Ron Paul is making noise!

[publius]

So the answer is -the Federal standing Army has not been used as a tool of oppression-

Is it so easy to sort out who did what, and under what authority?


From the Army Times:

The Defense Department is preparing to pull back some active-duty forces it sent to Mississippi and Louisiana in the early aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, even as it sends in some new groups for specialized work like the processing of corpses and aerial spraying for disease-carrying mosquitoes.

The role of active-duty forces, including Navy ships like the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman and Army ground combat units like the 82nd Airborne Division, may diminish within days or weeks, officials said Tuesday.

Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, commander of the 82nd Airborne, said on Monday in New Orleans that it appeared the search for city residents who still want assistance could be completed within 10 days. He said it remained to be determined by state and federal civilian authorities what tasks his soldiers would be assigned after that.

As the Army�s premier quick-response force with important wartime roles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 82nd Airborne seems unlikely to stay in New Orleans for an extended period. The first of the 3,800 soldiers it has in New Orleans began arriving Sept. 3.

Operating with the 82nd Airborne are about 1,400 soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Hood, Texas.

National Guard troops under the direct control of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco are expected to remain on the scene much longer, although likely on rotations of one month or less.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday there are about 45,800 National Guard troops and about 22,400 active-duty personnel participating in recovery operations in Mississippi and Louisiana, plus about 1,900 Reserves.

And in another article:

NEW ORLEANS � Combat operations are underway on the streets �to take this city back� in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

�This place is going to look like Little Somalia,� Brig. Gen. Gary Jones, commander of the Louisiana National Guard�s Joint Task Force told Army Times Friday as hundreds of armed troops under his charge prepared to launch a massive citywide security mission from a staging area outside the Louisiana Superdome. �We�re going to go out and take this city back. This will be a combat operation to get this city under control.�

Jones said the military first needs to establish security throughout the city.

22,000 federal troops operating alongside the ones everyone now admits were illegally grabbing guns, and they are in no way tainted by that activity? I guess I'm just not a trusting soul, but I think if the feds pay for your equipment, bring you to the scene, and use federal hardware and troops to support you, they are involved. In thise case, they were involved in illegal oppression.

 

[publius]

there are also plenty of video clips floating around showing Ron Paul saying that he believes the US will engineer a "Gulf of Tonkin"-style incident in the Middle East specifically to allow an invasion of Iran.

Recognition that the government might again repeat deceptive tactics which have worked in the past to stir up war fever is somehow wrong or crazy? I guess I'm wrong, crazy, or both, but I agree with Dr. Paul that the government might repeat the pattern of behavior we have seen in the past.

 

[deadin]

the power will go basically unused for four straight years.

Why, in Heavens name, would we want to elect a do-nothing president?

 

[budney]

Now, Budney, you know that ANYONE you don't agree with 130% is a criminal, an abuser, incompetent to hold office and a threat to America.

I'll assume you were smiling when you said that.

On a serious note, my view of politics is much simpler than that. The initiation of force is always a crime. Therefore, anyone who wants to exercise power over others is ipso facto demonstrating criminal intent. If he proceeds to exercise force over others, he becomes an actual criminal.

In short: keep your mitts to yourself. If you don't, you're a criminal.

The only recourse is to vote for someone who has an 80% chance of winning, or to vote for someone so obscure they can't possibly win as a protest.

I'd like to see Paul win, but of course he won't. A super-majority in this country are statist to such a degree that the very idea of limiting government strikes them as utterly insane. They will continue to dominate the discourse for a while yet.

--Len.

 

[budney]

Why, in Heavens name, would we want to elect a do-nothing president?

It's the next best thing to shutting down government entirely.

--Len.

 

[madmike]

Yes, Publius. Sending armed troops against thugs and gangbangers is "repression."

We should let them self-determinate their own futures.

Or maybe the NOLA police can handle it. All those who aren't stuffing plasma screens in their trunks.

 

[Titan6]

22,000 federal troops operating alongside the ones everyone now admits were illegally grabbing guns, and they are in no way tainted by that activity?

Yep. I suppose if the LA GOV had ordered the NG to shoot civilians you would blame the Army for that to even if they put a stop to it.

I guess I'm just not a trusting soul, but I think if the feds pay for your equipment, bring you to the scene, and use federal hardware and troops to support you, they are involved. In thise case, they were involved in illegal oppression.

I guess if I lend you a gun to protect yourself and you go rob a bank with it instead then I am accesory, depending upon the state in which you rob the bank. Still if I knew you were going to rob a bank I would not have lent you the gun in the first place.

 

[publius]

madmike, the confiscation victims I saw on videotape were a grandmother in her home and some yuppies in their yard, not gangbangers.

Titan, where did you get the idea that federal troops tried to put a stop to the confiscations? I did not hear about that.

 

[atblis]

Well

The line between Officer of the Peace and Military/Revenue Collector/Government Thug is very quickly getting blury (more than it already is ).

Anyways, I like a good part of what I here from Ron Paul. He's now on my radar (if I had to vote today, he'd get my vote). He's also now on my mother's, sister's, and grandparents radar.

 

[Titan6]

Titan, where did you get the idea that federal troops tried to put a stop to the confiscations? I did not hear about that.

All I will say is this; who is repsonsible for enforcing otherwise unenforceable Federal Court Orders? When the court order came down the state had a choice. They choose wisely for once.

I deployed to Hurricane Andrew. I saw plenty of people guarding their property and businesses with firearms from looters and no one stopped them either (I was particularly amused by the KMart where the clerks had fully utilized their sporting good section). This is how it should be and has been. No where else where Federal troops have deployed to assist in disaster relief can you point to a single unlawful weapon seizure. To point to one incident where it was clear from the statements that the police chief and mayor were making what was going on is a very dishonest arguement. If the Army was behind it then why did they not seize weapons everywhere on the gulf coast? Why did Wayne LaPierre call this an action "unprecedented in US history" when they went to a Federal court to stop it? Because it has not happened before.

 

[budney]

Titan,

I agree with you. It would be crazy to say "the Army is behind" anything; soldiers simply do what they're told. If they're told to confiscate arms in neighborhood X, they'll do it; if they're told not to, they won't. The blame lies with whoever gave the order in the first place.

--Len.

 

[HiroProX]

budney, and following illegal orders is its self a crime. The "Nuremberg defense" doesn't hold water.

 

[budney]

budney, and following illegal orders is its self a crime.

You're right. I sympathize with the poor grunts, though: if they refuse an illegal order, they'll probably be court-martialed. At least, they will if the order came from high enough up the food chain.

For a soldier to disobey an unlawful order, he must know it's unlawful--and that question alone keeps lawyers in high tax brackets. And he must be prepared to accept the consequences, including court-martial and imprisonment.

At Nuremberg, we hanged soldiers for obeying orders that they would have been shot for disobeying. That hardly justifies their obeying orders, but the poor slobs were clearly doomed either way.

--Len.

 

[budney]

On the subject of voting for someone because you think he can be elected: don't ever settle.

 

[madmike]

If the local police say "We're going to take firearms under authority of the state executive, see this state constitutional provision here," then it's not an unlawful order.

Executive power through the civil law enforcement.

I agree it is WRONG. But it is a LEGAL ORDER.

The Army can't elect to do so itself. But if the Governor or local Executive invokes their authority, they can do it.

That's why the push in several states and the federal level to outlaw such provisions.

Most states have them. Check your state Constitution. IIRC, IL's says, "Subject only to the police power, the people have the right to keep and bear arms."

Even here in IN, it did, and still may, say the governor has the authority to stop firearm sales and suspend KABA for up to 48 hours in an emergency.

 

[budney]

If the local police say "We're going to take firearms under authority of the state executive, see this state constitutional provision here," then it's not an unlawful order.

Technically it is unlawful, since it violates the Constitution. But what average soldier is going to (1) know that, and (2) decide that this is a good hill to die on?

--Len.

 

[madmike]

Technically it is unlawful, since it violates the Constitution. But what average soldier is going to (1) know that, and (2) decide that this is a good hill to die on?

Technically NOT unlawful, since SCOTUS not yet said it is an individual right.

Let's repeat a basic FACT about the US Constitution a lot of you keep missing:

The Constitution does not mean what you want it to mean. It doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean what it says. It means whatever the courts SAY it says. Article III, Section 2.

That said, I'm going to try very hard not to notice any civilian weapons, and not to be in a position where I'm given those orders, but if the Governor tells my CO that we are subordinated to a sheriff's office and he says, "Take that gun," and there is a state constitutional provision that says they can, it is a LAWFUL ORDER.

I at least will ensure a receipt is written out if possible and will keep a copy so the poor bastard gets it back afterwards.

Now, if some military officer decides on his own that he wants to take guns away from a local area, I'm going to tell him to go screw, with all due respect to his rank.

I won't follow illegal orders. But just because I think it stinks doesn't make it illegal.

I may be VERY SLOPPY about following it, however. The cops can do their own damned confiscating.

 

[Chui]

madmike, it IS UNLAWFUL - it violates the spirit of the law of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, it is LEGAL since it followed the commonly accepted "due process".

Personally, I could not follow such an order even if I was tasked with disarming a segment of society I deplored.

 

[budney]

The Constitution does not mean what you want it to mean. It doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean what it says. It means whatever the courts SAY it says. Article III, Section 2.

Enlisted men aren't trained to be Constitutional lawyers, so that amounts to saying, "The Constitution means whatever your superior officers tell you it means." In other words, all orders are lawful.

The lawfulness of an order must be judged by the soldier's conscience.

I may be VERY SLOPPY about following it, however. The cops can do their own damned confiscating.

+1. When all else fails, passive resistance is still worth something. They can make you do stuff, but they can't make you do stuff diligently.

Chui: good for you!

--Len.

 

[madmike]

"Hey, I'm looking for guns, sir. Haven't seen any have you? Good. Y'all have a good day now, y' hear?"

 

[GoSlash27]

Madmike,
Your post #169 above is the most level-headed, rational, and downright cogent statement made thus far in this thread. It sucks that it's true, but it's true.

 

[publius]

madmike,

good man, rock on.

Titan,

The presence and support of the military while NG (and maybe some of the 22,00 active duty) troops seized guns seemed to me to be the example of the use of a standing army as a tool of oppression that you were seeking. At the least, it demonstrates that the potential is there.

I'm glad it's an unprecedented event (well, sorta) in our history, and I have been happy to see the strong reactions to it in the legislative and judicial arenas. I'm not saying our standing army is or has been a major threat, but like any standing army, it could be. Let's work to make sure madmike is never given that order, because it would be illegal and socially/politcially unacceptable.

I see nothing in the Constitution which prevents the Congress from maintaining an army for as long as they want to maintain one, so long as they vote on it every two years. I don't agree with everything Dr. Paul says about the military or foreign policy, but still think he's the best choice.

 

[madmike]

And just because there are troops along for backup to cops doesn't mean they're doing the confiscating.

Do you have any idea what percentage of soldiers and especially Guardsmen own guns? Even in IL it was +90%

 

[Clint Westwood]

Isn't Ron Paul a rapper?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Contributions for Representative Paul's campaign can be made here:

https://www.ronpaul2008.com/forms/contribute.cfm