National guard unit refuses to answer questionaire about using lethal force on Americans Updated

page: 5
149
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen3273676
 


I understand your point about SOME law enforcement abuse of power my friend. However, One single act of police brutality is no excuse to destroy private, city or county property. What part of that do you not understand? Not trying to be rude, but come on now. Denny got dragged out of his truck and his head smashed in and he almost died. Rodney King got a few bruises, and that's not to give any execuses for even that either. ~SheopleNation




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
It's good to see that some people still have their senses. Maybe the soldier had an interest in "alternative news" and was more aware. It is also great that others followed suit

In 2001, when I witnessed the 9/11 events, I just quit a 10 year military career.

Obviously, if you're in the uniformed business for kicks or money, you wouldn't do that. But if you're in for the right reason, you won't want to do the wrong things.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


I remember seeing the "put your guns down" incident when it happened. General Honore ordered a mixed group of police and soldiers to put their weapons in a non-confrontational manner. The soldiers rapidly complied, hell he was a 3 star general and 1st Army commander at the time. It was the police he had to tell multiple times.

As to the OP. I dunno, I'm skeptical, but I really need some better sources on it. There is just enough correct terminology and description of how some type of deployment drill would go to get me wanting more info. I'm inclined to say BS until we can find more info.

I've done quite a few EDRE's the use of that acronym lends some credibility. These exercises involve tons of checks and inspections on pretty much all personal and unit equipment; medical and dental assesments; and personal rediness like wills, powers of attorney, and insurance beneficiary updates. Never had any survey in one though the most important question I was asked was "who do you want to get the money if you don't come back?"".

The fact that the E-4 is allegedly in a county jail is more plausible for a guard unit than a brig on a military base. Guard Units unless under federal orders are controlled and governed by the state. I can only speak for certain about Georgia, but I do know that there is a state analogue to UCMJ called the Georgia Code of Military Justice that governs Guard and Air Guard conduct while not on federal orders and reasonably assume all states would have some similar code.

Interesting story nonetheless. I would like to see it sourced better and know more about what if anything happened.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I'm not sure I understand.

He refused to answer a questionaire?

I find it more unbelievable that the NCO's rather than the LTs and CPTs fell in with the SPC.

As I have stated before, I am serving in the US army and I shall never ever follow orders to harm US citizens.

Not all of us are mind-controlled drones...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
The vast majority of military personnel will NOT fire on U.S. citizens. You people really need to quit worrying about U.S. military personnel doing this. It will be Obama's buddies at the U.N. that will start the killing of Americans. The majority of military, military veterans, and law enforcement will NOT let that happen without a fight. We are well armed, and we won't let the blue helmets walk around without fearing for their own lives. Guerrilla tactics in the U.S. will be very bloody for any invading forces.



^ Best post yet.


A Japanese General once said:
" The United States cannot be invaded. There is an American with a gun behind every blade of grass".
He was right.


There are more American civilians with guns than any three armies in the world combined.
American cannot be defeated on it's on soil without WMD's.

Unless the US Military wants to use the big stuff on it's on front yard, it aint gonna happen.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


This is nothing more than a feel good its christmas time propaganda piece. Paul Lowe is a life coach. Check out his site.

www.paullowe.org...



You can change the world.
You are much more than you think.




I guess were not supposed to remember this famous quote.

Lt. Gen. HONORE: "Put those damn weapons down. I'm not going to tell you again, goddamn it. Get those goddamn weapons down."

He had to order them more than one time.


Well, another NPR lie?
Just as good as FOX news, that NPR.
Honore's unit was nothing more than a PR stunt by GW Bush.
They were never, at any time, allowed to raise their weapons.
Only the La National guard and the out of state NG units were allowed to use weapons since they were not limited by the Posse Comitatus Act (still in effect at the time).
The EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) allowed out of state NG to act in Louisiana under the orders of the Governor of the state and the adjutant general of the Louisiana NG.
NPR's story is either ignorant or a blatant lie (which id often the case- its about as trustworthy as your local "Rush Limbaugh" station)
edit on 8-12-2011 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
He shouldn't be in jail. They are not supposed to obey unlawful orders. Hooray for these guys! They're awake.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
Don't get this wrong, But the national guard and any Oath Keepers WILL fire on Looters and Rioters that are destroying private property.
Or endangering the public.
Those are lawful orders.
We also will arrest or eliminate criminals praying on the public. Its up to the criminal.

This comes under common law.

Others would be unlawful.if unconstitutional.


Correct. It is the NG's duty to put down illegal civil unrest (according to the Constitution of the US and most states). Always has been.
However, The Rules for the Use of Force don't allow firing upon anyone destroying public/private property in and of itself. They do have authority, depending on the individual situation to protect public/private property. If in the act of doing so, they have to protect themselves, their guys, or another citizen, only then do they have the authority to use deadly force.
edit on 8-12-2011 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-12-2011 by pierregustavetoutant because: add



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrimalRed
reply to post by citizen3273676
 


Oh yeah, burning down and destroying black neighborhoods while looting really makes a positive statement about "rights". Exactly what part of destroying and taking stuff that is not yours makes a statement about "rights:?
You are right the national guard should have let them destroy their own neighborhood completely. Oh wait that is racist...


im sorry but did i miss something? your saying its ok to fire on american citizens and then using the la riots as an example of why its ok. i was pointing out if the police werent breaking the law and violating peoples constitutional rights there would not have been any riots. none of what you said above was ever mentioned what the hell are you talking about?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


just trying to disprove the theory of its ok to fire on american citizens not defending riots. tho again no popo no riots and the cover up when there was absolute proof i believe for the first time in america and most people were expecting prison sentences to be handed out. again not defending riots but if those involved had been prosecuted harshly then there wouldnt have been riots.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I have to be skeptical of this, only because as I understand it national guard members are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are under federal title 10 orders. If they were just at drill then they most likely were not.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

I don't know if it's made up, the person who posted the story must have gotten some flack for posting this story on FB and Oath Keepers.

By the way, the site has a nice video of a NG unit that refused to confiscate guns during Katrina.




Sooo...
if you actually watch this video. It reinforces the fact that the NG was NOT confiscating weapons or directly engaging American citizens during Katrina/Rita.
"Martial Law" NEVER existed during or after that storm. Civilian government was always in charge.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


You make a good point there and it needs to be pointed out. But, I'm sure if you know this, you also know that in August 2005 the largest part of the LA Guard (256th Infantry Brigade) was deployed to Iraq, so though you are right about the reliance of LA on out of state guard units, there is more to the story.

On Honore, I never thought he was just a PR stunt. If I had never personally met the man I might think different but I remember him as a Colonel when he was 1st Brigade 24th ID commander at Ft. Stewart. I was a battallion Command Sergeant Major's driver and I remember him being a boisterous foul mouthed commander who was hard on soldiers, hard on NCOs, and harder on officers. I had three brigade commanders after him and none of them left half the impression he did. He was everywhere usually bitching out some Sgt. Major, Lt. Colonel or Major. The only thing I really noticed different about him in Katrina was that he didn't cuss as much as when he was a Colonel.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BlindSided
 

National Guard is not the Army. Well, not inside the US anyway (different story overseas).
Ive never heard of a Guard base/armory with a "brig".

Folks on here need to educate themselves on basic military matters



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jefwane
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


You make a good point there and it needs to be pointed out. But, I'm sure if you know this, you also know that in August 2005 the largest part of the LA Guard (256th Infantry Brigade) was deployed to Iraq, so though you are right about the reliance of LA on out of state guard units, there is more to the story.

On Honore, I never thought he was just a PR stunt. If I had never personally met the man I might think different but I remember him as a Colonel when he was 1st Brigade 24th ID commander at Ft. Stewart. I was a battallion Command Sergeant Major's driver and I remember him being a boisterous foul mouthed commander who was hard on soldiers, hard on NCOs, and harder on officers. I had three brigade commanders after him and none of them left half the impression he did. He was everywhere usually bitching out some Sgt. Major, Lt. Colonel or Major. The only thing I really noticed different about him in Katrina was that he didn't cuss as much as when he was a Colonel.

Great to hear from someone who was there. I just know several who were around. The 256th was missed. They were also in Iraq for the Gulf Oil Spill. But that was mostly a deal for the Engineer units anyway.
Honore as a PR stunt is a bit harsh, I admit. He obviously had an impact. However, the NG soldiers were allowed to follow the RUF, per their duty. His regular army soldiers were told not to engage. Many NG guys have told me they (Honore's boys) just kind of walked around until the CNN or other news crews showed up.
Anyway, you know the complexities of NG/military crap. My main point was that it wasn't martial law. If it was, it wouldn't have been as confused and crazy (by no means saying it should have been under military control instead of civilian). There were some instances of units going beyond but everything was so uncertain. There was no order, on a large scale, to disarm residents- despite reports of "gangstas" shooting at troops, cops, citizens, and civilian workers.
edit on 8-12-2011 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Delightful.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


The government would like to know if their soldiers would do it so that if they order it, they don't suddenly see a revolt on their hands.

It's only logical. They would have to realize the fact that if even just one soldier refuses, most American soldiers would follow suit.

That's the problem with America, for those wishing to have a brutal dictatorship. There is always that one rigid individual, and Americans tend to follow in his foot steps.

It's not that most soldiers wouldn't do it, it's that a minority would refuse to do it, and most soldiers would follow that minority out of moral/religious beliefs.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


They did in Ohio back in 1970. I wouldn't go so far as to say they won't. They have before and they can very well do it again 'under orders'.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimithae
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


They did in Ohio back in 1970. I wouldn't go so far as to say they won't. They have before and they can very well do it again 'under orders'.

There were no "orders" to fire. 67 rounds were fired in about 13 seconds. This, during the entirety of the 1960s/70s unrest. Not justifying the Ohio incident. Just saying that in any other nation, at any other time, given the amount of unrest during that period, the typical response would have been granting them a "whiff of grapeshot", Napoleon style. Or Mao style, Or Stalin style, etc
Young Americans, exemplifying their current weak-kneed sense of entitlement, don't understand the place in history they have, in terms of the responsibility they have in continuing the best system in the world. Most just whine about how much they want to be like a failed and ultimately tyrannical European system. Just don't understand how easy it is for them to betray their grandfathers.
edit on 8-12-2011 by pierregustavetoutant because: spelling



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

If it is true that the National Guard unit refused to answer this questionaire, that worries me greatly! That they didn't come right out and say "HELL NO! WE ARE HERE TO DEFEND THE PUBLIC AND CITIZENRY, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT ACTS AGAINST THESE THINGS! " means there is no way to be sure how they will act; for the Citizens or Against the Citizens.





new topics
top topics
 
149
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join