reply to post by Salt of the Earth
I can only tell you from my own perspective, and I can guarantee, you may not like the answers.
First and formost as is painfuly obvious in Iraq, the military is not a police force.
A soldier does not fight for political theories, or for administration's agendas.
Any soldier who has a bit of time in has already served under1 or possibly 2 administrations, with all the bi polar type behavior that can be
expected from a 2 party system with different ideals.
In addition, an experienced soldier has most probably served under several commanders and Commanding officers, with all the differences that any
multi person agency will have between CEO's and thier differing personalities.
The military's way of dealing with this inherent insecurity of the command structure is to train thier personel to follow orders regardless if they
agree or make sense.
It is also true that the UCMJ ( uniform code of military justice) allows for circumstances where a soldier is justified to not follow an immoral or
The problems arise as it does in civilian life, as to when and what constitutes an illegal or immoral order.
If you choose to disobey an order, and are in a combat situation, you can literaly be sentenced to death if your wrong.
Even if your right, your file will be flagged, and your chances of promotion and a career are pretty much gone.
It's not a judgement to be made lightly, nor acted on in haste.
Consequently an apparent lawful order to secure food stores and weapons in a state of emergency, could be made plausable enough that it will be
When the 82nd Airborne ( my old outfit) was sent in to help after Katrina, they were mistakenly told to secure all firearms They followed orders
and followed thier training. They knocked once and requested entry, if no answer they kicked in the door to clear the building, if there was an
answer, but they were denied entry, they commanded entry, and then kicked in the door to secure the building.
I know in New Orleans, this sounds like very harsh tactics, but from a training standpoint, if you don't know who or what may be inside a
structure, you clear it of weapons, and never leave a building behind you that has not been secured.
In the case of New Orleans, it was just one bad order from one officer. You can only imagine what would be the case if it were a presidential
directive or a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Imagine if you will, one survivalist wannbe with a small stash of firarms, and alot of paranoia, over reacting to the military standing on his
doorstep, demanding entry into his refuge he has made for his family.
Firearms, lack of training and fear, are a deadly combination.
One shot from inside that house, and the place will be lit up like the 4th of July. When word spreads about how that was handled, you can bet on
more itchy trigger fingers. A few instances like that, and any self respecting officer, will order his men to approach every structure as a possible
As to who would be the criminal here, i suppose it would depend on which side of the door you were on.
Make no mistake, martial law is a federal order, to disobey that order is a federal offense. Merely planning to disobey that order for martail law
is conspiracy to commit a federal offense. So who do you think is the criminal ? Of course we are speaking strictly hypotheticles here for
entertainment purposes LOL
As for confiscating the food stores, thats SOP ( standard operating procedure)
You secure all available resources including food, so that the distribution can be controled and equitable. In the case of food, centralizing the
control and distribution of food would ensure that everyone had a fair share of available rations, rather than the prepared, having plenty and the