posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:01 PM
Having read this article, the following can be stated:
As with many articles like this, and questions that are raised, as to if the military would or would not fire on the US citizens, or follow through
with what could be construed as an unconstitutional, or violate national law.
Before I go into what is and is not legal, there are a few things that people should understand:
The military does have a chain of command. That means an NCO can give an order and expect it followed, an officer can give an order, and expect it to
be followed. The secretary of the Armed forces can give an order, and even the President of the USA can give an order, and it has to be followed. A
senator or a civillian authority can not give an order and expect it to be followed by a member of the armed forces.
And there in lies the heart of the issue of this entire issue, is who would issue the order to break the law, and under what grounds would it either
be or not be legal. And who to hold accountable for the actions of said orders and the troops. Do you hold say the nco's or even the enlisted
responsible for the actions of the whole, or does it go higher to say the officers and those who make the decisions?
Now there are times, when the military or those under military authroity can act on US soil and it is legal. The first would be during a natural
diseaster, when the military would be called in for diseaster relief and to keep the peace. The laws are very specific on such and ultimately they
are there as a peace keeping force and for relief of suffering. The other time, where one would see military forces acting as police, is when they
have been given the authority to, but in those cases, they are in the grey area of the law, and are technically under a federal marshall, acting as
deputies of such, with the full authority and protections of such.
Now comes the question of civil war in the USA, where it would be one group versus the federal government. As with any war, and this has been true
since wars have been fought over, ultimately it will boil down to 2 things. The first would be who throws the first punch and the will of the people.
And of the 2 it is the latter that will determine the outcome of any conflict. If the will of the majority of the people is not behind the federal
government, it will ultimately lose. After all the federal government could not could not afford to have people sacrificing themselves for their
cause, giving rise to martyrs and symbols to follow. And then there is the other aspect is the question should be asked, would a military man fire on
his own family? Would he pull the trigure on his mother, or his son, or his father or his brother in following the orders of those above him?
Make no mistake that in the event that a civil war breaks out in the USA, that it would be a race between both sides, and as much as many would hate
to admit it, the UN would be the ultimate judge. Cause if the UN determines that it is a civil war that is occuring, it would even the fight
drastically and neither side would want the bad pr on the world stage.