Military to use lethal force against Americans??🤬

[TedKennedy]

I don't think it's a "rise up against their own people" situation. I'm more concerned about the "just following orders" type.

Yeah, you see it in other professions....

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

My statement you quoted says nothing about military personnel being deployed for law enforcement purposes. I'm just gonna ignore all that.

So if armed intruders, who are US citizens, attempt to violently breach a secure area on a military base where something like nuclear weapons are stored, in an effort to gain control over those weapons, military personnel can't use lethal force to stop them. Got it.

Some of you guys are so dogmatic you can't even use common sense.

The constitutional point I made is in the initial context of the thread. Deploying the military to quell a riot or some other civil disturbance is quite out out of the bounds of the Constitution. Any invasion upon a military base regardless of whomever perpetrates such an act would fall under the military's constitutional rules Congress shall make or have made under the power granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 14. That's neither dogma nor common sense. It's constitutional. Did'ya get it?

Our Founding Fathers were quite brilliant. I love those guys!

Woody

 

[Veritas]

The U.S. Department of Defense issued a federal directive on September 27 that allows U.S. military troops to be used to “assist” state and local law enforcement upon request, with actions up to and including “lethal force.” This is Directive 5240.01. Read it for yourself. The timing of the directive is interesting, one month before an election that is widely expected to generate chaos and civil unrest.

The Directive states on page 13:

Pentagon Issues Federal Directive Allowing Military to use ‘Lethal Force’ Against Americans as Video Resurfaces Showing Kamala Fantasizing About Weaponizing DOJ Against U.S. Citizens​

“Defense Intelligence Components may provide personnel to assist a Federal department or agency, including a Federal law enforcement agency, or a State or local law enforcement agency when lives are in danger, in response to a request for such assistance, in accordance with the following approval authorities.”

Page 13 goes on to discuss various activities, including the use of lethal force. Section C under “Secretary of Defense Approval,” states:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...n-issues-federal-directive-allowing-military/

It’s nothing new, the Patriot Act authorized the indefinite detention of US citizens on US soil. The Obama administration killed US citizens in a drone strike without trial but because it was in Yemen and the citizens murdered had funny names like “Anwar al-Awlaki” no one cared.

Then Attorney General Eric Holder even went so far as to say “Due process” doesn’t necessarily mean “judicial process”. In other words, if a couple people get together and talk in secret and decide that you are a threat that they can kill you without you ever being charged with a crime let alone having a day in court and being convicted.

We will all forget about this in a few months and collectively shrug our shoulders when the next crazy tyrannical announcement is made.

 

[bas402]

It’s nothing new, the Patriot Act authorized the indefinite detention of US citizens on US soil. The Obama administration killed US citizens in a drone strike without trial but because it was in Yemen and the citizens murdered had funny names like “Anwar al-Awlaki” no one cared.

Then Attorney General Eric Holder even went so far as to say “Due process” doesn’t necessarily mean “judicial process”. In other words, if a couple people get together and talk in secret and decide that you are a threat that they can kill you without you ever being charged with a crime let alone having a day in court and being convicted.

We will all forget about this in a few months and collectively shrug our shoulders when the next crazy tyrannical announcement is made.

Not months anymore that has been shortened to about a week, then it’s back to our sheepish attitude!

 

[Russ IT Guy]

So you can't think of any scenario where it would be acceptable, and even appropriate, for US military units to engage US citizens?

I think it's about time for our government to fear the citizens, instead of us be ran like sheep lol

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

The constitutional point I made is in the initial context of the thread. Deploying the military to quell a riot or some other civil disturbance is quite out out of the bounds of the Constitution. Any invasion upon a military base regardless of whomever perpetrates such an act would fall under the military's constitutional rules Congress shall make or have made under the power granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 14. That's neither dogma nor common sense. It's constitutional. Did'ya get it?

Our Founding Fathers were quite brilliant. I love those guys!

Woody

So then you do believe it can be appropriate for the military to fire on US citizens given the right circumstances?

And, yes, your first response was dogmatic because you said it's never appropriate.

I'm not arguing against the Constitution or the brilliance of our Founders...just making the point that words like "never" and "always" don't leave room for any other possibilities when other possibilities exist.

I think it's about time for our government to fear the citizens, instead of us be ran like sheep lol

I don't disagree. But that wasn't the question.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

OK... Let's try another scenario. One that came damn close to happening.

You have a known, hijacked airliner. The hijackers are in control of the aircraft. They're flying it towards a civilian target where, if they're successful they might kill hundreds, or even a few thousand, innocent US citizens. You know this because several other hijacked planes have already been flown into buildings. Those onboard are unable to pull off a "Flight 93" thwarting of the hijackers.

The president has USAF F16s standing by to down the aircraft.

Does he order them to fire or let things play out as they might?

My guess would be that ANG planes would be the aircraft put into play as were the first fighter planes launched on 9-11. If the hijacker's target(s) are known to be populated or strategic, I say yes, shoot them down.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So then you do believe it can be appropriate for the military to fire on US citizens given the right circumstances? Yes, but not in the original context of the thread.

And, yes, your first response was dogmatic because you said it's never appropriate. Not in the original context of the thread.

I'm not arguing against the Constitution or the brilliance of our Founders...just making the point that words like "never" and "always" don't leave room for any other possibilities when other possibilities exist. Yes, but not in the original context of the thread.


****************

Woody, in Red

 

[TerryMiller]

My guess would be that ANG planes would be the aircraft put into play as were the first fighter planes launched on 9-11. If the hijacker's target(s) are known to be populated or strategic, I say yes, shoot them down.

Woody

I'm no expert on "rules" for engagement in such a situation, but I remember reading something to the effect of one of those pilots rushing to engage Flight 93 saying that their wingman was to crash into the cockpit and that they were to crash into the tail of the flight. Doesn't sound to me like their planes were armed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm no expert on "rules" for engagement in such a situation, but I remember reading something to the effect of one of those pilots rushing to engage Flight 93 saying that their wingman was to crash into the cockpit and that they were to crash into the tail of the flight. Doesn't sound to me like their planes were armed.

They were not armed. It was a suicide mission.

Woody