Old vets' grudge meets NOLA fallout? Help me out...


PDA






antarti
December 25, 2005, 04:41 PM
OK, just about everybody has seen the widely played videos of CHP and the guard units during the NOLA thing. Many gun owners were outraged, gun-stores flooded with customers (no pun) for a while, etc, I don't want to rehash the whole thing...

...but, this is the fifth time I've walked into a gunstore (this one run by a Vietnam-era vet) and heard other Vetnam-era guys stocking up on firearms and ammo while discussing the "no goods" and "what happened in NOLA." 3 of the guys were ground-pounders (Army), 1 a Marine, and 1 a brownwater Navy guy.

They are kinda tight-lipped about it, and really have a total look of disgust on their faces when talking about the (their words) "G.D. no goods"... these guys don't know each other, or at least I saw each alone on different days (I don't get to gunstores much anymore).

One of them who I recognized as a contractor from an old job basically gave me some fragments about the guys who were "professional" soldiers during the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam lumping the police and NG together collectively and defining them as "No goods", but I didn't get much else.

Some of the things I heard went like this:

"I took an oath to the Constitution, not to anybody or anyting else, and that oath didn't end when I came home, and now the G.D. no-goods are back? Let 'em try that crap here, we'll be ready to welcome them"

"You didn't see any of Honore's guys doing that, it was just the 'G.D. no-goods'... I thought all that B.S. was behind us... If I were with my guys back-in-the-day and we came across those clowns, we'd have put an end to it right there"

"The time to get ready for the big game is in the off-season, let those punks come here now that everybody knows what the no-goods have been up to, and has had a chance to get ready. Florida ain't NOLA"

There literally, have been tons of conversations like these, along with brisk ammo sales.

Is this some old vets inter-service grudge about active vs. Guard? Here it is months later, these guys are basically seething every time the topic comes up.

Not being a vet, I have little idea what they're talking about, but all are using the same terms. All these guys were white, but was this some kind of "racial thing" since the Civil Rights movement was mentioned? Can somebody throw me a bone here concerning the perceptions on the "no-goods" and what happened before to make these guys think "they're back"?

If you enjoyed reading about "Old vets' grudge meets NOLA fallout? Help me out..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
spartacus2002
December 25, 2005, 06:36 PM
I think that during certain periods of time, the velvet glove that normally covers the iron fist of power can become rather threadbare. That happened with the govt response to student riots during the '60s. That also happened in NOLA.

Some people are more attuned to it than others; more specifically, some people are more attuned to what it means.

Many of those people are those whose oath to the Constitution meant something special to them.

And that's all I have to say about that.;)

armedandsafe
December 25, 2005, 06:44 PM
Many of those people are those whose oath to the Constitution meant something special to them.

I don't know if I am authorized to do so, but:

+1

Pops

armoredman
December 25, 2005, 10:42 PM
I swore two oaths...both are still in effect.

confed sailor
December 25, 2005, 11:36 PM
sometimes it scares the hell outa me, since we are all trained to act when ordered with a minimum of question.

what if, and this is a biiiiiiiiig if. say a submarine or aviation unit; something that would not come in contact with the situation on the ground was ordered to fire on what the "government" called open revolt in our country.

as long as the orders are processed in the proper channels im sure we would fire, with warheads on our foreheads, and the poor schmucks on the boat wouldnt even know till they got home that it was a strike on fellow americans.

i dont know bout yall but i could see it happen, not anytime soon, but becoming less and less improbable everyday.

grampster
December 25, 2005, 11:45 PM
As a former LEO, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the State of Michigan and to uphold the law of a particular city. If the law of the city conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution holds sway. I consider that oath to be binding for all time.

K-Romulus
December 25, 2005, 11:49 PM
Being a Veteran and all (but I was only two years old when Vietnam "hostilities" ended).

As we know, the Civil Rights era saw the "massive resistance" Southern states refusing to integrate. Most all of us know that local police were used back then to prevent racial desegregation, but one governor went so far as ordering national guard troops to bar attempts at school integration.

http://www.civilrights.org/research_center/civilrights101/desegregation.html

MASSIVE RESISTANCE was symbolized most dramatically by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus' order that his state's national guard unit block the admission of nine African American students to Little Rock's Central High School in 1957. The nearly month-long confrontation ended when President Eisenhower sent in U.S. troops to protect the students.

The "U.S. troops" refers to the famous deployment of the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the high school desegration in Little Rock

http://www.nps.gov/chsc/desegregationcrisisindepth.html

Outside the school, African-American journalists who covered the story were harassed and physically attacked. They escaped the mob and took refuge elsewhere in Little Rock. President Eisenhower was "disgusted" when he heard about the rioting and ordered in federal troops to contain the chaos. Over 1,000 members of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division, the "Screaming Eagles," from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, came to Little Rock. The Arkansas National Guard troops at the school were then placed under federal command. Observing the soldiers, the president of the Arkansas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and mentor to the nine students, Daisy L. Gatson Bates, commented that "any time it takes 11,500 soldiers to assure nine Negro children their constitutional rights in a democratic society, I can't be happy.":uhoh:

Also, in 1970, an Ohio national guard unit opened fire on several hundred college protestors in what is known in some circles as the "Kent State Massacre." The reasons for the shootings are still generally under debate (centered on whether the students were "rioting" and whether the guard unit was "under attack). Wikipedia has a good overview of what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

If I was on active duty during that era and saw incidents like this (and believed that the guard units were full of draft-dodgers whose connections got them in the guard units), I might react to NOLA the way those guys did whom you described.:scrutiny:

Rezin
December 26, 2005, 12:43 AM
The oath we swore, also included that we would OBEY all orders form the President of the United States......

Yes, we swore to uphold the Constitution, but the other areas could render that oath...difficult to follow. Orders are given all the time that counter the Constitution....




I (name), do solemly 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 overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

antarti
December 26, 2005, 01:22 AM
Thanks for the replies. I waited a long time (and the situation kept repeating) and thought pretty hard before posting this.

The usual fare at most gunstores is banter about all the same topics that end up here, with (of course) a pro-2A slant, lots of epithets and curses hurled at BATFE, etc. all followed by head-nodding and head-shaking as appropriate.

The difference I saw in these guys was the total clenched-fist disgust and common terms when discussing NOLA. All seemed both angry and (to some degree) heartbroken, and you don't see that combination too often, much less at the local gunstore.

Hearing them reminded me a lot of the WWII vets who used to dump a mag full of .45s into the air every 4th of July, especially the one that lived next door to the police station. Being a little kid and wondering *** was going on, and why were they risking being arrested, it was explained to me "The Germans tried and couldn't take this from me, anybody here look dumb enough to think they can?" Those men are gone now, but whatever they had, I'm glad there's still plenty left to go around.

Edit to add...

The oath we swore, also included that we would OBEY all orders form the President of the United States......

Yes, we swore to uphold the Constitution, but the other areas could render that oath...difficult to follow. Orders are given all the time that counter the Constitution....

I think the point he was making was that the oath was to nobody in particular (whatever President was sitting) and the Constitution was definitely foremost.

Also, he was adamant that it was IRONCLAD that no way would non-guardsmen quarter themselves in churches and homes as they saw fit, and they also would have ignored any order by the mayor or police chief to confiscate weapons, just as Honore's troops did. He went as far as to say there would have been more than words with the guardsmen if they had persisted in doing that. I don't know if I'm as sanguine on that point as he was. Apparently, during his time "in", the thought of doing those things to Americans was anathema, and I hope still is.

molonlabe
December 26, 2005, 05:48 AM
An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

There are examples from our early history (Which involved the SCOTUS decalring illigal an order from the then Prsident John Adams), to the Viet Nam War. Neurmburg also comes to mind.

I would say obeying a lawful order that is in itself unlawful would be at ones one peril.

Peet
December 26, 2005, 07:35 AM
All I could see in the original post that was really significent was "No Goods" over and over. Hmmm... starts with N and G. Could that be code for National Guard?

Or is that too obvious to be true? Occham's razor?

Hawkmoon
December 26, 2005, 09:53 AM
Is this some old vets inter-service grudge about active vs. reservists? Here it is months later, these guys are basically seething every time the topic comes up.

Not being a vet, I have little idea what they're talking about, but all are using the same terms. All these guys were white, but was this some kind of "racial thing" since the Civil Rights movement was mentioned? Can somebody throw me a bone here concerning the perceptions on the "no-goods" and what happened before to make these guys think "they're back"?
First, it would behoove you to remember that Army (or Navy, or Marine Corps, or Air Force) Reserve is not the same thing as the National Guard.

A lot of Vietnam-era vets don't hold the NG in particularly high esteem because back then the NG wasn'twidely activated and deployed, so getting into the NG was considered a chicken poop way to avoid the draft. Secondly, it was NG troops who shot into a crowd of anti-war demonstrators at Kent State, killing some of them. I served in 'Nam with a guy who attended Kent State. I suspect if I could track him down today he still would not have a kind word to say about the NG.

Hawkmoon
December 26, 2005, 09:58 AM
sometimes it scares the hell outa me, since we are all trained to act when ordered with a minimum of question.

what if, and this is a biiiiiiiiig if. say a submarine or aviation unit; something that would not come in contact with the situation on the ground was ordered to fire on what the "government" called open revolt in our country.

as long as the orders are processed in the proper channels im sure we would fire, with warheads on our foreheads, and the poor schmucks on the boat wouldnt even know till they got home that it was a strike on fellow americans.

i dont know bout yall but i could see it happen, not anytime soon, but becoming less and less improbable everyday.
You might wish to review the provisions of the UCMJ pertaining to refusal to obey an unlawful order.

When I was in, my recollection of what we were taught is that we didn't "have to" obey an unlawful order. Subsequent research tells me that the UCMJ is actually a lot stronger than that. If I read it correctly, a serviceman (or woman) is REQUIRED by the UCMJ to not obey an unlawful order.

The problem, of course, is how to determine on the spur of the moment whether or not an order is lawful. I would think anything calling for opening fire on American citizens exercising their Constitutional rights would be a pretty basic call.

telewinz
December 26, 2005, 10:12 AM
OK, I'm a Vietnam Vet and yet after reading this entire thread, I'm still not sure I know whats the subject. What is NOLA? Whats the gripe? Whats the perceived threat? I must be out of the loop:confused:

tegemu
December 26, 2005, 10:22 AM
As Hawkmoon pointed out, we held the National Guard in contempt. Many of us considered it just short of draft dodging. However I will say that in the current Iraqi situation the NG is doing a superb job. NOLA = New Orleans Louisiana.

Sergeant Bob
December 26, 2005, 10:28 AM
OK, I'm a Vietnam Vet and yet after reading this entire thread, I'm still not sure I know whats the subject. What is NOLA? Whats the gripe? Whats the perceived threat? I must be out of the loop
And what does the National Guard during Vietnam have to do with the Guard today?
I seriously doubt there are a whole lot of draft dodgers or Kent State killers in the inj the Guard today.
Most of the Guardsmen I've known were former Active duty who wanted to continue serving without doing it full time.

What is the beef?

antarti
December 26, 2005, 10:28 AM
First, it would behoove you to remember that Army (or Navy, or Marine Corps, or Air Force) Reserve is not the same thing as the National Guard.

Original post edited, my bad. You are right of course. Didn't mean to offend, just a slip up.

All I could see in the original post that was really significent was "No Goods" over and over. Hmmm... starts with N and G. Could that be code for National Guard?

I thought that was curious, until I was told it included law enforcement as well.

As I said, I understand anger about the happenings in NOLA, everybody between coasts here is wondering if it's gonna be Tee-time next hurricane season. I was wondering what originally happened that the NOLA foolishness brought back memories of.

Hawkmoon
December 26, 2005, 11:35 AM
The oath we swore, also included that we would OBEY all LAWFUL orders form the President of the United States......

I (name), do solemly 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 overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
And don't forget that tricky little "true faith and allegiance" clause ... not to mention "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ requires our military personnel to refuse unlawful orders.

Byron
December 26, 2005, 11:56 AM
I was a grunt in Nam 68-69. First let me say that the National Guard has proved themselves in Iraq so well that they stand with any active duty troops.
During my era, the guard was a way for men to odge the draft. Over the years, I have heard this fro many who were in the Guard. Many laugh about someone going in their palce to Nam. I am quite to the point when I hear from one of these from my era. I started back to college in Jan 70. I needed some extra cash as the GI bill was not quite enough. I joined a Guard unit in TN.It was full of draft dodgers and they made no excuses for doing so.I wore my CIB with pride and was quite vocal to the comments,enlisted and officers(there is a way to tell officers off without getting in trouble). I got out after a year and finances were better. The animosity existed for years between active duty and Guard from the nam era. Today there is no animosity toward Guard troops. I saw on recently wearing my Div patch,4TH Inf and was pround to see it on him. In the last few yaers, I have had men who dodged the draft apologize to me for not going. Some feel guilty.
Perhaps we see things differently than many but to the man,we feel our Oath to The Constitution still binds our word.I still recall taking The Oath and am proud I did.As far as the events of Katrina,it should make all Americans realize this Nation is fragile,we cannot depend on any part of the government being there and that we must take care of our on.
I am now completely disabled from wounds in nam. I have no regrets. I served, many didn't. I served with the finest men I have ever known and we have been finding each other in the last few years. Byron

mountainclmbr
December 26, 2005, 12:23 PM
I want to see perp walks and long prison sentences for those giving, and those following orders to confiscate firearms from, and evict law abiding citizens from their homes after the hurricane. Lawsuits will only be paid by taxpayers that had nothing to do with these crimes. Serious prison time is what is called for. Nothing short of that.

molonlabe
December 26, 2005, 02:06 PM
The Charges
On September 8th, 2005, defendants, acting under color of State law in an official capacity, and in violation of federal and state law, wrongfully trespassed on premises legally occupied by plaintiff at [address withheld], and committed the following additional torts against plaintiff, her person and her property:

a) Assault and battery, including using excessive force under the circumstances;

b) False imprisonment by illegally taking plaintiff into custody and transporting her to South Carolina, from which she did not return to New Orleans until October 13th, 2005;

c) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and

d) Conversion of legally owned property, to wit, a chrome 32 caliber Colt Revolver, with a pearl handle, which has not been returned to plaintiff.

By virtue of having committed the above-identified torts against plaintiff and her property, defendents violated rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff under the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1983.

In addition, certain of the defendents conspired to deprive plaintiff of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff by the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1985.

Further, certain of the defendants, who had full knowledge of their colleagues' conspiring to violate, and actually violating, plaintiff's constitutional rights, and committing torts against plaintiff's person and property, failed to intervene, all in violation of 42 USC 1986.

Defendants' acts and omissions were practiced with malice and/or with reckless disregard for plaintiff's federally protected rights, as well as her rights under state law.

As a direct result of the above-described tortious and illegal conduct by defendants, plaintiff sustained severe and disabling personal injuries, including injuries to her face, nose, left eye, left shoulder, left arm, and chest, among other injuries to her mind and body, for which surgery may be necessary, and causing plaintiff excruciating pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarassment.

I was just following orders, just doesn’t cut it.

91Bravo
December 26, 2005, 09:24 PM
I've had 16 years in the same Guard unit, with a year of deployment to Iraq in that unit. Guard units are different from regular army units in that they reflect their community, whereas regular army units have a lot more mixed troop base. This can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the unit. I have run into both outright hostility/contempt from active duty units, and admiration based on the active duty unit's exposure to our abilities. Some of it is just interservice rivalry, some is bad experiences in the past. Based on my conversations with old Guard members, today's Guard is totally different than back in the 60's & 70's. I've stayed in the Guard rather than the reserve for the personal reasons that I'm serving my community/state; that a Guard unit has long institutional memory that is invaluable for educating younger soldiers; and that we are truly a unit with close, long-term bonds to each other formed over years of training. I understand the way some older soldiers have regarded us in the past, but anyone who feels that way now is sadly misinformed. We are a militia, citizens with regular jobs and families that knowingly sign up with the knowledge that all of it may be disrupted on short notice for a long time. I'm very proud of of those who still sign up or re-enlist given the risks now, and I'm willing to say so to any vet who say otherwise.

Ryder
December 27, 2005, 05:26 AM
I saw men disobey orders in the Coast Guard. They were supposed to hide below deck with a loaded M16 in preparation to shoot fellow Americans during boarding inspections. They'd signed on to rescue people, not kill them.

Standing by their convictions caused their pay to be lowered. Turns out that refusing to kill Americans wasn't such a big deal for them. Maybe that's because there are so many other guys who won't sacrifice their beer money over such a thing though?

If you enjoyed reading about "Old vets' grudge meets NOLA fallout? Help me out..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!