TeamNelson if what you say is true, how do you explain this. Especially from 5.30 minutes to 6.25 minutes into the video, where a armed national guard man admitted they shot Americans. In the beginning of the video an eye witness said Blackwater was there before FEMA? Why were Israeli solders there?
LF, in the absence of corroborating evidence to this video, we'd have to assume that this video is truth, and the substantial pile of records generated by non-governmental organizations and federal record is false. But for the purpose of your question ...
- "Armed National Guard man." The National Guard is not Title 10, not Active Duty unless individually temporarily assigned to a Title 10, is not under Federal authority otherwise. They are a state agency under the control of their respective Govenor. They are residents of the state in which they operate. They are also not subject to the rigorous training provided to Title 10 folks on morals, ethics, law of war, rules of engagement, etc. The NG has a history of being a rabble of unorganized militia, lacking the discipline associated with regular troops, and prone to excesses while in uniform. They have improved their reputation through service in OIF and OEF, where they are embedded with active duty troops and subject to the same levels of training and discipline.
The fear in this thread is that a President will order Title 10, Active Duty troops, to disarm citizens. Under Title 10 we are subject to the following (in addition to Posse Comitatus):
10 U.S.C. § 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. Elsewhere in Title 10, "law" is defined as the Constitution or legislation passed by Congress. BTW, I learned all this being a Title 10 troop, in our training. I say again, no armed Active Duty Title 10 troops were employed in Katrina response. Bases affected by the disaster employed armed MPs to provide security and traffic control to the land within their base responsibility, and active duty personnel were loaned to the Army Corps of Engineers to assess and advise structural and civil works issues.
If NG troops fired on their own neighbors, since the NG is pulled from local civilian population, then they either did so under orders from the Govenor, or in violation of orders to the contrary ... the latter being most likely.
- alleged presence of Blackwater in NO.
Blackwater is not a military organization, nor has it ever operated with military authority. They are a contracting agency, servicing Defense and other Federal contracts, which very well may have included FEMA contracts, or even State contracts with Louisiana. I do know that there were dozens of private corporations who rushed to the scene before FEMA for various reasons, most of whom did so without contracts. They were opportunists hoping to carve a niche early to get $ from the government. I was involved with Katrina relief as part of operational coordination for Baptist Relief efforts, and participated in meetings with Federal and State authorities. Blackwater was never represented at those meetings, and if they were under contract, they should've been at those meetings for coordination. Beyond that, you have an eyewitness who says they were there. Kanye West claims the government slowed their response time because NO is a black town ... I don't believe that to be true either.
As far as "IF what I say is true." The fact that we defended Iraqi and Afghani right to keep and bear automatic weapons is a matter of public record. The fact that we undergo training and discipline to keep us from being the robots many here fear, is also a matter of public record. The observation by senior leadership that our present generation of troops is the least likely in history to autmatically execute orders given without reservation or thought is again, a matter of public record if you read military periodicals. What I'm saying is true. What I'm hearing in this thread is a hodge podge of ill informed mythology feeding fear.
Lloyd Smale makes a cogent argument in that in this end of the world scenario, the RULE OF LAW will break down, and constitutional controls will be irrelevant. In said scenario, my commission will have expired, and all of our oaths will no longer be valid. What individuals chose to do at that point will be entirely up to them, and there may be some who will knowingly drift to service in a future unconstitutional government attempting to exert authority. That is something else entirely than the fear expressed here.
And as also been stated in this thread, before such a thing happens there will be a civil war, and the majority of those presently in uniform will stand with the citizens in opposition to an unconstitutional tyrant. The same conflict of interest is in effect in Iraq and Afhganistan and it has divided their own troops ... I would expect our own troops, men and women I believe to be of higher moral character than any Iraqi or Afghani I've met, to be just as divided.
