Comments:US Army sergeant asserts Posse Comitatus is not being violated

Would you expect on-the-ground commanders to ignore executive orders if they overstepped the granted authority?

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

The Uniform Code of Military Justice does provide for the extraordinary circumstance where officers may choose to disobey an illegal order if the lives of staff under their command are placed at obvious undue risk. By extension an officer in command of combat troops who is ordered to fire live ammunition into a crowd to control it would be duty-bound to refuse said order depending on the circumstances - for example, where sound judgement and assessment of the situation showed that there was no expected retaliatory combatant response from said crowd. An example of this would be the conviction of William Calley for premeditated murder in the My Lai Massacre incident in the Vietnam Conflict. Calley's conviction would probably have been for not disobeying an illegal order from his commanding officer had the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes tribunals standard been applied which established that nobody was absolved of responsibility for war crimes for "following orders", but there was considerable command-level evidence supression during the trial that was later revealed after the fact. At the time, many people believed that Nixon's intervention in Calley's sentence was something of an endorsement of the action by Calley's superior officers and therefore it was in Nixon's own enlightened self-interest to ensure that the incident was closed as an individual act of murder instead of a breakdown in command morality. HOWEVER:

Please remember that in order for something to be "illegal" there first must either be a specific ordinance in existence, codified by either governmental procedure or standing historical precedent that makes the act or process in question subject to legal scrutiny; and second, the governing body in place must recognize the law as being valid and as equally applicable under all circumstances as the imperfect human condition allows.

The philosophy to which Bush in particular and the Republican Party more generally ascribes in their application of Federal governance (at least beginning with McCarthy leading up to Nixon in modern times) may be objectionable; it may be in more specific cases immoral; and in the broadest possible sense might almost be considered treasonous in nature when taken in the context of what the authors of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted the document. It is not, however, specifically illegal because no codified legislation, precedent or context currently exists that provides for legal recourse against a person's "opinion". And therein lies the rub: thanks to the rampant ineptness that has characterized this administration for 8 years, there is simply far too much immediate damage control that has to be done to give proper focus on this question.

In the sense that Bush fabricated the Department of Justice to apply the veneer of jurisprudence for the sake of outward appearances while surreptitiously packing the system through cronyism and political intimidation, he was very clever to select people who were aware of this imperfection in the structure of Federal Law. Doubtless there will be some who do not regard this as a "bug" but instead a "feature" of the Constitution that ostensibly allows for changing times and circumstances. The problem with this thinking, however, is that when people lose the original vision of why this particular government and its philosophy of law was instituted to begin with- for the provision of common defense from foreign and domestic enemies, securing liberty and the right to worship, think and believe in anything one chooses within the auspices of one's community; to provide support for the weakest among us while empowering the strongest to succeed, and protecting our common good from predatory behavior - it then becomes a simple matter for complacency to infiltrate the people while opportunists use every weakness to their advantage. Left in the wake is a confused and rudderless population, vulnerable to every predatory whim that comes their way and unable to place trust in anything or anyone.

Will Obama be able to put a stop to this madness should he become President? He certainly will have the legal authority to rescind any Executive Order, Signing Statement or Directive he deems out of line or contrary to his philosophy of governance. Given all the rhetoric of late, it's been somewhat lost in the noise that Obama has studied the Constitution on a graduate level (as opposed to the current CIC and his opponent), and the man has to be keenly aware of both the subtleties and the consequences of swimming in the kind of murky legal waters that have filled Bush's ocean of obfuscation. We will simply have to wait and hope for the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakai (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is very very bad. Americans do not let your government and military do this. They were unjustified doing it outside their country, to do it from within means the country is falling apart. It means that the country cant even trust itself, this is bad. Nothing good will come of this. Now your own citizens will have to face what the Iraqi people have had to deal with. Think of America as a desperate person looking for attention. Bullying the Iraqis, much like a negative individual would to a fellow man. America can not win the war in Iraq, ever, so if that man cant win out there, he must take it out on himself. America is committing suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.226.106 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The war in Iraq is not supposed to be won it is just suppost to be sustained so the elitest groups of the world gain as much profit as possible, and because Iraq won't be able to pay the debt back the government / corporations will say okay then we want you to privatize your water facilities, electricity, oil refineries so they can move in and make more money while paying less for the manpower to do it.

Strategically Iraq and Afghanistan will become the new Germany and Korea for forward U.S. Military bases.

Here's the system: worked in Iraq, Afghan, and about a dozen other countries so far.

Bribe / corrupt the government into running the country the way the corpations will make the most profits.

Send out a "Jackal" to kill the leader if he refuses so to install a leader who will play the corporation's game.

Send in the Military by rallying the general population into believeing that country is a threat. Demolish the country and contract massive corporations to rebuild it thus making a large profit.

For more information and accounts read "The Confessions of an Economic Hitman" For the big picture watch the Zeigheist movies.

"NorthComm says that these troops will be used to protect the United States from threats within the United States"

So basically the government can say ok this guys a threat go get him, completely at the discretion of their interpretation of a "threat" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.226.106 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This dispatch of the military has been done so long it's a common practice in America, and now your saying it's unlawful?? Unit dispatch to disaster, border patrol and in extreme cases of riot control which by the way is why there are SWAT teams.

Sounds fishy

How dumb do you have to be? This guy says that they won't act in a law enforcement capacity, and then goes on to say they will help with crowd control, rioting, looting, etc. when the cops can't handle it. Guess what that is?! Law enforcement!

You know who I think this guy is? Either a "controlled leak" from the Army PR department -OR- just some guy who doesn't know what he is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.222.66 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said is basically dumbing it down so you can understand it, and yet you still don't get it. I don't know where to start since his point is so clear.

Possibility for a coup d'etat?

It is already common knowledge that if martial law is enforced, military and national guard steps in to act as beefed up law enforcement. This articles gives no contradiction to that. The unit would serve as a rapid response force in case of emergencies. The scary question is, how easy is it to abuse this power? Even if the congress has the power to depose the president, that might still be too little, too late. All you need is a "terrorist attack" against Congress, and you send these guys in. They kill the terrorists, but sadly, most of the congressmen were executed by the terrorists. That's the nightmare scenario. The president now has no-one supervising him, and he institutes a national emergency, giving him absolute power.

This is made even more possible than ever before, thanks to the creation of this unit. This is too much like Clancy, but now it is truly a real possibility. Reason -> action -> reaction. Reason: Terrorists take over congress. Action: eliminate terrorists. Reaction: "terrorists" execute congress OR congressmen become collateral damage.

This unit ( 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division ) is not a new creation, it's a current Army brigade stationed out of Ft. Stewart who has been selected among the thousands of units availible to take on a normal routine of being on disaster watch and patroling the borders. Considering they have deployed 3 times to Iraq and once to Bosnia in the past decade I think this would help their families who have been having to deal without their loved one at home EVERY OTHER YEAR!

P.S more Americans die from peanut butter allergies than terrorists. {FACT}

This is too close to a burning reichstag. Too close for comfort. America WEAK UP!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.229.155 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My God

All of you guys lost it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have

Anyone who is worried about a Coup

Has never met or spoken with an Officer of any caliber. Even the most rank obsessed myrmidon wouldn't attempt such an act. And, considering the amount of personal defense weapons in the US, the Military couldn't enforce any laws that they would have to impose. People need to learn about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. They have NO congressional over sight, are already stationed in America in Law Enforcement roles, they already have the power to "write law", and they HAVE to enforce illegal laws.--141.157.14.240 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Congressional and Judicial oversight would not stop a coup. President Bush, and by default the new incoming president, now have the power to arrest Congress and the Supreme Court Judges with NorthComm troops. A fundamental element of a coup is that it is done by force and that those going down really have no choice. Our congress could vote to impeach Bush while locked in cells- but I don't think that would accomplish much.

Forgive me - but an anonymous Army sergeant isn't enough to convince me. So far this is just uneducated speculation - and so is mine, though, I'd like to think that with my degrees and work experience in an appropriate field - I'm a bit more educated than this sergeant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.69.137 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

IF you think anyone in the military would actually do the arresting, than YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how the world works. The Federal Government HAS ALREADY arrested major members of congress, judges, etc by using the power instilled in the ATF. The Military, by law and doctrine, can NOT act without the express consent of Congress while the ATF can do whatever they want.--141.157.14.240 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush has already had a private military in Blackwater for years anyway. What this tells us is if he makes a move, he's going to avoid using death squads on U.S. soil when he can. He'd prefer to operate in the open under some semblance of legal authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.248.139 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just stupid. Seriously. What are the odds of this happening? Gee, maybe the Atlanta Falcons will win a Super Bowl, too. Wanna make that bet? You and your alarmist friends, jumping at every damn thing, make me wonder just how we all got so screwed up. 72.191.23.43 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)