At Least 7 Dead, 20 Wounded in Shootings at Ft. Hood in Texas - Page 3

**Kronos1965** · 11-06-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

That sounds familiar, we were getting ready to deploy to Somalia, and they told us we were not allowed to shoot even if fired upon unless orders were given we could. I told my sergeant to go ahead and put me in jail because I was shooting back regardless of orders. Would rather be in jail in Germany than jail in Somalia, because there was no way in hell I would not shoot back.

A little disobedience to the Constitution and your Oath eh?

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

A little disobedience to the Constitution and your Oath eh?

No, where in the constitution does it say I should be guarding helicopters unarmed? Huh, where, the constitution does not restrict us the people in any way shape or form.

Besides where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to fight wars for other nations?

Pops · 11-06-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

A little disobedience to the Constitution and your Oath eh?

Discussing orders with your CO isn't unconstitutional or against the Oath. Sometimes that's what gets the orders changed.

Papa_D · 11-06-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

No, where in the constitution does it say I should be guarding helicopters unarmed? Huh, where, the constitution does not restrict us the people in any way shape or form.

Besides where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to fight wars for other nations?

Some folks have made a serious habit out of stabbing in the dark and imagining that refusing to guard a helicopter when they won't properly arm you for the task or even allow you to defend your right to life during the normal course of your duties is somehow unconstitutional is a pathetic grasp at straws to say the least.

It would be a bit different if they had no ammunition to give you because they ran out and supplied you with a pointed stick instead because that's all they had, but clearly that's not the case and you were far more expendable to them than any soldier should ever be expected to tolerate.

**Kronos1965** · 11-06-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

No, where in the constitution does it say I should be guarding helicopters unarmed?

Guarding should be with ammunition and an ability to defend oneself as opposed to mistaken belief that by sheer presence, it is a deterrent.

It didn't work so well in Beirut and I would have thought we'd learn our lessons but we didn't apparently so in that I agree with you that to guard = armed and able to respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

Huh, where, the constitution does not restrict us the people in any way shape or form.

Besides where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to fight wars for other nations?

As to your Oath, you are asked to obey...
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office

An Officer gives you an order that is lawful, you are to obey it.
The Constitution does not give you free reign to disobey it.

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops

Discussing orders with your CO isn't unconstitutional or against the Oath. Sometimes that's what gets the orders changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa_D

Some folks have made a serious habit out of stabbing in the dark and imagining that refusing to guard a helicopter when they won't properly arm you for the task or even allow you to defend your right to life during the normal course of your duties is somehow unconstitutional is a pathetic grasp at straws to say the least.

It would be a bit different if they had no ammunition to give you because they ran out and supplied you with a pointed stick instead because that's all they had, but clearly that's not the case and you were far more expendable to them than any soldier should ever be expected to tolerate.

Yes I think it violates my constitutional right to life to allow other to fire at me without firing back. So I consider it a illegal order.

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

Guarding should be with ammunition and an ability to defend oneself as opposed to mistaken belief that by sheer presence, it is a deterrent.

It didn't work so well in Beirut and I would have thought we'd learn our lessons but we didn't apparently so in that I agree with you that to guard = armed and able to respond.

As to your Oath, you are asked to obey...
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office

An Officer gives you an order that is lawful, you are to obey it.
The Constitution does not give you free reign to disobey it.

How is that a lawful order. Ordering someone to die is not a lawful order.

I have a right to defend myself, and his order is in direct conflict with my constitutional right to life. And the constitution supersedes his order. I am no one's b8tch, I think for myself, and I do what I think is right no matter who orders me. I am a free man, and will remain that way till I die.

**Kronos1965** · 11-06-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops

Discussing orders with your CO isn't unconstitutional or against the Oath. Sometimes that's what gets the orders changed.

However, he wasn't discussing them was he?

He was stating to throw him jail because he didn't want to go guard unarmed isn't his call to make...

**Kronos1965** · 11-06-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

How is that a lawful order. Ordering someone to die is not a lawful order.

I have a right to defend myself, and his order is in direct conflict with my constitutional right to life. And the constitution supersedes his order. I am no one's b8tch, I think for myself, and I do what I think is right no matter who orders me. I am a free man, and will remain that way till I die.

How do you reconcile going to into the Service and into War then?

By definition, you are going into harm's way how they tell you to go.

You have free will but you signed up stating you will follow orders and do your job how you are told to do it...like it or not.

Free will allows you for example to grow your hair long so that you can donate it for a worthy cause.

The company that hires you can determine if they want to keep you on with long hair.

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

However, he wasn't discussing them was he?

He was stating to throw him jail because he didn't want to go guard unarmed isn't his call to make...

Yes it is my call to make. No different than if he had ordered me to shoot an unarmed man. By not allowing me to defend myself he violated my right to life. Maybe you should learn more about unlawful orders.

**Kronos1965** · 11-06-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helomech

Yes it is my call to make. No different than if he had ordered me to shoot an unarmed man. By not allowing me to defend myself he violated my right to life. Maybe you should learn more about unlawful orders.

That would be up to your lawyer and the courts to decide if it came to that.

But I did watch "A Few Good Men" so that seemed to help out a lot...

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

How do you reconcile going to into the Service and into War then?

By definition, you are going into harm's way how they tell you to go.

You have free will but you signed up stating you will follow orders and do your job how you are told to do it...like it or not.

Free will allows you for example to grow your hair long so that you can donate it for a worthy cause.

The company that hires you can determine if they want to keep you on with long hair.

I have no problem with going to war and being in harms way. My problem arises when I am not allowed to defend my self, which is my right to do.

I would do what I am told, right up until it violates my rights, which is illegal.

Free will allows me to do what I want if I am willing to pay the consequences, and I am ready to pay the consequences.

And I am still growing my hair, and still employed. If that changes than we will see what a court says. If I am being fired for being a male that is illegal, women in my job can have long hair. The only difference is I am a male.

How did we get to this hair thing anyways? Are you trying to change the subject?

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

That would be up to your lawyer and the courts to decide if it came to that.

But I did watch "A Few Good Men" so that seemed to help out a lot...

Yes it would, and that is fine. But no man is going to tell me to sit there while my life is in danger. Won't happen, and if that man thinks he is man enough let him try to make me do it.

Pops · 11-06-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

However, he wasn't discussing them was he?

He was stating to throw him jail because he didn't want to go guard unarmed isn't his call to make...

There were no actions taken so yes it was a discussion. Telling your CO that you're gonna bury yourself in a hole is also just a discussion until you actually start digging. Following orders is always a soldier's "call to make" just as deciding to face the consequences is also his call to make. There are always consequences for disobeying orders.

I've heard people talk about disobeying a stupid order and taking it up with a Senior Officer and the Sr Officer busting down and repremending the CO. Questioning a CO's orders is not unconstitutional or against the Oath. It's any soldier's right to take it up with a higher authority when time permits. There are also more times than not that time is critical and the orders need to be executed before a Sr Officer can be contacted. There are usually protocols for such events.

If a CO orders a soldier to illegally kill a hostage and the soldier follows that order, then who gets in trouble when the SR Officers find out that an illegal action was taken??? It all depends on the results of the internal investigation so each situation is unique. So should the soldier follow the CO's order w/o question or bring it up with another CO first??

The answers are endless because of being situationally unique. As long as a soldier is following protocol, he is within his legal rights, regardless if it's questioning particular orders from a CO or not.

Anyway, you'll likely find a way to twist it like a pretzel rather than reason it out so I'll just leave it at that.

**helomech** · 11-06-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pops

There were no actions taken so yes it was a discussion. Telling your CO that you're gonna bury yourself in a hole is also just a discussion until you actually start digging. Following orders is always a soldier's "call to make" just as deciding to face the consequences is also his call to make. There are always consequences for disobeying orders.

I've heard people talk about disobeying a stupid order and taking it up with a Senior Officer and the Sr Officer busting down and repremending the CO. Questioning a CO's orders is not unconstitutional or against the Oath. It's any soldier's right to take it up with a higher authority when time permits. There are also more times than not that time is critical and the orders need to be executed before a Sr Officer can be contacted. There are usually protocols for such events.

If a CO orders a soldier to illegally kill a hostage and the soldier follows that order, then who gets in trouble when the SR Officers find out that an illegal action was taken??? It all depends on the results of the internal investigation so each situation is unique. So should the soldier follow the CO's order w/o question or bring it up with another CO first??

The answers are endless because of being situationally unique. As long as a soldier is following protocol, he is within his legal rights, regardless if it's questioning particular orders from a CO or not.

Anyway, you'll likely find a way to twist it like a pretzel rather than reason it out so I'll just leave it at that.

You are much better at putting thoughts into words than I am. Dang near exactly what I was thinking. Thanks.