If ordered by POTUS, would you fire on American citizens?

PO1 Greg Mitchell — Wed, 28 May 2014 10:01:24 -0400

With the recent standoff in Nevada where the Bureau of Land Management used an armed response force to collect an outstanding land usage tax, is it a leap to say that American Troops will one day be called upon to enforce the will of the Federal Government against the American People?

What are your thoughts on using the US Military as a police force against the American People?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 10:26 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 10:26:32 -0400

PO1 Mitchell,

It is a huge leap to suggest the US Military would ever be deployed as a police force at home except in the case of a huge national emergency such as major civil unrest or disaster such as occurred during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 where the local civil authorities withdrew from / abandoned South East Los Angeles and could not effectively reenter to restore order.

That said, the State National Guard was activated, deployed, stopped burning and looting without so far as I can recall any substantial loss of life.

A number of additional scenarios where the State National Guard might be called upon to assist local authorities who have either lost or may predict loss of any meaningful semblance of control are reviewed in second article below.

But, note the major emphasis is on use of overwhelming presence and nonlethal force to contain threatening situations, not the use of lethal force to kill. Indeed, while the State National Guard deploys fully armed, there have been very few reports of the use of lethal force or even the threat of lethal force to secure property or restore order.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

http://www.laweekly.com/microsites/la-riots/

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/national-guard-training-for-riot-control-mass-detentions_06152010

Response by SGT James Elphick made May 28 at 2014 11:20 AM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 28 May 2014 11:20:06 -0400

As Active Duty military there is a law against that that came out of Reconstruction called the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits Federal Troops from enforcing state laws. Therefore a soldier can legally disobey an order to fire on American Citizens if acting in that capacity. The reason you are seeing increased activity from Federal agencies is probably because of this law and is a way to circumvent it.

The interesting scenario is going to be when the Federal government tries what they did in Nevada in some place like Texas and Texas calls out the National Guard in response.

Response by CPT Brandon Christensen made May 28 at 2014 11:24 AM

CPT Brandon Christensen — Wed, 28 May 2014 11:24:52 -0400

When the NG is called upon state active duty, we are not the main/leading force for the event. We are there to support and help the local authorities get the situation under control.

Reason I say that is I live in Minnesota. After each winter we experience flooding issues throughout the state, especially along the Mississippi River. When we are called, we report and work with the local authorities to transporting citizens to safety, help control the water flow and do what we can to calm the situation.

Now to your questions. Would I fire on American Citizens if order by the POTUS? In cold blood because the POTUS said to, no. If in self defense, yes. Just like the ROE's we have when we are in combat.

I think its our obligation to defend the constitution first from all enemies, whether that is foreign or domestic.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 12:36 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 12:36:39 -0400

PO1 Mitchell,

I am reminded of the movie "The Last Castle" where one rogue prison tower guard elects on his own to fire a lethal shotgun slug at a Huey captured and flown by a prisoner but all of the other military prison guards refuse orders from the prison commandant to fire lethal rounds at the prisoners.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

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

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made May 28 at 2014 1:22 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Wed, 28 May 2014 13:22:02 -0400

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the US military (not including National Guard) from acting in a law enforcement role.

Now when it comes down to examples of the military being used there was the LA Riots in which Marines from Pendleton and soldiers of the 7th Infantry Division were used to support the Los Angeles police. So there is precedent for using the military in times of unrest.

But the problem I see is being ordered to fire on American Citizens. If the order is unlawful we do not follow it pure and simple. Unless the people are committing violence on their part you don't use force against them.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 28 at 2014 2:11 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:11:26 -0400

The President does not have dictator like authority to order his soldiers to do his bidding no matter how evil that bidding might be. I will protect myself in self defense though.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made May 28 at 2014 2:13 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:13:57 -0400

It would be an easier choice to take a round in defense of an American citizen than to fire a round at them.

The fact that your question is a legitimate possibility PO1 Mitchell, speaks volumes to the sad state that this country is in. When I actively served in the Marines, this question was never a consideration or topic of discussion. Now it lingers in the minds of many.

Since I am no longer on active duty, I would like to reverse your question and present it to myself and other vets from our perspective. Would we fire on the military, in defense of American citizens, if they fired upon them?

Has anyone ever watched the television series "Babylon 5"? They portray a scenario where members of the military are faced with the choice of defending what is right, or following the illegal orders of a president that has ordered the bombing of civilian targets. As I watched this series, i have often asked myself what would I do. Follow illegal orders, or do what is right?

If it came down to defending my family, and innocent civilians from a out of control POTUS, yes, I would defend them with my life. The constitution would be my guide.

As a closing thought, I would like to say that I do not believe any POTUS would use the military in general to attack the citizens. They would have to know that most in the military could not follow such an order.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made May 28 at 2014 2:27 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:27:37 -0400

The only thing I can say is "defend against all enemoes foreign and domestic"

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 28 at 2014 3:35 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:35:07 -0400

If it is a lawful order, I would fire. If I knew it was not a lawful order, I would not. If there was doubt, then I did not know that it was an unlawful order and would have to act as if it was lawful.

The Posse Comitatus Acts stops such actions...and when helping law enforcement we spent more time training on what we could and could not do then we did doing anything.

Response by Sgt Seth Busse made May 28 at 2014 3:58 PM

Sgt Seth Busse — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:58:15 -0400

I don't think it is a leap to say that American Troops will be forced against the American people. I can think of three past events which do not include "fanatics" where this happened. The first and second were "right to work" riots. The first was after the Civil War when U.S. Calvary Forces attacked a veteran's encampment in Anacostia in D.C. The second one was after the first world war. The third one was a protest of Government interests with the Kent State massacre.
Personally, I believe the economic decline after the 90s is causing a cyclical knee-jerk reaction on the part of America where the government attempts to crack down on discontent, a.k.a. morale issues, caused by government inadequacies and the people react by being more discontent. America is going through its "The beatings will continue until morale improves" period.
This could be bad if the cycle does not stop. For further information read, "The rise and fall of the Roman empire."

Response by SPC Charles Brown made May 28 at 2014 4:32 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Wed, 28 May 2014 16:32:45 -0400

Depends on the reason. But Generally my answer is NO! However, if the reason is because of infringement of my Bill of Rights then I will stand and fire on whomever is doing so. It could go either way.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 4:40 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 16:40:01 -0400

Legality doesn't matter. I would NEVER fire on American Citizens. Regardless of the consequences.

Response by SGT Shon D. Hill made May 29 at 2014 12:44 AM

SGT Shon D. Hill — Thu, 29 May 2014 00:44:04 -0400

Wow, awesome question! I have a real life scenario from experience I'd like to share. I was in Texas Army National Guard when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, we were deployed at oh dark 15 the very next morning, and issued our M-16/M-4 rifles with no magazines or ammunition, and that is what we carried throughout the 48 days we "served" there. I was under fire on 3 occasions while driving 5-tons through 5 foot deep water by what was likely "drug lab guardians" or just who the heck decided too, unknown, but how frakked up was that? I would have to say we in uniform should have our ammo and general orders, let us as professionally trained Soldiers deem what is appropriate, and BACK US UP!!!! I was pissed that I couldn't defend myself in New Orleans....
Sorry for the rant, but felt like I had a really good reason to chime in on this one :) It really sucks being a medic sometimes....:( Doc Hill

Response by PO1 Greg Mitchell made May 29 at 2014 12:50 AM

PO1 Greg Mitchell — Thu, 29 May 2014 00:50:32 -0400

I bet the folks at the Boston Massacre never thought their government would fire on them.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made May 29 at 2014 11:35 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Thu, 29 May 2014 11:35:34 -0400

As a retired military person, I have the ability to refuse any order... However, considering the recent arming of govt groups like the BLM, I have to wonder why they are often, better armed than some military units.
Perhaps, because my mother grew up on a reservation handled by govt angencies, and she grew up hearing stories about bad agents pocketing money meant to feed the residents of tribal lands while the Native Americans literaly starved to death, so I probably am a bit biased against them.
I may be just too old lately, because I get all sorts of bad feelings about the ammount of rounds the govt purchased, and the fact that they are buying up massive ammounts of MREs not meant for emergency purposes or the military... makes me all kinds of wary. As if they are planning for a future that we don't know about... and why?
I believe, in any situation, there will be people who will follow that order, not because they blindly believe in their leaders, but because they are simply wired that way. The SS Death's Head squads who machine-gunned all sorts of people from American POWs to groups of Polish children, all said the same thing, that they were just following orders.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 12:25 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 12:25:34 -0400

We have to remember beyond our military status we are human, I would never fire upon another American citizen even if under orders. We have that right to follow all legal and ethical orders, killing an American citizen without cause, other then some land issue, is not enough of a cause for me to shoot at my own people, I may as well be firing at my own family. Again it falls into that legal and ethical following of orders, I would rather be arrested and face time in prison for refusing to pull the trigger than to follow thru on an order which has no ethical bounds to fire.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 2:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 14:48:22 -0400

I would think that IF and only IF we as a military were ordered to fire on American Citizens it would have been vetted and those personnel declared hostile, there for removing the question of legality.

Now an above poster mentioned a scenario: Just suppose for a moment you are on Any Base USA and a group of American Citizens attacked that base claiming the Federal Government is secretly using the that bases soldiers as a "police" force. Would you then refuse to fire on those citizens, who are at the time engaged in the unlawful killing American service members, their families and civilians working on that installation? *And before you go all thats different, no really its not, what if that group of armed citizenry believes in its every fiber that they are doing the right thing and are justified in their actions.*

In this scenario, yes, yes I most definitely would engage those personnel. Because those folks on that base have trusted me with their common defense. I love this country, I love my fellow citizens and would never wantonly just go out and shoot unarmed civilians for no good reason, nor would obey an illegal order and harm my countrymen.

This question is kinda vague as to how we got to the point that the military has become a police force, has there been a cataclysmic event? Break down of Government? What precipitated the US Military being deployed and in a position to act as a response force? Are we at a point of social disorder and chaos?

Response by Cpl Benjamin Long made May 29 at 2014 3:55 PM

Cpl Benjamin Long — Thu, 29 May 2014 15:55:27 -0400

This question, in my opinion, I would say no..... The president is not Caesar... thus does not need to have a praetorian guard to defend its political positions.... Attacking Americans with full military forces on political grounds is something that is horrible in my opinion.... American people are not enemy combatants.... as well as they are not equipped to fight a full military force.... I was always taught that you fight people on equal terms.... If you have to deploy full artillery on your own people.... you don't deserve to lead...

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 4:12 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 16:12:17 -0400

I would like to think that our commanders would know the difference between an enemy of the United States and just common Americans. The military shouldn't get involved in matters of individual States and all these federal agencies need to be reeled in. The Federal government already exercises way too much power as it is. There is no earthly reason any of these Federal agencies with the exception of any of the LAW enforcement agencies should be armed. Local and state law enforcement should be enough.

Now if the American citizens were actively seeking to terrorize other American citizens such as what we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, then of course, but if they are not and just happen to have a different political viewpoint than other people, to include those in elected office, then no, absolutely not. Our Founding Fathers carefully crafted this form of government to prevent this sort of thing from happening and it is our responsibility as Soldier, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to be aware of our roles and to be informed. Not to allow unlawful orders to be carried out, to have the courage to stand up and not let it happen.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made May 29 at 2014 6:47 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Thu, 29 May 2014 18:47:38 -0400

PO1 Mitchell, I do not know all the details of the events that transpired in Nevada. I do know enough to believe the government acted carelessly and irresponsibly. The last I heard the government backed off and decided to allow the courts to handle the situation.

Why not do that in the first place? My biggest question about the whole situation, is where did the authority come from for them to use, or in this case threaten to use force.

A land dispute, or fees for land, is hardly a reason for an armed standoff. It makes me wonder how far the government will go in the future, however. This should have been something the courts decided and if there was to be any acquisitions, the local sheriff and, or, federal marshals should have been the authority to enforce the courts decision.

From what I have heard, there is a land dispute and the courts should decide before any authority tries to take anything.

This event, Waco Texas, and other similar events have set some bad precedences. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the future.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 7:14 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 19:14:08 -0400

When I deployed to Joint Task Force - Los Angeles in support of Operation Garden Plot, my unit at Ft. Ord CA, 7th ID (Light) Active Duty unit, supported the California National Guard in 1992 during the LA Riots. The Guard was armed, locked and cocked for four days prior to our arrival. While the general order was 'sling arms' I can tell you for a fact that the local command had authority to engage forces that threatened life or property (such as to prevent arson). We directly support the LAPD and the LA County Sheriffs Department.

The sling arms was to protect US Forces from 'accidental' engagement and there is ongoing debate if this was an CYA effort leaving engagement authority to local commanders.

This was not unlike 9/11

POTUS federalized the guard.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/jaoac-ds.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302521p.pdf

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 9:40 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 09:40:27 -0400

PO1 Mitchell you are absolutely right in your statement everyone who enters the US Military does take the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. But I feel that you are trying to steer this argument as some sort of anti government argument. If I am wrong, then accept my apology and clarify where I am mistaken.

But you asked, "would you fire on American Citizens, if ordered by POTUS?" The BLM stand-off with Mr Bundy is apples and oranges. Yes the BLM is a federal agency however my view is the Department of Defense is a different animal.

If the Posse Commitatus Act has been suspended and the POTUS has authorized federal troops to patrol mainstream America, I can only assume that 1) there has been some mass terror event (i.e. wmd employment) 2) there are mass instances of civil disobedience (an event where it threatens national security, overwhelming of state and local authorities.

We are a nation of laws and every military member does take the oath of enlistment. The Constitution does however work both ways, there are rules and laws that citizens must obey. If the President were to walk out of the oval office and arbitrarily say "General go shoot some citizens!" I would hope that smarter more educated men than me would ask on what grounds and if the answer was because I said so, then they would relieve him of his duties and get him help until the Vice President could assume duties until a proper election could be held.

However if the President were to deploy a platoon of MPs from Anybase USA to a Anytown USA after an event that would cause the need to support state, local and federal agencies and they were given a specific ROE then if someone violated the stated ROE and no alternative other than to use lethal force, then they would do their duty.

But to simply say that I would under no circumstance shoot another American Citizen is lunacy. I have the right to self defense and I am sworn and duty bound by my oath to protect other citizens, property and anything else legally deemed defensible even if its from the citizenry itself.

Again if I am unclear as to the situation then I ask for clarification.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 11:42 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 11:42:34 -0400

We take a oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. IMHO I do not believe I would follow such an order. Nor would I follow the officer who gave the command.

If someone was shooting at my soldiers, attacking my convoy….that is self-defense and another animal entirely.

But to deploy against American citizens exercising their rights. Oh hell No! I would not shoot at hippies and I loath them. The surest way to start a civil war in this country would be to have military forces used as political pawns by some politician in Washington DC in a domestic matter.

We defend our citizens and our Republic, we do not oppress it.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made May 30 at 2014 10:29 PM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Fri, 30 May 2014 22:29:16 -0400

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

However, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

Your oath is to the Constitution and laws of the United States. You are to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over you, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I do not think the Directive above encompasses the UCMJ. Therefore, a President's orders must be in accordance with law and may be denied if deemed unlawful.

Response by PO3 Timothy Dralle made Jun 4 at 2014 8:53 PM

PO3 Timothy Dralle — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:53:22 -0400

I have served my country in the military and now I serve her in the Fire service. So I cannot fire on civilians unless I or another person are in grave danger. I am seeing some interesting answers in this thread. Now here is some more food for thought. How many veterans will fire on current active duty or Nat'l guard if the situation calls for it.

Response by SSG Jim Handy made Jun 21 at 2014 12:00 PM

SSG Jim Handy — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:00:54 -0400

When we get to the point where the leadership of our country feels it is necessary too use federal troops against our own citizens, we have probably reached the point where "the well regulated militia" we hear so much about needs to remove the existing government from office and start over. Some of our politicians these days seem determined to push us to that point. They feel like once they are in office, they are part of some royalty and what the common American thinks is no longer relevant.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jun 21 at 2014 2:22 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:22:36 -0400

Pretty much it's the state governors that 'Call out the Army' not the Federal Government.They first call up their state's National guard and then if they feel they need more request assistance of the Federal Government. The Federal Government then active the Army Reserve Units that are stationed in their state or in the states where the assistance (such as food, medical aid, etc) originates.
.
As for the Army firing on citizens? When the Ohio Guard during the Kent State Riot (bricks are not peaceful, neither are clubs) the protests throughout the US pretty much stopped.
.
As for the firing of weapons against US Citizens "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
It will be like the cadets at West point in 1860 - each would have to make their own decision.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 22 at 2014 4:07 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 04:07:12 -0400

I would turn my uniform in if that order came from the top, if it came from the bottom i would report it but never fire on an American.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 3:13 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:13:09 -0400

I am glad that this is one aspect due to my career field as a medic/nurse I will not have to act on.

Response by MAJ Alex Hernandez made Jun 22 at 2014 9:25 PM

MAJ Alex Hernandez — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:25:40 -0400

If that citizen is fighting with enemy forces then I would have no problem taking them out. Nor would I have a problem with such an order.

However, to put this matter into a historic position, Douglas McArthur was ordered to fire upon and dislodge WWI veterans that were camped out across from the White House demanding adequate healthcare and other benefits being denied them as a result of their service in France. Under those conditions, I would not raise arms against an American.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 2:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:26:05 -0400

No.

Now, IF said citizens were engaged in acts to directly harm me, my fellow Soldiers, or other people - then yes.

But never simply "on someone's orders."

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Sep 8 at 2014 4:54 PM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 16:54:56 -0400

What I think many fail to realize is that we are American citizens too. Sounds like an easy statement and I'm sure most at this point are thinking "no shit". But let it sink in. With every freedom they lose, we lose also. We aren't immune to the D.C. bullshit. Open your eyes if you haven't seen freedoms fading - I hadn't ever heard of, nor would I have believed, there was a place you could not exercise freedom of speech. Then I saw the picture with the sign..."1st Amendment Area" - I was pretty sure that was the entire country...not anymore, huh?

Using the military against US citizens. Like whom? Our neighbors? They guy the kid waves to at Walmart? The gas station attendant? The paramedic in the ambulance? The friendly bus driver? Our families? And for what reason would such an act be considered? There are two things I am BEFORE I am a Soldier: I am a Christian, and I am an American.

Sure, we've got more than our fair share of trouble makers in this country - we also have city/county/state law enforcement for it as well as due process and our judicial system. Want to know why some think this is a possibility? Because WE ALL let this government get too big. Too many people want a hand out, too many people want freebies. With all this "gratuity" from the government came a price. We all saw the footage on the news. The BLM trying to wage war on some country boy for tax issues, grazing cattle on the land and so on? Wrestling people to the ground in support of the man, tazing folks. Really? Is that called for?

We took an oath, and part of it reads "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Why would the 'leader' of this country ever tell the military that the people who elected him were the enemy? ANYONE that thinks that would somehow be correct, legitimate, or a lawful order needs a gut check, big time.

Response by PFC David Deal made Sep 14 at 2014 8:01 PM

PFC David Deal — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:01:40 -0400

absolutely NOT.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 14 at 2014 8:11 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:11:09 -0400

Against all enemies foreign and domestic. That doesn't mean I will sleep well at night though.

Response by LTC Hillary Luton made Sep 14 at 2014 8:24 PM

LTC Hillary Luton — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:24:16 -0400

I would have a real problem with this considering the constitution was written to protect the people from the government, and it is our job to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It says nothing about protecting the government against all enemies.

Also keep in mind that our founding fathers never wanted and were firmly against a standing military for exactly this reason.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Sep 14 at 2014 9:03 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:03:19 -0400

I've been waiting for this one.
If I were in, no, because if this order were ever given, the domestic enemies of the constitution would be those in power attempting to give that order and subvert the constitution.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 3:53 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 03:53:45 -0400

Kent State, May 1970. Didn't work out so well.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 16 at 2014 4:33 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:33:50 -0400

It won't happen. The BLM Agents were faced with armed protestors. Did you expect them to go without any means of defense?

Response by SSG John Canizales made Sep 17 at 2014 6:19 PM

SSG John Canizales — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:19:21 -0400

Administrations come and go. The Constitution is eternal.
There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 7:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:30:15 -0400

Wouldn't even get that far. Its against the law for the military to be used as law enforcement. Congress & the Supreme Court would have a fit about it.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Oct 4 at 2014 7:46 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Sat, 04 Oct 2014 19:46:56 -0400

HELL NO LET THE POLICE DO THEIR JOBS AND THE NATIONAL GUARD IF NECESSARY...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2014 4:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:39:49 -0400

No.

Anyone who attempted to force such an order would be the first to go down.

Unless I was under direct attack myself or the lives of my comrades were being threatened by said civilians. Other than that - fuck off.

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 6 at 2014 1:24 PM

Cpl Chris Rice — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:24:35 -0400

It would depend wholly on on the actions and intents of the people that I was considering firing upon. I would certainly never hesitate to defend myself, or allow the lawful business of the United States to be hindered because of the threat of violence. The Bunkerville issue is one where the cattle should have been rounded up, and auctioned. If the protesters wanted a shooting match we could have one, but the order of the court should be enforced. The Ferguson issue seemed to involve less weapons on the protesters side, and I would have difficulty in that one.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 4:27 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:27:51 -0400

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." "

It's the oath we all take, whether you have personal feelings to the contrary or not. It's a nasty part of our military service that could be a possibility as much as shooting bad guys.

It happened in WWII with the round up of citizens of Japaneese descent. But my BELIEF is that the call for US Service members to police our own citzens would be met with such resistance that the government would lose a good majority of the fighting force. But I fear that the mission of safety of the people instead of enforcment of the law would get used and blurred.

Response by Sgt Jennifer Mohler made Oct 6 at 2014 10:21 PM

Sgt Jennifer Mohler — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:21:26 -0400

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Oct 24 at 2014 3:29 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:29:54 -0400

It would have to be last resort and NOT to defend a political agenda. Only for threats to the constitution. As a civilian however there are other circumstances.

Response by Sgt Todd Hinkle made Oct 24 at 2014 3:22 PM

Sgt Todd Hinkle — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:22:27 -0400

Well, we all took an oath to defend against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. So, on the surface, my answer is yes I would. This is no simple thing though. If the civillians posed a threat to the country/constitution, absolutely. If the order was given because it's being driven by a political agenda to take rights away from the citizens then no, as it would be an unlawful order.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Nov 1 at 2014 10:53 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:53:49 -0400

The following are the orders of the The Oath Keepers, which is made up of military, former military, and law enforcement personnel.
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Jan 22 at 2015 9:26 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:26:31 -0500

It depends on the circumstances. Here is "The Oath Keeper Pledge".

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. 

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people .

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
 
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2015 10:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:23:49 -0500

If ordered to, as in start it - no.

If fired upon? Sorry, but me and my fellow Soldier are going home at the end of the day.

Do I think the military should be a police force, no. We have so many other task forces that could be used in any WACO like situation yet in a critical disaster/emergency I'm back to being for it.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Jun 8 at 2015 4:16 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:16:12 -0400

Yes, it is in our oath.

Response by SSgt Gary Hendershot made Jun 11 at 2015 11:37 PM

SSgt Gary Hendershot — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:37:46 -0400

Posse Comitatus Act! Using the military inside the US is expressly forbidden! Further, no matter who issues an illegal order, it is not to be followed, and firing on American citizens who are not in open revolt (or even if they are) is not legal. Self defense is a reasonable reason.. if you are being fired on, and can't surrender to the citizens, then it would only make sense to shoot back. Other than that, not just no, but hell no!

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 11:50 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:50:56 -0400

Unless they are a harm to my Family, Friends, or myself. The answer is No!

Response by CPT Alan W. made Jul 11 at 2015 4:42 PM

CPT Alan W. — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:42:09 -0400

Having served both in military and in law enforcement, I'd say it is a leap to say that American Troops will one day be called upon to enforce the will of the Federal Government against the American People.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 12 at 2015 12:31 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 00:31:08 -0400

the guy in nevada was wrong on every level and so were the people with them.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jul 12 at 2015 7:11 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 07:11:31 -0400

This has already occurred. Delta Force was shooting at branch davidians during the Waco debacle.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 12:21 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:21:55 -0400

My view on this is pretty grim so be warned... i would disobey the order flat out. I strongly believe there is a reason that the words "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" come before "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of thise appointed over me." We have a duty to the country FIRST and FOREMOST. If that means disobeying an order that turns Lawful citizens into targets then hell no. (Here is the grim part) If this order was issued I would do my best to protect the Law abiding citizens by opening fire on those who chose to follow the Illegal order shipmate, teammate, brothers-in-arms or not. We have a duty to the American people and I would give my life to protect the innocent.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 12 at 2015 2:08 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:08:45 -0400

This would be an illegal order, and therefore, I'd disobey it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 8:54 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:54:20 -0400

There's duty and there's principle...both will get you in over your head pretty quick.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jul 13 at 2015 10:26 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:26:50 -0400

"will one day"... History check:
Whiskey Rebellion 1791
Kent State 1970

The list of events where American soldiers being called up on American soil to "enforce the will of the Federal Government against the American People" is a long one, dating back hundreds of years.

Response by PO2 Robert Conerby made Jul 14 at 2015 6:27 PM

PO2 Robert Conerby — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:27:09 -0400

Think that's why we have a second amendment.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 10:30 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:30:18 -0500

If you'll notice, the officer's oath does not include obeying the orders of the President. There's a reason for that

Response by PO2 Michael Berry made Jan 24 at 2016 11:34 PM

PO2 Michael Berry — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:34:56 -0500

If a greater force than the police are needed, thats when he National Guard would and should be used.
If ordered by POTUS to fire on Americans in the US the first and only shot from would be to shoot POTUS.

Regular military cannot be used in the US except in a humanitarian role.

Some comments about this say that this would never happen but look around the world and think again.

Response by SGT Ronald Audas made Jan 28 at 2016 12:16 PM

SGT Ronald Audas — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:16:50 -0500

At the Democratic National Convention in 1968,the Army was used to control crowds.We had no ammo,but did march with fixed bayonets.Fortunately,only one (that I heard of )died.That was also the last time I would ever allow someone to spit and throw excrement on me.As far as the standoff in Nevada,the land belongs to the people.The US Government controls,but does not own anything.

Response by MGySgt James Forward made Dec 7 at 2016 2:04 PM

MGySgt James Forward — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:04:26 -0500

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using its military personnel to act as domestic law enforcement personnel.

Response by SGT James Colwell made Dec 8 at 2016 12:58 PM

SGT James Colwell — Thu, 08 Dec 2016 12:58:35 -0500

Only if the American citizens were attacking for the purposes of overthrowing the Constitution. Any other scenario, would require further understanding of the situation.

If I come under fire, or my loved ones are under fire, I would not wait for POTUS to tell me to shoot.