1
   

military coup

 
 
vladzo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 11:27 pm
WHAT'SA MILITARY COUP

the military coup may take place in any democratic-republic when there is an emergency problem in the executive branch of the government.

[[a short digression]] YES; every government (weather they recognize it or not) has the same branches and functions as the US: legislative, judicial, and executive. [[digression complete]]

if the executive branch of any national government fails in directing any of its functions, so as to cause a very great problem for the nation; then the national military may decide to seize control of the executive branch. this need to control the results of a problem, and stop the failure which has caused the problem may be called an EMERGENCY. the most obvious failure which could occur, and be of interest to the military, would be in the civilian leadership of that military. the ultimate leadership of the national military, in a democratic-republic, must be held by civilians of the executive branch. therefore if the civilians fail in their leadership of the military; then that military shall notice it first. and if the problem is very great; then the national military shall recognize it as an emergency.

the military may also recognize an emergency if the election process regarding the national executive becomes somehow questionable, if the national economy becomes unbearably difficult, if social stability becomes uncontrollably disrupted, and if foreign relations become disadvantageous. in fact, any of the three branches of government may ask the national military to seize control if they feel the need for so much help. whatever the case may be; whether political, economic, social, international, miscellaneous or unknown; when the military sees an emergency, and seizes the executive power; that is called a MILITARY COUP.

TODAY, within the current events of the US, the national executive has obviously failed (and totally failed) to conduct proper leadership of the military expedition in iraq. perhaps this is not yet obvious to everyone, but then again, not everyone cares to take enough interest to examine and understand military situations. today in iraq, the military must be withdrawn as soon as possible, to avoid a crushing military disaster.

if the executive fails to withdraw the military, before this disaster occurs; then the chance of a military coup increases greatly. because, after that military disaster, and after the survivors escape to america, there shall still be quite enough of the military remaining alive to seize control of the executive branch of the US government, by military coup. at the time of the emergency; it shall be obvious to everyone that the military must save america from mismanagement. it is a statistical fact, at this very time, the american military is not able to carry out any additional military duties which may befall. the occurrence of an additional military duty may also set off an emergency and then a coup; with or without the possible crushing disaster in iraq.

this situation of impending disaster is because the executive has failed to provide the sufficient personnel with the sufficient equipment, supplies, training, education, and motivation to do the duty which the military is sworn to perform. this leaves the military with the option of either neglecting their oath and duty, or seeing the emergency. once the emergency is seen and understood by the military, then the coup becomes understood as their duty. then in addition, we do have the uninterrupted fact, that this executive was placed in office by the results of a questionable election. therefore we must all understand, that another questionable election may certainly be seen as an emergency.

?exactly how does a military coup take place? the military takes physical control of the executive by threat of military force or even actual use of military force; and then the former executive is placed under some form of arrest. the military may be divided in their understanding of the emergency. if a part, a faction, of the military does not want to seize control; they may chose to defend the executive from arrest and oppose the coup. if the two factions are equal enough in strength; the result is not a coup, but a civil war. the military coup is a coup only when there is no opposition. (we shall not discuss the possibility of a civil war.)

now that we have discussed and defined the military coup; we may discuss the four types of coupes which may occur in any democratic-republic.
-1- the military seizes control as part of a contested election, with the inclusion of some of the civilians who were contesting the election. the military supports a civilian executive; and a civilian leadership continues. but the election (selection) of the civilian leadership was settled by military coup; and that civilian leadership is, most likely, very much pro-military.
-2- the military seizes control because of an emergency which involves the conduct of the military leadership by the civilians of the executive. after the coup, the military appoints a civilian leadership and returns to their duties under the command of the civilian executive. then later a normal election is held.
-3- the military seizes control because of any emergency, with or without civilian participation, and for an extended period of time. then, after the emergency has passed, the military allows elections and a return to civilian government.
-4- the military seizes control because of any emergency., usually without civilian participation, and for an extended period of time which seems to never end.

[[a short digression]] it is very safe to assume that in the present situation of the US; only the first two types of military coupes are possible. [[digression complete]]

it is now possible to discuss a military coup in america in more personal terms.
-1- if a military disaster occurs, before the election, the military may seize control in a coup and then allow an election of a pro-military democrats or republicans, to decide who shall be the new civilian executive; and the military accepts those election results.
-2- if the next election brings the same voter count and recount problem; the military could seize control, ensure a correct vote count (correct by their understanding) and then return to duty (with a pro-military civilian executive).

the important point to remember here is that the duty of the national military is to defend the nation, the constitution, and the people from all enemies both FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. if it is not possible to fulfill that duty, if that duty is somehow obstructed, then that obstruction must be removed by the military; or the military is not fulfilling its duty by oath. perhaps we may not be very personal in this discussion. but we may have an example. "may the chief of police, in any small town, give the mayor, of that same small town, a speeding ticket, if the chief of police really sees the mayor speeding." most of us would say "YES".

we may not be personal enough here to mention names; but we do know who said "THIS WE'LL DEFEND".

Vlad
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 918 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 01:13 am
?
The USA isn't there yet. If Iraq goes into full scale uprising then the US Military may rebel and call for immediate troop withdrawl and sieze the Executive branch. Also, if there is another massive attack in the USA the Military may take over for awhile.
0 Replies
 
vladzo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 09:34 am
to radikal ::::::::::::

this time i seriously do thank you for your reply. that is close to part of what i also have already said in my article.

but your 9/11 theory is a farce, and a repition of hitler claim that he never burned the german congress building. therefore you may be a part of the neo-nazi covert support for arab regressive terrorism.

vlad
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:02 pm
?
MIHOP
LITHOP

Are you claiming MIHOP?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:25 pm
The United States Military has about as much chance of staging a military coup in the United States as Ted Kennedy has of turning libertarian.

Every member of the U.S. Military upon the day of their induction, steps forward, raises their hand and swears to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME.

The young men and women of the U.S. military are your sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, uncles and friends. They are the final defenders of the liberties that the American public take for granted.

They are not mercenaries from the frontiers manning the Legions like those that caused Rome to fall.

They are not troops that are personally sworn to a General and paid by him and thus having no loyalty to anyone else other than their paymaster.

They are citizen soldiers...
Regular people with very little political motivations, yet willing to defend the country with their lives.
Guys and gals from 'down the block', from YOUR neighborhood.

Don't expect most of them to understand Niecheze, but they know right from wrong.

Don't expect a lot of them to quote Jean Paul Sartre, but they can probably quote the oath they took.


I think you denigrate the fine young men and women of the service in insinuating that they could or would ever take part in such a thing.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:43 pm
!
"'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME."

It is a good idea in my view to have classes for all military personnel about The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

What if the enemies are the persons in the US Govt.?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 05:03 pm
Re: !
Radikal wrote:

"against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

What if the enemies are the persons in the US Govt.?



The U.S. Government is IN COMMAND[/u].

The U.S. govt. decides where and when the U.S. Military fights.

The tail does not wag the dog.

During my time in the service, in all the barracks I was ever assigned to, there was a huge chart showing the 'Chain of Command' for the unit you were in. This was to show you the people above you in the command ladder, and thus the people that you answered to.

It started the list with your Platoon Sergeant ... up to the Battery Commander (Or Company/Troop/Squadron Commander) usually a Captain ... up to your Battalion Commander, a Lt.Colonel ... up through Division, Corps, Command ... and then something interesting happened ...

The last three rungs on the ladder... were ... CIVILIANS!

Not a uniform to be found ... no badges of rank ... no braids, medals or ribbons ... just a trio of civilians.

The Secretary of the Army, The Secretary of Defense and finally The President (Commander in Chief)... all civilians.

This made it perfectly clear, as if the classes they used to give about the Chain of Command wouldn't have.

The final decision makers... the people that command the 1, 2, 3 and 4 star generals (Men who seem as Gods to lowly Privates). The professional soldierss that have earned respect due to men who have served their country for 20, 25 and even 30+ years. These men take their marching orders only from civilians.

Thats the way the civilians want it, thats the way the military wants it.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 07:03 pm
Uh....
Thanks for splainin' but that didn't answer my question.

I do know that in the military a soldier can and should reject an unlawful order. Does it not follow that the top Generals are bound not to execute an unlawful order from their superiors, as well?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 09:34 pm
Re: Uh....
Radikal wrote:
Thanks for splainin' but that didn't answer my question.

I do know that in the military a soldier can and should reject an unlawful order. Does it not follow that the top Generals are bound not to execute an unlawful order from their superiors, as well?


Yes Radikal they would be bound to refuse any order that violated civilian or military law or in any way violated the Constitution.

Thus if an order came from their superiors that could be considered unlawful, it would be the generals duty to refuse such an order, tender his resignation if the command authority insisted, and then inform the appropriate judicial authority of the violation of law... (J.A.G. Corps if it is a military individual that ordered the illegal activity or Congress if it is a member of the civilian authorities that ordered the illegal action)

The military takes it's mission as defenders of the Constitution VERY seriously.

Even if by some chance, a general could be found that would carry out an illegal order, there are dozens to hundreds of lesser officers that also have an obligation to stop any illegal action.

Let's take a look at a fictional division and it's commander:

Major General Oathbreaker commands the 13th Armored Division and is ordered to carry out an illegal order by the Secretary of the Army (Or any other civilian authority)

Maj Gen Oathbreaker, in order to have his division carry out an illegal order would require him to violate his oath....

If by chance, the General agreed to carry out such an order (Through blackmail or mental illness, etc), it would also require him to find the following officers to ALSO agree to violate THEIR oaths before the Division rolled 1 foot outside their base:

His second in command (also a general)
Every officer in his headquarters staff
Every officer in his Judge Advocate General unit
3 to 4 brigade commanders (general to colonels)
20+ Battalion commanders (Lt.Colonels)
100's of Captains commanding the various companies of the division
100's of Lieutenants commanding platoons etc.

Each and every one of the above officers is OBLIGATED to refuse to carry out an such an illegal order and to arrest any officer that gave such an order.

As you can see, the crazy general in the above example, would be swiftly arrested (Most likely by his second in command and the JAG officer)

This is how things work in the REAL military.

This is also why military officers and enlisted personnel are moved from unit to unit every few years (This prevents the men under any officer from developing too much loyalty to any one man)
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 09:48 pm
OK
Here's a real example.

The US Govt. ordered the Military to interogate detainees in ways that violated the Genenva Convention. Most of these orders were carried out and War Crimes were commited by soldiers. Who is at at fault? Who should be charged?
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 10:27 pm
Re: OK
Radikal wrote:
Here's a real example.

The US Govt. ordered the Military to interogate detainees in ways that violated the Genenva Convention. Most of these orders were carried out and War Crimes were commited by soldiers. Who is at at fault? Who should be charged?



It depends on where the order originated...

It depends on whether the individuals involved KNEW what they were doing were anything that could be considered War Crimes.

The problem comes when you have a few poorly trained Reservists who are told that what they are doing are legitimate interrogation techniques and thus not anything that could be considered War Crimes.


I love by the way, how you have tried to twist this posting from its original topic of the possibility of a coup by the U.S. military, into some sort of condemnation of the military's actions at Abu G.


There is a HUGE difference between some Reservist enlisted personnel being misled into questionable actions, and any possibility of hundreds of officers deliberately violating their oaths to the Constitution and leading some sort of coup attempt.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 12:31 am
!
Pleased that you are awake to the differences.

I don't feel that I have divurged from the topic all that much.

Also, it is real obvious that the torture of detainees was much more widespread that just one prison or even one country. It was a system wide policy and involved a whole lot more that humiliation tactics. Events of rape, beatings and torture leading to deaths have been found. The orders came all the way from the top, meaning the CIC, through Defense Secretary and down 'till it got to civilian personnel, MPs, and Marines.

Now let's get real and discuss the issue. War Crimes!
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:10 am
Re: !
Radikal wrote:
Pleased that you are awake to the differences.

I don't feel that I have divurged from the topic all that much.

Also, it is real obvious that the torture of detainees was much more widespread that just one prison or even one country. It was a system wide policy and involved a whole lot more that humiliation tactics. Events of rape, beatings and torture leading to deaths have been found. The orders came all the way from the top, meaning the CIC, through Defense Secretary and down 'till it got to civilian personnel, MPs, and Marines.

Now let's get real and discuss the issue. War Crimes!


Perhaps you should start your own post on that topic (you don't seem to have any troubles in doing that) instead of trying to hijack someone elses thread.

I will gladly debate the whole Abu G topic if you post it, but in this thread, let's try to stay 'on topic'.

The problem seems to be, I posted an argument (How impossible a coup would be) for which you had absolutely NO answer for and so you felt you had to change the topic to further denigrate the military and the administration.

Now, if you will read, comprehend and indicate your understanding as to how impossible a coup would be among the U.S. military, I will be happy to follow you over to another thread and put on the gloves to debate the Abu G topic ....

Or, you can be a typical Liberal and try to change the subject every time someone points out the error in your comments with facts...

Your choice.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:27 am
No U.S. soldier is required to perform an illegal act no matter who orders it. Some may choose to do so and, if they do, they are as guilty as the one who gave the order to do it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » military coup
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 10:35:37