Two Four Star Generals write New York Times demanding Obama Veto the NDAA

I am just going to think out loud here and please remember this is just a random thought
What if .... The fact that these military figures (and there are quite a few) have stepped up to shout with us the people. During OWS and other relative things that will in the end take away freedom from us the people. All this could be due to the simple fact that they are in the end one of us... Or Maybe and it is a big MAYBE it could be a case of smoke and mirrors or if you like a chain of bluffs. Which will lead to us all inevitably believing that the Military hierarchy are for the people. All this depends on the orchestrated events that are occurring now and over time will occur. Through these events the Military will come out as the peoples champ and we learn to trust them to much. Bingo before you know it you will have a Military dictatorship. soz about the rant

reply to post by Annee


The government, the government.

reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx

It does not matter whether the order was lawful or not. In the military, you are trained to obey without even thinking about it, so if you do not follow an order, I really don't think they're gonna care whether it was legal or not. The emphasis is on the fact that you did not follow an order, period.

Not really.

Yes, we do train to reduce bickering between and across chains of command. You can't spend five minutes arguing over which p-way to carry a casualty down in the bowels of a damaged ship. You've got to move as a team or you'll simply waste time dirka-durring about.

No, we do not train to follow orders without question. Big Navy has been canning COs left and right with a record number of 'firings.' Most of these are following their issuing of unlawful orders or running their ships into # there's no excuse for.

I imagine other branches are following suit and thinning their officer ranks.

Sure - in the heat of battle, you are more likely to roll with a borderline lawful order rather than challenge it - because arguing or (worse) giving conflicting orders, yourself, can get a lot of people killed. But when you're talking about such insane concepts as arresting large percentiles of the civilian population... it's not going to happen.

reply to post by Aim64C


Too bad the NDAA makes this # lawful, now any commander can be punished for not following orders like those regardless of how ethically sound it is. Like you, I doubt though very many of them would follow such fascist orders.

The members of the US military are it's citizens and aren't bound against their kin. From what I have seen, communities around military bases are some of the strongest in the US as far as unity is concerned. Give or take I guess, not every military base has a lot of civilians around it. Every base I was at was deeply rooted in the surrounding community.

Originally posted by Reaper2137
Whats not to bash about Obama? Are we not supposed to Bash a Traitor? I voted for the man, worst mistake of my life but I did it. "Yes WE can" destroy this country, if ever there was a President needed killed for Treason its this man. History will remember that America fell because of him.

Reaper DON'T BE AN IDIOT MAN!

Yes Obama is apart of the problem but is not the only one, it's pretty obvious that you are a shill for right-wingers/Tea Baggers.

Obama, Bush, Romney, Gingrich, and McCain are ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. Is the ones with power (THEM) against the ones without power (US).

Speaking of McCain guess who was the mastermind behind the amendment for indefinite military detention of U.S. Citizens in this NDAA....

www.berthoudrecorder.com...

Don't be such a chump and only BLAME THE PUPPETS! Blame the ones that are pulling the strings too.

reply to post by Reaper2137


he still claims he has the power to do everything in the act, without writing a law for it. at least if he vetoes it it would not be on paper though, which itself is thoroughly disgusting that this country has come this far into tyranny.

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Reaper2137
really some of you are mistaken slightly on how officers make rank. Yes they have to do the dog and pony show up to a certain point. 0-9 or Colonel after that its a club of generals that choose who gets to join their club.

No really that is how it works a club. doesn't matter how mean or how much you screw over the guy next to you. If the club doesn't like you, or they don't see you in a good light you don't become a general its that simple.

That is why a General holds his rank even after he retires there maybe more of them than presidents when it comes to retired staff. Yet I bet you, unless the guy was really hated by his men. He could still walk into a unit today and send them running under his command.

People who have never been in the military looking from the outside in, would think it crazy.

Ask a soldier if he has ever witnessed just that, 9-10 will tall you that they have seen it done and more than once. That is if the soldier has been in long enough to see command changes, command ceremonies and the like.

Except you don't know how it works. It's not generals that give ranks, it's congress. Commissions are an act of congress and once you reach a certain rank your promotion is literally an act of congress. If you piss off the wrong politician you can be done for life. Most officers crap out at captain though.

And everyone holds their rank after they retire. They just stick RETIRED in front of it. And yes I've seen retired generals try to boss people around. An E-3 simply turned around and told him to stick it. A retired officer has no business ordering active duty soldiers around as he is not their commander. There is a chain of command for a reason and if you ain't in it you have no business giving orders.

edit on 23-12-2011 by antonia because: opps

You just show your ignorance of the military yet again, You really have no ideal what you are talking about when it comes to making rank do you? yes it takes an act of congress to make any officer a officer. Yet who do you think controls what names get given to congress for them to act?

use your brain, what little you have. an E-3 even turning on a 0-11 would be sent to the brig weather he is retired or not. and would lose his rank if not get kicked out for telling a general to stick it. Yet more show of how you have never been in the military. Yes there is a chain of command, and you have shown you have no ideal how it works.

You are the one that is wrong guy, As a 10 year AF vet and now working as a contractor on an AF base I have seen plenty a young enlisted airmen disrespect are flat out disobey RETIRED officers generals included, right or wrong. I have seen it first hand in fact a saw an E-4 disobey a retired general, a very very famous retired general that frequents the base I work on quite often and guess what NOT A DAMN THING HAPPENED TO HIM.

Another thing there SMART GUY you talk about a revolution or the like and state it will be militias that fight back, and that you all are armed heavily in your neck of the woods. Of course, your profile states WHERE YOU ARE AT!!!!!!

You don't give the enemy information EVER!!! If I were in a group like that, I would never divulge anything ANYTHING. You sir are not bright and should be kicked out of whatever faction you are in cuz your dumb arse will get everybody locked up or killed.

Go buy yourself a clue DUDE.

reply to post by Reaper2137


And you know this from what experience, if you don't mind me asking. I served within a decade ago and I know of multiple occurrences of "off the books" disciplinary measures to those who do not succumb to pressure from peers to obey illegal orders. My AOR during my time in-theater was particularily confusing, with very fluid situations evolving and escalating quite rapidly, causing command clusterschmucks almost daily. Peer pressure is also basically the driving force in the armed services as you may or may not know.

reply to post by SuperTripps


There are glimmers of hope among grunts, but as far as I'm concerned with command and certain POGs, there is no honor left in the armed services. Sorry if my opinion is jaded, but there's a dark side to serving that (again, as you may or may not know) for some, destroys any chance of living a normal life. When you take that into consideration, and then look at all of the extremely hazardous, yet needless positions that our forces are subjected to for the mere purpose of gaining control of a region's resources. Peacekeeping and "nationbuilding" are pure myths, and now the UN and NATO have officially been upgraded to "big bully" status. Therefore it does not matter what the quality of the morals of our ground-level forces may be, they will always be commanded by fools. Just the way it is. "Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs" -Comment made about Canadian troops by German officer circa 1917.

reply to post by Annee


Im sorry but anyone who allows themselves to be used to push illegal actions against the American people, who allowed himself to be used as a giant LIE to trick the AMERICAN PUBLIC ...YEa i think he deserves to be bashed

Originally posted by essanance
reply to post by Annee

 

Im sorry but anyone who allows themselves to be used to push illegal actions against the American people, who allowed himself to be used as a giant LIE to trick the AMERICAN PUBLIC ...YEa i think he deserves to be bashed

That's not the point. THEY ALL NEED TO BE BASHED!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Observor

 

Is it my imagination or is there a sector of the military that deals with law?

Of course, there is a section of the military that deals with the law, to differentiate between lawful and unlawful commands.

However, I don't think there is any section of the military that deals with the constitutionality of a law. It is not upto the military to decide whether a law passed by the Congress is constituional or not, it is upto the constitutional courts.

Any military officer can and will get courtmartialled for refusing to obey a lawful order. Once the Congress has passed the bill, the President signed it into a law and no court has declared it unconstituional, they better obey it or risk getting courtmartialled.

As per the US Constituion, the US President cannot order troops to war without the Congress declaring war. However the last time the US Congress declared war was World War II. Do you think if the troops ordered to Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003 refused to obey the orders would have gotten away without a courtmartial because the war itself was unconstitutional?

It is a really pathetic situation where the population expects the professional military to correct the errors of the civilian government. Yes, the military can step in, but not by disobeying select lawful orders, but by throwing the whole structure out, at least for a time.

Originally posted by Reaper2137


You just show your ignorance of the military yet again, You really have no ideal what you are talking about when it comes to making rank do you? yes it takes an act of congress to make any officer a officer. Yet who do you think controls what names get given to congress for them to act?

use your brain, what little you have. an E-3 even turning on a 0-11 would be sent to the brig weather he is retired or not. and would lose his rank if not get kicked out for telling a general to stick it. Yet more show of how you have never been in the military. Yes there is a chain of command, and you have shown you have no ideal how it works.

Many generals never come in contact with each other. Retired means you are inactive, if you are inactive you cannot give orders and are considered a civilian. The only one who can give orders is the active commander. Goddamn. I've never been in the service and I know more about how it works than you. I seriously hope you aren't in.

reply to post by RSF77

Too bad the NDAA makes this # lawful, now any commander can be punished for not following orders like those regardless of how ethically sound it is. Like you, I doubt though very many of them would follow such fascist orders.

They still have to be able to justify their orders as lawful.

It's like with the use of force and deadly force - even those red "lethal force authorized beyond this line" lines around HVAs don't give guards free reign on the trigger. If you shoot someone - you have to be able to justify it, even though you had pre-existing authorization.

Likewise - you could still issue an order to apprehend someone as a terrorist, but you would have to be able to demonstrate they are a terrorist and fall under jurisdiction.

Which really isn't much different from any other segment of law enforcement. The officer is allowed to make arrests as he/she sees fit. It is for the courts to sort out, later, as to whether or not there is a guilty verdict and/or whether or not the officer acted appropriately.

Which is why, in most cases, it is better to comply with an officer and the arrest than it is to attempt to argue rights, jurisdiction, etc - unless whatever is threatened is worth more to you than 48 hours in a holding cell (IE - an obvious abuse of power or intrusion on your home). Basically - unless it's worth killing the officer over, it's not worth resisting the arrest in the first place - because that officer is equipped and trained to make the arrest, once resolved to it.

That doesn't mean let someone walk all over you - but it means to approach the issue of challenging an officer carefully.

When it comes to tickets - it's not even worth arguing. Just take the ticket, appear in court, and argue your rights tooth and nail, there.

But the idea of mass-arrests being derived from the provisions of this (or any other law) just doesn't make any sense. Sure - if we're talking about issues where there are riots or just large groups of disorderly and disruptive people - "mass arrests" (in terms of, perhaps, 1% of the crowd) are possible. But we're nowhere close to a state that will attempt (much less be able to enact) an ideological purging.

The only way that can be done is with a civil war or revolution of some kind (such as all of the liberals imprisoning the conservative opposition, or vice-versa... which I think is a far more likely scenario - history has shown us two recent examples in Russia and China).

The members of the US military are it's citizens and aren't bound against their kin. From what I have seen, communities around military bases are some of the strongest in the US as far as unity is concerned. Give or take I guess, not every military base has a lot of civilians around it. Every base I was at was deeply rooted in the surrounding community.

Honestly, I see it as being a three-way divide. You will have your "Federalists" and your "Anti-Federalists" going at it (not necessarily "Conservative" and "Liberal"). The military and its sphere of influence will likely be more of a third party that says: "# that noise. You all have fun killing each other. We'll do things our way."

Which is probably closer in concept to the "anti-federalist" agenda (freedom from a strong central government) - but I digress.

reply to post by TheTimeIsNow


I seriously doubt that the location on his profile is a real one.
Use your loaf and don't fly off at half-cock like that dude.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Which is why, in most cases, it is better to comply with an officer and the arrest than it is to attempt to argue rights, jurisdiction, etc - unless whatever is threatened is worth more to you than 48 hours in a holding cell (IE - an obvious abuse of power or intrusion on your home). Basically - unless it's worth killing the officer over, it's not worth resisting the arrest in the first place - because that officer is equipped and trained to make the arrest, once resolved to it.

Doesn't this law allow for indefinite detention without even charges being filed?

reply to post by Observor

Doesn't this law allow for indefinite detention without even charges being filed?

That particular comment was aimed at more of a domestic law enforcement example, rather than a military style system (where this law is).

However - Habeas Corpus still applies. It cannot be over-written by a mere act of congress. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. All arrests would still have to be justified and supported. Although, at the military level, it would mostly be from within the chain of command. Each command has to justify to its superior the individual actions and policies undertaken.

Basically, Congress is setting themselves up for a supreme court case with the passing of this law, and it would easily be struck down because a law doesn't have the power to overturn the explicit provisions of the Constitution. Only an amendment can do that - and good luck getting one of those passed.

reply to post by Aim64C

The constitution is what the supreme court says it is. So no amendment to the constitution is required if the supreme court in one instance says that habeas corpus doesn't apply.

Since no one can challenge a law in a court until they are affected by it, the government will carefully select the first US citizen to be arrested and detained under this law, so that the US Supreme Court will find it extremely difficult to deny the government's case because of the "circumstances", but will become a legal precedent.

Bush administration arrested and detained a couple of US citizens under the legal fiction, "enemy combatants", both went to court and in neither case did the court strike down the arrests/detention.

In fact, Obama by insisting Congress pass such a law, was declaring that they have nothing to fear from the judicial system.

But the best case for the system will be if some US citizen is detained under the law, a lower court throws out the detention, the government releases the person, the person is later convicted in a regular court in an act of terrorism involving loss of American lives and later another US citizen is detained under the exact same law and the case taken to the US Supreme Court. Would anyone like to hazard a guess about whether the supreme court would still rule the law unconstitutional?

reply to post by Observor

The constitution is what the supreme court says it is. So no amendment to the constitution is required if the supreme court in one instance says that habeas corpus doesn't apply.

The court must find reasoning to justify the suspensions of an explicit right/provision within the U.S. Constitution. This would require, basically, proof and evidence that the individual in question can be demonstrated to qualify as an enemy combatant.... essentially guilty of treason.

Which is why you see the U.S. citizens detained under the provisions of the Patriot Act going to trial far sooner than their foreign counterparts.

Of course - the problem with this is one of the same problems that you have with any arrest and/or seizure system. Many local and state institutions are getting the curtain pulled back on their ability to arrest someone and seize assets and accounts - liquidating those assets in a very shady and unjust manner.

Which is why vigilance and keeping power in the local governments and people is a good idea.

Since no one can challenge a law in a court until they are affected by it, the government will carefully select the first US citizen to be arrested and detained under this law, so that the US Supreme Court will find it extremely difficult to deny the government's case because of the "circumstances", but will become a legal precedent.

The ACLU, I'm certain, already has a suit going to have the constitutionality of the law reviewed.

This is not unlike how "Obamacare" is under review by a similar lawsuit.

Originally posted by essanance
reply to post by Annee

 

Im sorry but anyone who allows themselves to be used to push illegal actions against the American people, who allowed himself to be used as a giant LIE to trick the AMERICAN PUBLIC ...YEa i think he deserves to be bashed

That would be all and every politician - - in front and behind the scenes.

What about America pushing illegal actions against others?

I hate childish drama politics.