Are today's soldiers taught the lessons of Nuremberg?

2013-11-24T17:55:19-05:00

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?

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 13 at 2013 8:54 AM

2013-12-13T08:54:02-05:00

Sir,

You hit the nail on the head in regards to the paranoia aspect, but there is also some issues of the government over stepping its bounds as well in the name of national security. The current administration has already infringed on the 1st amendment for the right of free speech by passing laws that any speech he deems offensive to him can get you arrested, and he is pushing every day to take away our 2nd amendment rights as well.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 12:17 AM

2014-11-24T00:17:01-05:00

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.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2014 8:56 PM

2014-11-28T20:56:55-05:00

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

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Nov 28 at 2014 11:01 PM

2014-11-28T23:01:31-05:00

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.