It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A question for enlisted soldiers

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 07:52 AM
No, Medic was right - the question was retarded.

In order for the US to have become a police state (hypothetically) in the first place, the US Constitution would have had to be suspended or revoked. And since every last man and woman in the US Armed Forces swears an oath (myself included at one point) to potect this very same document (not the president, government, or any other political organization), one would have to assume that the US Armed Forces were either:

A) defeated in battle by another military force internal to the US

B) in collusion with the police state rebels

In either case, the chances of that are slim to none. The question is couched in the suggestion that most people in the US Armed Forces blindly follow the orders of our superiors. I'm sorry, but you will have to give us a little more credit than that. Stop watching Hollywood - it is pretend and entertainment only. And BTW, members of the US Armed forces know the difference between a legal order and an illegal order under the US Constitution and UCMJ. Those who issue and follow illegal orders are always subject to the harshest measures allowed under the US Justice System.

posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Pisky
I read somewhere that in order to remove the risk of Military Personnel refusing to fire on the people of their own hometowns, they were to be stationed some way away from where they lived. That way they would be able to perform their duties without fear for their own families. I have no idea how true this is, but it does seem feasible.

Stationed outside the country. At this time, most of our fighting troops are overseas somewhere. And that's bad. I hear rumours that while they continue to transfer out, the UN blue helmets are being brought into the USA for when the axe falls. Don't know if it's true, but it's plausible. The thinking is, of course, our troops would never fire on American citizens and the blue helmets would. Personally, I'd be kickin some blue helmet AZZ!

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 04:27 AM
pardon the intrusion.i am a ncm in the canadian forces. we came pretty close to your hypethetical situation with the quebec separation was pretty tense considering there were many quebequois supporters throuout the military.depending on who you are dealing with,french and english relations in canada can look like some race relations in other countries(tolerate each other but will come to blows if pushed ).we had mini separations in sections of our own units but that is as far as the command structure would let it go.this was especially hard on units and ships on pose a very hard you can see with our little momentary glitch in unity,a situation as you propose could tear the military apart at the same time.there is no easy answer .the boys in the trenches can only hope their command structure knows who is who,and will allow the civilian athorities to take the lead.if you do not let the police lead,the troops will revert to their training(close with and destroy the enemy).it's to easy to panic, no matter how well diciplined,when faced with an unorganized mob.

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 04:54 AM
It is not feasible to think that military personnel would turn against their own people just because some politicians said so. Everyone has morals and standards. Just because someone is in the military (regardless of rank) doesn't mean that they are brainwashed to the extent that they will follow orders contrary to their beliefs and convictions (such as in this instance). I honestly believe that if the State ever declared Martial Law within the United States there would be a whole lot of active and reserve units listed as AWOL. And I can garuantee you that everyone who abandoned the military would take as much equipment with them to ensure their survival and the survival of others in the conflict against the State. It would be all out war, and more than likely, the populace would win. People on the inside would act as if they were going along with the plan, but while no one was looking they would conduct sabotage missions and the likes. The possibilities are endless. There is no way this scenario would ever work out for the benefit of the government.
The people are too strong!

Mr. M

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:52 AM
i hope youre right.
and i think you are as far as soldier alliances go, but you have to remember the technological strength the USA has. incredible. unmatched.

also.... on a tangent (sorta); If its unreasonable to think that US soldiers would willingly fire on its own citizens, or be brainwashed to do so - what about covert CIA/FBI/MIB etc... who are notorious for doing just that.... i mean, i cant prove they do, but we have all heard of it............

..ppl with sensitive information suddenly out of nowhere commiting "suicide"?

right. -lost


posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 03:29 AM
Ok, mOjOm, by raising your hand, you are my direct audience. On page one
of this forum, in your first post you started with three statements.

1. Precisely
2. Precisely
3. I will simplify your original statement, and delete the clarifying statements.
"The military is there to serve and preserve the Republic itself."
If anyone, or group, or organization should challenge the Republic, herein meaning the
Constitution and all Legally evolved legislative acts, ammendments, etc...then you will
certainly get the "attention" of the Military. The only weakness to this would be a Congress
that started to legally disassemble the Republic. At that point, citizens would have to
assume responsibility for their own representatives in congress. Ergo, and hypotheticly,
there is even a peaceful means to change the Republic, without revolution. This in turn
provides the "moral" authority to the military to automatically react to and clearly
identify "internal" enemies. If an internal enemy is working towards the dissolution of the Constitution/
Rule of Law, and he does not follow the only legal path open to do so, then he is
automatically a target for the military, who would then require a "Weapons Free" command.
The military in this case is the Coast Guard, National Guard, and Marines. Current status
of the law prohibits the USAF and Army from doing this, without specific Congressional

Now thats sorta how it is supposed to work. I did not say the concepts are simple. They get
worse with every domestic/military incident. And the rule of law has been flexed (bent) a good
deal in the last 40 or so years.

Intent of history examples: To show that in every case where military forces have been
"legally" applied on US soil, the military has responded such that NONE have refused
to perform the assignment. (Objections on the basis of the Posse Comitatis Act is
never counted as a refusal, but rather a duty throughout the chain of command.)
Before I get Nitpicked, those who met that refusal criteria during the
Civil War were branded and treated as spies for the opposing side, so they do not count.


posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 05:08 PM
I agree ECK, and would look for UN before US military involvement.

In fact I would suspect increasing UN populations in the USA as well as allies abroad, right now.

But if it were to happen,...

FEMA would probubly Suspend the Constitution, and set up labor & prison camps.(work for food)(It can be assumed that most businesses would be suffering a popped economy by then.) (prison for those persistant loud constitutionalists and those not willing to work) .

The US war engine would be in Europe/Asia/Middle East and kept there while,...

The UN (member countries) forces will police and control the US.

*not enlistment qualified to post, but couldnt resist*

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 01:49 AM
"FEMA would probubly Suspend the Constitution, and ...." == smirkly

Thank you smirkly. And the many others who are thinking inside this forum.
Yes, there are several conspiracies along these lines. They are false. To believe those conspiracies
is to not do your homework. All of the executive emergency powers are available
from the library of congress. They are available in the entirety of text to the public. As Seekerof
would say, "the truth is out there but some prefer a good conspiracy". Its a lot easier to
discuss a good juicy conspiracy, and more fun, than it is to wade through legalism.
The reason they exist is posted here:

To get a martial law situation, the US Govt has been be-headed, a natural or
manmade disaster of monumental proportions has occurred (like a nuke),
or anarchy is spreading through the nation. (unlawful disorder).
Now, I said before there is only one way to legally "suspend" the Constitution,
and that would be by the congress legally dissolving it. If that were to occur,
I would hope they were smart enough to dissolve the military first. Because
the little dictatorship under the Constitution is totally dedicated to defending,
and if necessary, Restoring the Constitution if it is lost. Since this IS the core
beliefs of the Patriotic military, we can never be a Banana Republic because
our military exists as the Honor Guard to, and never a replacement of, this
Great Republic.
This is the "honor" of the Regiment, this is our Esprit De Corps.
Semper Fi !


posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:17 AM
Just a side note:

The US civvie population is so diverse, I believe that should the military turn on the government to protect the people, you are bound to get segments of the population defending the government with arms regardless of the governments intentions or orders. Compound that with small disorganised groups such as gangs and right-wing factions (read KKK, militias etc) things could quickly escalate into civil conflict. At that stage you would end up having the military firing on civilians regardless. Its an extremely dynamic issue.

All you need is an excuse and a mob, which the LA Riots showed. With that said, I don't think many soldiers tasked with sweeping South Central LA or any other gang infested areas would have too many problems pulling sights on those "combatants". Seriously.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in