If any President asks you to direct your military efforts against the People, would you obey the order?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:35:10 -0500

I am distinguishing between the individual or small group of terrorists and the individual or group that is defending the Constitutional rights afforded ALL Americans.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 10:37 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:37:11 -0500

Current twisting of the Constitution would have me thinking long and hard about such an order.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 11:07 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:07:41 -0500

Assuming that you're posing a question centered upon an internal conflict within the United States, such a situation, regardless of where you stood, would be a disaster for us all.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 3 at 2016 11:21 AM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:21:09 -0500

Seeing as I am retired and one of the "PEOPLE" I sincerely hope that LEGAL orders would be obeyed, and ILLEGAL orders would not. To many variables to give a yes or no answer.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 11:29 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:29:45 -0500

It depends on how an administration defines terrorist or individuals actions. The current vp, biden along with a majority of democrats, believes tea party participants are terrorists. So, the question is, if the government declared the tea party or occupy movement as terrorists and ordered the military to intervene in a protest/rally, would/should the military respond?

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/sources-biden-likened-tea-partiers-to-terrorists-060421

Sources: Biden likened tea partiers to 'terrorists'

But he denies he joined others in using the term.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 11:37 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:37:02 -0500

Our system first and foremost uses the ballot box and the checks and balances between the branches of government to address differences of opinion as to what is or isn't constitutional. I think it has become a dangerous mythology that any American who happens to disagree with a political ruling has a right to take up arms against the government. That's what a lot of these so called militias preach.i say so called because while they have taken the term used in the constitution, these "militias" have no connection to the ones described. But the constitution addresses insurection and there have been anti insurrection laws on the books since 1792.

So for all the great talk about " needing a revolution now and then" the fact is our system is designed to avoid that very thing. But especially today, any group of dime store constitutional scholars seem to think it's part of being an American to threaten armed revolt whenever the government doesn't happen to agree with them.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jan 3 at 2016 11:54 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:54:55 -0500

I think it would depend on the order being legal or not.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Jan 3 at 2016 12:18 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:18:29 -0500

You mean like under the very specific triggers of 10 USC Chapter 15? Yeah pretty much, since that's the way Congress decided to implement this part of Article I, section 8:

"to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I'm guessing you're looking at that whole "execute the Laws of the Union and suppress Insurrections" part.

For a bunch of people sworn to support and defend the Constitution, we don't really seem to pay attention to the "fiddily bits", otherwise we'd quit having these conversations.

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Jan 3 at 2016 12:34 PM

LTC Trent Klug — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:34:27 -0500

I have thought long and hard about this for years. My answer is no, I would not. Nor would I if that same order came from the Governor of the State of Oregon.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 3 at 2016 12:50 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:50:15 -0500

Working under a few assumptions here.

1) For the order to actually MAKE IT from CINC to "BN Level" it would have had to go through so many levels both Operational, and "Legal" chances are that it is a "Legal Order."

2) We have the actual operational ability to perform the order as directed. i.e. we exist in the same place, same time, and have the ability to do what is being directed.

3) Congress doesn't shut it down, as in call for immediate impeachment.

4) My immediate Officers don't "Belay that" pending clarification of Intent, using the "Last Order first" Philosophy. As an example, LTC Private RallyPoint Member Gives an order which runs counter to the philosophy of our Oath, any individual in the Chain of Command between him and Sgt Kennedy can in theory say "belay that" prior to execution as we clarify, because sometimes things are "lost in translation" especially through multiple communications.

5) Every officer above me doesn't resign their commission and/or just refuse to follow the order because they are not sworn to follow the orders of the President.

6) The People is not what we are sworn to. It is the Constitution. The People and the Constitution can run counter to each other (though this would be rare), and this could create a "all enemies, foreign and domestic" issue.

There is no correct answer to this question. We have to work under the assumption that the President would likely never do so, however, we have indeed seen that happen, and if it does happen he would only do so for the good of the Nation (Constitution). If that is the case, we must follow the Constitutional Powers he has. If he is within those Powers, and those delegated by Congress, while not violating our personal morals or ethics, we follow the order. If the order violates those or our Oath, we escalate and "attempt" to reconcile or live with the consequences if we cannot.

Without seeing the exact order or situation, I cannot say.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 2:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:10:45 -0500

No I think that would be the definition of an unlawful order. Lord help us all if we ever get to that point.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 5:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:26:40 -0500

The people/extremists who have seized a Federal building on a wildlife refuge in Oregon? I would expect our elected government to use as little force as possible to deal with these extremists, however I do want to see their little insurrection brought to an end.

Response by TSgt Jennifer Disch made Jan 3 at 2016 7:42 PM

TSgt Jennifer Disch — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:42:04 -0500

Yep.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Jan 3 at 2016 8:04 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 20:04:37 -0500

The President can't override Posse Comitatus and that order would be an illegal order. I don't think the Joint Chiefs would even pass that order down the chain. And I don't think the President is going to be personally ordering a company, Battalion, or Brigade to do XYZ directly. So, i guess the answer is, "no."

Taking care of criminal activity within the US borders is a law enforcement job.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 6:15 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 06:15:25 -0500

im running away from that one lol !!!

Response by SPC Jerry Crain made Jan 4 at 2016 9:47 AM

SPC Jerry Crain — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:47:25 -0500

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 10:05 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:05:25 -0500

I would refuse any order that violated Posse Comitatus. If congress has given the president authority specific or general, or a judge had issued a decision I would have no problems directing military efforts against U.S. Citizens.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 12:25 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:25:14 -0500

I don't think there is enough information here to answer yes or no. As mentionex already, Legal orders should be followed ans illegal orders should not. It could be argued that the multiple times the National Guard has been deployed domestically to deal with riots are examples of "military effort" directed at the people exercising "free speech" yet I don't see a problem there.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Jan 4 at 2016 1:49 PM

MSG Jay Jackson — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:49:30 -0500

I guess you have fight for what you believe in. If you think the government has done something unconstitutional then do what you think is right. I will be right here commenting on it! Hey someone has to live to tell what happened!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 4 at 2016 5:19 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:19:47 -0500

That would really depend on the situation, and there is no one answer that fits all for that. Stopping looting and general violent lawlessness that has grown beyond the ability of law enforcement to handle (ie aftermath of a massive natural disaster)? Sure. To prop up a politician who has declared himself "President For Life"? Not so much.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 5 at 2016 1:24 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:24:17 -0500

You have the right, NO, OBLIGATION to follow all LAWFUL orders. An order to use military might against those defending the Constitution against a foreign or domestic enemy is, in my opinion, an UNLAWFUL order and must not be obeyed. To obey such an order makes you as culpable as the individual issuing said order.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Jan 5 at 2016 9:37 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:37:20 -0500

I'm going to respectfully decline to answer that question. Methinks we could all potentially see that being answered in real time on the Western side of the Nation. Hoping it doesn't come to that though.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Jan 6 at 2016 12:49 AM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:49:37 -0500

As the armed forces aren't allowed to be used as a police force in the states. Id say that that would be an unlawful order.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 6 at 2016 5:52 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:52:28 -0500

I will not obey as we are supposed to have checks and balances in this country to ensure no one part of government is supposed to have exclusive rights on our freedoms

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 4:43 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 04:43:03 -0500

Twenty people, 11 of them children, died during an attack by the Colorado National Guard on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado. The event led to wider conflict quelled only by Federal troops sent in by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson--1914
That's just One example of massacres enacted by U.S Troops on American soil. I can give many more, but why bore you? You can look it up.
Some questions come to mind for me.
Are they armed combatants? (most of the massacres by U.S Troops were on the Unarmed).
Is it truly defending the U.S From insurgency or for political/monetary gain of private interests? (as in the above instance).
If I pull this trigger, how will I see myself in 5 years? How will History see me in 100 years? (seems a silly question at first but it has merit. If you honestly believe that your actions will stand the Time test of Ethics, then you're probably in the Right. If you think, even for a moment, that History will probably vilify you as a murderer of innocents....you shouldn't pull the trigger).
My Only litmus test for actually firing on anyone is.....Are they shooting at Me? Is My life and the life of my buddies in eminent danger? That goes for downrange as much as on American soil, for soldiers or police officers. I can stand before a large mob all day in riot gear with my M4, but if all they're doing is chanting or yelling, why would I shoot them? I'm reminded of the protests in the 60's and video footage of police and NG roughly abusing protesters, many of whom were doing little more than sitting there holding flowers or signs. Their actions Do Not stand up to the Time Test of Ethics. If you allow Fear to overcome your common sense, if you refuse to Think about your actions before and During the conflict, you run the risk of murdering innocents. That's something I couldn't live with even if the Gov't sanctioned my actions and I wasn't prosecuted.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Jan 26 at 2017 10:20 AM

MSgt John McGowan — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:20:23 -0500

Lets turn this around a little. There is enough refugees to start a small Army that could cause major damage to out citizens. Many cities are already divided into races with "Mayors" running them. Think Amarillo Texas. That could be a internal conflict within our borders. Would military action be called then?

Response by PFC Joseph Eggy made Jan 26 at 2017 2:02 PM

PFC Joseph Eggy — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:02:14 -0500

If I could go against terrorist cells and gangs, then sure, but not rioters or protesters. That would be like starting up a Boston Massacre in 1770.

Response by CPT Bob Parker made Apr 23 at 2017 9:36 PM

CPT Bob Parker — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 21:36:43 -0400

There is a actual example of this issue from the last week of Nixon's reign
I was the 2nd Armored Div chemical officer at Ft Hood when we were issued a order to deploy under Operation Garden Plot.. all went well during the first 24 hours but when questions about why we were loading live ammo began. It didn't take long for troops to slow their pace and finally stopped.
Word had reached the units about the mission to place the govt under military control . After several hours all officers were given a twx that countermanded Nixon's order and we were to stand down unless all members of the joint chiefs approved, in writing! I still have that twx in my files.
This may happen again, soon!

Response by CPT Carolyn Andrews made Dec 21 at 2020 11:24 AM

CPT Carolyn Andrews — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 11:24:26 -0500

It says in the regulations that if an order doesn't sound right or is wrong you can question it or refuse it.