Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Talk to a member of the military, police, sheriffs or firefighters

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 13, 2011, 1:32 p.m. EST by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

And ask them, what would they do if given an unlawful order?

They have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. What would they do if given an order that violates it? Just get them thinking, that's all. Because at some point they are going to have to know what they would do.

Direct them to www.oathkeepers.org

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by wolf (17) 12 years ago

Yes , talk to policeman. Talk even to me Iam here: I can listen your claims and answer your questions and clear your doubts .

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

You know what they would do. They were associated with the Tea Party and I believe used as an intimidation tactic and then dropped from the public eye when they no longer served the purpose or tarnished the rep.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

The tea party does like oathkeepers, as they have re-sworn to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. But so should we like oathkeepers, because we too, want our Constitutional rights to legally protest, peaceably assemble, and preserve our other liberties. Wanting your rights is not restricted to a single movement, its something we fight too.

Looking at Portland's video feed last night, where thousands of protest supporters (whether or not they were occupy, they showed up to defend the constitutional right to protest and assemble and be heard) this time police did not engage. Perhaps some of them were meeting this question for the first time. What would you do if given an unlawful order that goes against the Constitution, that you have sworn to uphold?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

The Tea Party used the oathkeepers. They are a militia. Operative word: used.

It is not about not liking the Oathkeepers. It is the question of using intimidation tactics with back ground noise of a possible civil war. You know what they would say if someone contacted them. There is no: to get them thinking. They were thinking this before, it hasn't changed.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

They are a militia like we are a violent movement. (Media spin). They are merely servicemen and women who are confronting this question in their jobs and lives. We are merely men and women who are confronting the injustices in our jobs and lives. What the media says about other 'movements' is no more true than what they say about us.

just a way to kill protests of any kind..let the media report they suck enough and soon the masses believe it. Right now, we are lice-ridden, TB-suffering, homeless hating, hypocrite anarchists who shit everywhere, bother businesses, break windows and want to steal from other people so we dont have to work. Thats MSM for you.

Can you imagine what we'd accomplish if we realized we are all on the same 'side?' instead of the 'sides' the media pushes us into? That even though we might differ in the small points, that we really all are on The side of humanity?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

ramous, you have another agenda.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

yeah, Id like to see protests morph to action. Everyone who reads me knows I am tea party too; the similarities are greater than our differences. Don't believe me? Watch this TP video and that they are calling for Revolution. Aside from some bullet points, most here is also OWS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

And yet, the Tea Party/Republicans that were backed have done what?

They have not stood by the people. So, again, first economic instability and then blood shed?

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

Shame that you have blood on the brain, GF. Why keep trolling it up in convos that are trying to prevent bloodshed?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Ain't no shame in my game. I'm calling you out.

Your trolling the Oath Keepers every chance you get. The Tea Party has not stood by the people. What do you win?

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

Its win/win if we can move police and military to our side of the barricade. Reaching them through oathkeepers, they re-vow to their oath and refuse to violate citizens constitutional rights. Lift the anger, let go of the MSM propaganda you have been brainwashed with, and see with your eyes what that can mean for all.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

http://floridaindependent.com/55788/florida-tea-party-convention-fails-top-gop-candidates

The convention was sponsored by Freedom Works, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Craig Miller’s U.S. Senate Campaign and the Oath Keepers.

A win for whom?

You see, your story really doesn't add up. The Oath Keepers were used as an intimidation factor rather recently. A militia. There are already Oath Keepers that have been to Occupation sites. You then decided to troll the Oath Keepers as if one needed to "get them thinking".

So, why oh why, would it be necessary to bring a militia to a peaceful protest? Especially, a militia that supports the Tea Party that has obviously not changed from its political stance and is still aligned with the same groups of people. A militia that is already aware of what is going on?

What do you suppose will happen in confrontation?

Who wins if any given situation escalates?

Oh, I can see what this means for all.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

They are active servicemen and women like scott olsen, our marine poster boy. Are you saying our #occupymarines who have, in practice, strongly supported ows are just militia bent on intimidating us? #occupyarmy? That these ex-military who are in our lines are just there to break us apart? Sgt Shamar Thomas who is on video yelling at police that there was no honor in what they were doing at Occupy NY by violating our constutional rights? He's militia? These ex-military and police like #occupy_police are already standing with us. Just because someone is an ex-military or active duty military doesn't make them 'militia' and ready to kill us from behind even as they stand beside us. Do you even know what a militia is to use it like a bad word? Just like if someone like me is Mexican doesn't make me a drug runner. jesus, get over the fascist stereotypes of people, and realize we are all just PEOPLE.

mi·li·tia/məˈliSHə/ Noun:

A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities.

Ok, you're right. I guess if our ex-military like Scott olsen are engaging in protests they can be militia if you stretch the definition a bit.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

#scottOlsen #occupyMarines #occupyArmy #occupyveterans #OccupyPolice

More and more are hearing, refusing to make war on their own countrymen, or standing beside us. Lets keep trying to educate even more of them so they too, will refuse to violate our Constitutional rights.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

That is not even a decent attempt to twist my words. You don't have to stretch the definition.

No, you kick out several posts regarding getting in touch with the Oath Keepers to "get them thinking" (LIE NUMBER ONE). There are in fact, Oath Keepers that have been at the protests. There is also an article on the protests on their sites.

The Oath Keepers, are a militia, and were used as an intimidation tactic in a prior election because they are for armed civil rebellion. The Tea Party has not changed its stance. They are still aligned with the Koch Brothers, et al. and still aligned with the Oath Keepers. The ideology has not changed. So, since you are still affiliated with all of these groups and still support the Tea Party and all that they stand for:

You are full of shit.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

no, you're circling your arguments. first you say all military who might stand with us are to be avoided because they will kill us anyway, and are militia no matter what. When pressed about this, you retract and say they are not militia. So good, now you are getting to see my point. Ex military, active military, veterans, police, they CAN stand with occupy, and they HAVE been standing with occupy and there are reports now of police who are refusing to arrest occupy protestors and refusing to participate in the police actions. That isn't 'bloodshed', that is peace and civilized behavior.
Not every vet wants to kill every protester and bloodshed is NOT imminent when we allow them to join us. Please. YOU try again. Nazis are on another board.

GirlFriday, quit trolling things just to pick a fight about things you don't know about. Ok, you hooked me, you were good, I didn't recognize you as a troll till just now. But I got your number..better late than never.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Ramous, that isn't what is happening.In fact, they are pitting people against each other. Again, who wins?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Just because someone is ex-military does not make them militia. I come from a long line of Vet's.

You know exactly what the fuck I am talking about. Try again.

[-] 2 points by lisa (425) 12 years ago

The military oath was changed. They now must say that they will obey any order from the President. They took upholding the Constituion out of it during the Bush era, when they also repealed Posse Commitatus. (part of Bush's thousand points of light great ideas along with the Patriot Act).

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

You're right they added the bit about the president, but they did not take out the first and foremost; protecting and defending the Constitution. All of the branches of service and all forms of peace officer provide means for refusing to obey an unlawful order.

[-] 2 points by lisa (425) 12 years ago

How many can comply with that? Example, liquid phosphorus (Slick Willie) was used in Iraq, even though it had been banned many years prior. Would any of the pilots have been able to refuse to drop their ordinance and not face severe consequences?

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

They would have likely been courtmartialed yes. Which is a military trial to determine if they were able to refuse based upon the constitutionality of the order they refused. The Uniform Code of Military Justice require the obedience of LAWFUL orders but prohibits obeying an unlawful order. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. Even so, it is really difficult to demand a military person disobey an order to conduct a warrantless search or confiscate food from an American citizen. But we can ask them what they would do, to get them thinking about integrity, not instructions.

[-] 2 points by lisa (425) 12 years ago

But their training teaches them to follow orders and not to think, because they don't have time to think in war, they have to act and react while their superiors decide the best way to achieve the objectives where they are depending on what is going on and what happens.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

Right. Which is why the time to get them thinking is before something comes up. Like, now. It is very hard to get someone who has been trained to react, to think instead.

[-] 2 points by lisa (425) 12 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by test7 (1) 12 years ago

These books are banned in the USA

books on non violent resistance

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{[ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{. http://youtu.be/6vpdheFXGQs {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{[[ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{[[ {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

[-] 1 points by anony1 (50) 12 years ago

Dude! You were trespassing on property you dont own, you were stealing, you were making some big noise with a drum...the police arrested you. That was not unlawful, get over it and get back to smokin that weed.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

The attempted 'Nuremburg defense/'I was just following orders' is not a defense, and US military personnel who have followed unlawful orders have been convicted.
e.g., courtmartial of William Calley and United states vs Keenan, both tried the 'I was just following orders' defense. Both found guilty.
Soldiers in the Abu Grahib scandal attempted the 'Nuremburg' defense.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 12 years ago

It is crazy those soldiers where held accountable but and not the people giving the orders

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

The Nuremburg defense 'I was just following orders' goes back to nazi germany war crimes trials-- in that some things --even if you get an order to do them - are obviously incredibly wrong to do and you have a responsibility to disobey that kind of order.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 12 years ago

Yes i understand that ... but why where our soldiers held accountably for torture and not the commanders and politicians that ordered the torture

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

I made no mention of Occupy. I did mention how this was done during Hurricane Katrina; armed police and military going door to door and searching without warrants (4th amendment) and confiscating all weapons (2nd amendment) and held people in N.O. without allowing them to leave either the superdome or the city using military roadblocks (5th amendment) and forcing people to go back to the superdome where they had no food, water, or care or sanitation, and try to survive among the dead bodies. Don't say it won't happen here, because it already has, and not in relation to Occupy.

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 12 years ago

Your link is not working.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

fixed the link. thanks!

[-] 1 points by justaguy (91) 12 years ago

oathkeepers.org

This is a great organization that everyone should take a look at and support!

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

And all the organization is asking anyone to do, is remember the oath they swore if there comes a time they are asked to break it.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

They followed unlawful orders during Katrina and G20. Many of them said 'not again, not on my watch.' www.oathkeepers.com

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
[-] 0 points by Redmist11b (17) from Montauk, NY 12 years ago

Member of the Oathkeepers here!

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

Thank you Redmist. From the bottom of my American heart. People, if you don't know what an Oathkeeper is, they re-vow to uphold the Constitution and take an oath where they refuse to violate it. Which means they will not be making war on their own countrymen.

Maybe because Im Mexican I can see clearer what the POTENTIAL for a government to use its army against its own people. You know, other countries don't have the protection of Posse Comitatus, or the Constitution. Just fighting to keep what we got because its the last place you can find freedom, even if its shrinking daily.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 12 years ago

Play polka music over loud speakers. That will drive them away.