Would our military turn on U.S. citizens at the behest of Bush?

[prolesunited]

Within the threads of the regarding the announcement of troops coming home from European and Asian bases, there has been some speculation that they are needed to enforce martial law after elections are stolen again in November.

This thread is not to debate the merits of that theory (elections will be stolen) but to discuss if you think the military can be convinced to turn on protesters and other dissidents at home.

So, if the "commander in chief" tells the troops to clear the streets, will they do it? Will there be another Kent State, only on a much larger scale? Where does the loyalty lie: to the president or to the Constitution?

I would especially like to hear from those who have served in the military. Would they have legal recourse for refusing such orders?

How would the American people view these actions? How would you feel?

[Racenut20]

1. Military would never do that. There was speculation of Nixon

attempting to stay in office after impeachment, be that the case. But don't worry. The 'Old Guard knows their responsibilities, and it is the Constitution.

[madrchsod]

5. read the history of

the unions in america....

[deutsey]

17. Especially the Ludlow Massacre

:evilfrown:

[deutsey]

21. Bonus March of 1932, as well

The military turned on WWI vets protesting in DC...

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy930564.html

On June 17, 1932, approximately ten thousand veterans crowded the Capitol grounds while the Bonus bill was being considered. Another ten thousand waited across the Anacostia River. When the bill failed to pass, about one thousand men left the city, but more kept pouring in.

Finally, Washington had enough. On July 28 four troops of cavalry marched into the streets. The infantrymen marched with their sabers drawn, armed with tear gas bombs, machine guns, and six tanks. They drove out the veterans, their wives, and their children by setting fires to the shacks and using tear gas. Others were allowed to gather their things and were then politely escorted out of town.

[kentuck]

33. I think MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton were all involved in that...

They burned their tents and ranthem out of town. I think they eventually decided to let Patton do the dirty work?

[leesa]

66. One would hope they would remember their vow to uphold

the constitution, however, the invasion of a disarmed nation clearly violates the Constitution. If they held their vow highly, they would be actively fighting against the traitors at the top.

[Jo March]

2. Their loyalty should be to the Constitution

not to *. The oath that I took when I entered the Army was to "uphold and defend the Constitution" and that was made clear to me.

You can refuse orders if you morally disagree but there are consequences. I've been out for a while and don't remember the exact wording but if you are asked to commit a crime or something of that sort, you can refuse the order.

I think that Americans wouldn't view this very well, especially if the event was a peaceful one and the people were unarmed. I would be sickened, personally.

Do I think it could happen? You bet your sweet bippy I do.

[tom_paine]

14. What they should be and what they are, are two very different things

Yep, I agree, they would open fire like Afrikaners at Soweto.

Of course, minus the racism, Imperial Amerika is taking on a decidedly Afrikaner flavor.

They absolutely would do it, and Corporate TV Pravda would do such a good job of obfuscating the facts, the Imperial Subjects of Amerika would buy it hook line and sinker.

(with a few exceptions, none of whom will be able to be heard over the cacophonous, carnivalesque din of the Imperial Infotainment Machine)

[LibertyorDeath]

3. Yes there are factions of the military that would IMO

This is said meaning no offense to any current or former Military DUers

There are factions that wouldn't and there you have it a Civil War.

[TheDebbieDee]

59. Bingo!

You're right, LibertyorDeath.

Some people in the military are gung ho enough to open fire on anyone at the drop of a hat. Without even thinkin' twice about it. They'll be the most dangerous because they don't think about what they're doing - they just follow orders.

Let's just hope that it doesn't come to that.

[UpsideDownFlag]

63. i suspect that maybe some younger enlisted folks might join the blackshirt

crowd...but their officers would hopefully try to reign them in.

[madrchsod]

4. yes

i have no doubt about that. look at our union wars since the late 1800`s where us troops murdered American citizens...

[LittleApple81]

6. Yes. This is an oligarchy, paid army, poor uneducated majority. Yes. n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Downtown Hound]

8. Yes they would, initially

But there would be such a backlash that I think many of them would begin to question their roles. If such methods were to continue, I think that eventually the military would split right down the middle, and may even end up fighting itself.

[patdem]

9. They cannot redeploy 70,000 troops in a couple of months...this is years

in the making. This is not about troops in America before the elections.

[jayfish]

12. Think Farther Ahead...

to say... 2008. W* going for 12 or more years or Jeb stealing the 08' election.

Jay

[Pallas180]

13. No, but it is about troops to enforce FEMA, Patriot, and Martial Law

in the future.

[bobbieinok]

15. heard on the radio that redeployment would be over 10 years

[prolesunited]

16. Like I said

This isn't about the reality or feasibility of this scenario. It is a hypothetical question about whether the troops would do such a thing.

[jayfish]

10. I Guess It Would Depend On How They Framed It.

Look at what they did to stoke the troops for Iraq with the constant tie-in of 9/11 to Saddam. If they ran the same sort of propaganda op. here, why wouldn't the troops obey?

Jay

[gratuitous]

11. You bet your ass some would

And they'd do it with a smile on their rat-like little faces, too. Or did you miss the photos from Abu Ghraib?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Most would.

Of course, the bosses would couch it in terms of "protecting democracy, protecting America, protecting freedom, etc". The same tripe that they are using to convince American troops to kill, torture, abuse, and degrade Iraqis.

Soldiers are taught from the initial moment they arrive at boot camp to obey orders, without question. To do it without thinking of consequences. To an 18 or 19 year old kid, it doesn't take much to make them into an efficient murderer who will do as he's told without question.

[TheRovingGourmet]

24. For something like another Waco, I doubt it. I think they

would if they were told they would serve a police function until things got back to normal. Most would not fire on their countrymen though. If things progressed and they started getting killed then all bets are off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Wishful thinking.

BTW Waco was a police function and should have been handled that way, tho' I doubt the result would have been any different.

Soldiers are basically armed adolescents who will follow the herd and do as their told.

The government/military bosses merely have to demonize the "enemy" and tell them where to point their guns and when to pull the trigger.

Back in '61, when I was a recruit, a Captain stood in front of us and told us we should be prepared to kill Cubans because they were "commies". I doubt if even 1% of those present gave a second thought to the idea that we were supposed to kill people because they disagreed with our politics.

In '65, just a few weeks before I finally got out, I was asked to extend my enlistment so I could go and shoot people in Vietnam. Why? Because they were "commies" and were a threat to 'Murika. My response got me 30 days of mess duty. But, a large number of idiots did extend their enlistments and were downright eager to shoot the "gooks", "slopes", "commies".

They'll do as there told. As the Chinese proverb says, "You don't use the best steel to make nails and you don't use the best men to make soldiers."

[TheRovingGourmet]

51. I would love to hear the response that got you the mess duty.

I bet you don't regret your response either! :)

The line at Waco got a little blurry. I'm not sure how many actual enlisted men were eventually involved but I hope they did not know what their tanks would end up doing.

[lottie244]

19. Many of them would. Some of them are heartless biggots looking for a

chance to shoot anyone other than white.

[AG78]

22. Enough might

Just because some human beings can be quite cruel, plus the military training. Like was said, look at Abu Graib.

Then you have a good amount of everyday people who would run over a protester with their SUV if they could.

Then there are the Ted Nugent types. The ultra-nationalistic guys with guns. They might just hunt you down for sport.

Not all of them would. But when the day comes when the only jobs for former military men are as a soldier in a private corporate military, that could be interesting. Who are you going to listen to; some protester on the street, or the guy who's paying you and putting food in your family's mouth?

The police are there to protect and serve, but they seem to be getting more and more RoboCop gear everyday. As taxes get cut more and more, that means fewer police officers. Until the private police forces arive.

Do I think it'll happen? Hope not. But if some people(I'm looking in your direction Cheney) hold, or gain, more power, I could see it. He's a bad guy who wants more power for the sake of having more power.

Even though we're "American", and that somehow puts us above the rest of our species and the violent history of our species, we are still human.

[proud patriot]

23. Some perhaps but not all of them n/t

[EST]

25. Yes, they would.

There would, no doubt, be some hand wringing afterward, but sure they would. And then would come the "I was only following orders." And yes, 100,000 troops could be delivered here prior to the election.

[lastknowngood]

26. Yes when you go to ocs "officer canidate school" or to west point

your asked if you would fire on us citizens if ordered to do so. Those who answer yes move to the top of the list. I was told this by a former officer who said no.

[DS1]

45. Maybe that former officer was just a lousy officer

?

[RivetJoint]

74. Sounds like it

What list?

[chiburb]

27. Two words: Kent State n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

40. Two More Words!

John Brown!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. That was my first thought

I remember Kent State, how National Guard troops (not even career military) shot at unarmed demonstrators and how a large percentage of the American population thought that the students deserved to be killed. :scared:

[Hubert Flottz]

28. Some of them would!

The Bush lovers would, there is no doubt in my mind! These people are not thinking straight already! All they need is a push!

[rowire]

29. My Oath Was to the Consitution

As a Navy vet, I can assure you that the only oath I took was to support and defend the Constitution, not the President.

Secret Service agents may have to take a different oath, but I don't think they could subdue the American public if called upon.

I can also tell you that we were not supposed to carry out orders that were unlawful. That is why we can try soldiers for war crimes regardless of what their commanders told them. The posse comitatus act prohibits the use of U.S. military forces against the citizens of the United States, and any soldier told to wage war or violence on our citizens could rightfully refuse to carry out such an order.

I suppose that is why they always call in the State Guard units to act against the citizens.

[RivetJoint]

69. 0-2

While your oath was the "support and defend the constitution of the United States" you also (IF ENLISTED, DOES NOT APPLY IF A COMMISSIONED OFFICER) swore to "obey the orders of the President."

Posse Comitaus prohibits the us of military forces in LAW ENFORCEMENT activities. It doesn't prohibit their use against citizens of the US.

[Zorra]

30. Would our military turn on Bu$h at the behest of US Citizens?

Who is the military obligated to serve?

Since Bu$h was not democratically elected, he is not a representative of the people. I have no allegiance to him, and do not recognize him as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. Interesting philosophical twist on this question

Since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court, not elected by a popular majority, if the U.S. Military were to depose Bush, would you support the military or support Bush?

Gore said he gave up after the Supreme Court ruled because he believed in the primacy of law, although his latest speeches lead me to believe that he now questions his own decision. But since Bush is the duly, i.e., legally, named President (by the College of Electors), does our allegiance stay with him, as odious as he is, or swing to support the leaders of a military coup d'etat that deposes him?

This may not be completely hypothetical -- most of the soldiers in Iraq know exactly what the score is. If you have to choose between an imperfect Constitution and an imperfect rule of man (the U.S. military), which one would you put your life on the line to defend?

[genius]

32. Some will.

Remember the marine who came back and shot up his own family? How about all the troops involved in the torture?

In order for Bush to pull off 9/11, he had to have a rogue military unit working with him. They will probably take charge of the troops if Bush tries to turn them on us.

Some of the troops will say no and will be locked up or shot.

[dryan]

34. Was in NROTC....

it was drilled into us that we took an oath to the United States Constitution and not to the President -- whomever it is. I have been told that obviously fascist officers are cashiered, ala General Walker.

[VoteDemocratic2004]

35. I have a sick feeling that they will

If Bush steals another election we will find out the hard way.

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. No way. As long as there is dissension in the ranks. This will not

happen. We have not gotten that far. And a person serving in the military can disobey orders if they feel they are not morally sound orders. I cannot think that this would happen. I know of one person who detests Bush and all he stands for...and she is serving in Iraq right now.

[ParanoidPat]

37. TITLE 18 , PART I,, CHAPTER 67, Sec. 1385, Posse Comitatus Act

Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both

Has this been repealed? :shrug: :evilgrin:

[jayfish]

38. "Act Of Congress"

Who controls those two bodies?

Jay

[ParanoidPat]

43. I know who controls them, however.......

.......has ANY legislation been proposed, let alone debated, that would allow for the military to be used for domestic law enforcement?

Call it a hunch but I believe the public outcry against such legislation from both sides of the isle would make passage of such legislation damn near impossible. At least I would hope so. :)

Then again, after four years of a Bush* administration and a media that engages in psy-ops against us.....:scared:

[jayfish]

53. Well This Is All Hypothetical...

but I'm sure the propaganda machine would be run off of it's rails to ensure that 50.1% of the populace would support the measure. Then at 4:00am they would vote on it and leave the voting open for 12 hours to insure passage. I don't put anything past these folks.

Jay

[Tight_rope]

50. That's what I was going to say..."Congress"?...Holy shit..We in trouble!

[Green Lantern]

57. Bushwa and Co.

have been working on it'salteration to use troops domestically-I remember reading about it this summer but can't cite it. Anyone help here?

[ilovenicepeople]

61. I think that it was repealed?

It was mentioned on Alex Jones's Matrix of Evil (www.infowars.com) don't quote me on this though.:shrug:

[slaveplanet]

68. Let the viewer decide

V

[Kazak]

39. Depends which side they're on...

'bout 38% of them would, I'm guessing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. The downside of not having the draft.

Disgruntled troops who are forced into service aren't nearly as "reliable" as volunteers.

Not that I'm advocating bringing the draft back.

[Walt Starr]

44. Seeing as how they are trained to, YES! They would!

Seriously, it's a question on the application.

[radar]

48. Sure, the masterminds just have to frame the execution of the order

in a way that is palatable to the guys following the orders.

I recall another thread where cops policing protestors into the free-speech zones were not bent out of shape doing that. "Just following orders...."

Reminded me of the Nuremberg defense 60-odd years ago.

I remember from some television show explaining how the whole country of Germany could allow the Holocaust. Supposedly the Nazi leaders knew that the vast majority of Germans wouldn't go along with their evil deeds if the plans were common knowledge; so they would compartmentalize things amongst the followers. Sort of like a factory assembly line where each person had 1 element to do & not know what the guys on either side did....

First group gathers information & names (doesn't know how information will be used)
Second group gets a list of names & orders to pick them up for questioning (doesn't know why they are to be questioned)
Third group holds them in jail (doesn't know what they did to be in jail)
Fourth group commits the violence

...And they all were just doing what they were told to - 3 quarters of those involved don't know what will happen.

"Plausible deniability"

[newyawker99]

54. Hi radar!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Tight_rope]

60. Welcome to DU radar!

[Pepperbelly]

46. Shit, no way.

The generals would never go along with it. No way.

Not for a politician.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. Look at Nazi Germany. Many Americans are worse than the nazi.

n/t

[Tight_rope]

49. Support Hilter #2 (Bush)...Our troops are not that dumb.

I don't think they are as stupid as Bush is...Killing their own family,friends and neighbors. And for what! I would hope if that ever came to pass where Bush order something like that. That the troops would head straight for the WH to remove Hilter #2.

[Skittles]

52. I have more faith in our troops than to believe that too

nt

[Green Lantern]

55. Bush and the military

1) No question in my mind that elements of the military would support Bush-and if they thought necessary, fire on "rebellious" civilians- the incident at Kent State and incidents during ROTC riots in Boston in the 60's burned that into my mind. (ROTC riots-BP not troops)

2) I was in the service in the DC area when Nixon was in his death spiral. We received orders from the Chief of Naval Ops to take no orders from an officer we did not know personally. There were rumors of two active duty units prepping to move into Andrew AFB and DC to maintain order, and BTW extend indefinitely, Nixon's term of office.

3) I think the majority of the military would not fire on American civilians. But one never knows-civil wars have begun and been fought for less than the mess we are being presented with.

4) The military are subject to the orders of the Commander in Chief, ultimately. However, each service chief would issue the actual ops orders, and I doubt they would do so. (at least I hope they would not!)

[ComerPerro]

56. In a word: You bet your ass

Of course they would.

[Cat Atomic]

58. Of course they would. Did I only imagine Abu Ghraib?

Do you really think the US military is somehow more moral than other militaries? They'll do what they're told.

[jukes]

62. if this wd come to pass

& it cd, they wdnt be ordered to shoot down civilians. that's rhetoric. there wd be very legal orders to enforce curfews, quell riots, & arrest looters.

incidents wd happen; some accidental, some by agent provocateurs. if fired upon, the troops will fire. count on it.

i was a grunt, & i was a cop trained in 1970. we had very succinct instructions & courses on domestic terr's; those were they days of the panthers, SDS, the weathermen, the yippies, the blackstone rangers.

this very seriously can happen. &, as pointed out, it has happened. the scene in "gangs of new york" is very accurate. no-one has any real idea how many were killed; by police, by union soldiers & by mobs.

be realistic. these people are capable of anything, & scared 18 yo's will do as they are commanded.

i don't think it's a plan, i believe it's a contingency plan. but don't believe for a second that it's impossible. thinking like that will get you killed.

[LynnTheDem]

64. My soldier hubby says...

IF it were clear that bush did not win any election; ie if bush said "no elections, no 4-term crap anymore, I'm the dictator and I'm staying. Period." If that happened, he believes NO WAY would the US military support bush. There'd likely be a few idiots that would, but the overwhelming majority would not, and would remove bushCo by force if necessary.

BUT...if he cheated and stole this election too, if he gave it some look of credibility, and if people then tried to protest and bush ordered troops to fire un unarmed US citizens, then he thinks yes, enough of the military would do so.

So bottom line, when in doubt, the Commander in Thief gets first loyalty. Which is NOT the oath they take; which is NOT how it's supposed to be; the USC is to be protected from ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC above all else.

But if bush were stupid & arrogant enough to stand up & say that's it, no elections, I'm staying end of story...well, that would be a final end to the Cartel. (Always look for the silver lining!)
;-)

[TheRovingGourmet]

65. After Reconstruction, we had a Republican Governor that

refused to leave office after he lost the election. A bunch of citizens carrying guns in a rather unfriendly manner invited him to leave; he left. :)

[RivetJoint]

70. The enlisted oath

is a civil war waiting to happen. Not only do they swear "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies...," they swear to obey the orders of the President AND the orders of the officers appointed over" them. Commissioned officers swear only to "to protect and defend the Constitution...against all enemies..."

BIG difference.

[Gyre]

77. There would need to be a massacre before

the military woke up and realized that their 1st allegiance was to the Constitution and not to any one pud knocker.

[maxsolomon]

67. they would & they have. repeatedly.

another poster mentioned union history. through the 1800's, the government rugularly provided troops to quell strikes with violence. the troops only balked if they were outnumbered & their lives were in danger.

they'd shoot 'liberals' without blinking an eye.

[RivetJoint]

71. And this has happened in the 20th

Century, when?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Read the posts above

Kent State
the World War I veterans' bonus march

[RivetJoint]

78. Kent State was not

US troops "turning on American citizens" as a policy. It was the result of a young, poorly trained NG unit overreacting to a "perceived threat." During the WWI vet's march; the military did not open fire. They "restored order." I'm not sure they would have obeyed orders to open fire.

[Dhalgren]

73. Yes, the army would attack American citizens.

It would be a legal order, from the CIC, and they would shoot down citizens - don't doubt it for a second. These are not draftees, these are volunteers - much like the French Foriegn Legion - and have little regard for civilians. They will follow orders, this is something everyone must prepare for.


U.S. Army, 1972-75

[leftofthedial]

76. damn right they would

it is EASY to define any group of people, even fellow citizens, as "them." It has already happened. "Liberal" is a bad word, roughly equivalent in dittohead parlance to "subhuman spawn of Satan."

A few would refuse, but by and large, they'd shoot whomever they were told to.

[HughBeaumont]

79. As far as how they would view the actions

I think if the people saw it on TV that their country was in the beginning stages of borderline martial law and if they saw any troops indeed assault and/or open fire on innocent unarmed citizens exercising their right to freely assemble - that might be the straw that breaks the camels back. THAT would be the event that would make the American populace, regardless of affiliation and sympathies, react with the ferocity usually displayed in crowds on al-Jazeera footage, and cause nationwide protests, mass marches and chaos. Much to the dismay of BushCheney Inc., totalitarianism is a dead scene.

And I know several servicemen (two on their way to Iraq in '05) that hate Bush and all that he stands for.