“Subject to and under the authority of Presidential Security Directive 9999 (or whatever), you are ordered to be detained for investigation relating to activities deemed dangerous to the national security.”
Are any of us likely to hear this utterance reminiscent of Nazi Germany or soviet Russia? Who knows? Posse Comitatus forbids the use of the military on US soil to enforce civilian law. Of course Posse Comitatus is a fragile thing at best. There are already God knows how many Executive Orders that provide for the suspension of Posse Comitatus in times of national emergency. How safe are we?
None of the previous Presidents seemed to want or desire to take that last fatal step into tyranny and oppression of the masses. It seemed a very remote possibility. Until now…
I am not a conspiracy nut nor do I spend much time dwelling on the hundreds of FEMA detention centers around the country. There may well be some nefarious purpose for them, but as yet, there doesn’t seem to be any way of actually implementing the process of rounding up “enemies of the state.” The military is something of an enigma. It is hard to say how many officers and soldiers would simply refuse to obey an order to detain or , heaven forbid, fire on American citizens.
When men and women join the military service they are required to take an oath. That oath is as follows:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly 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 over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
On the surface this is pretty cut and dried, but let’s look at it more closely. The new soldier swears (or affirms) to support and defend the Constitution, not the President or the Governor, or anybody else… just the Constitution. He or she further swears (or affirms) to bear true faith and allegiance to that same Constitution. Then things get dicey. They further swear (or affirm) that they will obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them.. Yet, this phrase is not as simplistic as one would first surmise. There are qualifiers for that obedience. The orders will be followed according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Here things get more interesting. The UCMJ requires uncompromising obedience to all lawful orders whether from the President or some other official or ones officers. The penalties for disobeying a lawful order are swift, and in time of war, life threatening. A soldier can literally be executed for disobeying a direct order …. a direct lawful order. Additionally, a soldier is required by that same UCMJ to disobey an unlawful order. Wow! Pretty heady stuff! Now it comes down to what constitutes a lawful order. Disobeying any order can place a solders well-being at peril. The definition of what makes an order lawful or unlawful lies not with the soldier or good conscience or public opinion, but with the whims of the military court deciding the issue. Talk about subjective truths. The soldier is literally in the hands of a group of officers who may or may not be in a generous and forgiving mood.
This is scary for most military men and women. Some few could care less. They will do whatever they are told and let someone else deal with the consequences. How many times have soldiers in trouble used the old “ I was just following orders?” This is not, however, a defense. Just ask Lt Calley. None the less, this attitude does exist in the military and it is troublesome. Thankfully, most of the men and women in the military have some sense of what is right or wrong. Will that sense override their oath to obey their President and officers? Interesting question. I think in the clutch it will. Having been in the military, and coming from a military family, I believe that the men and women we trust our very lives and freedom to will rise to the occasion.
BUT…..
During the 2008 campaign in Colorado, our goofy President made the following statement: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
WHAT? Does this bother anyone other than myself? What exactly is the One proposing here? It would seem that he is painfully aware of what we have been discussing here. The military would probably balk at anything like violating Posse Comitatus. So how is an ambitious President going to rein in those pesky activist citizens that oppose his benign “rule”? Well, let’s see. Hitler and Stalin had a similar problem. They solved it by creating the largest most oppressive “civilian security force” in history. Uh wait. Isn’t that what Obamaroo is suggesting? So, if you can’t rely on the military to do your dirty deeds, you create a civilian security force that is bigger than the military, better equipped, better funded, and wholly answerable to the President alone.
What are the chances of this happening? Slim and none? Maybe not. Under the present regime, it is possible. Reid and Pelosi would probably go along as would most of the Democratic tiddlywinks and the RINOs in the house and senate. It would take some doing but it could be done. After the elections of 2010 it becomes very unlikely. So what can we expect in the near future? Who knows, but I shall be watching very closely.
Comments