First of all, this is not without precedent. Look up Kent State, assuming you think the National Guard is the same as an American soldier, which, of course, it is. And it's not as far-fetched as people might think. In the case of massive riots, I could well picture the National Guard being called in -- even the Army being called in -- if civil unrest got really, really bad.
I would hope that American soldiers would obey orders to quell violence in a big city, as an example. Or, a massive organized assault on the White House, as another. If they had to shoot their guns to quell it? So be it.
To think that American soldiers would never fire on American citizens is kind of silly. If the need arises, they would and should.
The rather scarey thing about it is that I'm not entirely confident that our soldiers would be told the truth.
What about fighting against an increasingly tyrannical government, God forbid? If it were alright to shoot them, then those thinking it would be alright would be the enemies of American patriotism.
Martial law does not mean all civilians are fair game to be shot. No, I never heard of the Civil War.
No one said it was. However, if the command gives the order to shoot on sight anyone out after curfew, it is indeed a legal order (under Martial Law).
Not really. I'd question it to higher. It sounds ridiculous. The Lt. can hold the post until I get back with chain of command's answer. A good friend from another company was sent to Hurricane Andrew security. They were not told anything of the sort.
What you say has nothing to do with the legality of the order. All you did was to confirm the order. The order to shoot to kill is perfectly legal under martial law. Doesn't make it right, or even the goto move for command. But legal, yes.
Depends on the threat. An order to shoot must consider context and be legal therein. The unnecessary use of lethal force is not legal.
Martial law or normal law doesn't matter. The unnecessary use of lethal force is not a legal order. Shooting on sight after curfew would be unnecessary use of lethal force, given the slightest resources and an objective.
The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land.
If any buttwipes tried to use violence take over the elected government of the American people, they deserve what they get. And if that means being shot down like rabid gods in the streets - so be it.
No one said it was. However, if the command gives the order to shoot on sight anyone out after curfew, it is indeed a legal order (under Martial Law).
After looking into this I have not faound anything about "shoot on sight" orders. Only indefinte detention in order 1021. Show some links with some evidence.
Martial law and San Francisco were no strangers - following the earthquake of 1906, the troops stationed in the Presidio were pressed into martial law service. Guards were posted throughout the city, and all dynamite was confiscated. The dynamite was used to destroy buildings in the path of fires, to prevent the fires from spreading. Troops were ordered to shoot looters.
I would follow Gunnery Protocol.This thread topic stems from the conversations gathered in the thread at the bottom of this post.
Basically it's about civillians taking up arms against the government should the government start becoming tyrannical.
Somewhere along the way in that thread, it was mentiond that the U.S. military could squash any sort of rebellion. Mow them down.
So I gots a question. If God forbid you're a soldier and you're ever ordered by your leaders to shoot fellow Americans, would you?
Likewise, if you were a soldier, or even if you're a civillians, if you were given that sort of order as a soldier, what would you do?
I'm asking this question 'cause I want to have some sense of security, knowing that our American soldiers won't be turned against us.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/138913-guns-revolution-not-real-real.html#post1061002943
We weren't talking about whether this has happened, but if it would be a legal order when under federal martial law.
But hey, what do you know, found one:
Your original assertion was incorrect, why go to these lengths to dodge that?
My original assertion is that Martial Law does not fundamentally effect the rules of engagement.
Marial law does not render firing on a civilian a legal order. If someone is trying to shoot me, no one needs to tell me to engage.
There are no rules of engagement regarding civilians. You have to be an enemy combatant or enemy solder for the rules of engagement to apply.My original assertion is that Martial Law does not fundamentally effect the rules of engagement.
Understandable. I'm meaning if there was ever a revolution/rebellion against an increasingly tyrannical government. If it were something like American terrorists attacking government buildings/whatever, it'd make sense for troops to combat them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?