Jade Helm - US Military Operating Within the US

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
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? [/quote]

A judge.

The law is the law regardless of what the CIC orders or not. If Obama gave a direct order to destroy a hospital in Ramadi because X, Y, & Z terrorist are inside, the personnel that carried out the order would undoubtedly be charged with murder.

We are extremely careful about collateral damage in todays world and you think this is going to just change over night? Against fellow Americans no less?

[quote]
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”. [/quote]

Every single serviceman in the United States Military knows that killing an unarmed civilian, be he American or otherwise, is unlawful.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Yet the vast majority of service members don’t open fire on civilians during war times.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Let me give you another scenario. A young man dies in police custody, the people riot pillaging the city, 20 police officers are injured, a state of emergency is issued, 5,000 National Guard troops are deployed, and ZERO shots are fired and no other civilians are seriously injured or killed by “the government”.

We can play the hypothetical game if you’d like; however, there’s a very recent example of military restraint on American soil in real life.

[quote]
Now.

How quickly does Dearborn start looking like Fallujah? [/quote]

Right now, in 2015, at a snails pace or slower.

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

A lot, imo.

You guys seem to be forgetting that these soldiers and Marines would be firing on their own homes and on their families. Could it happen, yes, if another civil war breaks out.

322

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You guys seem to be forgetting that these soldiers and Marines would be firing on their own homes and on their families. Could it happen, yes, if another civil war breaks out. [/quote]

I believe that’s the point your opponents are making.

323

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You guys seem to be forgetting that these soldiers and Marines would be firing on their own homes and on their families. Could it happen, yes, if another civil war breaks out. [/quote]

I believe that’s the point your opponents are making.[/quote]

I don’t have any “opponents” here and no I don’t believe that’s the case.

324

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I don’t have any “opponents” here [/quote]

Correct.

The more I think on this, the more I can see how insensitive, thoughtless and insulting it is to people that take their Oath and mean it. I’ve taken one recently and would be very upset if I was called on it, either directly or perceived.

So I apologize for that.

But it brings forth another question. How would one go about “asking questions” in a manor that isn’t the proverbial slap in the face?

325

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You guys seem to be forgetting that these soldiers and Marines would be firing on their own homes and on their families. Could it happen, yes, if another civil war breaks out. [/quote]

I believe that’s the point your opponents are making.[/quote]

I don’t have any “opponents” here and no I don’t believe that’s the case. [/quote]

Sorry, I thought that some people were arguing that many soldiers would be willing to violently oppose citizens with whom their commanders disagree while you were arguing that very few would. If that were true, those people would be your opponents.

326

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I don’t have any “opponents” here [/quote]

Correct.

The more I think on this, the more I can see how insensitive, thoughtless and insulting it is to people that take their Oath and mean it. I’ve taken one recently and would be very upset if I was called on it, either directly or perceived.

So I apologize for that. [/quote]

I appreciate it, but there’s no need. Nothing you’ve said, at least imo, has been insensitive, thoughtless, or insulting.

[quote]
But it brings forth another question. How would one go about “asking questions” in a manor that isn’t the proverbial slap in the face?[/quote]

I think how you’ve asked is fine. I think what Angry original asked is fine even though I disagree with most of it.

327

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You guys seem to be forgetting that these soldiers and Marines would be firing on their own homes and on their families. Could it happen, yes, if another civil war breaks out. [/quote]

I believe that’s the point your opponents are making.[/quote]

I don’t have any “opponents” here and no I don’t believe that’s the case. [/quote]

Sorry, I thought that some people were arguing that many soldiers would be willing to violently oppose citizens with whom their commanders disagree while you were arguing that very few would. If that were true, those people would be your opponents. [/quote]

Some people are saying a significant number of service members would fire on civilians if given an order to. I am saying an insignificant number of service members would fire on civilians, for a number of reasons including what I put in bold above, if given the order to.

That difference doesn’t make them my “opponents” it just means they have a difference of opinion. This isn’t a battle ground or the debate club.

328

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Some people are saying a significant number of service members would fire on civilians if given an order to. I am saying an insignificant number of service members would fire on civilians, for a number of reasons including what I put in bold above, if given the order to.

That difference doesn’t make them my “opponents” it just means they have a difference of opinion. This isn’t a battle ground or the debate club. [/quote]
I don’t want to derail this thread, but a debate is simply “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.”(according to Merriam-Webster) An “opponent” is “one that opposes another or others, as in a battle, contest, or debate.”(according to thefreedictionary.com).

Closer to the original topic: Many wars have pitted brother’s side against brother’s side. It doesn’t take much to convince most people that those who are not with them are against them. It takes even less to convince people to do the job they are being paid to do. The winner gets to decide what was legal, after claiming victory.

329

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Some people are saying a significant number of service members would fire on civilians if given an order to. I am saying an insignificant number of service members would fire on civilians, for a number of reasons including what I put in bold above, if given the order to.

That difference doesn’t make them my “opponents” it just means they have a difference of opinion. This isn’t a battle ground or the debate club. [/quote]
I don’t want to derail this thread, but a debate is simply “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.”(according to Merriam-Webster) An “opponent” is “one that opposes another or others, as in a battle, contest, or debate.”(according to thefreedictionary.com). [/quote]

Using the term “opponents” in this context is derisive in nature. We are having a conversation. There will be no winner. There will be no loser. It’s just a conversation.

[quote]
Closer to the original topic: Many wars have pitted brother’s side against brother’s side. [/quote]

The topic was using the military to round up civilians unlawfully. It shifted to the military firing / killing civilians. We weren’t ever really talking about war.

[quote]
It doesn’t take much to convince most people that those who are not with them are against them. It takes even less to convince people to do the job they are being paid to do. The winner gets to decide what was legal, after claiming victory.[/quote]

Uhuh…

330

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t want to derail this thread, but a debate is simply “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.”(according to Merriam-Webster) An “opponent” is “one that opposes another or others, as in a battle, contest, or debate.”(according to thefreedictionary.com). [/quote]

Using the term “opponents” in this context is derisive in nature. We are having a conversation. There will be no winner. There will be no loser. It’s just a conversation. [/quote]
Since nobody has posted on this thread in over a day, I don’t feel bad about posting on this sidetrack again. I’m not sure why you feel as though I was expressing contempt or ridicule when I used the word “opponents.” I just thought it would be easier than typing “the guys expressing beliefs very different from those you are expressing.”

[quote]

[quote]
Closer to the original topic: Many wars have pitted brother’s side against brother’s side. [/quote]

The topic was using the military to round up civilians unlawfully. It shifted to the military firing / killing civilians. We weren’t ever really talking about war. [/quote]
Using a military to capture and kill opponents sounds a lot like war.

[quote]
Uhuh…[/quote]
If what I wrote above your dismissive response is untrue, then why does anyone support any military? It pays to be a winner, and the payment is not in moral goodness points. Winning pays because the winner gets to retrospectively decide the legality of events. If al-Quaeda had somehow conquered the U.S., do you not believe that the events of 9/11/01 would have been(officially) viewed as legal and justifiable?

331

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t want to derail this thread, but a debate is simply “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.”(according to Merriam-Webster) An “opponent” is “one that opposes another or others, as in a battle, contest, or debate.”(according to thefreedictionary.com). [/quote]

Using the term “opponents” in this context is derisive in nature. We are having a conversation. There will be no winner. There will be no loser. It’s just a conversation. [/quote]
Since nobody has posted on this thread in over a day, I don’t feel bad about posting on this sidetrack again. I’m not sure why you feel as though I was expressing contempt or ridicule when I used the word “opponents.” I just thought it would be easier than typing “the guys expressing beliefs very different from those you are expressing.”[/quote]

I mean’t to type divisive…

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]
Closer to the original topic: Many wars have pitted brother’s side against brother’s side. [/quote]

The topic was using the military to round up civilians unlawfully. It shifted to the military firing / killing civilians. We weren’t ever really talking about war. [/quote]
Using a military to capture and kill opponents sounds a lot like war.[/quote]

American citizens will never be the military’s “opponents” so…

[quote]

My dismissive response was because I’ve read a variation of this post probably 100 times before.

332

Since the military is not allowing the press access to the operations, citizens are going to monitor it.

333

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Military spending is like 5% of GDP…[/quote]

What does it look like in comparison to other countries?

This says 20 percent of the U.S. budget was spent on it in 2011.

Like I said massive amounts of tax dollars. And some of it is going to war games against U.S. states apparently. [/quote]

Budget and GDP are not the same thing and why should I care what other countries are spending on their military?

Military spending can and should be looked at, but it is small potatoes compared to Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid while actually being authorized by the Constitution. . [/quote]

334

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Since the military is not allowing the press access to the operations, citizens are going to monitor it. [/quote]

I don’t think the media or the general public need to see the drills and exercises being conducted. Everyone is aware of the Op. No need to reveal tactics.

335

[quote]Ambitious wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Military spending is like 5% of GDP…[/quote]

What does it look like in comparison to other countries?

This says 20 percent of the U.S. budget was spent on it in 2011.

Like I said massive amounts of tax dollars. And some of it is going to war games against U.S. states apparently. [/quote]

Budget and GDP are not the same thing and why should I care what other countries are spending on their military?

Military spending can and should be looked at, but it is small potatoes compared to Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid while actually being authorized by the Constitution. . [/quote]
[/quote]

?

336

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Since the military is not allowing the press access to the operations, citizens are going to monitor it. [/quote]

I don’t think the media or the general public need to see the drills and exercises being conducted. Everyone is aware of the Op. No need to reveal tactics. [/quote]

I think many of the citizens of Texas would disagree with you. After all, their state has been labeled a hostile territory in the exercise. Many of them distrust the government to the point where they actually think it’s possible (maybe, just maybe) the government might be lying about something. Not that the government has ever lied to us before - especially not the Obama administration…

They have every right to know what’s going on in their back yard.

337

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Since the military is not allowing the press access to the operations, citizens are going to monitor it. [/quote]

I don’t think the media or the general public need to see the drills and exercises being conducted. Everyone is aware of the Op. No need to reveal tactics. [/quote]

I think many of the citizens of Texas would disagree with you. After all, their state has been labeled a hostile territory in the exercise. Many of them distrust the government to the point where they actually think it’s possible (maybe, just maybe) the government might be lying about something. Not that the government has ever lied to us before - especially not the Obama administration…

They have every right to know what’s going on in their back yard.[/quote]

Maybe, just maybe it’s possible someday Texas may become “hostile territory” due to sharing a border with Mexico and the military wants to be prepared for it. Do you want them to just wing it in the event of that?

338

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Since the military is not allowing the press access to the operations, citizens are going to monitor it. [/quote]

I don’t think the media or the general public need to see the drills and exercises being conducted. Everyone is aware of the Op. No need to reveal tactics. [/quote]

I think many of the citizens of Texas would disagree with you. After all, their state has been labeled a hostile territory in the exercise. Many of them distrust the government to the point where they actually think it’s possible (maybe, just maybe) the government might be lying about something. Not that the government has ever lied to us before - especially not the Obama administration…

They have every right to know what’s going on in their back yard.[/quote]

Maybe, just maybe it’s possible someday Texas may become “hostile territory” due to sharing a border with Mexico and the military wants to be prepared for it. Do you want them to just wing it in the event of that?

[/quote]

If that’s the scenario they are preparing for, then maybe just maybe they should include the Texas Nat’l Guard in their exercises. Instead, the governor had mobilize the Texas Nat’l Guard to MONITOR the JH15 exercise.

And while we’re spitballing about border strategy, how about not letting every fucking illegal immigrant who want’s to come in across the border? Methinks that would go a long way toward keeping Texas from becoming a “hostile territory”…

If what you’re proposing was true, then the way they are going about it is completely illogical. But maybe just maybe, it lines up with the idea that Texas might one day be considered by the tyrannical Federal government as “hostile”…

To paraphrase a conservative blog that I read recently, I don’t have any idea what the true nature of Jade Helm is, but I do know this much: Obama is a lying dirtbag who is drunk on power and has a presidency that is ending in the near future (theoretically). Obama has decimated our military in order to beef up federal law enforcement programs. One would have to be a fool to believe that Obama bought BILLIONS of bullets for domestic use, has allowed over 500,000 foreign troops to be on US soil, and has militarized EVERY AGENCY all the way down to the Department of Education, and that he did all that expecting a “peaceful future”. Give me a fucking break.

339

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And while we’re spitballing about border strategy, how about not letting every fucking illegal immigrant who want’s to come in across the border? Methinks that would go a long way toward keeping Texas from becoming a “hostile territory”…
[/quote]

Not to split hairs here, but this isn’t the DOD or ArmySOC’s job.

340

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Since the military is not allowing the press access to the operations, citizens are going to monitor it. [/quote]

I don’t think the media or the general public need to see the drills and exercises being conducted. Everyone is aware of the Op. No need to reveal tactics. [/quote]

I think many of the citizens of Texas would disagree with you. After all, their state has been labeled a hostile territory in the exercise. Many of them distrust the government to the point where they actually think it’s possible (maybe, just maybe) the government might be lying about something. Not that the government has ever lied to us before - especially not the Obama administration…

They have every right to know what’s going on in their back yard.[/quote]

Maybe, just maybe it’s possible someday Texas may become “hostile territory” due to sharing a border with Mexico and the military wants to be prepared for it. Do you want them to just wing it in the event of that?

[/quote]

If that’s the scenario they are preparing for, then maybe just maybe they should include the Texas Nat’l Guard in their exercises. Instead, the governor had mobilize the Texas Nat’l Guard to MONITOR the JH15 exercise.

[/quote]

"State Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Joanne MacGregor said in a statement that the guard’s role would be “to expedite the flow of information and facilitate communication between the Office of the Governor in order to alleviate any possible public concerns.”

Sounds more like liaising than monitoring to me. This is pretty standard when you have multiple organizations working together or working in each others’ jurisdictions or AOR.