Shocking new litmus test for military leaders?

[Gatormb]

"Will you fire on American citizens?"

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

“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,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-...n-us-citizens/

Tell me it ain't so!

[oragator1]

nm, wrong site.

[secgator]

If a military leader were over ordered to do so--I would hope they would turn and fire on those who gives the order. And continue to do so right on up the ladder.

And we all know where the buck stops don't we.

[rivergator]

This is all it takes to start this crap anymore: Second hand anonymous claim posted on a nutjob website. And pretty soon, rightwingers everywhere are claiming it's true.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

This is all it takes to start this crap anymore: Second hand anonymous claim posted on a nutjob website. And pretty soon, rightwingers everywhere are claiming it's true.

Unlike a certain coal mine story this topic may have some legs

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.

So, who is the source?

Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.

Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

http://www.examiner.com/article/shoc...n-u-s-citizens

Is Garrow a nut job?

[oragator1]

Garrow is a self described hard right wing christian, but not a nut job as far as I can tell.

I would still assume it's bogus, for the simple reason that if this were being asked we would hear about it from multitudes of people, but I can see a way it would be asked in context...take the example of the American citizen we killed overseas in a drone strike, some may object to that. It would be a fair question as to whether someone would order that strike in a similar circumstance.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Unlike a certain coal mine story this topic may have some legs

http://www.examiner.com/article/shoc...n-u-s-citizens

Is Garrow a nut job?

I don't know if he's a nut job or not. But let's see what we've got:

1. The only person saying it is someone most of us have never heard of. Is this guy now our go-to source for news about the military.
2. He's quoting some anonymous person. We have no clue who he is, if he knows anything about it, if he said it or if he even exists..
3. You have no confirmation from anyone. We have about 3 million active and reserve military personnel. None has said anything about this.
4. No reputable news source is reporting.

You figure that's pretty solid? What's next, "Fred Sanford says ....."

[uftaipan]

I'm not seeing the big deal here. The Constitution gives the Congress and President authority to use the military to suppress insurrections (Article I, Section 7 & Article II, Section 2, respectively). The Insurrection Act of 1807 (amended many times since) provides more detail on the circumstances in which Presidents may use the armed forces of the United States to put down rebellion, insurrection, and lawlessness in the event local authorities are not sufficient (see Los Angeles, 1992). Further, all service personnel take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, meaning U.S. citizens as necessary.

So, for starters, I don't understand why it would be necessary (if true) to secure a promise on something already sworn to. Second, I don't understand, given the history of this republic, why some would act like their consciences are shocked by the idea that U.S. citizens could be legitimate enemies. Those responsible for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were enemies. Those who took up arms against the Union during the Civil War were enemies. The Communist terrorists of the early 1920s were enemies. And, again, so were the people in Los Angeles who burned and looted others' property, who shot firefighters, and who pulled innocent bystanders from their cars and beat them half to death. I think you would expect me to fire on folks like that if all other options had been exhausted.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by uftaipan

So, for starters, I don't understand why it would be necessary (if true) to secure a promise on something already sworn to. Second, I don't understand, given the history of this republic, why some would act like their consciences are shocked by the idea that U.S. citizens could be legitimate enemies. Those responsible for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were enemies. Those who took up arms against the Union during the Civil War were enemies. The Communist terrorists of the early 1920s were enemies. And, again, so were the people in Los Angeles who burned and looted others' property, who shot firefighters, and who pulled innocent bystanders from their cars and beat them half to death. I think you would expect me to fire on folks like that if all other options had been exhausted.

Don't forget to include those who took up arms against the central government in 1775. I know the typical response would be that "it wasn't the U.S." but let's not forget that the U.S. (as a distinct entity) was essentially founded by rebels.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by uftaipan

So, for starters, I don't understand why it would be necessary (if true) to secure a promise on something already sworn to. Second, I don't understand, given the history of this republic, why some would act like their consciences are shocked by the idea that U.S. citizens could be legitimate enemies. Those responsible for Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were enemies. Those who took up arms against the Union during the Civil War were enemies. The Communist terrorists of the early 1920s were enemies. And, again, so were the people in Los Angeles who burned and looted others' property, who shot firefighters, and who pulled innocent bystanders from their cars and beat them half to death. I think you would expect me to fire on folks like that if all other options had been exhausted.

What's interesting about this paragraph is how easily it could have been something a proud Nazi German soldier would say. All those who stood opposed to and resisted the Nazis, both inside and outside of Germany, were also considered "enemies". It didn't matter if their cause was just or not, they were still nothing more than "enemies" to be liquidated, and Nazi German laws allowed for just that.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Don't forget to include those who took up arms against the central government in 1775. I know the typical response would be that "it wasn't the U.S." but let's not forget that the U.S. (as a distinct entity) was essentially founded by rebels.

Good point. The United States was forged by the spirit of insurrection. What's now considered the "enemy" is what made this country possible in the first place.

[Minister_of_Information]

If the op is to be believed, what is shocking is not that US soldiers might fire on civilians under certain circumstances, it is the emphasis placed on the potential for insurrection by the Obama administration and the need to screen the senior military leadership for loyalty (implying that a military coup is a possible outcome otherwise). Now I don't find any of that particularly credible, but if it was that is what would shock me.

[uftaipan]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

If the op is to be believed, what is shocking is not that US soldiers might fire on civilians under certain circumstances, it is the emphasis placed on the potential for insurrection by the Obama administration and the need to screen the senior military leadership for loyalty (implying that a military coup is a possible outcome otherwise). Now I don't find any of that particularly credible, but if it was that is what would shock me.

Okay, I'll buy that.

[HALLGATOR]

I doubt Obama is interviewing each one of our military leaders personally so who is responsible for asking these questions?

[uftaipan]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Don't forget to include those who took up arms against the central government in 1775. I know the typical response would be that "it wasn't the U.S." but let's not forget that the U.S. (as a distinct entity) was essentially founded by rebels.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Of course, that is consistent with the key mitigating circumstance for all rebellions: Don't do it unless you can win.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

I doubt Obama is interviewing each one of our military leaders personally so who is responsible for asking these questions?

I don't know. Someone did say it on the Internet, and you know that makes it true.

[GatorSaint]

....Bonjour!

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You figure that's pretty solid? What's next, "Fred Sanford says ....."

Where did you get that I said "pretty solid"?'

I said the story may have legs?

That is no where solid.

Either your reading comprehension sucks or you are making up crap again. Which one is it?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Where did you get that I said "pretty solid"?'

I said the story may have legs?

That is no where solid.

Either your reading comprehension sucks or you are making up crap again. Which one is it?

why would it have some legs? just because some guy you never heard of who has no connection with the military said some anonymous person told him?

[bluelang]

Which people exactly is Obama interviewing? He only has oversight of a few key positions, and he has a fairly busy schedule. Has he had the secdef swear an oath to shoot Americans?