[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

Back to reality, Boy. The Posse Comitatus Act has never been enforced in its 130 year history and likely would never pass a court test.

The reason the P. C. Act has been in limbo for 130 years is that the federal government mostly keeps out of local police affairs, except for aid on a strictly voluntary basis, as after the Revolution the primary policing powers of the British crown passed to the state governments, not the federal government. The US military keeps even further away from local policing because they are not police. Understand?

 

[EricOKC]

HFA: what's up? running low on gerbils?

...once again, Llama posts for the sole purpose of introducing the topic of gay sex into a thread where previously it had not been discussed...

 

[EricOKC]

250,000 troops deployed world wide.(as of 2005)

The rest of the military may be stationed here at home, but they are not here to be called up to do police actions. Certain units have been placed in certain areas to assist in "emergency situations". According to the P.C. act, they are not supposed to be used in such a manner unless certain preconditions are met.

MamasBoy,
A large number of troops deployed overseas are National Guard units, such as Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Division.

As you've been using the term "soldiers," it's been in a generic sense, and you're unaware of whatthe national guard is and its role in Iraq and here.

The 45th when pulled back home will be used for emergencies, just as they and other guard units always have.

This website will give you an idea of just how many states have their guard units there.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

Once again, MamasBoy, there's been criticism for several years now about how depleted our NG units are for the emergencies they've always had to respond to, to the point that out of state NG units had to respond to Katrina.

We're not sending the 101st airborne back to the states to take guns away, nitwit.

But please, continue this thread, it's funny watching you making a fool out of yourself once again.

 

[Harpers Ferry Arsenal]

I don't mind MB pretending to put me on ignore. Hell, he allegedly has half the board regulars on ignore yet he still spends hours a day logging on to hang around electronically with people that he can't stand for some reason.

If someone would just do me the courtesy of occasionally asking him what he's ever done in his life that entitles him to criticize those that actually do the work in and for this country, I'd be obliged.

The boy's nothing but an intellectual homeless guy who gets a free sandwich at the shelter and then stands around screaming that it wasn't made right. To hear him rant, no one but him knows how to make sandwiches. However he's never made one and refuses when people invite him to actually try.

 

[EricOKC]

I don't mind MB pretending to put me on ignore. Hell, he allegedly has half the board regulars on ignore yet he still spends hours a day logging on to hang around electronically with people that he can't stand for some reason.

If someone would just do me the courtesy of occasionally asking him what he's ever done in his life that entitles him to criticize those that actually do the work in and for this country, I'd be obliged.

The boy's nothing but an intellectual homeless guy who gets a free sandwich at the shelter and then stands around screaming that it wasn't made right. To hear him rant, no one but him knows how to make sandwiches. However he's never made one and refuses when people invite him to actually try.

He's worked his way up to the President of a gamers club, from what somewhat else here reported.

Since many of the games are combat simulation games, that requires a lot of bravery.

We also have his public service gun safety videos on youtube, in which he can show people how not to safely handle a firearm.

 

[Amtraker]

We must remember when MB made his famous statement that COD 4 was just like combat. We kicked that around the team room for days. lol.

 

[ruskiegunlover]

HA......well guys, he got the 10 foot stare! A loser gets it when he been on the couch for too long! Fingers start to loose feeling, heart rate goes up.....its like, he's really seeing into the everafter.....

Hey mousequeer, how do you stop five black guys from raping a white chick?

I don't know, but you're a dumbass!

 

[cwo4uscgret]

If someone would just do me the courtesy of occasionally asking him what he's ever done in his life that entitles him to criticize those that actually do the work in and for this country, I'd be obliged.

Harper's Ferry - you mean like me spending 35+ years in one of three different blue government uniforms since I turned 18 back in 1970?

US Navy 1970 - 1974
US Coast Guard 1975 - 2001
US Customs and Border Protection 2004 Present?

Supporting and defending the US all those years so people like MB can sit there and use the vocal cords that a proctologist inserted so he can speak poorly (and ill-informed I might add) about the government? I'll be the first to admit there are problems with our government - but no where else in the free world (and no so free) can we openly discuss it. Well those of us who can discuss it like intelligent adults and not some video war gaymer...

 

[confederatecaptain]

Absolutely NOT. The oath i to uphold and defend the Constitution and bear true allegiance to the same. And to obey the LAWFUL (emphasis supplied) orders of the Commander in Chief and such other lawful superiors as may be issued. I repeat the oath is NOT to the President as Commander-in-Chief, only to obey lawful orders originating from him. Note the aprt about "lawful". The duty of obedience is limited to lawful orders.

Can't remember exactly, but wasn't it "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegience to the same..."? It's been a few years, but that seems about right.

 

[thebohunk]

Absolutely NOT. The oath i to uphold and defend the Constitution and bear true allegiance to the same. And to obey the LAWFUL (emphasis supplied) orders of the Commander in Chief and such other lawful superiors as may be issued. I repeat the oath is NOT to the President as Commander-in-Chief, only to obey lawful orders originating from him. Note the aprt about "lawful". The duty of obedience is limited to lawful orders.

Thank you for clearing that up Clyde, I wasn't sure the exact language. But isn't obeying lawful orders from the Commander in Chief, in a sense taking an oath to the orders of that office? Or am I misinterpreting it alltogethor?

 

[Clyde]

Confederatecaptain got the wording closer to right than my quick answer - but the obligation to obey awful orders of lawfully appointed superiors is NOT by any means the same as taking an oath to an office 9or office holder). One of the things taht got the Germans (I speak of their militray) twisted up in WWII was the requirement that they take a PERSONAL oath to the Fuhrer. We don't do that, ours is to the Constitution. The obligation you accept (explicitly) as aprt of it to obey LAWFUL (I emphasize that for a reason) orders from your lawfully appointed superiors is an obligation that comes with the oath to accept, support and defend the Constitution. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is there and important.

By the way, the UCMJ actually imposes a duty, subject to criminal sanctions, if you do NOT disobey UNLAWFUL orders...

 

[thebohunk]

Confederatecaptain got the wording closer to right than my quick answer - but the obligation to obey awful orders of lawfully appointed superiors is NOT by any means the same as taking an oath to an office 9or office holder). One of the things taht got the Germans (I speak of their militray) twisted up in WWII was the requirement that they take a PERSONAL oath to the Fuhrer. We don't do that, ours is to the Constitution. The obligation you accept (explicitly) as aprt of it to obey LAWFUL (I emphasize that for a reason) orders from your lawfully appointed superiors is an obligation that comes with the oath to accept, support and defend the Constitution. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is there and important.

By the way, the UCMJ actually imposes a duty, subject to criminal sanctions, if you do NOT disobey UNLAWFUL orders...

Isn't LAWFUL open to interpretation? Could Gen. Petraeus refuse to fight in Iraq if he felt the orders were unlawful? I know he wouldn't, I'm just asking if it is open to debate?

What's the UCMJ?

 

[Amtraker]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

[Harpers Ferry Arsenal]

We also have his public service gun safety videos on youtube, in which he can show people how not to safely handle a firearm.

I love those videos but it looks like he took them down. (I guess he was embarrassed or ashamed.) Does anyone else have them? They really should be immortalized for posterity.

 

[Amtraker]

Oh no, we couldn't be that lucky. Go to Youtube and type in Shellshock1918. His last posting was Oct 31. It shows him and his equally plump pal shooting Saigais. The last scene is classic as they finish shooting and "patrol" off screen towards the camera. You can almost see his buddie's man boobs shaking. lol.

 

[Harpers Ferry Arsenal]

Oh no, we couldn't be that lucky. Go to Youtube and type in Shellshock1918. His last posting was Oct 31. It shows him and his equally plump pal shooting Saigais. The last scene is classic as they finish shooting and "patrol" off screen towards the camera. You can almost see his buddie's man boobs shaking. lol.

Ah, OK. I didn't know his Youtube screen name.

But the one where he tried to shoot a Mad Minute with the Enfield and fumbled the manual of arms is gone. I wanna see him jam his muzzle in the dirt again while fumbling with the bolt and then just keep shooting without even making sure that it wasn't plugged. And what's he get off? About six shots in sixty seconds before he gave up?

 

[EricOKC]

Ah, OK. I didn't know his Youtube screen name.

But the one where he tried to shoot a Mad Minute with the Enfield and fumbled the manual of arms is gone. I wanna see him jam his muzzle in the dirt again while fumbling with the bolt and then just keep shooting without even making sure that it wasn't plugged. And what's he get off? About six shots in sixty seconds before he gave up?

I missed that one also, and it's the one I wanted to see the most.

Sign onto youtube and tell him you're a sixteen year old gamer who wants to see an Enfield like they use on COD, and he might repost it.

 

[EricOKC]

We must remember when MB made his famous statement that COD 4 was just like combat. We kicked that around the team room for days. lol.

Here it is:

I do pay taxes and it doesn't matter if I serve in the military or not. Not everyone that serves in the military is a saint and capable of good, sound judgment. Just look at Lee Harvey Oswald.\

Oh and COD4 is pretty realistic.

MamasBoy needs to sit in a duck or a goose blind in freezing rain with his hands frozen around a shotgun for a few hours.

I've played COD..it's fun...it's a game...and has no semblance whatsoever to even a day at the range.

 

[Clyde]

Isn't LAWFUL open to interpretation? Could Gen. Petraeus refuse to fight in Iraq if he felt the orders were unlawful? I know he wouldn't, I'm just asking if it is open to debate?

What's the UCMJ?

Yes, there are sometimes issues of lawfulness (though not, in my experience, often). If there are, your first step is to question the matter with the superior who issued the order in question "Sir, I have a problem with this. I don't think it is legal to do that". If there is time, the SJA (Staff Judge Advocate) will be consulted. After that - go with "Do it" or "Oops, that is withdrawn". If there ain't, your choices are to ask (demand) the order be put in writing with your objections noted and comply - or refuse to and be placed under arrest pending charges. Ultimately, there may well be a Court-martial if you refuse to comply. Or if you take the written order with objections noted, and comply with an order that is not clearly and obviously unlawful, the commander amy wind up in front of a court if you were right and he was wrong.

As far as a commander at General Petraeus's level is concerned and the order is from the President, you do it after setting out your objections, or you resign, probably noisily, if you REALLY think the orders are either illegal or so bad an idea that you won't be associated with them (an example of that is that Admiral Nimitz apparently threatened to resign if he was ordered to use poison gas on Okinawa or other Japanese target, whioch was an idea that was apparently suggested) and take your chances.

 

[Clyde]

OK - the oaths (they differ for enlistment and commissioning) are as follows:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"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. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)


As will be noted (something I had forgotten), the specific obligation to obey orders (and that has an unstated but actual requirement that the orders be lawful) is part of the enlistment oath rather than that taken upon acceptance of commission. Odd I didn't recall that - I've taken the Oath as a commissioned offcier twice. And that of enlistment (into a reserve component, the ROTC Control Group) once. Though all were some few years ago...