Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

rated by 0 users
This post has 27 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

So did Lincoln. Don't they keep comparing him to Lincoln?

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Jan 24 2013 11:18 PM

While it's easy to jump on him, I suppose policemen also must be able to fire on citizens - in case of the citizens using deadly force against innocents, for example.

I don't know the context, so I don't want to blow it too out of proportion.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Thu, Jan 24 2013 11:44 PM

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

why would it be ok to fire on noncitizens but somehow not ok to fire on someone simply for being a american citizen?

if someone breaks into your house, do you ask them if they are a citizen or not?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

I am reticant to trust sources when they are "unnamed."  Just as, 'Syria is arming chemical weapons "intelligence sources" say'.  However, I am sure there is a bureaucratic litmus test for many reasons.

@Wheylous

Police (at every level) are civilians.  That is the difference between police and military firing on civilians.  When the military has to do it, according to the Constitution, there must be some kind of insurrection.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Police (at every level) are civilians.  That is the difference between police and military firing on civilians.

But police is still government.

Is there a difference between an army fireteam/platoon and a swat team or a bunch of cops armed with rifles and pistols?

I know that there is a distinctions (training/equipment/etc) but are they all that different?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 1:03 AM

i think the difference between police and military is where the orders come from and the procedure for it to be lawful and constitutional, but i think both military and police can fire lawfully and constitionaly on usa citizens given correct procedure. if someone thinks defending the constitution is not worth a oath, the person should not seek such a position where they swear to defend what they do not want to defend.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

cab21:
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

why would it be ok to fire on noncitizens but somehow not ok to fire on someone simply for being a american citizen?

if someone breaks into your house, do you ask them if they are a citizen or not?

While logically that's a decent point, practically speaking, and in this case, I'm not sure it's a very strong one.

For one thing, there is a difference between military and local LEOs.  Anyone who doesn't understand this difference should look it up.  For another, even granting an extremely rare circumstance in which the military would supposedly need to open fire on Americans to "support and defend the Constitution", I find it a bit unnerving that this extremely rare, allegedly absolutely last resort, to a situation that virtually never happens, would be the primary litmus test deciding which military officers stay, and which go.

It would tell me that the man using this litmus test either has nefarious motives, or at the very least, for whatever reason has much more concern about an extremely rare SHTF event than I am comfortable with (considering statistically it would most likely be his administration that brought it about in the first place.)  Not to mention, I have a hard time buying this is all simply for the pretense of simply making sure the men are going to defend the Constitution...when the man conducting this litmus test violates his own oath to do the same on virtually an hourly basis.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 1:48 AM

Posse Comitatus - not that it means much, but this is why - in addition to the Constitutional limitations - it's supposed to be different.

Note that the military firing on civilians really is always very bad news. The police are bad but the military is worse. At least the police have to file reports when they kill people, etc. but in military action, the killing is invariably indiscriminate and en masse. Don't for a moment think that domestic military deployment is not an escalation.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

So almost everyone has broken this oath by not defending the Constitution from politicians of all kinds?

BTW, who was the last POTUS who did NOT violated the Constitution?

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 1:51 PM

not sure what it means to violate the constitution. it's not like the constition is clear and objective and not open to interpretation.

we have members of each branch that can't agree on what law is or what is torture. a lot of supreme court decisions are 5/4 or 4/5. we have ron paul say something is torture that violates usa and international law, then the rest of the republican candidates say they think he is wrong and that it is not torture and is legal in usa and international law.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 4:43 PM
 
 

Andris Birkmanis:

BTW, who was the last POTUS who did NOT violated the Constitution?

Let's see... who was before Washington? :P

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

cab21:
not sure what it means to violate the constitution. it's not like the constition is clear and objective and not open to interpretation

Congratulations. That's easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 8:26 PM

 

Congratulations. That's easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.

how is that stupid?

there are different interpretations of the constition are there not?

because all supreme court decisions are 9/0 or 0/9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

artical on judicial interpretation

thomas and scalia are both originalist's , yet they don't vote the same way each time.

http://www.frumforum.com/why-scalia-and-thomas-wont-always-agree/

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

cab21:

 

Congratulations. That's easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.

how is that stupid?

there are different interpretations of the constition are there not?

because all supreme court decisions are 9/0 or 0/9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

artical on judicial interpretation

thomas and scalia are both originalist's , yet they don't vote the same way each time.

http://www.frumforum.com/why-scalia-and-thomas-wont-always-agree/

 

 

Who cares about "judicial review." It's not even constitutional anyway. Who cares what a few jackasses on the Supreme Court say that the law means this or that. It doesn't make it so. Words have meaning.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 9:29 PM

life or death or incarceration can depend on the judgement of judges and jury, moreso than the peice of paper.

the 3rd amendment seems more black and white than the 8th amendment.

words have meaning, but words like "excessive" are still subject to a judgement call. it seems more easy to tell that a soldier is quartered in a house without the consent of the owner in a time of peace, then to determine what is excessive. some of these words are qualitative and not quantatative.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

cab21:

life or death or incarceration can depend on the judgement of judges and jury, moreso than the peice of paper.

the 3rd amendment seems more black and white than the 8th amendment.

words have meaning, but words like "excessive" are still subject to a judgement call. it seems more easy to tell that a soldier is quartered in a house without the consent of the owner in a time of peace, then to determine what is excessive. some of these words are qualitative and not quantatative.

 

 

 

Do you not know what the words cruel and unusual mean?

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 10:19 PM

i know what the words mean, but do you think everyone sees the same thing as cruel and unusual?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

it says there were court decisions that  the death penalty ok, but denationalization not ok.

i'd call incarceration cruel punishment, but that is not how the courts have played out.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

cab21:

i know what the words mean, but do you think everyone sees the same thing as cruel and unusual?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment

it says there were court decisions that  the death penalty ok, but denationalization not ok.

i'd call incarceration cruel punishment, but that is not how the courts have played out.

 

Stop citing case law. Who cares.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Jan 25 2013 10:34 PM

because government does not involve law.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Watch these. Then, you might understand something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfTSYe72KsI

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Sat, Jan 26 2013 1:40 AM

so a video on constitutional interpretation is to show me how constitutional interpretation is not relevant?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 134
Points 2,155
Bill replied on Sun, Jan 27 2013 11:20 AM

Our Government exists by the consent of the people. Any situation beyond the cotrol of local police,the Sherrif's Dept. ,State Police, FBI, Homeland Security, ATF,DEA, TSA and a host of other domestic policing agencies that requires Military intervention would imply forced compliance of the people. Forced compliance is not consent.

The Armed Forces sole purpose is to  defend the country. Anyone who would endorse the use of the Military to attack it's own citizens is either a tyrant, a statist groupie, or an idiot.

Lincoln was a tyrant

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Sun, Jan 27 2013 1:25 PM

if the people call for it, that is consent of the people. a sheriff can call higher and higher if needed. local can give permission to state, state can give permission to federal, federal can give permission to army.

so someone who is born in the usa, therefore being a usa citizen, then goes to a country, joins that countries army, and that army attacked the usa, you would say that person is untouchable and the military must let that usa citizen kill people in the military  and citizens without resistance?

the usa should not attack , but they should defend if needed, against anyone no matter what citizenship.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABB-lScOoSk

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Sun, Jan 27 2013 5:11 PM

from the government magic video, people can delegate self defence, but they cant delegate taxation, so therefore parts of the constitution are unconstitutional. as congress can't have powers the citizens never had to delegate, a person can fund a army, but a person can't tax. funding a nontaxed army for self defence seems perfectly in someones right to do or delegate.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 88
Points 1,455
idol replied on Wed, Jan 30 2013 10:44 PM

Has Jim Garrow proven his statements yet? 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, Feb 2 2013 8:00 PM

"so therefore parts of the constitution are unconstitutional."

Rather, parts of the constitution are innately unethical, and innately aggressive.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (28 items) | RSS