It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

If s1876 passed would soldiers stand by the constitution?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Ok I admit I don't know the finer details of the bill I just know it's a pretty nasty piece of
legislation.
My question is if it hypothetically becomes law that turns the United States into a battle zone
would the soldiers in the military enforce it or would they stand by their oath they took to the constitution?
It seems hard to believe that the people in the military would be comfortable being a domestic police force.
I'm just curious how those in the armed forces would react to this.




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ELahrairah
 

Which part of the Constitution do you think is violated by S. 1876?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
from what i have read, by rand pauls roll call voting move, the part that was so ugly to Americans, was because the detainee part would apply to US citizens.and he got that voted down, and they state in it.




SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.




Particular Section in Bill

Entire bill



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by ELahrairah
 

Which part of the Constitution do you think is violated by S. 1876?


extend statutory habeas corpus



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ELahrairah
 


Soldiers do not stand by the constitution. They protect the right of the wealthy to make money off of war. The few the proud the marines...Bunch of idiots.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by wlord
 

I'm not sure what that means. Please show me the paragraph(s) from the bill you think are unconstitutional.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ThetaNuRucka
 


So it is certain that the part about detaining citizens has been struck down for now?
My head has been spinning over this bill and I'm concerned if this gets struck down someone else is going to try
to draft a similar proposal at some future time.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
All of my friends in the military said they would stand true to their oath. I do not think any other military could compete with our current and vets training!

edit on 2-12-2011 by Corruptedstructure because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
 


Sorry, but it takes one to know one dude.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Is this a serious question?! The entire bill, from first word to the last.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
 


because of these people you have rights. be respectful, or post your ignorant comment on the bumper of your car. you wouldn't make it out of walmart parking lot without one of those "idiots" pulling you out of your car, and escorting you to the ditch.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I thought I read the bill did pass? Either way if our troops are on our side I thought I read there were agreements to use troops from canada and mexico and other places in instances of civil unrest?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Is this a serious question?! The entire bill, from first word to the last.

So you don't object to any particular provision, you object to the idea that the United States government can fund a military at all. Sorry, but that's an enumerated power. Definitely constitutional.


Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by ELahrairah
 


Soldiers do not stand by the constitution. They protect the right of the wealthy to make money off of war. The few the proud the marines...Bunch of idiots.


We would even defend the likes of you. This is the oath we take.

I, (NAME), 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.

In the National Guard

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

If ignorance was bliss you will be in heaven.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 


It passed in the Senate. Now it goes to the House last I knew..



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
according to pundits it is the worst thing..only comparable to Nazi germany and north korea

you wonder how Hitler happened..

oh looky
The bill was sponsered by the senator from Tel Aviv and John the "song bird" McCAIN
( Cain for all you Xians haha, right in yo face baby )..the greatest stoolie pigeon of the viet nam war
yep republicans represent good ol christian family values...
edit on 2-12-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


PS all the solddier who phoned into AJ today hate it but they said the lead from behind NCOs and commanders love it
while the lead from in front NCOs and commanders HATE it
and that was said by at least 4 millitary callers plus two ladie cops...
edit on 2-12-2011 by Danbones because: PS



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I'd like to thank you for your service and your commitment to uphold the constitution.

However, that doesn't change the fact that not all military personal are as honorable as you, I have no doubt a decent number would ignore the constitution (if they even knew it well enough to know they were) just for the sake of following orders.

That wasn't a dig at military people's intelligence, just a fact that most Americans are completely ignorant of the Constitution, and the military doesn't escape that sad truth. I have friends in the National Guard, Marines, and Rangers, they all know next to nothing about what's in the constitution.

So as far as the question of the OP, yes, some would. Others would willfully ignore the constitution and follow orders. I think the higher number would belong to the group that violates the constitution, but doesn't KNOW they are doing so.

Depending on the orders given by your superior officer, EVERY single military person would violate their oath. Why? If you are ordered to commit an act that violates the constitution you have two choices. Follow orders, which would violate your oath for failing the constitution. Or follow the constitution, which violates your oath to obey superior officers. You are SOL either way, You WILL violate the oath you took, there is no other option.

This is why the oath should have been changed to "....follow orders unless the orders violate the constitution" because NOBODY is above the constitution, not a general, not the president. Authority has been granted to nobody to order others to violate the constitution.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


. Even if this bill passes the Senate the president will not, if for no other reason than he can't stand McCain. I haven't been following this very much but since it's been brought to my attention I will be writing a letter to my Senators. It is this kind of legislation that really makes me mad. People across the country need to wake up and let their elected representatives know that this kind of thing won't fly. First write to them then if need be protest.
edit on 2-12-2011 by Grimpachi because: correction



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I'm just wondering if something like this might backfire for the people proposing it.
For example if soldiers were told to arrest civilians that they might turn around and arrest the officials in government.
I wonder about this since apparently support for Ron Paul among service men and women is very high and I suspect a great deal of them are a bit pissed that they have been used to further the agenda of nation building and globalization.
I'm just wondering if this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and the armed forces will side with the people.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by ELahrairah
 


Soldiers do not stand by the constitution. They protect the right of the wealthy to make money off of war. The few the proud the marines...Bunch of idiots.


We would even defend the likes of you. This is the oath we take.

I, (NAME), 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.

In the National Guard

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

If ignorance was bliss you will be in heaven.


How will one not obey orders that he has sworn to follow? Its not like you can set down with your CO and have a debate about some constitutional issue, application of force and policy ect durring some or any sort of domestic unpleasantness.

First thing that will happen to a trooper that does will incarceration for insubordination. When you go before a courts marshal they will tell you that we are not here to discuss the constitution but your insubordination.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join