Common Misconception

[WNxKenwayy]

"I know about the Posse Comitatus Act, but then what was the National Guard doing in New Orleans during Katrina, taking guns and patrolling the streets? Exception to the rule because of an emergency? The same could apply to millions of people illegally crossing the border. So is it ok to use them as police in a Hurricane but not protecting the border from an invasion?

What does being called a child killer have to do with me? Because you are willing to PERSONALLY die for people who talk crap to you? Did you swear an oath to die for people? Or to protect this nations constitution? It really doesn't matter which because either way it's being twisted."

Posse comitatus, contrary to the VERY popular belief, has nothing to do with what happened in Katrina. The 'act' if you will, is federal, as such it only applies to Federal troops. The National Guard...sorry the Louisianian National Guard, is under the control of the governor of Louisiana, at the time Gov. Kathleen Blanco. She sent in her troops, hence why it was a legal deployment. Deploying federal troops, such as units of the 18th Airborne Corps. to guard our borders within a sovereign state of our union however, would be very illegal without the authorization of Congress. This is also why states can deploy there own Nation Guard troops to their own borders, or accept other states national guard units as well, if agreed upon.

Now, another huge misconception is that a states national guard is a 'militia'. Being that it gets it's training and equipment from the federal government, right there nullifies it. Add to that the fact that state Nation Guards can be federalized, thus making them deployable, further negates the argument. This common misconception often times comes into play when discussing the 2nd amendment.

The seizing of personally owned firearms during Katrina has to be proved illegal at the time it happened. Soldiers are required, by law and oath, to disobey unlawful orders. At the time, there was no reasonable way to know whether it was legal or not. Now, I 100% disagree with the decision, and if put in the same place would not have obeyed the order, and would have faced the consequences of such an action, but it's not enough of a black/white situation that has easily identifiable legalities for a soldier to disobey the order.

Yes every service member swears to defend the Constitution, not the President, not congress, not any governmental organization. Very large misconception in our country, and it's not well known as you implied. However, the Constitution, as defined by the Preamble, is 'We the people' meaning that the Constitution is literally of the people, so any oath to defend the Constitution brings with it the responsibility to also defend 'We the people'. A very very very very little known fact.

That does not mean I swore an oath to die 'for people'. I swore an oath to, if required, sacrifice my life to save 'We the people'. Seeing as me being where I am now creates a buffer between those that wish 'We the people' harm, I'm right where I should be.

What does being called a child killer have to do with this? Simple. It shows that often enough, when someone is protesting the armed forces, or holds them in low regard as you do, when you are face to face looking each other in the eye, there are other ways besides screaming and name calling to convince the other people. Telling someone with complete conviction that I am willing to give my life to protect theirs, offers little possibilities in rebuttal's.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

I think the PC movement and simple strategy has muzzled many of those who would cry "baby-killer".
I think that very same attitude we all know and love from the sixties is alive and well but PC has taught people to conceal their opinions and only use code words so as not to inflame the general public.
One of those code phrases is " I support the troops, not the war".

I don't want people calling soldiers baby-killers but I would like to see the left stand up a little more and be forthright in their objections to the war and the conduct within it.

I think we will hear from them in September/October when it becomes clear that the "anti-war" candidate will simply be following the plan that is already in place with no significant changes.

Then "we, the people" will speak out loud for a short time and hopefully be silenced by the majority of "we, the people" who truly do support the military and their efforts to keep us safe from harm.

[[R-MOD]dunehunter]

Ehm...could the people here who aren't from the US (we do exist) get some context on this?

[[R-DEV]bosco]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]dunehunter

Ehm...could the people here who aren't from the US (we do exist) get some context on this?

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f21-...g-wimps-2.html

See Scarface's post on the bottom.

[SethLive!]

Originally Posted by WNxKenwayy

Very large misconception in our country, and it's not well known as you implied. However, the Constitution, as defined by the Preamble, is 'We the people' meaning that the Constitution is literally of the people, so any oath to defend the Constitution brings with it the responsibility to also defend 'We the people'. A very very very very little known fact.

That does not mean I swore an oath to die 'for people'. I swore an oath to, if required, sacrifice my life to save 'We the people'. Seeing as me being where I am now creates a buffer between those that wish 'We the people' harm, I'm right where I should be.

QFT

Thank you for serving our country sir.

At least some Americans have respect for you.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Originally Posted by WNxKenwayy

Posse comitatus, contrary to the VERY popular belief, has nothing to do with what happened in Katrina. The 'act' if you will, is federal, as such it only applies to Federal troops. The National Guard...sorry the Louisianian National Guard, is under the control of the governor of Louisiana, at the time Gov. Kathleen Blanco. She sent in her troops, hence why it was a legal deployment. Deploying federal troops, such as units of the 18th Airborne Corps. to guard our borders within a sovereign state of our union however, would be very illegal without the authorization of Congress. This is also why states can deploy there own Nation Guard troops to their own borders, or accept other states national guard units as well, if agreed upon.

How much of the National Guards of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are deployed outside the US? If I understand correctly all these states could post troops at the border by order of the state governors and not violate the act? It would seem the border states could put troops on the US MEX border, but no doubt there are all kinds of things and people that would prevent that. Thanks for the clarification.

[Defiyur]

What I resent is this holier than thou attitude many who served have. Here's the deal: Whatever reasons you think you are serving for be they real or just believed to be real I don't care. But the bottom line is those who serve CHOSE to. Just like other people CHOSE to do what they do. Do you see corn farmers going "yeah why don't you give me some respect I make sure food reaches your table". If people agree with what the farmer does and like corn then they'll show their appreciation, if not well...

War is largely seen by many to be optional & not necessary so how can some expect support for war knowing this fact? I don't "hate" the troops I "hate" war. Why is it only those directly in mortal combat who think they have the right to shutdown anybody who disagrees with what's going on in the world? Those who serve have the right to feel proud in what they do but do not have the right to guilt trip others into going along with THEIR CHOICE! Everybody makes choices and nobody should expect godlike praise from people who disagree with the basis for a certain war. You make choices, you accept the consequences of your choices. It's very simple.

My grandfather was a merchant marine in WW2 and had a ship in his convoy get blown to shit by German subs...it could have been his ship. My dad almost got gun boat river patrol in Vietnam but instead got in the coast guard in the Atlantic often in raging storms (80ft seas) rescuing people all over and doing other duties that CG performs. They made THEIR choices. People have to understand that some people let their rage get the better of them and saying thing such as "child killer" etc is often just their misplaced rage at the situation and soldiers being easy targets. People should realize that and not take it too personal. But coming back at them with the holier than thou attitude is also not acceptable IMO.

[Morgan]

Soldiers may sign a contract saying they are willing to fight, however they themselves are not responsible for the circumstances under which they go to war. Just because you do not agree with a war doesn't mean you have the right to treat soldiers like shit. They do a pretty hard job, and will encounter situations civilians would never be involved in that can be both mentally and phsyically damaging so why, just because you don't believe in the war, should you be allowed to abuse them?

[SiN|ScarFace]

Who is calling for or condoning the abuse of troops? No one in this thread. Reading comprehension is lacking on this forum.

[[R-PUB]Viper5]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

Who is calling for or condoning the abuse of troops? No one in this thread. Reading comprehension is lacking on this forum.

*Points to Sig*

Out of curiosity, if soldiers believe it is an illegal war, where does the ability to refuse an unlawful order come in? I wonder if anyone could defend themselves that way. Granted they'd prolly get the shit kicked out of them, but still.