Would an American soldier fire on American civilians if order came from president only?

Question

I say the military would fire on anyone the president ordered. Could that be faked? Don't tell me the procedure. Tell me if an order is fail safe?

Answer 1

Yes.
I am glad I am not american...

Answer 2

Nothing is completely fail safe when people are involved. As a member of the armed forces, I would hope that the President would issue such an order only in the event that those civilians posed a direct and eminent threat to the President, unarmed civilians, and other members of the military.

Answer 3

Nope. When you take the oath, you agree to obey all LAWFUL orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over you, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Simply put, you're allowed to think about the law and use your common sense. You're painting military members as mindless automatons who blindly follow leaders and obey orders. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no such thing as a "fail-safe" order. Ever heard of the My-Lai massacre during the Vietnam Conflict? The soldiers responsible all claimed that they were acting under orders but they were still convicted by court-martial and sent to Leavenworth. Ditto that for the troops that participated in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal -- they all claimed they were ordered to treat the prisoners inhumanely and humiliate them, but they all went to jail too.

Answer 4

Any marine can refuse an order if he thought it was unlawful or morally wrong. Although, they would have to be prepared to face consequences and prove it was morally or an illegal order in front of a judge....

Id say almost 99 out of 100 times, the soldier WOULD follow the order if the order was directed at an enemy threat, citizen or no citizen.....citizenship doesnt determine the enemy. And, it isnt common that an order that is morally wrong or illegal is given, and when it is, we all hear about it because there are BIG spotlights on it...but noone hears about the orders that save innocent lives everyday...

Answer 5

My answer copied and pasted from the last time this question was asked.

I was in the 82d Airborne Division in 1971. The entire division was alerted and flown to Washington DC for riot control duty during the Memorial Day anti-war demonstration organized by John Kerry and his group among others.

This was a time less than a year after the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State Universities. We were all angry and frustrated about the situation, not wanting to be involved in a repeat. Politics created a losing effort in Vietnam while the 82d sat at Fort Bragg and trained for riot control rather than fighting the war.

It was generally understood among us troops that the first person to be shot would be the one who gave the order to fire on the civilians. We were in that kind of mood. If one officer had gotten stupid, he would have had our guns turned on him and all the other officers and nco's around us. There would have been a mutiny which would have spread throughout the army (draftees, remember). This country would have fallen.

On a lighter note, one of our guys might have shot John Kerry just for messing up our holdiay week-end off.

It's scary how close things came to changing history and the world as we know it.

I think the situation is just as touchey in these times also. Our troops are trained to follow orders, but almost all will refuese to fire on American civilians unless they have been fired upon and have taken casualties first.

Now, as back then, the officer, who gives the order to fire when it is obviously not necessary, will be the first one to catch a bullet.

Answer 6

Yes they would, what if a terrorist was using planes as in 9-11 I am sure if asked an Air Force pilot would take down the plane to save thousands or in the example of the Oklahoma City bombing it would of been no problem for a soldier or a police officer to fire on a new Timothy McVey.

Answer 7

The Military is not concrete machine, it only strives to operate in that way. However, orders shift through ranks of officers before they are carried out, and officers have a chance to refuse an order if it seems so drastic such as fire on American citizens.

Or how I learned to stop worrying about conspiracies.

Answer 8

We don't just shoot people that the president says Soot we have rules and guidelines we go by and we follow rules of engagement. That is why you people think Soldiers are Killers we do not indiscriminately shoot people we use and escalation of force Just like a cop would. Taking some ones life is the last resort of an enemy not surrendering to you and threatening you life or the life of others. Get you facts straight before you ask a question you have know knowledge or real experience of.

Answer 9

I am sure that American Forces follow a similar procedure with when and when not the use of ball (live) ammunition can be used in regard use of weapons in the USA:

With us in the Irish Army it was:

In defense of your own life.

In defense of a comrades life.

In defense of the post (being) protected.

In the defense of the Civil Power (Police).

To prevent yourself from being forcibly disarmed.

To prevent a comrade from being forcibly disarmed.

Nobody can order a soldier to fire on unarmed civilians, if the soldier believes the order to be an illegal one he can refuse, he can also ask for it, to be given in writing, and then still refuse if he feels its morally and unjustifiably wrong.

Answer 10

Not only the President. It's been done many times in our history -- the order has come from governors or other officials.

American soldiers have, and probably will again, fired on American civilians when ordered from any number of people.

Answer 11

Lou Dobbs resigned from CNN, he wasn't 'fired' like some Liberals might decide so which you will have confidence. needless to say, this replaced right into a controversy that a number of his visitors have been prepared on -no longer unavoidably him, i've got confidence he reported that he replaced into happy that Obama replaced into an American citizen; all he reported replaced into if that's an argument w/a minority of people -that why do no longer the Admin positioned it obtainable (the delivery certificates) for all to work out, and end the questions that individuals those human beings have..Lou Dobbs is a extremely smart & helpful information journalist who has in contemporary times been serious with regard to the unlawful Immigrant situation in this united states -he represents a majority of people in this united states & approximately the place they stand in this situation -it is against it, and needs administration of OUR very own borders returned- this replaced into throughout the time of the Bush Admin besides, besides the fact that it is purely been of previous due that i assume some very helpful human beings in company & possibly in politics have been voicing their dismay w/him being so vocal approximately it -the clarification is because of the fact they decide for the unlawful-alien for much less costly hard artwork & votes. His application replaced into between the optimal rated till the community asked him to 'tone down' his rhetoric, with the aid of courtroom circumstances from professional-unlawful Immigrants Rights communities. My very own opinion is that Dobbs could connect FoxNews -the place a brilliant form of honest-minded, self reliant newshounds (i.e. Tucker Carlson, John Stossel) have moved to as a manner to proceed having a voice..