybody else who has served. You do them a disservice.

And let's not forget who really ends my discussions. You, reporting a post for harassment, when it was anything but (http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1594516-Guideline-for-Moderator-Action-Needed&p=579753#post579753) - and stating that I had said I would "track you down and expose your identity," even though I had said nothing of the kind.

So, when you get bested in an argument, your "trend" is to report a post for harassment, even when there is none, because you don't like your values being exposed. So just report the post and get it over with, earn your cheap ban by leveraging the fact that the moderator(s) here can't be bothered with investigating whether somebody actually did harass somebody.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 04:05 PM
For your edification:


http://youtu.be/6mr97qyKA2s

Absinthe Anecdote
10-06-2012, 05:01 PM
The question is about what you would do now, given the full benefit of history. With everything you know now, if this exact same situation presented itself, would you obey or not?

Then I’m inclined to answer no, I probably wouldn’t have. There is no way to know for sure and I’m not sure what this exercise proves.



Still they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Not knowing it, and yet swearing to God you will support and defend it, is a pretty shoddy defense don't you think? If you're ordered to secure the ECP from imminent attack and asked if you can be counted on to do it, and you say, "I swear it - you can trust me!" and then later after the flight line is destroyed you throw up your shoulders and say, "I didn't know what the ECP was or where it was, and I didn't think to find out" - is that a good defense? Is that the defense you want to take?

It’s a horrible defense.

However, what is shoddy is your analogy. When I was a young Security Policeman the Air Force didn’t let me anywhere near an ECP until they sent me through a formal training school, local training at my first duty station that included OJT and a certification process.

The only training or briefings I can recall having during my career on lawful and unlawful orders came under Law of Armed Conflict and that was geared mainly toward distinguishing combatants and noncombatants.

However, that wasn’t even my point. My point on stating that the young soldiers of early 1942 were not briefed on the constitution was this. Those soldiers were told that they were at war with Japan and that the Japanese Americans were possible threat. This idea that the Japanese Americans were a possible threat was likely bolstered in their minds by the recent Japanese attacks, public sentiment, the news media, the entertainment industry and the propaganda of the day.

Fear for the future of the country likely validated the threat their minds. They did not view that order through the lens of the constitution. It probably never entered their minds.

I’m not speaking in terms of “right or wrong” or “legal or illegal” but in the terms of motivators of human behavior and decision making.




Again, the question is how you would have handled it given what you know now. You mentioned fear. Courage means doing the right thing when you are afraid. Courage does NOT exist when a person is not afraid. What I take from your answer is that if you are afraid to do right, then you will not do right. Everybody has a breaking point. Most people will do what they need to do to survive. That's not lost on me.

Fear and anger do alter how people process information and respond to events as both individuals and in groups. Sometimes it prompts them into making a choice that is both beneficial to survival and that is also consistent with the values we cherish.

Sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it alters the perception of an entire group of people as to what is justified and atrocities occur.

Real cute retort there and it did send a flash of embarrassment through my face as I read it.

Nice of you to flip my comment around to the facet that deals with an individual who knows what is right but doesn’t defend his beliefs, not because of a marred perspective, but because of fear for their personal safety.

I’m sure none of us want to behave in a dishonorable manner but the unfortunate thing is some people do.

I hope I never have to face the kind of decision you are talking about. I hope you never face that decision as well.

You talk about this issue a lot and it has me wondering, what in the heck are you up to?

Are you preparing for civil unrest or something?

tiredretiredE7
10-06-2012, 05:23 PM
Here is a modern day hypothetical scenario for you to consider. What would have happened in our country if Bush would have turned the two most recent wars into religious wars? We would have thousands (even if 1% were radicalized) of potential Muslims in our country who would become radicalized and fight for their religion by randomly committing violent attacks against mass population targets. This would be completely random it would be impossible which Muslim would commit the next attack and where the attack would take place.

Would I willingly follow an order to arrest and incarcerate suspected radicalized Muslims without due process? Absolutely and I would do it for free. This is a realistic scenario that Bush avoided but could have very easily occurred. I would not execute or kill suspected Muslims if they did not meet R.O.E.

PYB, what would you do in this scenario?




I believe this is the most important discussion facing the military today, because our government is trending in this same direction now with the NDAA legislation. But we're not talking about the NDAA here, we're talking about the situation in the 1940s. Please feel free to study up on President Franklin Roosevelt's order to have the military force 70,000 American citizen men, women, and children into concentration camps absent charge or trial and then put yourself in that situation, and indicate whether you would have obeyed the order or not had you been told to fix bayonets and go door to door rounding up Americans to put on buses to take them to the camps. I will provide some information as a starting point.

Please note, the reason a third option (I Don't Know) has been included is because from previous discussions, it's clear that some have taken that position, stating that they don't know if they would have forced their American neighbors and their children into concentration camps in that situation. Some have said they don't know what they would have done. Of course, they have the full weight of history as a benefit, so based on that information, they should know what they would do if put into that exact same situation today. Some want to punt on the question, however, just as I assume by the same logic they would also punt if I asked them if they would rape somebody this weekend (they apparently can't know anything about what they would do until put in that situation, a position I hope they tell the investigator during their next security clearance investigation).

So here are some facts about the military forcing Americans into concentration camps in the 1940s:

1. The military took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

2. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

3. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

4. Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

5. The government did not charge any of these Americans with a crime as a pretext to their incarceration, and they were not provided a trial and were not sentenced by a jury of their peers prior to being imprisoned in the camps.

6. At the point of the President's order, the judiciary had not ruled on whether such an order was lawful or not. Similarly, if you were to get an order today to go into Wal-mart and shoot every person wearing a hat, that order would also have not been ruled upon by the judiciary (ie, whether or not it's lawful for the military to shoot every hat wearer in a Wally World).

So you're given the order to force American citizens at gunpoint into concentration camps, absent charge or trial. Do you obey the order, or do you refuse it as an unlawful order in accordance with the oath you took to our Constitution?


http://youtu.be/oUrpIFp7EMA

imnohero
10-06-2012, 06:28 PM
I called nobody in this thread a coward or failure. Please post evidence otherwise.

I didn't say that you said that. Please show me where I did.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 06:44 PM
I see we have arrived at the beginning of the end of another PYB thread. Once people start making valid arguments against his position, he goes to the "cowards and failures" thing, and playing stupid. <sigh>


It's a recurring trend. For some reason he thinks these reactions are any different than they would have been at any point over the past couple hundred years. He's not just calling us cowards, he's calling millions of people who have served throughout generations cowards, unless he's assuming that military members in past wars/conflicts would have answered any different. I'm impressed he stayed civil as long as he did this time but, as usual, it's all beginning to devolve.


I called nobody in this thread a coward or failure. Please post evidence otherwise.


I didn't say that you said that. Please show me where I did.

Good, we agree then. Just because I speak about cowardice and failure in general terms, does not mean I'm calling any particular individual a coward or failure. If certain individuals identify with cowardice or failure, that is another matter.

I personally think it's acceptable to identify individual cowards and failures, but I understand how sensitive some are to that feedback, and how easily they will report posts for harassment that don't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Glad we agree.

imnohero
10-06-2012, 06:51 PM
Good, we agree then.

Glad we agree.

No, we most definitely do not agree.

Robert F. Dorr
10-06-2012, 06:58 PM
I didn't say that you said that. Please show me where I did.

He didn't say that you said that he said that. Please show me where he did.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 07:02 PM
I see we have arrived at the beginning of the end of another PYB thread. Once people start making valid arguments against his position, he goes to the "cowards and failures" thing, and playing stupid. <sigh>


I called nobody in this thread a coward or failure. Please post evidence otherwise.


I didn't say that you said that. Please show me where I did.


Good, we agree then. Just because I speak about cowardice and failure in general terms, does not mean I'm calling any particular individual a coward or failure. If certain individuals identify with cowardice or failure, that is another matter.


No, we most definitely do not agree.

Ok, so you are saying, or are not saying, that I called somebody here a coward or failure? Take your time, I know it's difficult.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 07:05 PM
Speaking of cowardice and failure, there have been a few here who say you can't know what you will do until the situation presents itself. You can't know if you will act unlawfully or not until in that situation. Some here, even those with a lot of experience and rank, have said that a piece of paper means nothing to them (our Constitution, the laws of Congress, the UCMJ, AFI, etc) and that they will follow their own edicts in the situation.

When asked how they can tell their security clearance investigator how they can then promise not to sell secrets to our enemy, they have refused to answer and have instead left the discussion.

I wonder if this attitude and this lack of the basics isn't a recipe for failure, when so many among us share that attitude and refuse to be bound by the law? This "anything goes" "choose your own reality" "it's complicated and subjective and situationally dependent" sort of mindset on very basic legal questions. Does that attitude equate to unlawful actions? The video below, while I don't agree with much of it, does touch on this subject.


http://youtu.be/iT5GOBjMhbU

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 07:18 PM
I’m sure none of us want to behave in a dishonorable manner but the unfortunate thing is some people do.

I hope I never have to face the kind of decision you are talking about. I hope you never face that decision as well.

Who's to say I haven't faced it, and done the legal thing in accordance with my oath at my own personal inconvenience? I will tell you this, given the trend today, the rest of you had better start thinking seriously about this issue.


You talk about this issue a lot and it has me wondering, what in the heck are you up to?

Honoring my oath to the Constitution and to the Americans who pay me. I see a threat. I'm trying to make sure we're ready. At this point, we are woefully and shamefully not ready. This thread shows that very clearly, but in my experience, even this thread is optimistic. It's easy to say you'll do right and obey the law on an anonymous message board. Still, look at the numbers and experience of those who can't even do that.


Are you preparing for civil unrest or something?

I'm trying to prepare you, and those like you, to do what you swore to do before God and the taxpayer.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 08:09 PM
He didn't say that you said that he said that. Please show me where he did.

Amazingly despite your age and education, that was the best input you've offered in this thread yet! Outstanding!

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 08:27 PM
This is kind of interesting. Recently an American who was imprisoned in the concentration camps in the 1940s spoke out against the Border Patrol's habit of stopping innocent Americans at checkpoints, far from any border, without any suspicion of the committing any crime. For my part, I think this is a very important piece of American history, and these folks have a very valuable perspective to offer the rest of us, so that perhaps we will change our ways and not repeat the same painful lessons we should have already learned.


http://youtu.be/2fYD7Rkz5QM

imnohero
10-06-2012, 09:23 PM
Ok, so you are saying, or are not saying, that I called somebody here a coward or failure? Take your time, I know it's difficult.

Absolutely, that's what I'm saying, and not saying, and I don't agree with you. What part of this don't you understand?

Robert F. Dorr
10-06-2012, 09:26 PM
Amazingly despite your age and education, that was the best input you've offered in this thread yet! Outstanding!

I'm pretty sure you mentioned age to get my goat but what's this about education? What level education do you think I have?

Absinthe Anecdote
10-06-2012, 09:32 PM
Who's to say I haven't faced it, and done the legal thing in accordance with my oath at my own personal inconvenience? I will tell you this, given the trend today, the rest of you had better start thinking seriously about this issue.

Honoring my oath to the Constitution and to the Americans who pay me. I see a threat. I'm trying to make sure we're ready. At this point, we are woefully and shamefully not ready. This thread shows that very clearly, but in my experience, even this thread is optimistic. It's easy to say you'll do right and obey the law on an anonymous message board. Still, look at the numbers and experience of those who can't even do that.

I'm trying to prepare you, and those like you, to do what you swore to do before God and the taxpayer.

You would be the one to say if you have or haven’t.

Is that what you are implying, that you have turned down an unlawful order?

If so, what kind if you don’t mind sharing. I’m assuming you don’t mean an unlawful order to detain Americans.

Is this threat from a particular sector? Can you be a little more specific? I know I usually crack jokes around here but I’m curious to what the specific threat is.

I’m retired now but you were successful in spurring me to think about this issue.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 10:15 PM
I'm pretty sure you mentioned age to get my goat but what's this about education? What level education do you think I have?

I mentioned age because at your age, you should know better than what you have demonstrated in this thread.

I mentioned your education, because I assume that you are fairly well educated. Regardless, as an author, and with the level of research you do for your many books, you should know better than what you have demonstrated in this thread.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 10:16 PM
You would be the one to say if you have or haven’t.

Is that what you are implying, that you have turned down an unlawful order?

If so, what kind if you don’t mind sharing. I’m assuming you don’t mean an unlawful order to detain Americans.

Is this threat from a particular sector? Can you be a little more specific? I know I usually crack jokes around here but I’m curious to what the specific threat is.

I’m retired now but you were successful in spurring me to think about this issue.

I'm implying nothing. Glad you're thinking about this issue.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-06-2012, 10:27 PM
No, I would resign my RA commission and persuade my superiors that I be reassigned pending my release from the service.

Tell us a few Ranger stories Mr. Conners! How about a few stories about the Chinese Bandit LRRPs.

Please!

sandsjames
10-06-2012, 11:23 PM
So, when you get bested in an argument, your "trend" is to report a post for harassment, even when there is none, because you don't like your values being exposed. So just report the post and get it over with, earn your cheap ban by leveraging the fact that the moderator(s) here can't be bothered with investigating whether somebody actually did harass somebody.

If once is a "trend" then so be it.

Do you honestly feel that you have "exposed" my values? You are more egotistical than I thought.

This pity party you are throwing for yourself is pretty pathetic and, not surprisingly, makes me chuckle a little.

sandsjames
10-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Hey everybody. There is a huge threat to our nation. There is a trend. I know what it is, but I'm not going to tell you. Just be ready.

I think somebody should run for office. He has the art of saying a lot without saying anything perfected.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 11:42 PM
Do you honestly feel that you have "exposed" my values? You are more egotistical than I thought.

You've exposed your values quite well. But no need to get into that here. This isn't about you.


This pity party you are throwing for yourself is pretty pathetic and, not surprisingly, makes me chuckle a little.

I'm sorry, pity party? And how have I asked for pity, or indicated that there is any reason to pity me? There is no reason to pity me. Not even close. But I'm interested to see how you conjured that up.

sandsjames
10-06-2012, 11:48 PM
You've exposed your values quite well. But no need to get into that here. This isn't about you. You've made it about me with more than one post. If you don't want it to be about me, then quit mentioning me.




I'm sorry, pity party? And how have I asked for pity, or indicated that there is any reason to pity me? There is no reason to pity me. Not even close. But I'm interested to see how you conjured that up.The pity you want for being banned. Poor PYB. Got banned for no good reason. So now you feel the need to mention it in every thread you post in. Why else would you keep posting it if you didn't want pity? Is it because you are still trying to "expose" me? What is it with that anyway? I haven't been "exposed" in front of a computer screen in quite a few years.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 11:49 PM
Hey everybody. There is a huge threat to our nation. There is a trend. I know what it is, but I'm not going to tell you. Just be ready.

Hey everybody. There is a huge threat to our nation according to PYB, and he told us by citing in quite a bit of detail the history of the 1940s, and then related to the recently passed NDAA.

But don't worry, I SandsJames, am ready to maybe, I'm not sure, refuse unlawful orders, but I can't say for certain because "fight or flight" might kick in. No! No, not because I may be killed in combat (I don't know anything about combat), I mean because I may lose my job! Sure, I understand many of you regular Americans have lost your jobs and not even for refusing to do something unlawful, but still it really frightens me to think that doing what I swore before God to do (obeying the law) might mean I might lose my job too. Come on, have you seen my resume?? I mean, I swore the oath because I needed a job!


I think somebody should run for office. He has the art of saying a lot without saying anything perfected.

I think you should concentrate on doing your job correctly, instead of giving job advice to your betters.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 11:51 PM
You've made it about me with more than one post. If you don't want it to be about me, then quit mentioning me.

Perhaps you're right. Where in this thread have I mentioned you prior to you getting involved? Quotes please.


The pity you want for being banned. Poor PYB. Got banned for no good reason. So now you feel the need to mention it in every thread you post in. Why else would you keep posting it if you didn't want pity? Is it because you are still trying to "expose" me? What is it with that anyway? I haven't been "exposed" in front of a computer screen in quite a few years.

Please. Like I give two shits about being banned on this forum. What I'm pointing out is how you go whining to moderators, while leaving your integrity behind, because you get your pee pee slapped.

RS6405
10-06-2012, 11:51 PM
I'm implying nothing. Glad you're thinking about this issue.

PYB,

If I am following you on this thread as well as others, you expect and demand fellow service members to not blindly follow orders but consider what they are being order to do as it applies under the constitution. Yet you challenge anyone who does not think exactly like you.

Before you ask, NO, I am going to cut-n-paste examples, because you ignore th efacts provided and it is just your troll tool to argue your points out of context.

PickYourBattles
10-06-2012, 11:56 PM
For your consideration:


http://youtu.be/C7NVYBfZ310

The best part of that video is the old woman saying, "It happened. But please don't let it ever happen again."

That poor old lady...

sandsjames
10-06-2012, 11:58 PM
Hey everybody. There is a huge threat to our nation according to PYB, and he told us by citing in quite a bit of detail the history of the 1940s, and then related to the recently passed NDAA. You forgot to mention the history of the 1830s, 1760s, and 1327s.


But don't worry, I SandsJames, am ready to maybe, I'm not sure, refuse unlawful orders, but I can't say for certain because "fight or flight" might kick in. "Fight or flight" doesn't "kick" in. "Fight" kicks in or "flight" kicks in.


No! No, not because I may be killed in combat (I don't know anything about combat), I mean because I may lose my job! The part about combat is very true. I retire in 8 months, so I'm not worried at all about losing my job.


Sure, I understand many of you regular Americans have lost your jobs and not even for refusing to do something unlawful, but still it really frightens me to think that doing what I swore before God to do (obeying the law) might mean I might lose my job too. Come on, have you seen my resume?? I mean, I swore the oath because I needed a job! That doesn't surprise me that you don't see yourself as a "regular" American. You are definitely better. Go get your free Golden Corral dinner.


I think you should concentrate on doing your job correctly, instead of giving job advice to your betters. Giving job advice to my better what? What I find interesting is that several people in this thread have given the exact same answer I did, yet you still choose to harp on what I said as if it's something out of the ordinary. I'm amazed you would let little ol' me get under your skin this much. I'm really kind of flattered. Doesn't that annoy you that you are so focused on a couple posts from someone as insignificant as me? I'd be a little embarrassed about it if I were you. I know how prideful you are.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 12:01 AM
PYB,

If I am following you on this thread as well as others, you expect and demand fellow service members to not blindly follow orders but consider what they are being order to do as it applies under the constitution.

True. Very observant of you.


Yet you challenge anyone who does not think exactly like you.

Man, you bring up a good point. We can't be challenging each other when we think somebody is wrong, can we? I mean, where would that get us? That's a lesson I learned from those who knew Bud Holland. Sure, some might say such challenges might lead to people being better informed, but I'm with you - we need to take everybody's feelings into account, even when we *know* they are wrong. I should have done with the students I taught to fly in pilot training. Some of them didn't like me challenging the way they did things. I should have respected them and backed off, you know.

And let them crash.

But hey, don't mind me. We're doing a great job in the military and in the government. Just look at all the evidence...


Before you ask, NO, I am going to cut-n-paste examples, because you ignore th efacts provided and it is just your troll tool to argue your points out of context.

After a comment like yours, I wouldn't dream of asking you to back it up with evidence.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 12:05 AM
SandsJames, when you make a post that is not completely juvenile, I'll respond to it.

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 12:19 AM
SandsJames, when you make a post that is not completely juvenile, I'll respond to it.

Don't hold your breath. I gave up trying not to be juvenile with you weeks ago. I'm trying to keep it at your level, as your level is that of a child who isn't getting his way. I'm surprised that you haven't added more people to your sig line in an attempt to "shame" more people.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 12:23 AM
Don't hold your breath. I gave up trying not to be juvenile with you weeks ago. I'm trying to keep it at your level, as your level is that of a child who isn't getting his way. I'm surprised that you haven't added more people to your sig line in an attempt to "shame" more people.

I understand you want to make this about you. It's not.

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 12:35 AM
I understand you want to make this about you. It's not.Your sig line and last couple pages of posts show otherwise.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 12:48 AM
Your sig line and last couple pages of posts show otherwise.

Yeah, my sig line which is there regardless of the thread I post in, and my last couple of posts responding to you.

Please go play in traffic.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 12:51 AM
Perhaps we can talk about the topic now...


http://youtu.be/blI7op7KT9Y

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 12:51 AM
Yeah, my sig line which is there regardless of the thread I post in, and my last couple of posts responding to you.

Please go play in traffic.So quit responding to me then. Ignore me. That would make it easier on everyone. But I know you need to get the last word, so...

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 12:55 AM
Please go play in traffic.I can't do that. It's against the law. I don't want to violate any laws.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 12:58 AM
For your enjoyment:


http://youtu.be/At9QIEwwHgY

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 01:00 AM
Ok, back on topic. The question asks what we would have done in the 1940's. So, yes, I probably would have followed it. Would it have been right? No. But it would have been reality. The question is kind of like asking a woman if she would stay married to an abusive husband in the 1940's. Most women would like to say no, but the reality is that it was a different time then. Many of the issues we see as clearcut now were not as clear cut then. Race relations were completely different. The military was completely different. The fact that there was a world war going on made things completely different.

RS6405
10-07-2012, 01:04 AM
Man, you bring up a good point. We can't be challenging each other when we think somebody is wrong, can we? I mean, where would that get us? That's a lesson I learned from those who knew Bud Holland. Sure, some might say such challenges might lead to people being better informed, but I'm with you - we need to take everybody's feelings into account, even when we *know* they are wrong. I should have done with the students I taught to fly in pilot training. Some of them didn't like me challenging the way they did things. I should have respected them and backed off, you know.

And let them crash.

But hey, don't mind me. We're doing a great job in the military and in the government. Just look at all the evidence...


The key word in my statement is "exactly”. I never said your points or issues are wrong. However, anyone that says it not a completely black and white issue, but rather shades of gray, are, in your eyes just as bad, as someone who directly oppose you.

*****

The quote thing is not an issue of evidence, but practicality. Why would I spend the time gathering quotes, when you ignore what they say? If it had ever made a difference in any prior time you requested quotes then I would have bothered.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:06 AM
Ok, back on topic. The question asks what we would have done in the 1940's. So, yes, I probably would have followed it. Would it have been right? No. But it would have been reality. The question is kind of like asking a woman if she would stay married to an abusive husband in the 1940's. Most women would like to say no, but the reality is that it was a different time then. Many of the issues we see as clearcut now were not as clear cut then. Race relations were completely different. The military was completely different. The fact that there was a world war going on made things completely different.

Apparently I wasn't very clear in the OP. I said that people had the benefit of HISTORY to make their decisions. So YOU, right now, knowing what you know NOW, transported back in time with the knowledge you have NOW, would you obey the order or not?

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:13 AM
The key word in my statement is "exactly”. I never said your points or issues are wrong. However, anyone that says it not a completely black and white issue, but rather shades of gray, are, in your eyes just as bad, as someone who directly oppose you.

*****

The quote thing is not an issue of evidence, but practicality. Why would I spend the time gathering quotes, when you ignore what they say? If it had ever made a difference in any prior time you requested quotes then I would have bothered.

You do understand you're pulling all this nonsense out of your ass, right? If you're not, then back up your claims with quotes. Otherwise, save your spin machine for the bright political career as a Fox News correspondent I'm sure you're destined for.

Oh, and BTW, I understand how the PYB Fan Bois really love to make my discussions about me - you guys are so enthralled with me. I love it boys, I really do. But how about we discuss the topic at hand? Huh? I know that's not what you want, to discuss the topic at hand, but you can always take your "We Hate PYB Because He Makes Us Look Like We're Cowards Unable To Defend Our Country!" nonsense to a different thread.

Thanks in advance.

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 01:14 AM
Apparently I wasn't very clear in the OP. I said that people had the benefit of HISTORY to make their decisions. So YOU, right now, knowing what you know NOW, transported back in time with the knowledge you have NOW, would you obey the order or not?

Well, you aren't going to like this answer either, but yes. In the 40's, if I disobeyed that order, I probably would have been treated as a traitor and possibly put to death. Knowing fully the outcome of the war, the relations we now have with Japan as one of our closest allies, etc, I probably would have obeyed the order for self preservation purposes.

In this day and age, with the news coverage, the social media, etc, I would not obey that order in a similar situation. There would be much more backing by the courts as to what an illegal order is now than there would have been during WW2.

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 01:15 AM
You do understand you're pulling all this nonsense out of your ass, right? If you're not, then back up your claims with quotes. Otherwise, save your spin machine for the bright political career as a Fox News correspondent I'm sure you're destined for.

Oh, and BTW, I understand how the PYB Fan Bois really love to make my discussions about me - you guys are so enthralled with me. I love it boys, I really do. But how about we discuss the topic at hand? Huh? I know that's not what you want, to discuss the topic at hand, but you can always take your "We Hate PYB Because He Makes Us Look Like We're Cowards Unable To Defend Our Country!" nonsense to a different thread.

Thanks in advance.

And there you go. Way to keep it on topic. I do love how you actually think you are making us look like cowards.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:24 AM
Well, you aren't going to like this answer either, but yes [I would have obeyed an unlawful order that I knew to be unlawful, to throw Americans into concentration camps without due process, without charge and without trial, just because somebody above me told me to do it]. In the 40's, if I disobeyed that order, I probably would have been treated as a traitor and possibly put to death...I probably would have obeyed the order for self preservation purposes.

I want to apologize for ever questioning your character as a military professional who took the oath before God to support and defend the Constitutional freedom from tyranny of those who pay your bills. I understand that somebody who's number one goal is "self preservation" and who can't know what they will do in a righteous cause because fight or flight might kick in, has a difficult time.

It's amazing to me that you have no combat time. I would think a person of your character could have won all our wars single himself. Won them for the enemy, but still won them.


In this day and age, with the news coverage, the social media, etc, I would not obey that order in a similar situation. There would be much more backing by the courts as to what an illegal order is now than there would have been during WW2.

So you say that with all the info you have NOW, you would have STILL violated the rights of Americans in the 1940s by throwing them into concentration camps without charge or trial, but yet somehow magically today you would not do so? That's odd. You have all the knowledge of today in either case, yet you admit you would have violated your oath in the 1940s (with the knowledge you have today), but would not do so today? Because there would be "more backing" by the courts?? Do you think when an unlawful order comes down, the courts automatically spring into action and say, "HALT! That is illegal!" No, it doesn't work like that.

Interesting that you need government backing to do the right thing. Guess what, you won't get it.

In all seriousness, what's amazing to me is 1) you have no problem admitting what a coward you are (and this isn't harassment, this is an honest appraisal of your character as you've described it) and 2) anybody on this forum associates with you, even online.

You're about to retire. And yet you have no character. This is the key to the problems we have in the Air Force right here. This is exactly the problem.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:25 AM
And there you go. Way to keep it on topic. I do love how you actually think you are making us look like cowards.

Don't say us. Please for the love of God don't say "us."

Your words make YOU look exactly as YOU are.

imnohero
10-07-2012, 01:43 AM
then related to the recently passed NDAA.

You've insisted several times in this thread that you are only asking "with full knowledge of history" would you participate in the Japanese Interment.

Yet somehow we've arrived at a "threat" to the country for which we all must be prepared. A threat that will challenge us in our deepest convictions about our sworn duties. A threat for which you are trying to prepare us. From this last bit, I'm guessing the "threat" has something to do with the latest NDAA, though I couldn't imagine for the life of me what it could be, because you haven't explained how the NDAA creates a threat. Perhaps you could be more specific?

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:43 AM
SandsJames,

If you choose to continue responding to me, can you please do me a favor and define for me what a coward is? I'd like to know your serious definition of coward. Thanks in advance.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:44 AM
You've insisted several times in this thread that you are only asking "with full knowledge of history" would you participate in the Japanese Interment.

Yet somehow we've arrived at a "threat" to the country for which we all must be prepared. A threat that will challenge us in our deepest convictions about our sworn duties. A threat for which you are trying to prepare us. From this last bit, I'm guessing the "threat" has something to do with the latest NDAA, though I couldn't imagine for the life of me what it could be, because you haven't explained how the NDAA creates a threat. Perhaps you could be more specific?

I think I've posted about the NDAA in another thread, haven't I? Let's stay on topic shall we?

RS6405
10-07-2012, 01:57 AM
You do understand you're pulling all this nonsense out of your ass, right? If you're not, then back up your claims with quotes. Otherwise, save your spin machine for the bright political career as a Fox News correspondent I'm sure you're destined for.

Oh, and BTW, I understand how the PYB Fan Bois really love to make my discussions about me - you guys are so enthralled with me. I love it boys, I really do. But how about we discuss the topic at hand? Huh? I know that's not what you want, to discuss the topic at hand, but you can always take your "We Hate PYB Because He Makes Us Look Like We're Cowards Unable To Defend Our Country!" nonsense to a different thread.

Thanks in advance.

You right we spend hours discussing you, your posts, logic, and especially that car.

The next meeting is tomorrow at 2. I was supposed to ask you for framed picture of your Mitsubishi so we can all stare at it, but I get in such a tither when you are around.

How can I live with myself when you call me a coward! I should blindly follow your posts till the end of time.

Screw the blue, I want the Mitsubishi Kool-Aid!

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 02:12 AM
You right we spend hours discussing you, your posts, logic, and especially that car.

The next meeting is tomorrow at 2. I was supposed to ask you for framed picture of your Mitsubishi so we can all stare at it, but I get in such a tither when you are around.

How can I live with myself when you call me a coward! I should blindly follow your posts till the end of time.

Screw the blue, I want the Mitsubishi Kool-Aid!

Copy, no backup for your claims. But a cute post nonetheless.

tiredretiredE7
10-07-2012, 02:30 AM
Here is a modern day hypothetical scenario for you to consider. What would have happened in our country if Bush would have turned the two most recent wars into religious wars? We would have thousands (even if 1% were radicalized) of potential Muslims in our country who would become radicalized and fight for their religion by randomly committing violent attacks against mass population targets. This would be completely random it would be impossible which Muslim would commit the next attack and where the attack would take place.

Would I willingly follow an order to arrest and incarcerate suspected radicalized Muslims without due process? Absolutely and I would do it for free. This is a realistic scenario that Bush avoided but could have very easily occurred. I would not execute or kill suspected Muslims if they did not meet R.O.E.

PYB, what would you do in this scenario?

PYB,

Why are you ignoring this post? I really want to hear what you have to say so I can see your point of view?

imnohero
10-07-2012, 02:34 AM
I think I've posted about the NDAA in another thread, haven't I? Let's stay on topic shall we?

I don't know, do you think you have? I'm not a mind reader.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence that makes you think you have.

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 03:03 AM
I want to apologize for ever questioning your character as a military professional who took the oath before God to support and defend the Constitutional freedom from tyranny of those who pay your bills. I understand that somebody who's number one goal is "self preservation" and who can't know what they will do in a righteous cause because fight or flight might kick in, has a difficult time.

It's amazing to me that you have no combat time. I would think a person of your character could have won all our wars single himself. Won them for the enemy, but still won them.



So you say that with all the info you have NOW, you would have STILL violated the rights of Americans in the 1940s by throwing them into concentration camps without charge or trial, but yet somehow magically today you would not do so? That's odd. You have all the knowledge of today in either case, yet you admit you would have violated your oath in the 1940s (with the knowledge you have today), but would not do so today? Because there would be "more backing" by the courts?? Do you think when an unlawful order comes down, the courts automatically spring into action and say, "HALT! That is illegal!" No, it doesn't work like that.

Interesting that you need government backing to do the right thing. Guess what, you won't get it.

In all seriousness, what's amazing to me is 1) you have no problem admitting what a coward you are (and this isn't harassment, this is an honest appraisal of your character as you've described it) and 2) anybody on this forum associates with you, even online.

You're about to retire. And yet you have no character. This is the key to the problems we have in the Air Force right here. This is exactly the problem.

Please, then, tell me. What were you expecting for answers from everyone? Why would you even ask the question if this is going to be your response to a truthful answer. Ok, nevermind, here's my real answer:

Of course I would disobey the order. Not only that, I would have pointed my weapon at those trying to imprison these people. It is, of course, my duty to support and defend the Constitution. If it came down to it I would open fire on those trying to illegally imprison these people. Even though I would be killed instantly by the hundreds of other people with guns around me, that wouldn't matter. The Constitutional rights of the Japanese Americans were being taken away, and it is my job to defend those rights, so I would have no other choice.

Can you say the same? Oh wait, that's right, you've already stated you are good with just disobeying the order as that's as far as your responsibility goes. What was your definition of "coward" again?

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 03:04 AM
Don't say us. Please for the love of God don't say "us."

Your words make YOU look exactly as YOU are.

Yeah, because nobody else in this thread that responded with a similar answer. But this isn't about me, right?

Forsaken Wombat
10-07-2012, 03:19 AM
Pick Your Battles' Guide to Internet Debating
http://serendipitously.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/05_12.jpg

Hello! I am Pick Your Battles! You may know me from a video in which a few Border Patrol agents made me eat dirt. This experience, coupled with several others in which I attempt to turn harmless encounters with law enforcement officials into watershed Constitutional moments, led me to do two things.

(1) I added armor to my Mitsubishi Eclipse. Yes, I know; it's not exactly "Fast and Furious" with all the armor, though many say that a guy driving an Eclipse does scream "Bi and Curious". But it is the best I could do in order to prepare myself for the Constitutional Armageddon that is right around the corner. While all of the cowards and future Fox News commentators are being rounded-up and shipped to concentration camps by LRS Airmen, I will be riding like a boss from one rebel checkpoint to the next.

(2) I was forced underground. By underground, I mean to the Internet. Now here is what you must understand - in the real world, I'm all about lunch tables, arguing with authority (and subsequently getting thrashed), and Paul Walker. This...doesn't make me very popular with the flesh & bone crowd. Thus I find solace in the Internet, on message boards, preferably the highly-advanced and technologically-robust Military Times - Air Force forum. I am able to speak my mind without fear of physical assault, apprehension, or Monday Night Football.

So, what does it take to win on the Internet? First and foremost, you must post controversial topics. I don't mean topics such as, "Should we keep the BCS or go to a play-off?" I mean you must post things that would make WillisPowers blush - NDAA, concentration camps, seriousness of Constitutional oaths, etc. Remember, this is serious business on the General Discussion forums - no one wants to come here for simple banter or relaxed discussion. You must really bring the dark clouds of depression in!

Secondly, when discussing the Debbie Downer topic, you must present a scenario in absolute black & white terms. No gray area, no room for middle ground...just black or white.

Third, the moment someone posts a dissenting view, you must viciously attack their character, values, morality, etc. See, this is the great thing about Internet fighting - no real harm of physical retribution. In the real world, one might get their clock stopped. But here, on the Internet, I can be as much of an ass as I wish!

Fourth...as people begin to make valid points against you, demand evidence and quotes. It doesn't matter how simple the claim/fact is and it doesn't matter if what was said by you is in the post right above their own: demand evidence and demand quotes! If they provide said evidence, dismiss it right away and throw in a few more personal attacks.

Lastly...never give up! Part of going "underground" involves giving up any hints of a social life or pleasures. But that means you can lurk around the board and make quick-draw, sure fire replies to all the cowards who respond to your posts! If your online status isn't green, then you just don't have enough mean.


http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/237/4784/25592391622_large.jpg

RS6405
10-07-2012, 03:28 AM
Pick Your Battles' Guide to Internet Debating
http://serendipitously.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/05_12.jpg

Hello! I am Pick Your Battles! You may know me from a video in which a few Border Patrol agents made me eat dirt. This experience, coupled with several others in which I attempt to turn harmless encounters with law enforcement officials into watershed Constitutional moments, led me to do two things.

(1) I added armor to my Mitsubishi Eclipse. Yes, I know; it's not exactly "Fast and Furious" with all the armor, though many say that a guy driving an Eclipse does scream "Bi and Curious". But it is the best I could do in order to prepare myself for the Constitutional Armageddon that is right around the corner. While all of the cowards and future Fox News commentators are being rounded-up and shipped to concentration camps by LRS Airmen, I will be riding like a boss from one rebel checkpoint to the next.

(2) I was forced underground. By underground, I mean to the Internet. Now here is what you must understand - in the real world, I'm all about lunch tables, arguing with authority (and subsequently getting thrashed), and Paul Walker. This...doesn't make me very popular with the flesh & bone crowd. Thus I find solace in the Internet, on message boards, preferably the highly-advanced and technologically-robust Military Times - Air Force forum. I am able to speak my mind without fear of physical assault, apprehension, or Monday Night Football.

So, what does it take to win on the Internet? First and foremost, you must post controversial topics. I don't mean topics such as, "Should we keep the BCS or go to a play-off?" I mean you must post things that would make WillisPowers blush - NDAA, concentration camps, seriousness of Constitutional oaths, etc. Remember, this is serious business on the General Discussion forums - no one wants to come here for simple banter or relaxed discussion. You must really bring the dark clouds of depression in!

Secondly, when discussing the Debbie Downer topic, you must present a scenario in absolute black & white terms. No gray area, no room for middle ground...just black or white.

Third, the moment someone posts a dissenting view, you must viciously attack their character, values, morality, etc. See, this is the great thing about Internet fighting - no real harm of physical retribution. In the real world, one might get their clock stopped. But here, on the Internet, I can be as much of an ass as I wish!

Fourth...as people begin to make valid points against you, demand evidence and quotes. It doesn't matter how simple the claim/fact is and it doesn't matter if what was said by you is in the post right above their own: demand evidence and demand quotes! If they provide said evidence, dismiss it right away and throw in a few more personal attacks.

Lastly...never give up! Part of going "underground" involves giving up any hints of a social life or pleasures. But that means you can lurk around the board and make quick-draw, sure fire replies to all the cowards who respond to your posts! If your online status isn't green, then you just don't have enough mean.


http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/237/4784/25592391622_large.jpg

Post of the week award :first

sandsjames
10-07-2012, 03:30 AM
Post of the week award :first

Just the week?

RS6405
10-07-2012, 03:46 AM
he's in the finals for the quarter awards as well

RobotChicken
10-07-2012, 03:59 AM
Makes you wonder what the US purchased that prison in Illinois for.
For TSA & FEMA??

tiredretiredE7
10-07-2012, 04:03 AM
For TSA & FEMA??

Neither, Obama is hooking up Illinois for when he finally returns. Illinois can use every penny it can get and Federal prisons are huge $ for the local economy.

RobotChicken
10-07-2012, 04:09 AM
Loud and clear TR-7!

imported_AFKILO7
10-07-2012, 04:54 AM
Pick Your Battles' Guide to Internet Debating
http://serendipitously.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/05_12.jpg

Hello! I am Pick Your Battles! You may know me from a video in which a few Border Patrol agents made me eat dirt. This experience, coupled with several others in which I attempt to turn harmless encounters with law enforcement officials into watershed Constitutional moments, led me to do two things.

(1) I added armor to my Mitsubishi Eclipse. Yes, I know; it's not exactly "Fast and Furious" with all the armor, though many say that a guy driving an Eclipse does scream "Bi and Curious". But it is the best I could do in order to prepare myself for the Constitutional Armageddon that is right around the corner. While all of the cowards and future Fox News commentators are being rounded-up and shipped to concentration camps by LRS Airmen, I will be riding like a boss from one rebel checkpoint to the next.

(2) I was forced underground. By underground, I mean to the Internet. Now here is what you must understand - in the real world, I'm all about lunch tables, arguing with authority (and subsequently getting thrashed), and Paul Walker. This...doesn't make me very popular with the flesh & bone crowd. Thus I find solace in the Internet, on message boards, preferably the highly-advanced and technologically-robust Military Times - Air Force forum. I am able to speak my mind without fear of physical assault, apprehension, or Monday Night Football.

So, what does it take to win on the Internet? First and foremost, you must post controversial topics. I don't mean topics such as, "Should we keep the BCS or go to a play-off?" I mean you must post things that would make WillisPowers blush - NDAA, concentration camps, seriousness of Constitutional oaths, etc. Remember, this is serious business on the General Discussion forums - no one wants to come here for simple banter or relaxed discussion. You must really bring the dark clouds of depression in!

Secondly, when discussing the Debbie Downer topic, you must present a scenario in absolute black & white terms. No gray area, no room for middle ground...just black or white.

Third, the moment someone posts a dissenting view, you must viciously attack their character, values, morality, etc. See, this is the great thing about Internet fighting - no real harm of physical retribution. In the real world, one might get their clock stopped. But here, on the Internet, I can be as much of an ass as I wish!

Fourth...as people begin to make valid points against you, demand evidence and quotes. It doesn't matter how simple the claim/fact is and it doesn't matter if what was said by you is in the post right above their own: demand evidence and demand quotes! If they provide said evidence, dismiss it right away and throw in a few more personal attacks.

Lastly...never give up! Part of going "underground" involves giving up any hints of a social life or pleasures. But that means you can lurk around the board and make quick-draw, sure fire replies to all the cowards who respond to your posts! If your online status isn't green, then you just don't have enough mean.


http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/237/4784/25592391622_large.jpg

Forsaken Wombat FTW!

RobotChicken
10-07-2012, 05:18 AM
New 'Barbie' edition car?? Up-Armored?? Noooo James Bond features?? Where is the ejection seat hatch for 'PYB' when the going gets tough? Is he in Costa Rico??

Banned
10-07-2012, 09:44 AM
So when Conservative turn on dissenters within their ranks... are they eaten as well?

Robert F. Dorr
10-07-2012, 12:42 PM
Here is a modern day hypothetical scenario for you to consider. What would have happened in our country if Bush would have turned the two most recent wars into religious wars? We would have thousands (even if 1% were radicalized) of potential Muslims in our country who would become radicalized and fight for their religion by randomly committing violent attacks against mass population targets. This would be completely random it would be impossible which Muslim would commit the next attack and where the attack would take place.

Would I willingly follow an order to arrest and incarcerate suspected radicalized Muslims without due process? Absolutely and I would do it for free. This is a realistic scenario that Bush avoided but could have very easily occurred. I would not execute or kill suspected Muslims if they did not meet R.O.E.

PYB, what would you do in this scenario?

Bush did avoid doing this, publicly at least, but a lot of the people who worked for him weren't listening.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:34 PM
Pick Your Battles' Guide to Internet Debating
http://serendipitously.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/05_12.jpg

Hello! I am Pick Your Battles! You may know me from a video in which a few Border Patrol agents made me eat dirt. This experience, coupled with several others in which I attempt to turn harmless encounters with law enforcement officials into watershed Constitutional moments, led me to do two things.

(1) I added armor to my Mitsubishi Eclipse. Yes, I know; it's not exactly "Fast and Furious" with all the armor, though many say that a guy driving an Eclipse does scream "Bi and Curious". But it is the best I could do in order to prepare myself for the Constitutional Armageddon that is right around the corner. While all of the cowards and future Fox News commentators are being rounded-up and shipped to concentration camps by LRS Airmen, I will be riding like a boss from one rebel checkpoint to the next.

(2) I was forced underground. By underground, I mean to the Internet. Now here is what you must understand - in the real world, I'm all about lunch tables, arguing with authority (and subsequently getting thrashed), and Paul Walker. This...doesn't make me very popular with the flesh & bone crowd. Thus I find solace in the Internet, on message boards, preferably the highly-advanced and technologically-robust Military Times - Air Force forum. I am able to speak my mind without fear of physical assault, apprehension, or Monday Night Football.

So, what does it take to win on the Internet? First and foremost, you must post controversial topics. I don't mean topics such as, "Should we keep the BCS or go to a play-off?" I mean you must post things that would make WillisPowers blush - NDAA, concentration camps, seriousness of Constitutional oaths, etc. Remember, this is serious business on the General Discussion forums - no one wants to come here for simple banter or relaxed discussion. You must really bring the dark clouds of depression in!

Secondly, when discussing the Debbie Downer topic, you must present a scenario in absolute black & white terms. No gray area, no room for middle ground...just black or white.

Third, the moment someone posts a dissenting view, you must viciously attack their character, values, morality, etc. See, this is the great thing about Internet fighting - no real harm of physical retribution. In the real world, one might get their clock stopped. But here, on the Internet, I can be as much of an ass as I wish!

Fourth...as people begin to make valid points against you, demand evidence and quotes. It doesn't matter how simple the claim/fact is and it doesn't matter if what was said by you is in the post right above their own: demand evidence and demand quotes! If they provide said evidence, dismiss it right away and throw in a few more personal attacks.

Lastly...never give up! Part of going "underground" involves giving up any hints of a social life or pleasures. But that means you can lurk around the board and make quick-draw, sure fire replies to all the cowards who respond to your posts! If your online status isn't green, then you just don't have enough mean.


http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/237/4784/25592391622_large.jpg

Very cute. You get those pics from your personal collection? I think your short story needed a bit of work. What you think?

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee209/tiger1528/wombat.jpg

Hello! I am Pick Your Battles, the latest man obsession of Forsaken Wombat! You may know me from Wombat's latest post fantasizing about me while posting pictures of pink cars. You may also know me from a video in which a few Border Patrol agents wanted to make me eat dirt, but did not do so, as I rightfully refused to exit my vehicle, and then turned around an filed suit on them with the benefit of a half dozen cameras. This experience, preceded by another where a police officer pulled me over illegally, then arrested me unlawfully, and then fabricated a minor traffic violation charge to justify it, led me to do two things other than spend a great deal of my own money to support and defend the Constitution.

(1) I purchased a new Mitsubishi Eclipse and armored it. Any questions about it, you know who to ask. It's quite the topic these days on the forum, because that's the closest the dimmest among us can come up with as a retort in a serious discussion. Yes, I know; you'd think it would be slow, but light weight spectra shield is a great thing. But enough about the car Some men seem to be "bi and curious" as they judge the fashion appeal of the kind of car another man drives, or the kind of clothes they wear - such men read magazines like Vogue and Elle, and always sport the hottest styles themselves, and dream of being a French fashion designer. But I like the car since it keeps me and my family safe, which is a nice bonus after having my rights violated. Plus it provides me with great evidence in case I need to sue yet another "public servant" who would violate the Constitution, and then laugh about it and makes jokes and rationalization online to mask a lack of character.

(2) It led me to understand what a crisis there is in the realm of public service, and that led me to try to get those in my service, to understand their oaths and duties as tax paid government servants. Through actions and speech at work, and also through a blog, and by interrupting online discussion boards that typically have thread after thread of "patty cake" and other pointless topics. Now here is what you must understand - in the real world, I'm known as a very principled individual who cares about his country. Not just through a great combat record, but through concern and action at home. My career has subsequently taken a thrashing, but I feel my obligation and duty is to the nation and not the next higher rank, or even a retirement. This...doesn't make me very popular with some flesh & bone leadership, or the many who have no character or concern for their nation, and who instead treat the military and their nation like a mosquito treats its host - sucking, and sucking until they are full of the blood of others. Thus I find solace in the fact that I've given more for my country than all these parasites combined, both in actual combat, and also by choosing Boyd's fork in the road for the benefit of the nation. I am able to speak my mind without fear of physical assault online, and in person, because I know such people wouldn't have the balls to assault me, when they don't have the character to refuse online to violate the Constitution and to refuse to throw Americans into concentration camps without charge or trial. Anybody with this level of fear and shaky self preservation at the expense of those they're paid to protect, wouldn't dream of squaring off with me in person, though they'll make cute little quips online.

So, what does it take to win on the Internet? First and foremost, you must post topics that try to get these lowest common denominators to stir mentally. You see, they have become cowardly because cowardice is rewarded, and not exposed. So when it is exposed, you can see the kind of responses it draws. Sure, it's ok to dress down an airman or NCO down if they are late to a meeting, or aren't wearing their reflective belt correctly, or have sunglasses on their heads. But if they say they will violate the rights of Americans because they're too scared they might lose their job, well they just don't get that kind of mentoring. They exist in a service where bad character and a lack of integrity and courage is modeled to them on a daily basis. While many will complain about trivial matters in the service, they do a remarkable job of emulating shoddy character and even trying to make fun of those who exhibit real character with knee slapper posts like this one, even while knowing they can't even compare to their intended target. You see, when it comes down to it, winning means being a winner. Success says a lot, and this translates into the internet realm too. When facts and history and logic is used in a discussion, it shows a winning argument. When cute posts with five percent truth and pictures of pink cars are used, well then the converse is also demonstrated. But remember, it comes at a cost. Some claim to come to the Military Times Forum for fun and relaxation, and don't want to see "depressing" serious topics posted. I know, a military forum is the first place I think of as a source for entertainment and relaxation too, and I likewise hate it when people post serious military topics on that forum. Why can't they post those topics over at a sports forum, or a forum dedicated to entertainment and relaxation? But a military forum owned by a newspaper that reports on serious issues about the military? Depressing!

Secondly, when discussing the serious topic, you must present a scenario that should be understood to be absolute black & white for people with any character. For example, whether or not it's lawful for the military to round up American citizens without charge or trial, here in the U.S. and throw them into concentration camps where they lose their liberty and property, and sometimes their lives, without due process. Should be a black and white scenario, right? Oh, but not for people who spend their times on military forums looking for relaxation and entertainment. You see, they approach things differently. There is no truth, there is no law, and they certainly can't be held responsible for knowing either! They just want to go with the flow and be cute, and make as few people angry at them as possible. They're pushovers and pansies. Some wonder why our Air Force has taken such a nose dive and gotten so soft and touchy feely. I don't know why that is, but I think we should avoid talking about it at all costs. We should be like those who treat everything as entertainment, and who treat their oath the same. Their oath to the Constitution is of no value, because it's depressing and boring. Just send those paychecks so they can send some money to their credit cards after racking up debt entertaining themselves. And if you ask a simple question, expect to get a "it's complex" or "nothing is black and white" answer. The same answer they give their security investigator when asked if they will sell secrets to the enemy. Nothing is black and white, and it's situational!

Third, the moment someone posts an unamerican view (like that they would gladly round up your American neighbors and throw them into concentration camps absent charge or trial, something AQ and the Taliban would like to do but are unable), you must use kid gloves and not suggest that putting their own convenience above that of the nation is somehow indicative of a faulty character, values, morality, etc. See, this is the great thing about Internet discussion - no real harm of physical retribution, because cowards who need kid gloves online and who don't have the character of a fly on shit, would never in a million years dream of trying to get physical with you when you expose their level of cowardice online. It's the same in the real world, because a coward knows if they did try to physically retort to somebody, they'd get their clock stopped just like they get bested online in a discussion.

Fourth...as people begin to spin and create their own facts, demand evidence. If you can't do that, try to pretend you're a macho man by throwing in a few vague references to physical altercation, and pretend like "in the real world" you would bow up. It's the internet, so people will think you're a tough guy without knowing that you would get absolutely leveled!

Lastly...never give up! If you can't win through online debate, and your obviously flat claims of being an internet tough guy fail, and your derision of them for not posting light and fluffy entertaining topics doesn't work - well then claim they have no social life and no pleasure in life! Just be ready when they come back and ask for evidence when you pull such a claim out of your ass, where the gerbil was sleeping.

http://www.talkandroid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/coward.jpg?3995d3

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 01:46 PM
For the future, Wombat & Friends, if you want to turn the discussion into sparring with me, please go pick one of the several PYB threads and we can do it there.

Show a little respect for serious topics if you want to sit at the big people table, ok?

Shrike
10-07-2012, 02:26 PM
For the future, Wombat & Friends, if you want to turn the discussion into sparring with me, please go pick one of the several PYB threads and we can do it there.

Show a little respect for serious topics if you want to sit at the big people table, ok?

BTW, your thread topic here does not fit under the "Air Force" section. If you want people to treat your topics with respect, don't post them in the wrong area. Now, for respect:


http://brandperiscope.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Referrals-no-respect.jpg


Now, let me save you the time on making your usual response: blah blah lunch table, blah blah Don Shrike, blah blah BLAH.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 02:28 PM
BTW, your thread topic here does not fit under the "Air Force" section. If you want people to treat your topics with respect, don't post them in the wrong area. Now, for respect:


http://brandperiscope.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Referrals-no-respect.jpg


Now, let me save you the time on making your usual response: blah blah lunch table, blah blah Don Shrike, blah blah BLAH.

Hey Shrike, I think the obligation to the oath fits here. I understand you and your pals don't think so, it does appear to be a foreign concept. But since the Air Force was part of the Army during this discussion, and didn't become separate until 1947, and since it was Army troops who rounded up these Americans, it fits.

Now why don't you take your giant glob of internet insecurity self over to some other thread where you can do what you do best, posting about nonsense. Thanks sport.

BTW, I think Bob Dorr is trying to sell an Air Force related book on these forums! Got get em tiger!

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 02:37 PM
Pat Morita of the Karate Kid talks about being in the concentration camps.


http://youtu.be/2XpPbBoxBME

Shrike
10-07-2012, 02:37 PM
Hey Shrike, I think the obligation to the oath fits here. I understand you and your pals don't think so, it does appear to be a foreign concept. But since the Air Force was part of the Army during this discussion, and didn't become separate until 1947, and since it was Army troops who rounded up these Americans, it fits.

Now why don't you take your giant glob of internet insecurity self over to some other thread where you can do what you do best, posting about nonsense. Thanks sport.

BTW, I think Bob Dorr is trying to sell an Air Force related book on these forums! Got get em tiger!

Nope, the dumbest child at the Dumbass School for the Dumb would know that there are at least four other sections that this topic better fits under. I'll throw one of them at you as a treat, little doggie: "U.S. Constitution".

You are a complete coward for not having the guts to leave this section of the forum and post under the proper area. Your career is an utter sham because of this blatant cowardice, and I would wager that your mother rues the day her womb was blighted with your cowardly, shameful presence.

Oh and your little rant reads like a second-grader wrote it which is amusing considering your response to Bobby in his book thread. Wow, do you make yourself look incompetent when you take others to task for the same errors you make.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 02:41 PM
Nope, the dumbest child at the Dumbass School for the Dumb would know that there are at least four other sections that this topic better fits under. I'll throw one of them at you as a treat, little doggie: "U.S. Constitution".

You are a complete coward for not having the guts to leave this section of the forum and post under the proper area. Your career is an utter sham because of this blatant cowardice, and I would wager that your mother rues the day her womb was blighted with your cowardly, shameful presence.

Oh and your little rant reads like a second-grader wrote it which is amusing considering your response to Bobby in his book thread. Wow, do you make yourself look incompetent when you take others to task for the same errors you make.

Nice response champ. I bet you're wishing you had blocked me, like you said you had done, huh? You and JD are funny that way, saying one thing and yet not doing it.

I understand that you have nothing better to offer than "that's in the wrong forum!" (even when it's not) and "you're soliciting Mr. Dorr!" (even if he's not).

You should find a hobby.

Shrike
10-07-2012, 02:41 PM
I'm done with you for now, by the way. Have fun typing your frothing response, little child doggie puppy boy. I'm sure the insecurities that made you uparmor a POS will be well-served in the response you'll type...which I won't read anyway, but go ahead and waste your time.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 02:44 PM
I'm done with you for now, by the way. Have fun typing your frothing response, little child doggie puppy boy. I'm sure the insecurities that made you uparmor a POS will be well-served in the response you'll type...which I won't read anyway, but go ahead and waste your time.

See you next time when you respond to me after saying you've blocked me. Buh bye.

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 03:00 PM
For you edification. Some Americans talking about what the American military did to them in the 1940s.


http://youtu.be/Aqmx2XhHxeY

tiredretiredE7
10-07-2012, 05:11 PM
Here is a modern day hypothetical scenario for you to consider. What would have happened in our country if Bush would have turned the two most recent wars into religious wars? We would have thousands (even if 1% were radicalized) of potential Muslims in our country who would become radicalized and fight for their religion by randomly committing violent attacks against mass population targets. This would be completely random it would be impossible which Muslim would commit the next attack and where the attack would take place.

Would I willingly follow an order to arrest and incarcerate suspected radicalized Muslims without due process? Absolutely and I would do it for free. This is a realistic scenario that Bush avoided but could have very easily occurred. I would not execute or kill suspected Muslims if they did not meet R.O.E.

PYB, what would you do in this scenario?

PYB,

Why are you ignoring my question?

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 05:28 PM
PYB,

Why are you ignoring my question?

My apologies, TRE7. Let me take a look at that now.


Here is a modern day hypothetical scenario for you to consider. What would have happened in our country if Bush would have turned the two most recent wars into religious wars?

I don't know what would have happened. I'm guessing there would have been people here at home who would have felt it inappropriate to waste taxpayer money and blood to fight superstitious wars between two intellectual twins with similar but different books. And I'm guessing there would have been more Muslims enlisted to fight against us.


We would have thousands (even if 1% were radicalized) of potential Muslims in our country who would become radicalized and fight for their religion by randomly committing violent attacks against mass population targets. This would be completely random it would be impossible which Muslim would commit the next attack and where the attack would take place.

Ok, you answered your own question and then stated some things I don't agree with, that it would be "impossible" to track the next Muslim attack and that those attacks would be random. I don't believe that to be the case, but could be wrong, so let's go with your prediction.


Would I willingly follow an order to arrest and incarcerate suspected radicalized Muslims without due process?

So if the government says they are bad, you will round up Americans of a particular color or religion? I assume you mean that Congress passes laws making our military into law enforcement (and changes current law), and then are you going to require a warrant before going into some Americans home and arresting them? So that you can arrest them where they will be charged with a crime and then tried? Or are you just going to treat a suburb of Atlanta as though you were in downtown Baghdad?


Absolutely and I would do it for free. This is a realistic scenario that Bush avoided but could have very easily occurred. I would not execute or kill suspected Muslims if they did not meet R.O.E.

What ROE?


PYB, what would you do in this scenario?

If Congress overturned current laws which separate the roles of the military and local law enforcement (which have been in place since the military abuses against southerners in post Civil War America), and instead converted our military into local law enforcement policing the people of this nation, then I would resign my commission. I'm personally not interested in using America's military might against its people. That's not how I want to serve my country. Had I wanted to do such things, I would have joined law enforcement.

Now that I've answered your question, does this tie into the topic of the OP?

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 06:24 PM
Alright, so far we have 7 folks (36.84%) saying that YES, they would have rounded up Americans by force without charge or trial and thrown them on the trains taking them to concentration camps. CrustySMSgt, Max Power, MCPO_USN, OtisRNeedleman, Sgt HULK, tiredretiredE7, and twoZJbrass.

We have 8 folks (42.11%) saying NO, they would refuse to do as the order was unlawful. bonacwolverine9497, jconners, Joe Bonham, PickYourBattles, raider8169, ROAD, ThaBufe, and Z1911.

And last, but certainly not least, we have 4 folks (21.05%) who just don't know whether or not they would round up American men, women, and children absent charge and trial and herd them into concentration camps. BRUWIN, ConfusedAirman, js7799, and sandsjames.


http://youtu.be/R7z45PrQgyY

PickYourBattles
10-07-2012, 06:32 PM
Here is the text of the 1988 apology to Japanese Americans from President Ronald Reagan and the Congress, for the crime of the concentration camps, along with a bill providing each of the living Americans who were unlawfully incarcerated, $20,000 each. Reminds me of how we pay off families in Afghanistan or Iraq after we blow up their houses.

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00055&search_id=19269&pagenum=2

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 02:13 PM
Not only did President Reagan apologize for the unlawful violation of American civil liberties, but President Clinton also did:

http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/graphics/WhiteHouseLetter.GIF

Yes, "war time hysteria, and a lack of political leadership."

He forgot to mention all the oath breakers who had no character, who each refused to do their duty and fulfill their legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders.

Good thing we don't have to worry about this happening again in the near future, amirite!

TJMAC77SP
10-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Another thread fail. Your thread topic and poll question are not the same. The devil is in the details. An oversight or attempt to manipulate?

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 02:54 PM
I rue the day somebody convinced you that you were intelligent.

tiredretiredE7
10-08-2012, 03:49 PM
My apologies, TRE7. Let me take a look at that now.



I don't know what would have happened. I'm guessing there would have been people here at home who would have felt it inappropriate to waste taxpayer money and blood to fight superstitious wars between two intellectual twins with similar but different books. And I'm guessing there would have been more Muslims enlisted to fight against us.



Ok, you answered your own question and then stated some things I don't agree with, that it would be "impossible" to track the next Muslim attack and that those attacks would be random. I don't believe that to be the case, but could be wrong, so let's go with your prediction.



So if the government says they are bad, you will round up Americans of a particular color or religion? I assume you mean that Congress passes laws making our military into law enforcement (and changes current law), and then are you going to require a warrant before going into some Americans home and arresting them? So that you can arrest them where they will be charged with a crime and then tried? Or are you just going to treat a suburb of Atlanta as though you were in downtown Baghdad?



What ROE?



If Congress overturned current laws which separate the roles of the military and local law enforcement (which have been in place since the military abuses against southerners in post Civil War America), and instead converted our military into local law enforcement policing the people of this nation, then I would resign my commission. I'm personally not interested in using America's military might against its people. That's not how I want to serve my country. Had I wanted to do such things, I would have joined law enforcement.

Now that I've answered your question, does this tie into the topic of the OP?

PYB,

My scenario would easily be applied to the NDAA you mentioned but would target Muslims instead of Japanese in our country. The "impossible" part of the scenario would mean we would have to rely on what our intelligence provided for the arrests and we would have no idea how accurate the intelligence would be so we could arrest innocent Muslims by mistake. As far a a particular religion, the Muslims are the only current religion with extremists/radicals committing suiceide bombings. The NDAA makes this a possible scenario and is an updated version of your topic in the OP.

I could see our government imposing martial law on certain cities if a religious war broke out and use the NDAA to roundup "suspected" extremists/radical Muslims. This could easily spread out through the United States to the level that was used to round up the Japanese so thats how it ties into your topic of the OP.

TJMAC77SP
10-08-2012, 03:58 PM
I rue the day somebody convinced you that you were intelligent.

That’s it? Come on now. You can do better than that. No ‘fascist’? No ‘second-grader” (that one never seems to get old to you)? No ‘wrote that with crayon’? None of the usual tripe?

Of course I didn’t really expect a response to my ACTUAL words but where is the imagination?

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 04:03 PM
PYB,

My scenario would easily be applied to the NDAA you mentioned but would target Muslims instead of Japanese in our country. The "impossible" part of the scenario would mean we would have to rely on what our intelligence provided for the arrests and we would have no idea how accurate the intelligence would be so we could arrest innocent Muslims by mistake. As far a a particular religion, the Muslims are the only current religion with extremists/radicals committing suiceide bombings. The NDAA makes this a possible scenario and is an updated version of your topic in the OP.

I could see our government imposing martial law on certain cities if a religious war broke out and use the NDAA to roundup "suspected" extremists/radical Muslims. This could easily spread out through the United States to the level that was used to round up the Japanese so thats how it ties into your topic of the OP.

It could most certainly happen, I agree. In fact, I think it will happen. I'm not sure if it will be Muslims, or Occupy, or Tea Party, or anybody who protests, or people who support journalists like WikiLeaks, but I do think it will happen. Reminds me of Hitler's list. Jews, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other conscientious objectors, gypsies, and several other groups. Kind of a catch all for anybody who wasn't a Sgt Hulk.

And before somebody brings up Godwin's Law (that unfortunate meme designed to make people feel guilty about studying or discussing THE most important piece of modern history, or to make others feel justified in not listenin), let's take a look at the democratic rise of the dictatorship in Germany. Hitler was voted in during tough economic times. He gave great speeches. He got his government behind him, including the judiciary that knew better. The people wanted it, they were scared, they were economically depressed, and they were hateful and bigoted.

And guess who Hitler's peers were? Anybody know who his peers were? Stalin from Russia. Mussolini from Italy. And President Franklin D. Roosevelt from the United States, one of the absolute worst presidents in American history, who gave the order to lock up Americans into concentration camps without charge or trial.

But Germany after the fact, just like America did after the American concentration camps, apologized. My bad! But still, don't talk about Germany and FDR and how it all relates to today, or you're just another one of those guys. Tin foil, etc etc, yawn.

Politicians don't pass a law that redefines America as a dictatorship, without having a reason and a plan. The NDAA is the most unconstitutional and most tyrannical piece of legislation to ever be passed in America. It establishes a dictatorship. And most Americans don't care.

We will repeat the 1940s and we in the military will be front and center yet again. The question is, will we fail yet again? There will be no apology after the next episode. We fail this time, and America will cease to exist forever more.

Banned
10-08-2012, 04:04 PM
I'm done with you for now, by the way. Have fun typing your frothing response, little child doggie puppy boy. I'm sure the insecurities that made you uparmor a POS will be well-served in the response you'll type...which I won't read anyway, but go ahead and waste your time.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING!!

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 04:05 PM
That’s it? Come on now. You can do better than that. No ‘fascist’? No ‘second-grader” (that one never seems to get old to you)? No ‘wrote that with crayon’? None of the usual tripe?

Of course I didn’t really expect a response to my ACTUAL words but where is the imagination?

Let's take this over to the I Hate PYB thread, shall we? Thanks.

TJMAC77SP
10-08-2012, 04:10 PM
Let's take this over to the I Hate PYB thread, shall we? Thanks.

And still no actual response.

imnohero
10-08-2012, 04:20 PM
The NDAA is the most unconstitutional and most tyrannical piece of legislation to ever be passed in America. It establishes a dictatorship.

You are way over-reacting. Presumably you are referencing section 1201. In context with section 1022, the various legal challenges, court rulings, and that it's severable...hardly support the statement that the FY2012 NDAA "establishes a dictatorship."

Banned
10-08-2012, 04:27 PM
You are way over-reacting. Presumably you are referencing section 1201. In context with section 1022, the various legal challenges, court rulings, and that it's severable...hardly support the statement that the FY2012 NDAA "establishes a dictatorship."

Indefinite detainment, assassination, and soldiers arresting and killing citizens on our own soil... is there another necessary element to a totalitarian regime that I'm missing here?

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 04:42 PM
Responded to you in the Katherine Forrest thread.

imnohero
10-08-2012, 05:20 PM
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.

Nothing in this section authorizes unlimited detention, assassination, or killing of American citizens. Nor does any other section of the 2012 NDAA.

While I agree that this section is likely unconstitutional, it is not the establishment of dictatorship.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-08-2012, 05:23 PM
Alright, so far we have 7 folks (36.84%) saying that YES, they would have rounded up Americans by force without charge or trial and thrown them on the trains taking them to concentration camps. CrustySMSgt, Max Power, MCPO_USN, OtisRNeedleman, Sgt HULK, tiredretiredE7, and twoZJbrass.

We have 8 folks (42.11%) saying NO, they would refuse to do as the order was unlawful. bonacwolverine9497, jconners, Joe Bonham, PickYourBattles, raider8169, ROAD, ThaBufe, and Z1911.

And last, but certainly not least, we have 4 folks (21.05%) who just don't know whether or not they would round up American men, women, and children absent charge and trial and herd them into concentration camps. BRUWIN, ConfusedAirman, js7799, and sandsjames.



Does it matter that one of your “Oath Keepers” is one of those stolen valor clowns?

Jerry Conners is a well-known fraudster on this and many other sites.

I guess it doesn’t matter because this is a perfect exercise for a clown like him.

He can say he would resign his pretend commission in your pretend scenario and play Mr Big Shot right along with you, huh?

Banned
10-08-2012, 05:29 PM
Does it matter that one of your “Oath Keepers” is one of those stolen valor clowns?

Jerry Conners is a well-known fraudster on this and many other sites.

I guess it doesn’t matter because this is a perfect exercise for a clown like him.

He can say he would resign his pretend commission in your pretend scenario and play Mr Big Shot right along with you, huh?

I didn't know who he was until I googled him. Is this (http://flashfictiononline.com/bb/index.php?topic=207.0;wap2) him?

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 05:46 PM
Nothing in this section authorizes unlimited detention, assassination, or killing of American citizens. Nor does any other section of the 2012 NDAA.

While I agree that this section is likely unconstitutional, it is not the establishment of dictatorship.

Why don't we take this over to the Katherine Forrest (NDAA) thread, where I can show you some things perhaps you haven't considered?

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 05:47 PM
Does it matter that one of your “Oath Keepers” is one of those stolen valor clowns?

Jerry Conners is a well-known fraudster on this and many other sites.

I guess it doesn’t matter because this is a perfect exercise for a clown like him.

He can say he would resign his pretend commission in your pretend scenario and play Mr Big Shot right along with you, huh?

Do you need your medicine? I don't know him, but why you would lump him in with me is another story. And if he is a fraud and a fake, then that simply means a fraud and fake says he will have the courage to do the right thing.

What about you?

Absinthe Anecdote
10-08-2012, 06:01 PM
Do you need your medicine? I don't know him, but why you would lump him in with me is another story. And if he is a fraud and a fake, then that simply means a fraud and fake says he will have the courage to do the right thing.

What about you?

Not trying to imply you are a fraudster.

However, this exercise reeks of “internet tough-guy” bullshit.

Especially when someone starts calling other people cowards based on their answers here.

None of the responses given in this thread mean anything in real life.

The people who claim they would defend the constitution don’t deserve accolades and the people who say they would probably follow orders don’t deserve to be called cowards.

This is only a pretend fantasy world.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Not trying to imply you are a fraudster.

However, this exercise reeks of “internet tough-guy” bullshit.

Especially when someone starts calling other people cowards based on their answers here.

None of the responses given in this thread mean anything in real life.

The people who claim they would defend the constitution don’t deserve accolades and the people who say they would probably follow orders don’t deserve to be called cowards.

This is only a pretend fantasy world.

What a smart guy you are. It's just a fantasy world.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Those Who Don't Know History.

Those Who Don't Know History who?

Those Who Don't Know History are Doomed to Repeat it.

Just figured I'd make concentration camps by the hands of American military entertaining for your buddy Wombat. He loves to be entertained. As apparently do you.

imnohero
10-08-2012, 06:17 PM
Why don't we take this over to the Katherine Forrest (NDAA) thread, where I can show you some things perhaps you haven't considered?

Don't need to, see I read the actual laws and court decisions, consider history, philosophy, and any number of other things, and then form my own opinion. Given that I've been thinking about this since it first came up, I doubt very strongly whether there is anything you have to offer that I haven't already considered.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-08-2012, 06:24 PM
I didn't know who he was until I googled him. Is this (http://flashfictiononline.com/bb/index.php?topic=207.0;wap2) him?

Yes, same guy.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-08-2012, 06:27 PM
What a smart guy you are. It's just a fantasy world.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Those Who Don't Know History.

Those Who Don't Know History who?

Those Who Don't Know History are Doomed to Repeat it.

Just figured I'd make concentration camps by the hands of American military entertaining for your buddy Wombat. He loves to be entertained. As apparently do you.

Fine, then study history.

I would be less inclined to take pot shots at you if you'd show just a little humility.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 06:36 PM
Don't need to, see I read the actual laws and court decisions, consider history, philosophy, and any number of other things, and then form my own opinion. Given that I've been thinking about this since it first came up, I doubt very strongly whether there is anything you have to offer that I haven't already considered.

You're probably right, you don't need to. Fuck. I'm bested. You are the real deal! Wow, I'm honored to encounter your intellect and level of awareness online. I'm sure your intelligence and level of education is far better than mine. I'm sure your legal circle of friends is also as superior as mine.

I suppose that's why you have failed to realize that the NDAA law says (in a separate section that you quoted that doesn't refer to the other section) that it (not the section on indefinitely detaining "anyone") does not apply to American citizens. Ooops!

That's why you failed to mention the floor debates where numerous Congressmen, including the Senator below who sponsored the bill, made it clear that YES IT DOES apply to Americans on American soil.


http://youtu.be/9ni-nPc6gT4

I guess that's why you failed to mention that amendments offered up to clarify that the bill did NOT apply to American citizens, were soundly defeated in a nice bipartisan fashion.

That's also why you have failed to realize that the POTUS who said he would veto the bill, in fact signed it on December 29th while the nation was celebrating.

I guess that's why you failed to mention the President Obama signed it anyway, but issued a signing statement saying (and I quote for you counselor):


Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

I guess that's why you failed to mention that this section of NDAA was the subject of lawsuit against Obama by various journalists claiming the government was saying it could arrest Americans for free speech, and that Obama did send his lawyers to defend it.

I guess that's why you didn't mention that Judge Katherine Forrest found that this section of the NDAA was "unconstitutional" and then called the decision re: the Japanese American concentration camps of the 1940s, embarrassing.

I guess that's why you didn't mention that the government refused to say that the Americans would not be indefinitely detained for free speech, until after the Judge issues her injunction against the government.

I guess that's why you didn't mention that the POTUS who said he would veto the bill, but signed it and issued a signing statement saying that HE wouldn't use it to indefinitely detain Americans (because like you say, the power isn't there, duh), immediately appealed the injunction to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the appeal is waiting a decision on whether Judge Forrest was correct that......

The law was unconstitutional.

But hey, feel free to stay out of the Judge Katherine Forrest thread, because you might learn something. I can see you have done so already!

imnohero
10-08-2012, 06:59 PM
You're probably right, you don't need to. Fuck. I'm bested. You are the real deal! Wow, I'm honored to encounter your intellect and level of awareness online. I'm sure your intelligence and level of education is far better than mine. I'm sure your legal circle of friends is also as superior as mine.

I suppose that's why you have failed to realize that the NDAA law says (in a separate section that you quoted that doesn't refer to the other section) that it (not the section on indefinitely detaining "anyone") does not apply to American citizens. Ooops!

That's why you failed to mention the floor debates where numerous Congressmen, including the Senator below who sponsored the bill, made it clear that YES IT DOES apply to Americans on American soil.


http://youtu.be/9ni-nPc6gT4

I guess that's why you failed to mention that amendments offered up to clarify that the bill did NOT apply to American citizens, were soundly defeated in a nice bipartisan fashion.

That's also why you have failed to realize that the POTUS who said he would veto the bill, in fact signed it on December 29th while the nation was celebrating.

I guess that's why you failed to mention the President Obama signed it anyway, but issued a signing statement saying (and I quote for you counselor):



I guess that's why you failed to mention that this section of NDAA was the subject of lawsuit against Obama by various journalists claiming the government was saying it could arrest Americans for free speech, and that Obama did send his lawyers to defend it.

I guess that's why you didn't mention that Judge Katherine Forrest found that this section of the NDAA was "unconstitutional" and then called the decision re: the Japanese American concentration camps of the 1940s, embarrassing.

I guess that's why you didn't mention that the government refused to say that the Americans would not be indefinitely detained for free speech, until after the Judge issues her injunction against the government.

I guess that's why you didn't mention that the POTUS who said he would veto the bill, but signed it and issued a signing statement saying that HE wouldn't use it to indefinitely detain Americans (because like you say, the power isn't there, duh), immediately appealed the injunction to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the appeal is waiting a decision on whether Judge Forrest was correct that......

The law was unconstitutional.

But hey, feel free to stay out of the Judge Katherine Forrest thread, because you might learn something. I can see you have done so already!

At contention is not whether it's unconstitutionality, which I have already said I believe that it is...for many of the reasons you note above.

What is in contention is your statement that it (the NDAA) establishes a dictatorship. Which you still haven't discussed. Nor does your little diatribe refute that the NDAA doesn't authorize unlimited detention, assassination or killing of citizens. You can't because it doesn't, so you attack me instead.

As for your sarcasm re: my intelligence, education and social circles. You know nothing about me, my education or associations. You're brash assumption that you are smarter, more educated, or understand more than I do seems to be based solely on my disagreement with you. Which is pathetic and sad.

Banned
10-08-2012, 07:04 PM
At contention is not whether it's unconstitutionality, which I have already said I believe that it is...for many of the reasons you note above.

What is in contention is your statement that it (the NDAA) establishes a dictatorship. Which you still haven't discussed. Nor does your little diatribe refute that the NDAA doesn't authorize unlimited detention, assassination or killing of citizens. You can't because it doesn't, so you attack me instead.

As for your sarcasm re: my intelligence, education and social circles. You know nothing about me, my education or associations. You're brash assumption that you are smarter, more educated, or understand more than I do seems to be based solely on my disagreement with you. Which is pathetic and sad.

Personalities aside - would you disagree with the statement that the NDAA brings every tool to the table necessary for a totalitarian regime... not necessarily a "dictatorship" implying absolute unlimited rule by one man - but an oppressive regime in general?

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 07:23 PM
At contention is not whether it's unconstitutionality, which I have already said I believe that it is...for many of the reasons you note above.

What is in contention is your statement that it (the NDAA) establishes a dictatorship. Which you still haven't discussed. Nor does your little diatribe refute that the NDAA doesn't authorize unlimited detention, assassination or killing of citizens. You can't because it doesn't, so you attack me instead.

As for your sarcasm re: my intelligence, education and social circles. You know nothing about me, my education or associations. You're brash assumption that you are smarter, more educated, or understand more than I do seems to be based solely on my disagreement with you. Which is pathetic and sad.

Yes, something is pathetic and sad here. But not your handle. That is perfect, and I have no issue with it. Kudos to you.

I never said, the NDAA had anything to do with the claimed power to assassinate Americans. In fact, I have said the opposite. And the NDAA does authorize indefinite detentions (is that unlimited? I suppose not, IF the government decides it's not, but it's up to them).

I don't attack you. I attack your posts, because they are quite simply ridiculous. You're like a third grader who's dad bought him a basketball for Christmas trying to square off with Michael Jordan.

I do admire your spunk. I just wish you could spell spunk.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 07:25 PM
Personalities aside - would you disagree with the statement that the NDAA brings every tool to the table necessary for a totalitarian regime... not necessarily a "dictatorship" implying absolute unlimited rule by one man - but an oppressive regime in general?

I'll save educating Imnohero on this point and let you do your work. He doesn't like the way I do it. You're a liberal so you're softer and more touchy feely than I am.

Good luck explaining tyranny vs America to him Joe Bonham. We're all counting on you.

imnohero
10-08-2012, 07:46 PM
I never said, the NDAA had anything to do with the claimed power to assassinate Americans.

You're right, you only implied it. Which is your stock and trade, imply some bullshit and when you're called on it, you have plausible deniability. But this next bit...sheesh, I've never seen anyone so dillusional they can actually contradict themselves in the span of two sentences.



I don't attack you.

Followed by


You're like a third grader and
I just wish you could spell spunk.

You know, you really should get some help for that. I know a good psychologist.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 08:01 PM
You're right, you only implied it. Which is your stock and trade, imply some bullshit and when you're called on it, you have plausible deniability. But this next bit...sheesh, I've never seen anyone so dillusional they can actually contradict themselves in the span of two sentences.



And don't worry about me just today correcting one forum member and telling them the NDAA had nothing to do with assassinating Americans.

The reason I point out that your posts are moronic, is because they are utterly moronic. But beyond that, like so many on this board, they are disingenuous, where you lie and make your facts up, to try to spin a story. Not true, you say?

Then share the quote where I imply the NDAA had something to do with assassinating Americans.

imnohero
10-08-2012, 10:34 PM
You wrote:
The NDAA is the most unconstitutional and most tyrannical piece of legislation to ever be passed in America. It establishes a dictatorship.

Assuming you are using proper grammar, the "it" in the second sentence refers to the NDAA.

Then I wrote:
In context with section 1022, the various legal challenges, court rulings, and that it's severable...hardly support the statement that the FY2012 NDAA "establishes a dictatorship."

Then you wrote:
Indefinite detainment, assassination, and soldiers arresting and killing citizens on our own soil... is there another necessary element to a totalitarian regime that I'm missing here?

Unless you are claiming that the second quote above is completely unrelated to the 1st quote, then the primary connection between them is the implication, by you, that the NDAA authorizes "Indefinite detainment, assassination, and soldiers arresting and killing citizens on our own soil."

You know very well that this is what you wrote and implied. You can deny it all you like, but it's there for everyone to see.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 10:48 PM
You wrote:

Assuming you are using proper grammar, the "it" in the second sentence refers to the NDAA.

Then I wrote:

Then you wrote:

Unless you are claiming that the second quote above is completely unrelated to the 1st quote, then the primary connection between them is the implication, by you, that the NDAA authorizes "Indefinite detainment, assassination, and soldiers arresting and killing citizens on our own soil."

You know very well that this is what you wrote and implied. You can deny it all you like, but it's there for everyone to see.

How strange you don't actually quote folks using the quote function (you know, because it then shows who posted each of those quotes you claim). I think if you do so, you'll see that the quote you claim was mine:


Indefinite detainment, assassination, and soldiers arresting and killing citizens on our own soil... is there another necessary element to a totalitarian regime that I'm missing here?

Was actually from one Joe Bonham, and not me. And then if you were to really go above and beyond, you'd would then see that I corrected him and stated the NDAA did not talk about assassination.

Here, let me demonstrate how to use the quote function so people can actually see who said it:


Indefinite detainment, assassination, and soldiers arresting and killing citizens on our own soil... is there another necessary element to a totalitarian regime that I'm missing here?

To which I then responded:


Responded to you in the Katherine Forrest thread.


The NDAA doesn't talk about assassination (though the top administration lawyers, Holder, Brennan and Koh have taken to the legal circuit claiming that the President does have that right). But you are right, if the POTUS can arrest an American without charge or trial and hold them indefinitely with no access to a lawyer (the NDAA does all this), then how can that be anything other than tyrannical?

If you can be arrested based on a secret suspicion without an ability to challenge it, then you have no right to free speech, or right to bear arms, or right to protest, or right of the press, or any rights at all. I'm not sure how this is complicated. If you can just be nabbed for any reason, or no reason at all, by your government and you can't challenge it - how is it possible that in any universe that could be anything other than totalitarianism? Fascism. Authoritarianism.

Who would have ever thought a couple hundred years ago that this point would have to be made to "Americans" and that they just wouldn't get it?

It's one thing to get it fucked up. It's quite another to then be called out on it, and then to obviously mis-quote. You are either somebody who should be wearing a pink padded helmet, or you lack integrity which is it?

Please take your pink padded helmet and just go away. I can't stand people as stupid as yourself, or as disingenuous as yourself, who will just make shit up or lie to try to prove a point. Do you have no character at all?

imnohero
10-08-2012, 10:56 PM
LOL, you know what, that's my bad and I'm sorry. I know your world view is completely black and white, but you really should consider the idea that there is some room between "padded helmet" and having integrity. Like admitting mistakes when they are made.

In any case, you still haven't explained how the NDAA establishes a dictatorship, that was your comment.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 10:59 PM
LOL, you know what, that's my bad and I'm sorry. I know your world view is completely black and white, but you really should consider the idea that there is some room between "padded helmet" and having integrity. Like admitting mistakes when they are made.

In any case, you still haven't explained how the NDAA establishes a dictatorship, that was your comment.

Ok fine, a mistake was made and you admit it.

As I've told you before, go to the Katherine Forrest thread to talk about NDAA. That's where I have posted my commentary.

PickYourBattles
10-08-2012, 11:15 PM
The response to you is in the Katherine Forrest thread, You'reNoHero.

imnohero
10-08-2012, 11:54 PM
The response to you is in the Katherine Forrest thread, You'reNoHero.

I know you think you're "getting my goat" or whatever changing my name around. But it doesn't bother me a bit. Know why? Because I did my duty, served with honor, and have the humility to know that I was not called on, nor performed any heroic acts.

You can believe that or not, doesn't bother me either way, because you're just some dude on the internet that is an amusing way to waste some time. In short, you don't matter and are incapable of telling me anything I don't know or changing my mind.

PickYourBattles
10-09-2012, 12:55 AM
I know you think you're "getting my goat" or whatever changing my name around. But it doesn't bother me a bit. Know why? Because I did my duty, served with honor, and have the humility to know that I was not called on, nor performed any heroic acts.

You can believe that or not, doesn't bother me either way, because you're just some dude on the internet that is an amusing way to waste some time.

Good times. Thanks for the honesty. Thanks for the decent post on the NDAA thread.


In short, you don't matter and are incapable of telling me anything I don't know or changing my mind.

Well, I'm not sure I can change your mind though I tend to agree with you. As far as telling you something you don't know, I can most certainly do plenty of that. And I have no doubt you could tell me things I don't know, too.

PickYourBattles
10-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Acting Solicitor General of the United States apologizes for his predecessor withholding evidence when these camps got challenged at the Supreme Court:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/24/nation/la-na-japanese-americans-20110525

PickYourBattles
10-14-2012, 10:39 PM
For those who voted that they would follow the order, or that they don't know if they would have followed the order or not, this video reminded me of you.

It's not a perfect video, but there are parts that cut right to YOU. For you edification.


http://youtu.be/XhGjgVw9NfM

RS6405
10-14-2012, 10:45 PM
For those who voted that they would follow the order, or that they don't know if they would have followed the order or not, this video reminded me of you.

It's not a perfect video, but there are parts that cut right to YOU. For you edification.


http://youtu.be/XhGjgVw9NfM

PYB .... what are your sources?

Igloowhite
10-15-2012, 03:27 AM
In 1997 while attending the Navy Post Graduate School, Navy Lt Cmdr Neil Bewell's Master's Thesis dealt with the domestic use of military force on the civilian populace. Using a scenario resembling the riots caused by the Rodney King incident, Bewell interviewed 100 Marines at Camp Lejeune, NC and asked if they would have any questions using deadly force on civilians. All 100 hundred respondents responded that they would have no problem.

F4CrewChick
10-15-2012, 04:07 AM
In 1997 while attending the Navy Post Graduate School, Navy Lt Cmdr Neil Bewell's Master's Thesis dealt with the domestic use of military force on the civilian populace. Using a scenario resembling the riots caused by the Rodney King incident, Bewell interviewed 100 Marines at Camp Lejeune, NC and asked if they would have any questions using deadly force on civilians. All 100 hundred respondents responded that they would have no problem.Honestly, they are Marines, they are also the smallest force for a reason. No slight intended on Marines, simply they are trained to FIGHT and not question it. By how this poll is shaping up, it appears that at LEAST half of us would have a problem with an order to imprison without charges, warrant, or suspension of posse comitatus, American citizens en masse. There are enough sane and bright servicemembers to ensure a situation like that wouldn't happen in this day and age.

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 02:15 AM
There are enough sane and bright servicemembers to ensure a situation like that wouldn't happen in this day and age.

I wish I believed that. It's easy to say you'd do the right thing on an anonymous messageboard. The sheer number of people who say they'd do the wrong thing on that anonymous messageboard is frightening. Along with recent history that shows (if you believe the media) otherwise.


http://youtu.be/vh9ZrJEHXEQ

F4CrewChick
10-16-2012, 02:39 AM
It pisses me off that some weak coward who won't sign his neg rep, dings people because of disagreeing with the position taken in a comment. The reputation points aren't about whether you agree with a post or not but if the post is an adhominem attack or offensive, etc. Whatevs you coward who won't sign his name.

PYB, the Glenn video is about the drone strikes which is far afield from rounding up American citizens on US soil and putting them in camps en masse. The drone strikes are a different topic all together.

sandsjames
10-16-2012, 03:20 AM
The sheer number of people who say they'd do the wrong thing on that anonymous messageboard is frightening. I would think the number of people on the messageboard saying they'd "do the wrong thing" is quite skewed in relation to the AF as a whole. People on this board seem to be a little more disgruntled than the average airman. It's like trying to get an accurate percentage of poverty by doing a census only in the inner city.

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 03:59 AM
I would think the number of people on the messageboard saying they'd "do the wrong thing" is quite skewed in relation to the AF as a whole. People on this board seem to be a little more disgruntled than the average airman. It's like trying to get an accurate percentage of poverty by doing a census only in the inner city.

Is disgruntled the same as being immoral? I've always figured those who are disgruntled are so, because those above them don't do right.

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 04:01 AM
It pisses me off that some weak coward who won't sign his neg rep, dings people because of disagreeing with the position taken in a comment. The reputation points aren't about whether you agree with a post or not but if the post is an adhominem attack or offensive, etc. Whatevs you coward who won't sign his name.

PYB, the Glenn video is about the drone strikes which is far afield from rounding up American citizens on US soil and putting them in camps en masse. The drone strikes are a different topic all together.

If our government will kill Americans without due process, it will have no problem rounding them up and imprisoning them without due process. Just like happened in the 1940s.

sandsjames
10-16-2012, 04:14 AM
Boy, someone is really pissed about the 1940s. Get over it already. It's been 70 years. It's almost like you just recently discovered that these things took place.

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 05:05 AM
Boy, someone is really pissed about the 1940s. Get over it already. It's been 70 years. It's almost like you just recently discovered that these things took place.

Two points to respond.

1) Your advice is always most welcome, I am humbled by your intellect and character.

2) As some quote said, "Stupid coward MF'rs who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Something like that anyway.

F4CrewChick
10-16-2012, 06:18 AM
If our government will kill Americans without due process, it will have no problem rounding them up and imprisoning them without due process. Just like happened in the 1940s.Listen PYB, I understand about the drone strikes but to LEAP from them to US citizen/prisoners rounded up is a HUGE leap. I am not naive to the mechinations of government and the hypocrisy inherent in actions that go under the radar. In 2007 Bush signed NSPD 51* which was a thinly-veiled attempt at a coup d'etat by his cabal. That is my opinion of that insane executive directive. Do the research yourself.

Insofar as Americans being rounded up ala WWII and the Japanese internment, I really don't think it could happen. Too many laws and because it would be Americans rather the perceived 'enemy' Muslim extremists, etc., it wouldn't happen here.

*NSPD 51 states:
The presidential directive says that, when the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an "Enduring Constitutional Government" comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President," will take the place of the nation's regular government.The source text indicates that during a catastrophic emergency the federal government will cooperate as a matter of comity in order to protect the constitution:

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidenti al_Directive#cite_note-2)

The signing of this Directive was generally not covered by the mainstream U.S. media or discussed by the U.S. Congress.

F4CrewChick
10-16-2012, 06:20 AM
If our government will kill Americans without due process, it will have no problem rounding them up and imprisoning them without due process. Just like happened in the 1940s.Listen PYB, I understand about the drone strikes but to LEAP from them to US citizen/prisoners rounded up is a HUGE leap. I am not naive to the mechinations of government and the hypocrisy inherent in actions that go under the radar. In 2007 Bush signed NSPD 51* which was a thinly-veiled attempt at a coup d'etat by his cabal. That is my opinion of that insane executive directive. Do the research yourself.

Insofar as Americans being rounded up ala WWII and the Japanese internment, I really don't think it could happen. Too many laws and because it would be Americans rather the perceived 'enemy' Muslim extremists, etc., it wouldn't happen here.

*NSPD 51 states:
The presidential directive says that, when the president considers an emergency to have occurred, an "Enduring Constitutional Government" comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President," will take the place of the nation's regular government.The source text indicates that during a catastrophic emergency the federal government will cooperate as a matter of comity in order to protect the constitution:
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidenti al_Directive#cite_note-2)

The signing of this Directive was generally not covered by the mainstream U.S. media or discussed by the U.S. Congress.

sandsjames
10-16-2012, 04:23 PM
Two points to respond.

1) Your advice is always most welcome, I am humbled by your intellect and character.

2) As some quote said, "Stupid coward MF'rs who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Something like that anyway.

Very nice. You're quite creative at name calling without actually name calling. And who doesn't know history? I think most people are aware of what happened in the 1940s. It just seems like you recently discovered these facts and, like a kid with a new toy, can focus on nothing else. If you think that mentioning, over and over and over, this happened in the 1940s is going to concern people, you are way off base. Most people have already stopped worrying about what happened 11 years ago. Why would they care what happened 70 years ago?

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 04:56 PM
...I really don't think it could happen. Too many laws and because it would be Americans rather the perceived 'enemy' Muslim extremists, etc., it wouldn't happen here.

Are you saying that perceived 'enemy' Muslim extremists cannot be Americans? Or do I misunderstand? Have you read the NDAA and listened to your members of Congress and read the President's signing statement on the NDAA? I'm not sure how you could believe that it wouldn't happen (again) here, after our government (if you believe the media) has already assassinated an American on the President's whim alone, without charge or trial or any due process.


http://youtu.be/rN-6Bmw_UIA

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 05:00 PM
Very nice. You're quite creative at name calling without actually name calling. And who doesn't know history? I think most people are aware of what happened in the 1940s. It just seems like you recently discovered these facts and, like a kid with a new toy, can focus on nothing else. If you think that mentioning, over and over and over, this happened in the 1940s is going to concern people, you are way off base. Most people have already stopped worrying about what happened 11 years ago. Why would they care what happened 70 years ago?

For a military guy who professes he doesn't know if he will violate the Constitution or not, because "fight or flight" might kick in when he's ordered to break the law (oh my), you sure don't know when to take flight online. It's truly remarkable that with your character, you don't just slink off into the shadows where you belong.

But I get tired of responding to you. If I wanted to repeatedly converse with somebody who has no appreciation for the Constitution, I would go to North Korea. Still, I'd be hard pressed to find somebody there who can match your lack of character.

You hurt my soul, and it pains me to read your anti-American comments. Congrats on being the first person added to my ignore list.

Good day.

Calmo70
10-16-2012, 05:46 PM
In 1940 with the information available to the general public at the time - yes I would have.

In 2012 with the information available to the general public and my own experiences from traveling around the world multiple times - no.

AJBIGJ
10-16-2012, 06:06 PM
I think one of my main issues with the scenario and the way its being presented is that it is portrayed as such a blatant, flagrant, foul of an overbearing government. What's problematic with this hypothetical scenario is it just doesn't feel very realistic to most people in today's America.

These types of things don't generally happen this way, the encroachments are much more incremental so that we become more accustomed to toeing the line for quite a while, become complacent and comfortable with doing so, then we get asked to step over. A more likely scenario is (assuming you're already assigned to a security detail) you get asked to take an individual into detention with little going-in background information about the person to be detained. The order seems relatively harmless of and by itself. After bringing the person into detention, you are asked to release custody to a different authority, legal or even more probably a medical one, and that's the last you ever hear of it (unless it becomes newsworthy). The person you first detained then continues to be transitioned through a large degree of bureaucratic limbo and "professional oversight". All you ever remember is you were ordered to bring the person in for reasons that were beyond your own "need to know". Little did you realize your leaders deceived you (and may have been lied to themselves).

Of course, after doing this once, like a lobster in a pot you gradually become more and more comfortable with these types of activities and generally question things less as it becomes "business as usual". Before you know it, you and your peers have brought a very large number of individuals in for "detention and processing".

I like your fervor PYB, but I question your approach. Most readers in this audience probably do not have your background of research on this specific subject and rather than seeing your posts as hard questions on serious ethical issues, they may occasionally come off as tinfoil hat-wearing lunacy. This is just the opinion of a concerned outsider watching things progress.

sandsjames
10-16-2012, 06:28 PM
For a military guy who professes he doesn't know if he will violate the Constitution or not, because "fight or flight" might kick in when he's ordered to break the law (oh my), you sure don't know when to take flight online. It's truly remarkable that with your character, you don't just slink off into the shadows where you belong.

But I get tired of responding to you. If I wanted to repeatedly converse with somebody who has no appreciation for the Constitution, I would go to North Korea. Still, I'd be hard pressed to find somebody there who can match your lack of character.

You hurt my soul, and it pains me to read your anti-American comments. Congrats on being the first person added to my ignore list.

Good day.

Oh dear. Now my feelings are hurt. I guess your "flight" kicked it. Don't be ashamed. I don't think any less of you.

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 09:37 PM
In 1940 with the information available to the general public at the time - yes I would have.

In 2012 with the information available to the general public and my own experiences from traveling around the world multiple times - no.

Calmo, what information available now (that wasn't available in the 1940s) and what kind of experience from travel, have convinced you to not violate the Constitution?

Calmo70
10-16-2012, 09:54 PM
Calmo, what information available now (that wasn't available in the 1940s) and what kind of experience from travel, have convinced you to not violate the Constitution?

PYB - I'm not talking about specific information as such - I'm talking about a 24 hour news cycle, the internet, and a general higher level of education/awareness now as opposed to the 1940's gov't censorship and propaganda. Additionally, I was raised in a small-town, apple pie, FDR is the greatest type atmosphere (and yes he was still a hero to my parents generation and indoctrinated on me even when I was raised in the '60's). So, yes in the 1940's I would have voluntarily participated in rounding up people the gov't deemed as dangerous to the United States - and back then probably not have felt guilty about it.

As far as traveling the world - I've met people from virtually every race, ethnic background, religion, political belief system you can think of both in Asia and Europe (I admit I haven't traveled to Africa). However, I've seen that you truly can't judge people by a label attached to them based on those characteristics. It wouldn't pass my current belief system to round up all people of a certain race, political belief system, and/or religion simply because my gov't said so.

But, having said all that - Based on your comments to various posters - I am sure I am in for a lecture of some kind.

PickYourBattles
10-16-2012, 10:54 PM
PYB - I'm not talking about specific information as such - I'm talking about a 24 hour news cycle, the internet, and a general higher level of education/awareness now as opposed to the 1940's gov't censorship and propaganda. Additionally, I was raised in a small-town, apple pie, FDR is the greatest type atmosphere (and yes he was still a hero to my parents generation and indoctrinated on me even when I was raised in the '60's). So, yes in the 1940's I would have voluntarily participated in rounding up people the gov't deemed as dangerous to the United States - and back then probably not have felt guilty about it.

As far as traveling the world - I've met people from virtually every race, ethnic background, religion, political belief system you can think of both in Asia and Europe (I admit I haven't traveled to Africa). However, I've seen that you truly can't judge people by a label attached to them based on those characteristics. It wouldn't pass my current belief system to round up all people of a certain race, political belief system, and/or religion simply because my gov't said so.

But, having said all that - Based on your comments to various posters - I am sure I am in for a lecture of some kind.

No lecture from me. You're saying that you now would not do so. You didn't mention 1) because you took an oath to the Constitution and 2) the Constitution says that's illegal and 3) you're a person of integrity, but I'll take what I can get.

F4CrewChick
10-16-2012, 11:01 PM
Calmo, what information available now (that wasn't available in the 1940s) and what kind of experience from travel, have convinced you to not violate the Constitution?
Calmo doesn't need anyone to fight his battles but I do want to add something to his point. The USA was far different culturally, educationally, racially, sociologically, psychologically, etc., in the 1940's. Calmo makes a good point about 'trusting FDR.' Because of how long he's been in office, taking us out of the Great Depression, his social programs, etc., we did trust him and his decisions AS A NATION. I can see why the military followed the internment order without question (and I am sure there are some who refused). There was also a lot more trust in government than today.

Another point is The Japanese attack was on American soil--something we had NEVER experienced. I am takin an apologist's position and given that NONE of us can KNOW all that we know now then, I can see how this came into being though it was OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY MORALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG. Because of the lessons of this horrible stain on American history, I think it is far less like to occur today. And to reiterate, I speaking from the current time and place in culture, would refuse the order to round up and force American citizens into 'concentration camps' at gunpoint. It is clearly an illegal order.

sandsjames
10-17-2012, 12:30 AM
Calmo doesn't need anyone to fight his battles but I do want to add something to his point. The USA was far different culturally, educationally, racially, sociologically, psychologically, etc., in the 1940's. Calmo makes a good point about 'trusting FDR.' Because of how long he's been in office, taking us out of the Great Depression, his social programs, etc., we did trust him and his decisions AS A NATION. I can see why the military followed the internment order without question (and I am sure there are some who refused). There was also a lot more trust in government than today.

Another point is The Japanese attack was on American soil--something we had NEVER experienced. I am takin an apologist's position and given that NONE of us can KNOW all that we know now then, I can see how this came into being though it was OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY MORALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG. Because of the lessons of this horrible stain on American history, I think it is far less like to occur today. And to reiterate, I speaking from the current time and place in culture, would refuse the order to round up and force American citizens into 'concentration camps' at gunpoint. It is clearly an illegal order.

Very well said.

sandsjames
10-17-2012, 12:31 AM
PYB - I'm not talking about specific information as such - I'm talking about a 24 hour news cycle, the internet, and a general higher level of education/awareness now as opposed to the 1940's gov't censorship and propaganda. Additionally, I was raised in a small-town, apple pie, FDR is the greatest type atmosphere (and yes he was still a hero to my parents generation and indoctrinated on me even when I was raised in the '60's). So, yes in the 1940's I would have voluntarily participated in rounding up people the gov't deemed as dangerous to the United States - and back then probably not have felt guilty about it.

As far as traveling the world - I've met people from virtually every race, ethnic background, religion, political belief system you can think of both in Asia and Europe (I admit I haven't traveled to Africa). However, I've seen that you truly can't judge people by a label attached to them based on those characteristics. It wouldn't pass my current belief system to round up all people of a certain race, political belief system, and/or religion simply because my gov't said so.

But, having said all that - Based on your comments to various posters - I am sure I am in for a lecture of some kind.

Not a lecture. Just an attempt to make you feel inferior. He will fail, but it will make him feel better about himself.

Banned
10-17-2012, 12:41 AM
I think one of my main issues with the scenario and the way its being presented is that it is portrayed as such a blatant, flagrant, foul of an overbearing government. What's problematic with this hypothetical scenario is it just doesn't feel very realistic to most people in today's America.

These types of things don't generally happen this way, the encroachments are much more incremental so that we become more accustomed to toeing the line for quite a while, become complacent and comfortable with doing so, then we get asked to step over. A more likely scenario is (assuming you're already assigned to a security detail) you get asked to take an individual into detention with little going-in background information about the person to be detained. The order seems relatively harmless of and by itself. After bringing the person into detention, you are asked to release custody to a different authority, legal or even more probably a medical one, and that's the last you ever hear of it (unless it becomes newsworthy). The person you first detained then continues to be transitioned through a large degree of bureaucratic limbo and "professional oversight". All you ever remember is you were ordered to bring the person in for reasons that were beyond your own "need to know". Little did you realize your leaders deceived you (and may have been lied to themselves).

Of course, after doing this once, like a lobster in a pot you gradually become more and more comfortable with these types of activities and generally question things less as it becomes "business as usual". Before you know it, you and your peers have brought a very large number of individuals in for "detention and processing".

I like your fervor PYB, but I question your approach. Most readers in this audience probably do not have your background of research on this specific subject and rather than seeing your posts as hard questions on serious ethical issues, they may occasionally come off as tinfoil hat-wearing lunacy. This is just the opinion of a concerned outsider watching things progress.

Bear in mind it wouldn't be a large, popular group that would be herded into camps - it would be a small, weak and unpopular one - most likely one that Christian fundamentalists dislike and would love to see herded into camps.

If Obama/Romney gave the order for... say... Muslims to be interned - I suspect the vast majority of our military members would accept that order without question.