Posted on Nov 24, 2013
Are today's soldiers taught the lessons of Nuremberg?
2.57K
17
15
2
2
0
There is a growing ideological conflict over the Constitution. Many of today's political leaders argue that it grants rights and, therefore, can remove them, while traditionalists insist that it preserves natural rights that can not be infringed. Some fear that a political leader may attempt to use the military to deny Constitutional rights that they deem passee or inconvenient. It appears that Homeland Security is being trained and equipped to provide such force if the military refuses to obey orders to disarm or incarcerate civilians without due process. Oath Keepers is an organization attempting to remind active duty personnel as well as civilian officers of their obligation to defend the Constitution and not infringe on civilian rights. Have you engaged in this debate? Is it simply bred of paranoia or is there a reasonable foundation for these fears?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Duty
Constitution Duty
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
There is little to show an infringement of rights by the military. Civil law enforcement? I think they are going to far.
Conduct operations in accordance of the laws of war is a ten level task. In theory it is taught to every soldier.
In regards to oath keepers. I am reminded of a friend of mine who was advocating violently resisting an arrest. I will say the same to the Oath Keepers organization.
I can not think of a time when the will of the federal government was resisted by the use of force. In every case the attempt has resulted not only no progress being made but often loss of ground. I can however think of many cases where the course of the federal government has been steered by the use of a camera and a lawyer.
I consider this important, it is the results we seek and thus should adopt method that are effective. In this we find a common ground.
Once we resolve to violence I am sure that the federal government will win, but when we work within the legal system it is slow but has a chance of success.
Oddly when I actually read a decision I disagree with I may not agree with it but understand the problem more.
Education and debate, not guns.
Conduct operations in accordance of the laws of war is a ten level task. In theory it is taught to every soldier.
In regards to oath keepers. I am reminded of a friend of mine who was advocating violently resisting an arrest. I will say the same to the Oath Keepers organization.
I can not think of a time when the will of the federal government was resisted by the use of force. In every case the attempt has resulted not only no progress being made but often loss of ground. I can however think of many cases where the course of the federal government has been steered by the use of a camera and a lawyer.
I consider this important, it is the results we seek and thus should adopt method that are effective. In this we find a common ground.
Once we resolve to violence I am sure that the federal government will win, but when we work within the legal system it is slow but has a chance of success.
Oddly when I actually read a decision I disagree with I may not agree with it but understand the problem more.
Education and debate, not guns.
(2)
(0)
SSG Charles Coats
If the ACLU is "upset", it's a ruse; just as they have defended alleged "Nazis" in court, their outrage is feigned and the only reason they would pretend to be against something or "defend" it is to subvert from within.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The movement of military equipment to LEOs is really slick program, you see the equipment still belongs to the DOD but the Local LEO is responsible for the upkeep.
Really I think the cops just want to be as cool as I am but don't have the nuts to do it. (Or in some cases as cool as they used to be.)
Really I think the cops just want to be as cool as I am but don't have the nuts to do it. (Or in some cases as cool as they used to be.)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
This is a boxed reply, because I dislike having the same argument over and over.
This is ten minutes of my life I will never get back...
Nacy Grace may be the greatest threat to Civil Liberties in the modern age. (Explain to me why she gets to decided who is guilty?)
That however is not the important stuff.
The difference between the US Army and Law Enforcement (local law enforcement in particular) is that LEOs often celebrate being warriors while the Army has Soldiers.
Primary difference is that soldiers do not have the luxury of failure.
What Iraq has taught us: Given infinite resources and no limits as to the level of violence we can not pacify a town, much less a city. I suggest reading the COIN manual and works by HR McMaster (should I say Other works?)
As I sat in the middle of a desert that was too flat and hot to be believed, reading "Gang Leader for a Day" I was surprised to find that there is not much difference between the Chicago Projects and Southern Iraq, although people in both places would object to the comparison.
However what is proven to work is to employ every male from 15-35, allow community areas that are participating with you an element of control over tools at your disposal. For instance if we are not getting hit near your area we will confine our raids to daylight hours.
Community leaders need to be brought (not bought) in and given a voice, their youth bought with jobs and security, in particular excuses not to resort to self serve justice.
Allies with common goals need to be supported and enemies reconciled. This is cheaper and actually effective. Better Angels of Our Nature is probably the most compact source. Mick Magill will read it someday.
RELATING TO THE CURRENT TROUBLES
The shoot was good. Why? Because the courts through the grand Jury said it was.
The reaction by police was wrong. Why? Because we are still talking about it. The right answer would have dropped off our radar by now.
The police are to blame. Why? Because it is their job to maintain the peace and the peace is not maintained.
Police are rewarded for failure. Why? Because more crime and less peace means more money and resources.
Oddly enough the solution is to Militarize the police force, and by that I mean practicing COIN and Civil Support. Fire people when the crime goes up and promote when crime goes down.
This is ten minutes of my life I will never get back...
Nacy Grace may be the greatest threat to Civil Liberties in the modern age. (Explain to me why she gets to decided who is guilty?)
That however is not the important stuff.
The difference between the US Army and Law Enforcement (local law enforcement in particular) is that LEOs often celebrate being warriors while the Army has Soldiers.
Primary difference is that soldiers do not have the luxury of failure.
What Iraq has taught us: Given infinite resources and no limits as to the level of violence we can not pacify a town, much less a city. I suggest reading the COIN manual and works by HR McMaster (should I say Other works?)
As I sat in the middle of a desert that was too flat and hot to be believed, reading "Gang Leader for a Day" I was surprised to find that there is not much difference between the Chicago Projects and Southern Iraq, although people in both places would object to the comparison.
However what is proven to work is to employ every male from 15-35, allow community areas that are participating with you an element of control over tools at your disposal. For instance if we are not getting hit near your area we will confine our raids to daylight hours.
Community leaders need to be brought (not bought) in and given a voice, their youth bought with jobs and security, in particular excuses not to resort to self serve justice.
Allies with common goals need to be supported and enemies reconciled. This is cheaper and actually effective. Better Angels of Our Nature is probably the most compact source. Mick Magill will read it someday.
RELATING TO THE CURRENT TROUBLES
The shoot was good. Why? Because the courts through the grand Jury said it was.
The reaction by police was wrong. Why? Because we are still talking about it. The right answer would have dropped off our radar by now.
The police are to blame. Why? Because it is their job to maintain the peace and the peace is not maintained.
Police are rewarded for failure. Why? Because more crime and less peace means more money and resources.
Oddly enough the solution is to Militarize the police force, and by that I mean practicing COIN and Civil Support. Fire people when the crime goes up and promote when crime goes down.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The greatest danger to the Constitution is not military (or para-military) force being used to deny rights. The greatest danger is quiet acquiescence by the huddled masses as the intellectuals (and I use that term loosely) who think the problems we face today are unprecedented reach a consensus which inverts the Founding Fathers' views on the roots of legitimate sovereignty and the source of rights.
(By the way, CPT Jack Durish, the Federalist papers make clear that the Constitution merely *recognizes* a non-exhaustive list of our natural rights.)
Lastly, as far as I can discern, the lessons of Nuremburg have nothing to do with this particular discussion.
(By the way, CPT Jack Durish, the Federalist papers make clear that the Constitution merely *recognizes* a non-exhaustive list of our natural rights.)
Lastly, as far as I can discern, the lessons of Nuremburg have nothing to do with this particular discussion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
According to the international laws of war, hollow point ammo is illegal. However there are no laws banning it for domestic use. Why is DHS buying hollow point ammo when it's more costly than target ammo?
All I can add is this...
And this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
http://tinyurl.com/bguqac2
All I can add is this...
And this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
http://tinyurl.com/bguqac2
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google