Your thoughts on this?

[LegalAlien]

I have noticed that there is a fairly large contingent of MIL and LE posters on this board and first I want to thank you all for your service to the country in protecting us from enemies foreign.

Secondly, I would like to hear your opinions/thoughts on the following report (posted on another forum, but seems to originate from PrisonPlanet - so authenticity has not been verified):-


Steve Watson & Paul Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008

A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”

The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.

“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.

“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”

“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concludes.

See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.

Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.

Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.

“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”

We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.

In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.

After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.

The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a “military form of government,” following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.

Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.

This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.

“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.

The memo predicts “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.

Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.

The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.

The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?

[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:

Quote:
“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”
The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.

The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is - another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.

Should our soldier be ordered to take up arms against citizens in a domestic 'insurrection', where do our MIL and LE folks stand on obeying such orders when a revolt breaks out??

Only comment I have, is that I would not want to be in your shoes to have to make the decision based on personal vs military/law enforcement ethics - and let's hope it never has to come to that!!!

AND . . . PLEASE dont let this deteriorate into a LE bashing session. It is NOT the intent of this thread in any way!! Mods, please lock the thread should it deteriorate or consider the subject inappropriate for this forum.

[Sudden]

[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:

Quote:
“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”
The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.

The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is - another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.

I'm not LE but these are my feelings exactly. As far as the "need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. " That has already been defined.

[Iraqgunz]

You realize that Prisonplanet owns stock in most of the aluminum being manufactured through out the world. Just a simple tin foil hat will not suffice. You actually need a suit to visit their website.


I have noticed that there is a fairly large contingent of MIL and LE posters on this board and first I want to thank you all for your service to the country in protecting us from enemies foreign.

Secondly, I would like to hear your opinions/thoughts on the following report (posted on another forum, but seems to originate from PrisonPlanet - so authenticity has not been verified):-



Should our soldier be ordered to take up arms against citizens in a domestic 'insurrection', where do our MIL and LE folks stand on obeying such orders when a revolt breaks out??

Only comment I have, is that I would not want to be in your shoes to have to make the decision based on personal vs military/law enforcement ethics - and let's hope it never has to come to that!!!

AND . . . PLEASE dont let this deteriorate into a LE bashing session. It is NOT the intent of this thread in any way!! Mods, please lock the thread should it deteriorate or consider the subject inappropriate for this forum.

[Japle]

“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order ......

He lost me right there.


DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.”

Does he mean something bigger and better organized than the 9-11 attacks?

This guy sounds like he's looking for some major funding. Maybe a huge grant to finance his retirement.

Sorry, I can't see it. This level of military action would require something on the scale of the "race war" the loonies have been warning us about for the last 50 years.

[thopkins22]

You realize that Prisonplanet owns stock in most of the aluminum being manufactured through out the world. Just a simple tin foil hat will not suffice. You actually need a suit to visit their website.

+1...They have a few good points(civil liberty type stuff,) but then they crap all over them and go wild with 9/11 truth type garbage.

[rangertab1]

You ask a very intriguing question. First, the War College student conducts studies, analysis, and execution of plans for lots of national and international scenarios. More recently (since 2001), national scenarios have increased. Contrary to most American's ideas, Democrat/Republican leadership influences have little impact on future probabilities. I won't go into all the details of negative factors of the formula for failure, but it looks like this: A-B-C+D+E-F-G=Collapse/Depression/Anarchy(whatever).

Getting back to the War College. These high ranking officers, including ranks of 05s,06s,07s, discuss the worst case scenarios and try to find ways to solve them. That is their job. There are other agencies that conduct the same, or similar, studies. Contrary to their beliefs, we are not capable of handling the worst case, civil/natural/terrorist catastophes. On paper we think we can, but in reality it is not possible. The simple logistics of command/control and feeding and fueling and electrifying such a force are not realistic, nor are they sustainable in an all out national disaster. So, in a nut shell, they are half correct and half incorrect. The probability of a major disruption of America's way of living is 100%(Sept. 11, 2001 was not such an event). The probability of the Federal, State or Local agencies successful execution of the plan is 0%. Some local areas may be successful, but only with the help of the local, common citizen. But a nationwide scenario will not be fixed by these organizations. These grand, nationwide disasters can only be self corrected.

Now, more than ever, good Americans should think long and hard about what our future will be. The Constitution was established with the honest, God respecting individual in mind, because they are the ones that will carry the burden of righting the wrong and helping thy neighbor. Good will be challanged by evil, and we know who, eventually, always wins. I suggest water-food-security-community should be everyone's focus. If you can't secure these four essential elements of life in the next 2-5 years, move to someplace where you can.

This is a very sobering, and essential, discussion these days. I am glad you asked and hope that the good American wakes up and becomes realistic, rather than optimistic. We are in for some very, very, very, hard times in the next few years and beyond. We didn't vote ourselves into it, for the most part, and we certainly will not be able to vote ourselves out of it. Cheers.


Former Regular Army Officer (1992-2001)

[HwyKnight]

For me it would depend on whom I view as being in charge of the Government. As long as the people were in charge of an elected government, and my orders are clearly appropriate then I will be on the side of the elected government, and will enforce the laws and policies as my duties require me to. However, should the government become tyrant, my loyalties would be with the people. For example: the President suspends congress, dissolves the supreme court, eliminates elections, and turns the military against the people. This would clearly be unconstitutional, and would almost certainly divide the military as we spiral into civil war. This is the EXACT reason for 2A. If it were unrest or war along racial lines, then my choice would be made for me since I am a minority.

[LegalAlien]

For me it would depend on whom I view as being in charge of the Government. As long as the people were in charge of an elected government, and my orders are clearly appropriate then I will be on the side of the elected government, and will enforce the laws and policies as my duties require me to. However, should the government become tyrant, my loyalties would be with the people. For example: the President suspends congress, dissolves the supreme court, eliminates elections, and turns the military against the people. This would clearly be unconstitutional, and would almost certainly divide the military as we spiral into civil war. This is the EXACT reason for 2A. If it were unrest or war along racial lines, then my choice would be made for me since I am a minority.

Let me pose this. Obviously purely hypothetical.

Some future President, ably assisted by Congress, suspends all 2A rights, which requires UK/AUS gun confiscations.
Now you get normal, good law abiding citizens real upset and you get resistance. Initially it is sporadic, individual resistance, but the groudswell grows and it develops into organized 'citizen militia' groups that violently oppose any gun confiscation efforts.
Your reg law abiding citizens now become totally pi$$ed off at goverment and larger groups form with strong command structures and it escalates into the dreaded "Civil Disobedience" or even worse - a civil war.
Now the President has the power and authority to suspend the Constitution, implement martial law and is now empowered to use the military to quell the "Civil Disobedience"
Are these actions by the President considered Constitutional or not?
Now you get into the nebulous chicken and egg situation. Civil disobedience is an acceptable reason to declare Martial Law and deploy military against civilians.
BUT, if the civil disobedience was a direct result of an Unconstitutional act of the President and Congress, what then?

I might be out of line, due to lack of knowledge of the US Constitution, Military rules of engagement and feel free to tell me I am way out of line. But how would a professional soldier and patriotic citizen react in such a situation?

[Linus_1]

Some very thoughtful posts. It really sucks even having to consider these possibilities.

All I know is we are all Americans and fellow countrymen.

I have to think that if we compramise any part of the Bill of Rights, no matter who gives the order, we lose our great Republic.

There is no such thing as Liberty without the means to defend it.

If America gives in to this UN-Global disarmamnet policy then who my friends will be left to secure freedom for anyone. Who (as Ronaldus Magnus used to say) will be that city on a hill? That shining beacon of Liberty.......

No one. We must do everything in peace we possibly can do but, we must not let them take our Liberty.

April 19 1775 the British came to Lexington to begin the disarmament of the Colonists. The Colonists gave their answer and the rest is now history.

What will you do? What will I do?

I end with this quote by one of our Founders:

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

[hatt]

The vast majority of LE and military are going to follow whatever orders they are given. That includes the guys who think whatever they are being ordered to do is wrong.

[Iraqgunz]

And you know this how? I wouldn't take that bet as there are more than enough people in the military and LE that would walk away from any scenario like this.


The vast majority of LE and military are going to follow whatever orders they are given. That includes the guys who think whatever they are being ordered to do is wrong.

[thedog]

As a Veteran, I speak only for myself. But I believe, and a lot of my bro's would agree. Had this happened on my/our watch, we would have gone home to our families. Then, we would have "CRIED HAVOC!! AND UNLEASHED THE DOGS OF WAR!!!"
But, that's just me...

dog

[cobra90gt]

This article was generated over at http://forum.prisonplanet.com/ ? :eek:

[Sudden]

Man, the people at prisonplanet are really out there. I do believe however that events could happen here to put our way of life in danger. The gov must think so as they are making preperations for something.

[LegalAlien]

Iraqgunz and Thedog.

Actions by military and LE like you described, would that be considered desertion by your commanders?

I am glad that I am not in your shoes, potentially having to make such a decision, should it come to that. I take my hat off to you.

[LegalAlien]

This article was generated over at http://forum.prisonplanet.com/ ? :eek:

I have never been to Prisonplanet and have no idea of how far "OUT THERE" they are, so I would take the published article/information at face value only.

However, it has been publicly stated by the future (I assume it is going to happen) POTUS, that he wants to establish a 20,000 strong domestic military force. Actions are already in play to make this happen. Obviously some level of strategic thinking and planning has gone into this.

For what reasons?

To quell Civil disobedience?

Is Prisonplanet that far off the mark?

[LegalAlien]

Ignoring the fact that the origin of this post came from PrisonPlanet, it is based on a real article and strategic research. Below is the link to the .mil article (I am sure that a .mil carries a little more weight that PrisonPlanet).

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=890

[Fr0ntal0b0t0my]

Morning all, it makes you scratch your head a bit doesn't it. As prior Military and now Fed LEO, you are told from the get-go to obey all LAWFUL orders. For the most part those orders are cut and dry however; when The SHTF as in war or the bad guys start shooting you are faced with many decisions that will no doubt change your life and the lives of others forever. Not to mention the overiding thoughts of possible litigation no matter your decision. The reason I say this is ALL Military and LE think about extreme "what if" scenerios all the time and should already have their decision made. To think there all midless robots (The vast majority of LE and military are going to follow whatever orders they are given. That includes the guys who think whatever they are being ordered to do is wrong.)sorry Hatt, but that is borderline liberal tripe! You have been watching too much Hollywood. No offense, but what are you basing that statement on? Let's hope to GOD that this scenerio never happens but; I will say this, it used to seem alot farther from being a possibility than it is now... Regards!

[Army Chief]

The vast majority of LE and military are going to follow whatever orders they are given. That includes the guys who think whatever they are being ordered to do is wrong.

No Solidier is obligated to follow an unlawful order; the real question here is this: will most Soldiers recognize when that line is being crossed in the Constitutional sense? There is some context dependency in play here, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that those who defend America's freedoms would be quite so willing to remove them.

Chief

[Iraqgunz]

LegalAlien,

I am a contractor so I can desert whenever I choose. My allegiance is first and foremost to the U.S.A and the Constitution. Since I also would be affected by any gun confiscation scheme I will be on the streets with everyone else. If I were in the shoes of LE/ MIL my outlook would be the same.


Iraqgunz and Thedog.

Actions by military and LE like you described, would that be considered desertion by your commanders?

I am glad that I am not in your shoes, potentially having to make such a decision, should it come to that. I take my hat off to you.

[LegalAlien]

Thank you all for keeping this on track.

The quality of the responses are very thought-provoking.

Keep em coming!!!

[LegalAlien]

LegalAlien,

I am a contractor so I can desert whenever I choose. My allegiance is first and foremost to the U.S.A and the Constitution. Since I also would be affected by any gun confiscation scheme I will be on the streets with everyone else. If I were in the shoes of LE/ MIL my outlook would be the same.

Should the opportunity ever present itself, I would be honored to shake your hand

[RWK]

No Solidier is obligated to follow an unlawful order; the real question here is this: will most Soldiers recognize when that line is being crossed in the Constitutional sense? There is some context dependency in play here, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that those who defend America's freedoms would be quite so willing to remove them.


To think there all midless robots (The vast majority of LE and military are going to follow whatever orders they are given. That includes the guys who think whatever they are being ordered to do is wrong.)sorry Hatt, but that is borderline liberal tripe! You have been watching too much Hollywood. No offense, but what are you basing that statement on?

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, I'd have been optimistic about that. However, after seeing the conduct of some of the out-of-state agencies that went to "help" in LA and MS, I'm considerably more pessimistic about things like that. We've already had one civil war in this country and not everyone chose the right side then. Why would it be any different tomorrow?

[Fr0ntal0b0t0my]

RWK, you don't have to look at out-of-state LE to find bad apples when it comes to LA. Every agency has them though. I was part of the first out-of-state LE i.e. Federal on scene after the storm and saw a lot of great folks doing phenomenal work in that mess. To say it was extreme would be a gross understatement (Looting, Snipers etc.) LE and even Military did the best job they could with what they had to work with. The media did a great job mischaracterizing FED GOV's roll and the State and Locals came away scott-free with an absolute criminal handling of the aftermath. Good men know right from wrong period!!!

[RWK]

RWK, you don't have to look at out-of-state LE to find bad apples when it comes to LA. Every agency has them though. I was part of the first out-of-state LE i.e. Federal on scene after the storm and saw a lot of great folks doing phenomenal work in that mess. To say it was extreme would be a gross understatement (Looting, Snipers etc.) LE and even Military did the best job they could with what they had to work with. The media did a great job mischaracterizing FED GOV's roll and the State and Locals came away scott-free with an absolute criminal handling of the aftermath.

Hey, I'm with you. You'll get no arguments from me on that. I went to MS and I walked the ground and smelled the air.


Good men know right from wrong period!!!

My concern is not with people knowing right from wrong but, recognizing what's right and what's wrong. I think it can be very dangerous to speculate about these sorts of things in absolute terms.

[Army Chief]

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, I'd have been optimistic about that ...

I share your perspective to at least some degree, which explains my comment about "context." What we have to remember though, it that Katrina was not intially a civil unrest situation; it was a natural disaster that steadily devolved into something more as people grew more desperate, and the near-complete breakdown of services bred widespread lawlessness. We're also conveniently forgetting that anyone left in the city when Katrina struck had remained in violation of an evacuation order, and I think that factored into the official presumption that "if you were still left in the city, you were probably up to no good."

From a Second Amendment perspective, this was just about the worst possible scenario, as it became almost impossible to tell the patriots from the parasites until fairly late in the process -- which coincidentally is about the same time that we realized what Mayor Nagin and others had attemped to do. I'm not defending what happened there, but I am suggesting that the situation wasn't immmediately recognized as a frontal assault on the Second Amendment. Our uniformed responders were dealing with a deliberate rescue operation that begat a misguided confiscation effort, not a deliberate confiscation effort that begat a misguided rescue operation.

Could it happen again? Perhaps, but I also think that this incident raised the collective awareness of those of us who serve under oath. As long as these kinds of infringements can be recognized for what they are, there are many in the ranks today who will indeed sound the alarm, rather than march to the beat of an unconstitutional drum.

Chief

[Sudden]

Ignoring the fact that the origin of this post came from PrisonPlanet, it is based on a real article and strategic research. Below is the link to the .mil article (I am sure that a .mil carries a little more weight that PrisonPlanet).

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=890


I'm reading that. I also recommend:

[url]http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=867[\url]

In the end it is the people who win a conflict that decide who the traitors are.

[hatt]

Morning all, it makes you scratch your head a bit doesn't it. As prior Military and now Fed LEO, you are told from the get-go to obey all LAWFUL orders. For the most part those orders are cut and dry however; when The SHTF as in war or the bad guys start shooting you are faced with many decisions that will no doubt change your life and the lives of others forever. Not to mention the overiding thoughts of possible litigation no matter your decision. The reason I say this is ALL Military and LE think about extreme "what if" scenerios all the time and should already have their decision made. To think there all midless robots (The vast majority of LE and military are going to follow whatever orders they are given. That includes the guys who think whatever they are being ordered to do is wrong.)sorry Hatt, but that is borderline liberal tripe! You have been watching too much Hollywood. No offense, but what are you basing that statement on? Let's hope to GOD that this scenerio never happens but; I will say this, it used to seem alot farther from being a possibility than it is now... Regards!

What are you basing your opinion on? That is the question. I've never heard of ONE article of an LEO not doing something they were ordered to do because they thought it was wrong on a Constitutional level. If you have these examples please share them. The orders given at Ruby Ridge were clearly not right and they were followed. Katrina, I never heard any LE on the news saying it wasn't going to take people's shit because it was wrong. Somehow you think that people who get all fired up to run into a house with MGs because someone may have a couple of pot plants are going to all the sudden quit because the chief told them to go into this house to retrieve the cache of dangerous and illegal weapons of terror. I really don't think you have thought this through. The police are our friends, but that stops if the leadership decides we are doing something wrong.

Edit: Another example here (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=23573). You think police who assault a 12 yo girl, because they were looking for hookers, in her own front yard are going to be worried about some "gun nut" hold up in his house.:rolleyes:

[LegalAlien]

Differences of opinions are good guys, but please keep it civil and refrain from name calling and casting aspersion re 'political leaning'. :D

Thank you all for very insightful feedback to date. Yes, there are going to be different views, based on historical actions and our perceptions of these actions.

[Flash Point]

Not all colonists were approving of our declaration of independence, and there will always be those who side with the government while individual freedoms are trampled on. Many of those will be civilian LEs and members of the military. We can't possibly know who will do what when the time comes. We can only know what we ourselves will do. I know that, for myself, a badge will mean nothing to me if the person behind it is carrying out orders that are contrary to the Constitution.

[HwyKnight]

Katrina is an interesting example. The situation was that the system totally failed, and what was left of law enforcement panicked. How many cops were looting, and walked of the job? That was just a natural disaster, can you imagine borderline civil war? I have no doubt that the officers involved thought they were doing the right thing. They were thinking, take the weapons to prevent criminals from taking them, and stop vigilanties. We are the authority here, do what we say!! I call this 'Riot mode'. We are acting in desperation without thinking clearly. Remember when the N.O. Police chief lost it on T.V.? They were scared and desperate; a perfectly natural, though somewhat unprofessional reaction. The officers probably thought they were doing the appropriate thing, and didn't give much thought to leaving people defenseless. After all it's our job to protect you, right? What!?! people taking the law into their own hands!?! who do they think they are? See the line of thinking here. When we are in 'Riot mode' we are no longer acting like cops. We become an occupying para-military force, trying desperately to restore order, using everything short of martial law. How many people get arrested during a riot? Not many, usually the ones that we have no choice but to arrest. These are usually the most violent. Arrest people during Katrina? Ok, where do you put them? How long can you hold them without them being seen by a judge? This is a perfect example for the existence of 2A; The people MUST be able to defend themselves when government can not or worse will not. I believe that there was a law passed recently that prevents the random disarmament of civilians for this very reason.

[BlueForce]

The New Orleans police were faced with the orders to go door to door rounding up firearms during Katrina -- and that is exactly what they did.

I would hope many would choose not to follow these kinds of unconstitutional orders but as long as there are ones who will, what difference does it make? Anyone can be replaced. It is the government attempting to project unlawful authority that is the issue, not the availability of personnel. You can hire someone to do anything. And if the government became so disposed they would.

[LegalAlien]

Katrina is an interesting example. The situation was that the system totally failed, and what was left of law enforcement panicked. How many cops were looting, and walked of the job? That was just a natural disaster, can you imagine borderline civil war? I have no doubt that the officers involved thought they were doing the right thing. They were thinking, take the weapons to prevent criminals from taking them, and stop vigilanties. We are the authority here, do what we say!! I call this 'Riot mode'. We are acting in desperation without thinking clearly. Remember when the N.O. Police chief lost it on T.V.? They were scared and desperate; a perfectly natural, though somewhat unprofessional reaction. The officers probably thought they were doing the appropriate thing, and didn't give much thought to leaving people defenseless. After all it's our job to protect you, right? What!?! people taking the law into their own hands!?! who do they think they are? See the line of thinking here. When we are in 'Riot mode' we are no longer acting like cops. We become an occupying para-military force, trying desperately to restore order, using everything short of martial law. How many people get arrested during a riot? Not many, usually the ones that we have no choice but to arrest. These are usually the most violent. Arrest people during Katrina? Ok, where do you put them? How long can you hold them without them being seen by a judge? This is a perfect example for the existence of 2A; The people MUST be able to defend themselves when government can not or worse will not. I believe that there was a law passed recently that prevents the random disarmament of civilians for this very reason.


I can see where you are coming from Hwyknight. It is the base training for the LE officer that kicks in, in a situation like Katrina. "Restore Order". But, in the case of the Katrina situation, was it really the correct approach? Most all of us will strongly disagree. Fact is, it happened, and we can only learn from past mistakes.

Now, to part of your post that I highlighted - yes, I do believe I also read about that law. But then, like in so many other situations, the Government has covered all basis. All they have to do is declare Martial Law and all your Constitutional and legal rights go out the window.

And it is easy for me to say "all they have to do is declare Martial Law", but I do think there should be adequate checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening.
Collapse of social discipline and civil insurrection will be enough excuse for a declaration of Martial Law.
In my opinion, one of the single biggest reasons for a potential civil insurrection and civil disobedience will be, when the citizens of the county gets pushed beyond their point of endurance by government. The citizens WILL then push back. Then we have to ask ourselves, who is really to blame for the civil disobedience?
The citizens for not abiding by government dictate?
or
The government for pushing too far?

Every person(most every person) has his/her breaking point. The point of no return. Where he/she decides, enough is enough. If we get prodded with the cattle prod once too often, you will push back.

The Government has to be put on notice to not prod too much!!!

[HwyKnight]

There is no military, or police procedure for coping with the complete destruction of a major city. All of the systems they depended on to complete their mission were gone. Report to station for duty....What station? Call dispatch for further instruction......What dispatch? Hello...Hello? nobody there! Arrest the criminals.....and take them where? My partner whom I have entrusted with my life for years....has fled. Others whom I have worked with for years.....have joined the criminals in looting. Now that the rules have gone out the window, what's left? We resort to our most basic training. #1 Stay Alive, #2 Stabilize and make safe until further action can be taken. There was nothing else they could do. I live in Ohio, and the most we got from Katrina was some wind and rain. We all have petty much the same training though. A friend of mine was the first officer on scene at a prison riot. The guards doing their best to maintain control of several hundred pissed-off prisoners. The only thing between my friend and them were the prison fences. He told me it was the longest, scariest, 5-min of his life until others began to arrive. Now translate that into Katrina, and you get the same feeling multiplied by a hundred. We will follow our orders supported by our basic training as best we can in all situations. But what happens when we are turned against the people? Katrina didn't do that, the problems were created by nature not people. When the people are the cause....we have all (MIL and PD) sworn to defend the constitution, and our respective state constitutions. So if there was a divide it would be along the lines of perspective. Would the loss of 2A be enough to trigger this divide....maybe. Would you be willing to cash in everything else; family, lively hood, career, your life, and just about everything you have ever known; to keep your gun? Personally, I don't know. Would you be willing to face the above to keep government under the control of the people? (To prevent the complete loss of the constitution.) I'm all in on that fight. The problem is being able to see the difference. At what point is the government crossing the line from acting in the peoples best interest, to acting in it's own best interest? As an officer, at what point am I acting in the peoples best interest; a lawful arrest; vs acting in my own or my agencies, best interest; a violation of civil rights? This is part of the reason why it is called: "The thin blue line"

[LegalAlien]

^^^^^

+1000

Great post!!!

[jc75754]

Sounds like many people are starting to expect a second Civil War or the uprising of a radical political group due to civil unrest. I think if you look at the revolution of 1917 in Russia the people had dealt with a leader who allowed 90 some percent of the wealth to be controlled by 1 percent of the elitist population. Russia was involved in a very unpopular war (WWI) which politicians promised to remove the army from and did not. They were in one of the worst economic depressions they had seen to date, and many of the rights Peter the Great granted were being removed because of civil unrest. This allowed a radical political group called Marxists or Communists to incite the already very pissed poor masses to overthrow the Tsar. To summarize and keep from retyping my college senior thesis paper, the government can only push so hard and all it takes is one spark to start a war. Please don't think that I am a communist supporter I am simply pointing out some similar situations. I think that the government needs to be very careful if they institute martial law or remove any rights. I also believe that the LE and Military would not be as willing as most would think to carry out these orders against fellow Americans who are family members.

[CarlosDJackal]

Iraqgunz and Thedog.

Actions by military and LE like you described, would that be considered desertion by your commanders?...

This depends entirely on who ends up winning and in power.

[Army Chief]

So long as I can draw a clear line between what I've been ordered to do and the provisions of the Constitution, I've got no issues whatsoever.

Cross that line, especially in a domestic (i.e. within the United States) situation, and desertion is probably the last thing that I'm going to be worrying about.

Chief

[CMFG]

.....

[BlueForce]

I've been visiting this site for several months now as a visitor. I've found a world of great AR info here, but chosen not to join as part of my natural instinct to stay off the radar. This thread finally baited me in and got me off the bench. So here's my first post.

I'm a career NCO in the Army. I've served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. And while the human terrain has always defined the mission (Serbs vs. Albanians, Tajiks vs. Pashtuns, Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds) the final distinction for me has always been that there are Americans, then there's everyone else. That's why I love the simplicity of Soldiering. That's why I respect but don't envy LEOs, and why I'd never want to be one.

God willing, I'll serve out the remainder of my career honorably, then go back to my hometown in Wisconsin to spend the rest of my life teaching high school history, fishing, and brewing my own beer. But I decided long ago that if I was ever ordered to bear arms amongst american civilians, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I'd very simply be forced to desert. We can "what if" the scenarios all day long. I'm sure if US troops were ever deployed, it would be under seemingly extreme circumstances, with a mile of gray area for doubt and rationalization. Under those circumstances, following orders WOULD be the default action of a trained Soldier. That's why I've idenitified this one key decision point and steeled my resolve.

If I were ever ordered to set foot outside the front gate of the post onto an american street with a loaded weapon, that would be it. I'd go home to my family. Honorable discharge be damned. Pension be damned. And I honestly think under those circumstances, the Army would have better things to do than chase down one AWOL old Sergeant.

CMFG, I know there are people like you out there. I know many others myself. You are the bedrock of our country and society. My concern, however, is that if you won't do it they will just find people who will. As long as the government has this kind of intent we are at risk. It is critical that we also get control of the "mind" of our regime -- which is currently spiraling out of control.

[Mjolnir]

I have never been to Prisonplanet and have no idea of how far "OUT THERE" they are, so I would take the published article/information at face value only.

However, it has been publicly stated by the future (I assume it is going to happen) POTUS, that he wants to establish a 20,000 strong domestic military force. Actions are already in play to make this happen. Obviously some level of strategic thinking and planning has gone into this.

For what reasons?

To quell Civil disobedience?

Is Prisonplanet that far off the mark?

In this circumstance, no, not at all. DoD is now asking for combining DHS and the National Guard under DoD's control. That would be about 1 million potential soldiers. We all know that people TEND to follow the herd. That's true to A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT TO ALL OF US POSTING/READING THIS.

I'd prefer WE THE PEOPLE get off of our glutes and get involved as opposed to the potential 'standing army' (call it what you like) ala Katrina.

Recall the warnings of Joe Biden, Powell, etc. Either they are warning the US populace of what the "insiders" are planning or they are complicit to whatever is to happen within the timeframe given. I guess that would be Accessory To or After the Fact in "legalese".

[DarkX]

You ask a very intriguing question. First, the War College student conducts studies, analysis, and execution of plans for lots of national and international scenarios. More recently (since 2001), national scenarios have increased. Contrary to most American's ideas, Democrat/Republican leadership influences have little impact on future probabilities. I won't go into all the details of negative factors of the formula for failure, but it looks like this: A-B-C+D+E-F-G=Collapse/Depression/Anarchy(whatever).

Getting back to the War College. These high ranking officers, including ranks of 05s,06s,07s, discuss the worst case scenarios and try to find ways to solve them. That is their job. There are other agencies that conduct the same, or similar, studies. Contrary to their beliefs, we are not capable of handling the worst case, civil/natural/terrorist catastophes. On paper we think we can, but in reality it is not possible. The simple logistics of command/control and feeding and fueling and electrifying such a force are not realistic, nor are they sustainable in an all out national disaster. So, in a nut shell, they are half correct and half incorrect. The probability of a major disruption of America's way of living is 100%(Sept. 11, 2001 was not such an event). The probability of the Federal, State or Local agencies successful execution of the plan is 0%. Some local areas may be successful, but only with the help of the local, common citizen. But a nationwide scenario will not be fixed by these organizations. These grand, nationwide disasters can only be self corrected.

Now, more than ever, good Americans should think long and hard about what our future will be. The Constitution was established with the honest, God respecting individual in mind, because they are the ones that will carry the burden of righting the wrong and helping thy neighbor. Good will be challanged by evil, and we know who, eventually, always wins. I suggest water-food-security-community should be everyone's focus. If you can't secure these four essential elements of life in the next 2-5 years, move to someplace where you can.

This is a very sobering, and essential, discussion these days. I am glad you asked and hope that the good American wakes up and becomes realistic, rather than optimistic. We are in for some very, very, very, hard times in the next few years and beyond. We didn't vote ourselves into it, for the most part, and we certainly will not be able to vote ourselves out of it. Cheers.


Former Regular Army Officer (1992-2001)


Being Active Duty as I am...and being very familiar with the principles of War College/CGSC/CSSC/NIMS/ICS/FEMA/EOC etc...additionally, having spent the last five years being part of those scenario situations regardng civil/natural/terrorist events and issues....I could not agree more.

C2 [command and control] from a National level is a major obstacle in a sustained situation. The differences between title 10 and title 32 combined with utilization of state assets [the National Guard] long term almost certainly means that pockets of success would exist...but as you say, ultimately water-food-security-community must be the focus...the eventual win can only be accomplished by securing these things on a personal level.


Your statement that... "The Constitution was established with the honest, God respecting individual in mind, because they are the ones that will carry the burden of righting the wrong and helping thy neighbor.".....is, in my view, entirely accurate.

The impact of narcissism, instant gratification and general disdain for true good are the driving forces in this day and age IMO. Those who love our country and who understand the value of our Constitution will be those who fight the fight.

Cheers to you as well.

[LegalAlien]

Being Active Duty as I am...and being very familiar with the principles of War College/CGSC/CSSC/NIMS/ICS/FEMA/EOC etc...additionally, having spent the last five years being part of those scenario situations regardng civil/natural/terrorist events and issues....I could not agree more.

C2 [command and control] from a National level is a major obstacle in a sustained situation. The differences between title 10 and title 32 combined with utilization of state assets [the National Guard] long term almost certainly means that pockets of success would exist...but as you say, ultimately water-food-security-community must be the focus...the eventual win can only be accomplished by securing these things on a personal level.


Your statement that... "The Constitution was established with the honest, God respecting individual in mind, because they are the ones that will carry the burden of righting the wrong and helping thy neighbor.".....is, in my view, entirely accurate.

The impact of narcissism, instant gratification and general disdain for true good are the driving forces in this day and age IMO. Those who love our country and who understand the value of our Constitution will be those who fight the fight.

Cheers to you as well.

DarkX with reference to the highlighted portion of your very good post, I gather that you have an inside line on what happens in these strategic think tanks and I have a question.

In all these stategic studies that the war college and .mil 'propellor heads' conjour up, and specifically wrt to dealing with US soil civil insurrection, have they, or are they factoring into these scenarios, a strong probability that a reasonable contingent of the standing army would refuse to obey orders to take up arms against fellow citizens?

From responses I have read so far on this thread, I sense (and it warms my heart) that there are a LOT of patriots out there in the military and LE world, that would think seriously about orders given to take up arms against fellow citizens and would not just blindy follow orders.

[LegalAlien]

I've been visiting this site for several months now as a visitor. I've found a world of great AR info here, but chosen not to join as part of my natural instinct to stay off the radar. This thread finally baited me in and got me off the bench. So here's my first post.

I'm a career NCO in the Army. I've served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. And while the human terrain has always defined the mission (Serbs vs. Albanians, Tajiks vs. Pashtuns, Sunnis vs. Shiites vs. Kurds) the final distinction for me has always been that there are Americans, then there's everyone else. That's why I love the simplicity of Soldiering. That's why I respect but don't envy LEOs, and why I'd never want to be one.

God willing, I'll serve out the remainder of my career honorably, then go back to my hometown in Wisconsin to spend the rest of my life teaching high school history, fishing, and brewing my own beer. But I decided long ago that if I was ever ordered to bear arms amongst american civilians, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I'd very simply be forced to desert. We can "what if" the scenarios all day long. I'm sure if US troops were ever deployed, it would be under seemingly extreme circumstances, with a mile of gray area for doubt and rationalization. Under those circumstances, following orders WOULD be the default action of a trained Soldier. That's why I've idenitified this one key decision point and steeled my resolve.

If I were ever ordered to set foot outside the front gate of the post onto an american street with a loaded weapon, that would be it. I'd go home to my family. Honorable discharge be damned. Pension be damned. And I honestly think under those circumstances, the Army would have better things to do than chase down one AWOL old Sergeant.

CMFG - welcome to the thread and I am glad we were able to bait you into your first and very insighful contribution.

I look forward to reading many more of your posts in the future AND

THANK YOU for your unselfish service and dedication to this country that I have made my own