Jade Helm - US Military Operating Within the US

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What you’re saying is based off of a very small set of examples. I can come up with a tiny set of examples in any industry, profession, etc… and do the same thing. [/quote]

Right but that isn’t what was said. I was assured it “can’t” happen here. Even though world history, and my examples say otherwise.

That’s all I’m pointing out. That’s it. That is all. And the fact is, yes there are troops that will follow unthinkable orders. Some people think that number is higher than it is, some think lower, however no honest person can say, 100% of the men and women in uniform would do the right thing, because we all know that isn’t true.

And understanding this has people calling me and other names for it.

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]
I tend to agree it was workplace violence; however, the rest of your statement isn’t such a black and white issue. [/quote]

You don’t think it was a blatant act of terror and those dead soldiers shouldn’t be honored as such? [/quote]

Maybe, I haven’t studied the case. All I really cared to know prior to today is that a lot of good men and women died because of some asshole’s actions. That’a all I really needed to know. TBH I don’t really care what we call it.[/quote]

I believe the family gets more if the government would be honest and call it a terror attach rather than score political points by pretending it wasn’t.

[quote]

I don’t know if it is either. Part of me thinks so, other parts of me thinks, like you, he is a traitor.

I think it is pretty universally accepted he was mentally unstable and was recommended to be discharged, but wasn’t, and was given access to things he shouldn’t have been. (Not to say I’m blaming the victim here, but one would think a competent outfit would have prevented the whole mess by not putting a crazy person in a position where he had access to this.)

Is there any series of events, that you can think of, where you’d see what he did as justified?

302

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
you are trying to do?

your own reasoning

Your issue here

you called

you may

go look up hypocrite,

you might be amazed at what it means.

By the way you’re right

surely you have done much more valuable work counting those beans.
[/quote]

When you actually make a substantive post, and not just talk about me, I’ll address you again. Until then…

303

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
you are trying to do?

your own reasoning

Your issue here

you called

you may

go look up hypocrite,

you might be amazed at what it means.

By the way you’re right

surely you have done much more valuable work counting those beans.
[/quote]

When you actually make a substantive post, and not just talk about me, I’ll address you again. Until then…[/quote]

Beans,

My kids do that, you know, get caught in their own nonsense, then storm off in a huff.

304

Does anyone find it odd that nobody complains or freaks out when the USMC runs something like “Bold Alligator” with actual foreign military components right off our coast (and on our land) but Jade Helm gets people thinking Wal-Mart is using its’ stores as detention centers?

I would guess that most of this has to do with the geography and politics of the area, but maybe there is something else.

305

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What you’re saying is based off of a very small set of examples. I can come up with a tiny set of examples in any industry, profession, etc… and do the same thing. [/quote]

Right but that isn’t what was said. I was assured it “can’t” happen here. Even though world history, and my examples say otherwise.

That’s all I’m pointing out. That’s it. That is all. And the fact is, yes there are troops that will follow unthinkable orders. Some people think that number is higher than it is, some think lower, however no honest person can say, 100% of the men and women in uniform would do the right thing, because we all know that isn’t true.

And understanding this has people calling me and other names for it. [/quote]

I understand and I can only discuss with you what I’ve written and I gave no such assurances. I agree with the above and have only been trying to convey my experience with the military, which has led me to believe the number of service members that would directly violate their duty to the constitution and to the American people is very low.

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]
I tend to agree it was workplace violence; however, the rest of your statement isn’t such a black and white issue. [/quote]

You don’t think it was a blatant act of terror and those dead soldiers shouldn’t be honored as such? [/quote]

Maybe, I haven’t studied the case. All I really cared to know prior to today is that a lot of good men and women died because of some asshole’s actions. That’a all I really needed to know. TBH I don’t really care what we call it.[/quote]

I believe the family gets more if the government would be honest and call it a terror attach rather than score political points by pretending it wasn’t. [/quote]

More what, closure? I guess maybe. I wouldn’t, but that’s me.

[quote]

[quote]

I don’t know if it is either. Part of me thinks so, other parts of me thinks, like you, he is a traitor.

I think it is pretty universally accepted he was mentally unstable and was recommended to be discharged, but wasn’t, and was given access to things he shouldn’t have been. (Not to say I’m blaming the victim here, but one would think a competent outfit would have prevented the whole mess by not putting a crazy person in a position where he had access to this.) [/quote]

The military has room to grow in a lot of ways and mental health is one of them. You have to understand that a lot of young service members act just like your fresh out of college intern, aka, fucking idiots.

[quote]
Is there any series of events, that you can think of, where you’d see what he did as justified? [/quote]

Yes I think so. From what I’ve read he only brought his concerns up to his SSgt. That would be like if your intern brought a suspected fraud issue up with one of your staff accountants and left it at that. We’re talking about classified sensitive information that was given to Wikileaks with no real attempt at getting his high chain of command involved. At least from what I’ve read.

306

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I believe the family gets more if the government would be honest and call it a terror attach rather than score political points by pretending it wasn’t. [/quote]

More what, closure? I guess maybe. I wouldn’t, but that’s me. [/quote]

No like much higher insurance payouts and benefits etc. As in, not only did it get stamped down to score political points, but also to short the families what they deserved.

Can’t for the life of me remember where I’ve read this, but I’m 100% sure about the political points, and fairly sure about the survivor benefits.

I remember some youtube or another were someone was saying all this stuff was right out in the open, and no one was unaware of the “war porn” videos of this type of shit. Is it not reasonable to think a crazy person, who’s been picked on since day one for his size, sexuality and general craziness wouldn’t trust that anyone within the military would do anything, seeing as they could all watch the same video?

I mean, is it outlandish to think he honestly believed the only way to fix it was public disclosure?

307

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I believe the family gets more if the government would be honest and call it a terror attach rather than score political points by pretending it wasn’t. [/quote]

More what, closure? I guess maybe. I wouldn’t, but that’s me. [/quote]

No like much higher insurance payouts and benefits etc. As in, not only did it get stamped down to score political points, but also to short the families what they deserved.

Can’t for the life of me remember where I’ve read this, but I’m 100% sure about the political points, and fairly sure about the survivor benefits. [/quote]

If that’s true it really pisses me off. I hadn’t read that.

It isn’t outlandish, but that doesn’t make his actions right or justified. It isn’t outlandish for me to believe the people that looted the CVS or Mondawmin Mall in Baltimore truly think they deserve free shit because of their socioeconomic situation or because of Freddie Grey’s death. They’re actions are still wrong though.

308

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If that’s true it really pisses me off. I hadn’t read that. [/quote]

Motherjones, that bastion of conservative bias even. Yeah these people got boned, until recently I believe. 6 years late, but that’s noting in Obama’s world.

[quote]

It isn’t outlandish, but that doesn’t make his actions right or justified. It isn’t outlandish for me to believe the people that looted the CVS or Mondawmin Mall in Baltimore truly think they deserve free shit because of their socioeconomic situation or because of Freddie Grey’s death. They’re actions are still wrong though. [/quote]

Fair enough.

309

I’m at a loss regarding the Fort Hood victims. I had no idea.

311

One of my favourite quotes from the excellent Battlestar Galactica reboot TV series seems particularly appropriate to this thread.

“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.” --Commander Adama

312

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What you’re saying is based off of a very small set of examples. I can come up with a tiny set of examples in any industry, profession, etc… and do the same thing.

[/quote]

Sure, but those industries and professions typically don’t specialize in killing and subduing others.

The nature of the military calls for much more wariness than any other institution we have.

And I think that wariness is all that is Beans arguing for…[/quote]

Agreed; however, I stand by my opinion on the likelihood and percentage of personnel that would carry out orders to attack Americans.

313

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/us-military-pilots-complain-hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis/

314

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/us-military-pilots-complain-hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis/[/quote]

Accusations have been made that some in our Gov’t want ISIS to grow. They’re just not quite big enough yet to stage an all out war with them, and have it take any substantial amount of time.
When I read stories like this I find those accusations to be more and more plausible.

315

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What you’re saying is based off of a very small set of examples. I can come up with a tiny set of examples in any industry, profession, etc… and do the same thing.

[/quote]

Sure, but those industries and professions typically don’t specialize in killing and subduing others.

The nature of the military calls for much more wariness than any other institution we have.

And I think that wariness is all that is Beans arguing for…[/quote]

Agreed; however, I stand by my opinion on the likelihood and percentage of personnel that would carry out orders to attack Americans. [/quote]

I really can’t express how much I hope you, and others that agree with you are right.

316

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What you’re saying is based off of a very small set of examples. I can come up with a tiny set of examples in any industry, profession, etc… and do the same thing.

[/quote]

Sure, but those industries and professions typically don’t specialize in killing and subduing others.

The nature of the military calls for much more wariness than any other institution we have.

And I think that wariness is all that is Beans arguing for…[/quote]

Agreed; however, I stand by my opinion on the likelihood and percentage of personnel that would carry out orders to attack Americans. [/quote]

USMC, What do you think is the percentage, not just of enlisted personnel, but of high-paygrade field officers, who would commit mutiny against their Commander-in-Chief and superior officers if ordered to fire on civilians? What do you think the extent of that mutiny would be?

Dereliction of duty/refusal to carry out orders?
Fragging superior officers?
Commandeering materiel and personnel to actively oppose and prevent other units from carrying out these orders?

And the other side of the coin, what do you think would be the consequence for members of an infantry platoon, for example, who refused to fire on a mob, or round people up for re-education camps? Courts-martial? A stint in a re-education camp themselves? Summary execution? What do you think the military would do if faced with full-scale mutiny?

317

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What you’re saying is based off of a very small set of examples. I can come up with a tiny set of examples in any industry, profession, etc… and do the same thing.

[/quote]

Sure, but those industries and professions typically don’t specialize in killing and subduing others.

The nature of the military calls for much more wariness than any other institution we have.

And I think that wariness is all that is Beans arguing for…[/quote]

Agreed; however, I stand by my opinion on the likelihood and percentage of personnel that would carry out orders to attack Americans. [/quote]

USMC, What do you think are the percentage, not just of enlisted personnel, but of high-paygrade field officers who would commit mutiny against their Commander-in-Chief and superior officers if ordered to fire on civilians? What do you think the extent of that mutiny would be? [/quote]

I’m not going to put a number on it because it would be arbitrary. I think the number would be pretty high.

It wouldn’t be mutiny. It would be disobeying and unlawful order.

Enlistee:

“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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Commission:

“I do solemnly swear 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.”

President:

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I see a pretty obvious recurring theme. There is legal precedents regarding service members following unlawful orders.

[quote]
Dereliction of duty/refusal to carry out orders?
Fragging superior officers?
Commandeering materiel and personnel to oppose other units from carrying out the orders? [/quote]

Lawful orders.

[quote]
And the other side of the coin, what do you think would be the consequence for members of an infantry platoon who refused to fire on a mob, or round people up for re-education camps? Courts-martial? A stint in a re-education camp themselves? [/quote]

Courts-martial, re-education, imprisonment, possibly death.

Splinter into faction and probably start a full scale civil war, if I had to guess.

318

Ay, but there’s the rub.

Who is to determine what constitutes a “lawful order” in a State of Emergency, under martial law, if the orders are executive orders coming down from the CIC himself?

Certainly every platoon isn’t going to have the luxury of an attached JAG officer to let the men know which orders are unconstitutional and therefore “not lawful”.

And “the officers and men will just know in their guts what’s right and wrong” gets a little hazy in the fog of…well, if not war, then severe internal strife.

All right, here is a scenario for you. A bomb goes off in downtown Detroit. Hundreds of people are killed and wounded. The perpetrators are identified as a group of American Muslim radicals with ties to ISIS. A widespread search ensues, but the trail goes cold: they are suspected to hiding out in Dearborn, sheltered by fellow Muslims in the neighbourhood. Attempts by the police to search house to house turn up nothing. Still the searches continue, and the police become more heavy-handed. A few people get roughed up. A young man gets shot. The people riot. The military is called to assist the police. Shots are fired. On both sides.

Now.

How quickly does Dearborn start looking like Fallujah?

How many soldiers and Marines would disobey an order to return fire on these American citizens? How many officers would mutiny as a result?

319

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The military is called to assist the police. [/quote]

I believe that is technically an unlawful order. Isn’t it spelled out in the constitution the military can’t be used like this?

320

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The military is called to assist the police. [/quote]

I believe that is technically an unlawful order. Isn’t it spelled out in the constitution the military can’t be used like this?[/quote]

Not the Constitution, but rather in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

It is counterbalanced by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the president to deploy federal troops whenever he feels it is necessary to quash rebellions, insurrections and “lawlessness”.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Posse Comitatus Act has been made progressively weaker over the years, and the Insurrection Act made progressively stronger.