Is this legal? Active Duty Military training for operations inside the US.
This is a discussion on Is this legal? Active Duty Military training for operations inside the US. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SIGguy229
Lets say discussions have happened with my peers....I've mentored my subordinates....and I've listened to some of my senior leaders/immediate bosses....we know ...
August 18th, 2011 01:13 AM
you forget, and "obey all LEGAL orders of my superiors".
Originally Posted by SIGguy229
AS numerous Generals have stressed with me when discussing this .... "defending the Constitution of the United States" is # 1 in that line for a reason, and "obey all LEGAL orders of my superiors" that do NOT conflict with that constitution.
There is your answer, on what most in command or below that, will do. If it's not a legal order, and / or conflicts with the US Constitution, it won't be followed.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
August 18th, 2011 02:12 AM
That is NOT in the oath for officers.
Originally Posted by Eagleks
The oath for appointed/commissioned officers is:
"I, _____, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/3331.html).
- know the difference
is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
August 18th, 2011 10:18 AM
Not only that, but Eisenhower federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard (for the 1957 integration of Little Rock Central High School episode) so that the Governor of AR could no longer use "his" NG troops to BLOCK integration.
Originally Posted by JDE101
As an aside, the Navy and Marine Corps are not bound by Posse Comititus - they are prevented from serving in a domestic law enforcement capacity by DoD regulation, not by law...
And, as has been mentioned, 20,000 troops may sound like a lot, but it isn't close to enough for the "policing" of the US, or even a major metro area. It is enough to offer significant, localized assistance - not to take over the world.
P.S. I am not taking anyones guns, either.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
August 18th, 2011 10:26 AM
Well put yourself in his shoes. Somebody had already beaten him to the USA is building concentration camps for Americans in Israel story.
Originally Posted by mcp1810
Last edited by Chad Rogers; August 18th, 2011 at 10:43 AM.
August 18th, 2011 09:55 PM
Are we talking about this again? I was part of the first "Official" CBRNE mission Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times. We werent instructed on how we would march the population of our great states to "concentration camps". We were being taught how to react to a natural disaster such as Katrina or a terrorist attack. While we did some non lethal training and riot control, the main training consisted of CBRNE activities. I will admit that at that time I was not privvy to the briefings that our Officers were attending and cannot say what policy was being discussed.
As far as disarming citizens, you will not find many Soldiers who would agree to it initially. During Katrina our Soldiers were shot at by brilliant heathens who didnt want to be rescued and thought they were in some post apocolyptic waterworld type setting. Once you get shot at by your own people while trying to HELP them your views get changed a little bit. It would be very hard to convince higher that we do not need to disarm civilians if they insist on shooting at us. I would not be willing to give up my arms if asked, but at the same time wouldnt shoot at people trying to help me and when they asked where they were I would inform them that due to my peacful demeanor they had already been liberated from me by the heathens that were outside rioting.
Please take my posts with a grain of salt. I am frequently sleep deprived and always just on this side of "Krazy".
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. Edmund Burke
August 18th, 2011 10:26 PM
Recently as affirmed by SCOTUS ruling in McDonald and Heller.
Originally Posted by OperatorJ
Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
August 21st, 2011 08:28 PM
As most of you know that we in Az have Cartell problems and I live in central Az, There are pot farms not to far from my place. Down by the border there are streches along the interstate with signs that say do not stop this is a area traveled by smugglers. Our LEOs have huge amounts of land to patrol and there are people with ranches in the southern part of our state that when the sun goes down they lock there place down untill sunrise. I know of some that would welcome the National Guard, We have had our Sheriffs and home owners live with threats made against them. Now with that said in the not so distant future could there come a order for marshal law ?
August 28th, 2011 07:42 AM
There's restoring order, and there's containment.
Restoring order requires a lot of manpower. Containment does not.
Those of you that live in what would be considered a major city, think of how many actual exits from the city there are. How simple will it be to shut down power and other utilities - a push of a button on a computer. How easy it will be to stop vehicle traffic out of the area.
I live in the Denver Metro area. Denver is a natural containment camp. Mountains to the West with only 2 major roads to access. 2 to exit north, 2 to the south, and 3 to the east. Yes, there are several smaller roads that may get you out of town, but a couple of trucks blocking the road/bridge (providing the bridge has not been blown or bring down the mountain side), and that route is cut off. You want out on foot, better have a plan, and the ability to do it. Most city dwellers do not. The daunting concept of walking all day, for days on end, into the wild (no hotels or room service) and having to carry food and water...Not gonna happen.
Contain it, stop communications in and out of it, and it will eventually burn out. Then the larger force moves in to restore order at their leisure.
As it is, there have been several joint operations/training exercises by the numerous LEO departments in the metro area to control and divert traffic along the freeways through town, literally funneling everyone into the same area - a tighter containment area.
Heck, take a look at a national road map. Get much farther West of Missouri (draw a line North and South) roads, cities, and towns become few and far between until you get to CA.
20k troops to contain a city or an entire time zone, more than enough.
Of course we are talking about a major toilet flushing for this to happen, but for once, the Govt' is being proactive on something instead of reactive. I'll give them an "A" for effort, nothing more, as I don't agree with much of what would fall under their potential justification for such actions.
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
August 28th, 2011 08:08 AM
No offense but that's not what the oath means..... Its legal?
Originally Posted by TheGiant
To do what? By demostic enemies, it means u will protect the people from their own government or a inside takeover... Many people fail to relize that's what it means by "domestic"
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
August 28th, 2011 08:14 AM
I can't count the number of times I have heard LEOs say "Oh, I would never do that", but when crunch time/orders came and the choice was between keeping their job or following the orders, I never met a single one who did not follow orders.
August 28th, 2011 09:29 AM
Some random thoughts after reading this entire thread:
- NORTHCOM is one of the most dysfunctional organizations in DoD...since standing up in 2002, it has failed repeatedly to establishing working plans...
- As several people have pointed out, 20,000 troops are not many in the grand scheme of things...and if you know the make up of many of those troops, you would really understand their intent...there are organizations intended to enter a city AFTER a terrorist WMD event with equipment to help locals...equipment too specialized or expensive for every city and town to possess...medical organizations...along with "legs", who will have prime duties to protect those specialists...
- I am more concerned about local police in the SHTF situation than federal troops...especially when it comes to the confiscation of private weapons...
- Federal troops can be used in many situations if a Stafford Act declaration is issued...usually in an emergency...the use of federal troops in the 50's and 60's for desegregation...while an honorable goal IMHO...most likely was wrong...
- As mentioned, Posse Comitatus does not apply to National Guard troops in their Title 32 (non-federal) status...which is the exact reason certain "emergency response" forces have been put into the National Guard...
- Alex Jones.... td1x64u4xec9s5rerlw7.gif
"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
August 28th, 2011 11:44 AM
Leagal to train for a domestic threat. Most governments fall from the inside not from the outside.
Originally Posted by Koontzy
Search tags for this page
law enforcement against military exercises in us cities
military trainig operations us cities
powered by mybb bush military records
powered by mybb dovetails
powered by mybb federal budget (us)
powered by mybb food stamps
powered by mybb general military training
powered by mybb my military records
powered by mybb southern states
powered by mybb texas food stamp
powered by mybb the training of o
powered by mybb us military deaths
troops returning from afghanistan for civil unrest
us troops active in america
Click on a term to search for related topics.