UN To Investigate Plight of US Native Americans For First Time

[Abrupt]

No law or treaty or doctrine passed by the UN has anything at all to do with the US except if ratified by The Senate -- and this is another reason why it is important to elect wisely.

So, we won't be seeing any intervening "blue-helmeted" boots on U.S. ground unless the Senate ratifies it?

Not even then I don't think as I cannot image the people every tolerating that for any reason.  If it gets so bad that your hope lies in the UN, then you are pretty much done for at that point anyways. That does generate some comical mental visuals trying to depict such a thing and the reasons for and the results of.

Recalling the Kent State and certain other previous incidents brought my question to the fore. Although some would wish to see "blue helmets" from other countries interposing themselves in the U.S., I remain doubtful that such would be permitted.

I don't feel right about the use of the US military against our own in the capacity as was with the Kent State Massacre.  The military, including the Guardsmen, are technically hired killers as you would probably concur.  While they can be useful for emergency assistance, to send them in armed seems to be foolish and probably illegal.  I know that when I was in the service I attended basic at an MP school and some of the additional instruction related to 'mob' control.  The instructions were quite clear regarding looters (they didn't mention anything specifically about protests though) and that was to fire first (not in warning but to kill) and then ask for compliance as anything else increased the risk and decreased the control over the situation.

You may be aware of some rumors circulating about the military having increased its training for homeland operations in an armed and aggressive manner.  I don't know them as anything but rumors and I don't know them to be atypical of any other time in history, but the talk of Kent State did make me think of that.

[falcon9]

I don't feel right about the use of the US military against our own in the capacity as was with the Kent State Massacre.  The military, including the Guardsmen, are technically hired killers as you would probably concur.  While they can be useful for emergency assistance, to send them in armed seems to be foolish and probably illegal.  I know that when I was in the service I attended basic at an MP school and some of the additional instruction related to 'mob' control.  The instructions were quite clear regarding looters (they didn't mention anything specifically about protests though) and that was to fire first (not in warning but to kill) and then ask for compliance as anything else increased the risk and decreased the control over the situation.

If your remarks refer to The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm), then I mostly concur - even in regards to the proviso in dealing with looters. Oddly enough, my initial MOS included military police training as well and I've had to consider whether or not I'd fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians if so 'ordered'.  Would you have?

You may be aware of some rumors circulating about the military having increased its training for homeland operations in an armed and aggressive manner.  I don't know them as anything but rumors and I don't know them to be atypical of any other time in history, but the talk of Kent State did make me think of that.

Before any assumptions are made regarding 'urban warefare training', bear in mind that recent conflicts have emphasized a military need for additonal training in that respect, (and training would reflect combat needs of recent combat operations),

[Abrupt]

I don't feel right about the use of the US military against our own in the capacity as was with the Kent State Massacre.  The military, including the Guardsmen, are technically hired killers as you would probably concur.  While they can be useful for emergency assistance, to send them in armed seems to be foolish and probably illegal.  I know that when I was in the service I attended basic at an MP school and some of the additional instruction related to 'mob' control.  The instructions were quite clear regarding looters (they didn't mention anything specifically about protests though) and that was to fire first (not in warning but to kill) and then ask for compliance as anything else increased the risk and decreased the control over the situation.

If your remarks refer to The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm), then I mostly concur - even in regards to the proviso in dealing with looters. Oddly enough, my initial MOS included military police training as well and I've had to consider whether or not I'd fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians if so 'ordered'.  Would you have?

I joined when I was 17 and I must say I was terribly naive and gung-ho.  If ordered to fire then I would have without thinking or considering the action as I hadn't received any training regarding UCMJ at that time (funny how training goes in that regard isn't it?).  The 'current' me wouldn't have though and I doubt there are many soldiers that would either.

You may be aware of some rumors circulating about the military having increased its training for homeland operations in an armed and aggressive manner.  I don't know them as anything but rumors and I don't know them to be atypical of any other time in history, but the talk of Kent State did make me think of that.

Before any assumptions are made regarding 'urban warefare training', bear in mind that recent conflicts have emphasized a military need for additonal training in that respect, (and training would reflect combat needs of recent combat operations),

That much I had factored in, but the rumors part dealt with alleged questionnaires circulating regarding the use of deadly force against US civilians.  That part is probably conspiracy rumor stemming from the actual urban warfare training itself.  I have heard these rumors before, but only once to my memory.

[falcon9]

I joined when I was 17 and I must say I was terribly naive and gung-ho.  If ordered to fire then I would have without thinking or considering the action as I hadn't received any training regarding UCMJ at that time (funny how training goes in that regard isn't it?).  The 'current' me wouldn't have though and I doubt there are many soldiers that would either.

Coincidentally, I voluntarily enlisted when I was also 17, (had to get a waiver for being under 18, did you?). While I too received such training regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice as you did, for some reason, the Billy Jack movies sprang to mind when another 'boot' asked about having to follow "illegal orders".

That much I had factored in [re: Posse Comitatus Act], but the rumors part dealt with alleged questionnaires circulating regarding the use of deadly force against US civilians.  That part is probably conspiracy rumor stemming from the actual urban warfare training itself.  I have heard these rumors before, but only once to my memory.

You'd just mentioned a scenario, (looting), in which the use of deadly force by the U.S. military against U.S. citizens would be authorized.  Another such instance where it is authorized is on 'sensitive' military installations, (in the CONUS and off-shore).  Maybe it's just me however, there seems to be a none-too-subtle difference between Posse Comitatus being applied to looters and the same Act being applied to 'quell a domestic rebellion'.

[Abrupt]

I joined when I was 17 and I must say I was terribly naive and gung-ho.  If ordered to fire then I would have without thinking or considering the action as I hadn't received any training regarding UCMJ at that time (funny how training goes in that regard isn't it?).  The 'current' me wouldn't have though and I doubt there are many soldiers that would either.

Coincidentally, I voluntarily enlisted when I was also 17, (had to get a waiver for being under 18, did you?). While I too received such training regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice as you did, for some reason, the Billy Jack movies sprang to mind when another 'boot' asked about having to follow "illegal orders".

I know I had to get parental consent to join, but I don't actually remember signing up (I think they shocked a year of my memory from me on that first day off the bus -- oh I still remember that though).

That much I had factored in [re: Posse Comitatus Act], but the rumors part dealt with alleged questionnaires circulating regarding the use of deadly force against US civilians.  That part is probably conspiracy rumor stemming from the actual urban warfare training itself.  I have heard these rumors before, but only once to my memory.

You'd just mentioned a scenario, (looting), in which the use of deadly force by the U.S. military against U.S. citizens would be authorized.  Another such instance where it is authorized is on 'sensitive' military installations, (in the CONUS and off-shore).  Maybe it's just me however, there seems to be a none-too-subtle difference between Posse Comitatus being applied to looters and the same Act being applied to 'quell a domestic rebellion'.

I keep seeing -- at least as I consider it anyways -- an overuse of the word 'terrorists' all too often today from all political parties.  This bothers me, taken with above as you indicate with Posse Comitatus.  Especially with the rigid political differences and ideology about.  You hear the "Tea Party" referred to as terrorists by the Democrats (or liberals depending on how you see the true allegiance) and the OWS referred to as terrorists by the Republicans (or, again, conservatives).  It isn't too difficult for me to imagine an ideologue in power trying to suppress either via use of military.  That bothers me, but I cannot see it being handled by 'conventional' troops but instead by some that are specifically 'conditioned/de-sensitized' or otherwise "set-up" via brotherly/fraternal revenge to carry out such orders.  I am not a paranoid thinker, but still I can smell something like this on the air.  Perhaps it is because of the utter insanity I see in our elected leaders today that makes me think so.

[falcon9]

I keep seeing -- at least as I consider it anyways -- an overuse of the word 'terrorists' all too often today from all political parties.  This bothers me, taken with above as you indicate with Posse Comitatus.  Especially with the rigid political differences and ideology about.  You hear the "Tea Party" referred to as terrorists by the Democrats (or liberals depending on how you see the true allegiance) and the OWS referred to as terrorists by the Republicans (or, again, conservatives).  It isn't too difficult for me to imagine an ideologue in power trying to suppress either via use of military.  That bothers me, but I cannot see it being handled by 'conventional' troops but instead by some that are specifically 'conditioned/de-sensitized' or otherwise "set-up" via brotherly/fraternal revenge to carry out such orders.  I am not a paranoid thinker, but still I can smell something like this on the air.  Perhaps it is because of the utter insanity I see in our elected leaders today that makes me think so.

Unless you're insinuating that Obama is such an "ideologue" as you are concerned about, it may be that such a 'threat' is more likely to emanate from a repubulican, (or ultra-conservative), executive office.  Be that as it may, there are at least some checks and balances in place to avert such a scenario, (even with a preceding "national emergency/martial law" declaration).

[Abrupt]

I keep seeing -- at least as I consider it anyways -- an overuse of the word 'terrorists' all too often today from all political parties.  This bothers me, taken with above as you indicate with Posse Comitatus.  Especially with the rigid political differences and ideology about.  You hear the "Tea Party" referred to as terrorists by the Democrats (or liberals depending on how you see the true allegiance) and the OWS referred to as terrorists by the Republicans (or, again, conservatives).  It isn't too difficult for me to imagine an ideologue in power trying to suppress either via use of military.  That bothers me, but I cannot see it being handled by 'conventional' troops but instead by some that are specifically 'conditioned/de-sensitized' or otherwise "set-up" via brotherly/fraternal revenge to carry out such orders.  I am not a paranoid thinker, but still I can smell something like this on the air.  Perhaps it is because of the utter insanity I see in our elected leaders today that makes me think so.

Unless you're insinuating that Obama is such an "ideologue" as you are concerned about, it may be that such a 'threat' is more likely to emanate from a repubulican, (or ultra-conservative), executive office.  Be that as it may, there are at least some checks and balances in place to avert such a scenario, (even with a preceding "national emergency/martial law" declaration).

I don't think Obama would do it as he likely knows it wouldn't get him any votes and that is all he seems to be concerned about at the moment.  If he has a second term I could easily see him doing that though as he is one of those "greater good / ends justify means" types and a true ideologue.  I don't see any Republicans that would cause me concerns at the moment, but I have in the past, but generally speaking I see the bigger threat coming from Democrats.

Good luck on your docking with the ISS today too btw.  Lol I assume the name is coincidental eh?

[walksalone11]

....ever hear of a guy named John McCain?

[falcon9]

Good luck on your docking with the ISS today too btw.  Lol I assume the name is coincidental eh?

There's no such thing as coincidence ... er, I mean - yeah, it's purely a synchronistic happenstance, that's it.  After all, why would Elon Musk or anyone associated with him be posting to an FC forum?  What are the odds?  Nonetheless, I remain interested to see if the "Dragon" sucessfully docks with the ISS.

http://fca.sh/18je3

[falcon9]

....ever hear of a guy named John McCain?

That's exactly the u.c.r., (ultra-conservative republican), who sprang to mind in regards to the possibility under discussion.

http://fca.sh/18je3

[Abrupt]

....ever hear of a guy named John McCain?

He is more of a RINO than a Republican and he is certainly not a conservative.  There are loads of Democrats in front of him on my concern list though.

[Abrupt]

Good luck on your docking with the ISS today too btw.  Lol I assume the name is coincidental eh?

There's no such thing as coincidence ... er, I mean - yeah, it's purely a synchronistic happenstance, that's it.  After all, why would Elon Musk or anyone associated with him be posting to an FC forum?  What are the odds?  Nonetheless, I remain interested to see if the "Dragon" sucessfully docks with the ISS.

http://fca.sh/18je3

I don't know, I am friends with some people that most would consider well above my station.  I hope it goes off flawlessly, and hopefully you will not be known as the guy with the moniker of the vessel that ripped a big holed into the ISS.

[falcon9]

I don't know, I am friends with some people that most would consider well above my station.  I hope it goes off flawlessly, and hopefully you will not be known as the guy with the moniker of the vessel that ripped a big holed into the ISS.

Flawless would be preferable to flawed, aye.  The moniker was mine decades before the 'Dragon' spacecraft however, I did wonder what happened to "falcon1-9" briefly ... let Elon Musk pay for any damages until I start making multiple-millions from FC.   

http://fca.sh/18je3