Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who ‘Will Fire on U.S. Citizens’

Let's go even further back:
18 U.S.C. § 1385 : US Code - Section 1385: Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The Navy and Marine Corps are also included under DoD regulations. The Act does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the National Guard when under control of the Governor of their State.

We also have 10 U.S.C. § 375 : US Code - Section 375: Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

Note that these are laws and that an Executive order cannot override them (not that any are attempting to).

So any order to enforce gun control laws (which is the current paranoid fear) would be unlawful anyway regardless of any firing on citizens.

The exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act are covered in the Insurrection Act:
10 U.S.C. § 331 : US Code - Section 331: Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

10 U.S.C. § 332 : US Code - Section 332: Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10 U.S.C. § 333 : US Code - Section 333: Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. - (1) The
President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard
in Federal service, to -
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that -
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that -

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
(b) Notice to Congress. - The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.

10 U.S.C. § 334 : US Code - Section 334: Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

So, can the President use the military to surpress Rebellion and Insurrection? Of course.
Can the President use the military to enforce the law? No, unless it rises to the conditions of rebellion/insurrection.
 
Are you talking about Kent State?


Hmm… Shock Claim:

by Jim Hoft
January 22, 2013


Dr. Jim Garrow, the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China, made the following claim on Facebook this week that is getting a whole lot of attention.

The Examiner reported:


On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama’s second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:


I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.​


Continue reading: ---->
Hmm? Shock Claim: Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who ?Will Fire on U.S. Citizens? | The Gateway Pundit


This comes on the heels of Sunday's report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.

The WFB article states:

“
“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Did Gen. Mattis refuse to "fire on U.S. citizens?"

Continue reading: ---->
Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens' - Virginia Beach Conservative | Examiner.com
 
You do know facts do matter the teaparty crowd


It never stops, does it? Extreme partisanship on both sides. This time, it is the idiocracy of the right wing. They are SO convinced that the very military they idolize, worship and hold Holy will somehow turn into mindless zombified killing machines to be unleashed on their own friends, families, neighbors.

Right wingers- do you REALLY have that little faith in the military?

And Im sorry to say, but there is just no way the military, US or any other, would win an occupation war with the American people. We basically lost the occupation (not the war) of Iraq, and Afghanistan isnt going much better. If we cant occupy and control a bunch of goat farmers with old AK's, then how can we do that to this nation, full of much technically smarter and heavily armed people? Add to that the compassion the troops would feel towards our people, making the killing even harder (You need to read "On Killing" by Lt. Grossman), and its a nearly impossible thought that our military would be unleashed on us.

Right wingers have more faith in what they imagine than what the physical evidence tells us. Especially when it comes to science.
 
No American in the military would fire on their own people.

Are you forgetting that we already had a Civil War?

May I remind you it was the Sothern States in favor of slavery that seceded from the Union. It was not individual Americans.
What difference does that make? The claim was that the military would not fire on their own people. Since the secession was not recognized by the US, and was a rebellion, then it was firing on their own people.

More clear cut examples?
Shay's Rebellion of 1786: 4 rebels killed by cannon fire from the State Militia.

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791: no one was shot but troops were sent. The rebels dispersed before the confrontation.

Fries' Rebellion of 1799: state militia again, I don't believe there were any injuries.

Note that these 3 were tax protestors.

Do I need to detail the Kent State shootings?

Then there was the 1992 Los Angeles Riots where President Bush sent in the military and I believe 10 people were shot and killed by police/military.

So to claim that the military would not fire on US citizens is ridiculous...ALL enemies.
 
Only if they shot at us first! :)

My son and i talked about this awhile back (he's in the Army) and he said Obama may get a few of the "liberal" soldiers to fight us, but the majority of the soldiers would not, they can't stand Obama. They would fight the Govt and not the citizens. Obama will have to start recruiting "his" citizens that would just love to kill others for their leader!!

Most people in the US Military are black and hispanic.

You need to retake math. Military Demographics FY 2011 (I couldn't find FY 2012 data) has the military at 62% White, 20% Black and 11% Hispanic.

Thanks for the demographics. I gave away too much rep already today but I wanted to thank you for disproving that poster's contention that the military was basically non white.
 
Are you forgetting that we already had a Civil War?

May I remind you it was the Sothern States in favor of slavery that seceded from the Union. It was not individual Americans.
What difference does that make? The claim was that the military would not fire on their own people. Since the secession was not recognized by the US, and was a rebellion, then it was firing on their own people.

More clear cut examples?
Shay's Rebellion of 1786: 4 rebels killed by cannon fire from the State Militia.

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791: no one was shot but troops were sent. The rebels dispersed before the confrontation.

Fries' Rebellion of 1799: state militia again, I don't believe there were any injuries.

Note that these 3 were tax protestors.

Do I need to detail the Kent State shootings?

Then there was the 1992 Los Angeles Riots where President Bush sent in the military and I believe 10 people were shot and killed by police/military.

So to claim that the military would not fire on US citizens is ridiculous...ALL enemies.

There you are describing insurgents of organized groups (i.e., mobs). Did you include Waco, or Elian Gonzales
WP%20Cuba%20Elian%20Famous%20Rescue%20Scene.jpg


240493b_540x405.jpg
 
May I remind you it was the Sothern States in favor of slavery that seceded from the Union. It was not individual Americans.
What difference does that make? The claim was that the military would not fire on their own people. Since the secession was not recognized by the US, and was a rebellion, then it was firing on their own people.

More clear cut examples?
Shay's Rebellion of 1786: 4 rebels killed by cannon fire from the State Militia.

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791: no one was shot but troops were sent. The rebels dispersed before the confrontation.

Fries' Rebellion of 1799: state militia again, I don't believe there were any injuries.

Note that these 3 were tax protestors.

Do I need to detail the Kent State shootings?

Then there was the 1992 Los Angeles Riots where President Bush sent in the military and I believe 10 people were shot and killed by police/military.

So to claim that the military would not fire on US citizens is ridiculous...ALL enemies.

There you are describing insurgents of organized groups (i.e., mobs).
And?
I missed where TruthMatters said "except in the case of organized groups." It was only said "US citizens."

And really? You're calling the LA rioters an organized group? Seriously?

Did you include Waco, or Elian Gonzales
Why would I when the military was not involved in either case?
 
Last edited:
Let's go even further back:
18 U.S.C. § 1385 : US Code - Section 1385: Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The Navy and Marine Corps are also included under DoD regulations. The Act does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the National Guard when under control of the Governor of their State.

We also have 10 U.S.C. § 375 : US Code - Section 375: Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

Note that these are laws and that an Executive order cannot override them (not that any are attempting to).

So any order to enforce gun control laws (which is the current paranoid fear) would be unlawful anyway regardless of any firing on citizens.

The exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act are covered in the Insurrection Act:
10 U.S.C. § 331 : US Code - Section 331: Federal aid for State governments


10 U.S.C. § 332 : US Code - Section 332: Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority


10 U.S.C. § 333 : US Code - Section 333: Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. - (1) The
President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard
in Federal service, to -
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that -
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that -

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
(b) Notice to Congress. - The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.

10 U.S.C. § 334 : US Code - Section 334: Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

So, can the President use the military to surpress Rebellion and Insurrection? Of course.
Can the President use the military to enforce the law? No, unless it rises to the conditions of rebellion/insurrection.

Ike sent the troops to enforce the Court's decision to integrate Little Rock. Hoover sent the troops to chase the vets out of their camps in DC. Washington sent the troop to enforce the excise tax laws.
 
Obama wanted a civillian defense force as strong, and as well funded as the military! How could someone be elected after saying something as stupid as that?

Our military will never yeild to something that unamerican!
 
I hope so since right wing nuts are planning to fire on the military.

Only if they shot at us first! :)

My son and i talked about this awhile back (he's in the Army) and he said Obama may get a few of the "liberal" soldiers to fight us, but the majority of the soldiers would not, they can't stand Obama. They would fight the Govt and not the citizens. Obama will have to start recruiting "his" citizens that would just love to kill others for their leader!!

Most people in the US Military are black and hispanic. They overwhelmingly support Obama. I was in the Marine Corps and I'm a liberal. I knew plenty of liberals who served when I was serving. I know even more liberals now who served in different branches of the military. So just rid yourself of that misconception.

None of that really matters because Obama isn't getting ready to order the military against US citizens. But go ahead and keep spouting this kind of craziness: it will get more liberals elected.

The majority of the US military is white. 74%

Demographics of Active Duty U.S. Military | Statistic Brain

A minority of the US military supported Obama. 26% according to Military Times.

Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1 - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

Semper Fi.


On edit:

I'm late with the statistics. Oops. :(
 
Last edited:
I hope so since right wing nuts are planning to fire on the military.

Only if they shot at us first! :)

My son and i talked about this awhile back (he's in the Army) and he said Obama may get a few of the "liberal" soldiers to fight us, but the majority of the soldiers would not, they can't stand Obama. They would fight the Govt and not the citizens. Obama will have to start recruiting "his" citizens that would just love to kill others for their leader!!

Most people in the US Military are black and hispanic. They overwhelmingly support Obama. I was in the Marine Corps and I'm a liberal. I knew plenty of liberals who served when I was serving. I know even more liberals now who served in different branches of the military. So just rid yourself of that misconception.

None of that really matters because Obama isn't getting ready to order the military against US citizens. But go ahead and keep spouting this kind of craziness: it will get more liberals elected.


Nothing you state in this post is true.

Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1


Economy, not military issues, tops concerns
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Oct 7, 2012 10:34:55 EDT
The professional core of the U.S. military overwhelmingly favors Mitt Romney over President Obama in the upcoming election — but not because of any particular military issues, according to a new poll of more than 3,100 active and reserve troops.


Military Times Poll: Romney bests Obama, 2-1 - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times



3E59D41279449CAB99F8C7CF54E02351.gif

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/3E59D41279449CAB99F8C7CF54E02351.gif

 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top