If push came to shove, would US Military enforce tyrannical rule of the State, or would they defend American Citizens against tyranny... Egyptian style?

The US Military are not sworn to obey all orders, lawful or otherwise. They are sworn to obey lawful orders and to uphold and defend the constitution. If some president were ever to set himself up as dictator, and the American People rightly rebelled, I am confident that the military would side with the people. If, on the other hand, a group of our citizens rebel because they can’t prevail at the ballot box and they think they are so right that they feel they are justified in defying the majority and taking “their” country back through force of arms, I would fully expect the National Guard to defend constitutional law. If we had to temporarily suspend posse-commits and deploy regular military forces in the streets, I believe they too would defend constitutional law.

Money is a issue.. I don’t think we (military included) would risk not getting paid. Comparing us to Egypt is absurd. They don’t have American Idol on every-night so they are willing to get the fuck off their asses and be brave. Occupy Wall Street tried and were mocked. We simply will never get off our asses in a large enough amount for anyone to give a single fuck.

They already do support a tyrannical state.

I could see our military ousting our current President whereas they wouldn’t have Bush Jr., and personally I think they would defend the people.

People like @johnpowell don’t seem to understand the patriotic heart of America will never stop beating for most of us.

The U.S. Military will defend the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

This interpretation, however, may surprise many citizens who haven’t been watching very closely in the past few years. Remember, under “certain circumstances” Habeas Corpus can be suspended; meaning one can be locked away without explanation, without counsel, and indefinitely without trial. Certain tortures are no longer defined as torture and therefore are legal to use as interrogation methods. Corporations have a greater voice within our democracy and can greatly influence decisions that favor them rather than individuals. This is all above and beyond Martial Law. The U.S. Government has the right to do these things now under the Patriot Act and would use this Act if our “representatives” in Washington and various State capitals felt unsafe.

I think, in crisis, the U.S. Military would use these tactics if they deemed necessary against those citizens they assumed were dissidents or a danger to stability—including those simply protesting the infringement of their original civil rights (protests that risk never being heard or seen by the rest of us due to new laws allowing constitutionally protected assembly only in remote Free Speech Zones determined ad hoc by law enforcement. Wasn’t ALL of America once a Free Speech Zone?)—even after Martial Law has been called off. This can occur because, under the most recent Supreme Court interpretations, this is all Constitutional and therefore will be defended by our military if necessary.

This is just another reason why every American should be pushing to change many of the aspects of the Patriot Act, secret FISA investigations, the FISA court itself, rescind the new, broad definition of torture, overturn Citizens United vs. the FEC and many other rulings, interpretations, and laws that are considered constitutional at this very moment. Ultimately, we are the victims of these policies—just as nearly every social and political theorist has warned since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Bravo @Espiritus_Corvus

clappy hands

(The Fluther answer):
It is a moot point because the US would never be in that predicament in my lifetime.

(Actual answer):
I do not think the US military could ever be that unified even if they believed in whole, or in part, that the leadership was quacked. The US military is too big and too disjointed to make radical independent moves such as in Egypt. Notwithstanding the US government is little more than a lackey dog of special interest. What would happen if there was a way to get all of the Navy on board to take down the government? It would be short lived as they would soon run out of places to hide, or fuel and arms to wage war unless assisted by some foreign government. That is of they can beat the army, marines, and the air force.

@KNOWITALL

People like @johnpowell don’t seem to understand the patriotic heart of America will never stop beating for most of us.”

This is the most bullshit thing I have ever read. When shock and awe was going on we blocked i-5 in Portland so people wouldn’t die (we failed and knew we would). White or brown, we just wanted people to live.

So we fought when we know we would lose. But we tried.

You should try something similar. Ohhh. Big Brother is on.

@johnpowell So that means what, we’re all wusses because we try to minimize loss of life? If we abandoned that principle, and turned the warmongerers loose, can you imagine?

I assure you, there are plenty of people who would rather not be so politically correct -lol

It could go either way depending on circumstances but as the President is Commander in Chief of the Army it will tend to obey his orders and constitutionally that’s all it is supposed to do.

@flutherother That is patently false. Here is the US Military Oath for enlisted personnel and for officers.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

There is nothing there about obeying the President, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

@ETpro “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

That’s taken from your own quotation that you have cited above.

@flutherother My point was that the first duty is to the Constitution. And NB, that line is in the enlisted personnel’s oath, but NOT in the officer’s oath. Who is it the enlisted personnel obeys? Their commanding officers.

There is a very good reason the line was in the first enlisted personnel’s oath but not in the officer’s oath. It isn’t just an oversight. It was meant to deal with just the sort of hypothetical this question proposes.

@ETpro I can see your point about the oaths but I think we’re stepping into dangerous ground here. Once the military start deciding what is for the good of the country and the people we are living in a fascist dictatorship.

The oath says “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. The Constitution was written to ensure civilian control of the military. There is an interesting article about this here

I asked this question four years ago. I’ll repeat the OP here for sake of contemporary discussion.
________

I’m just completely shocked by this. Don’t really know how to begin. Trying hard not to be angry and desperately wanting to know if I’m not seeing this clearly. I feel like a prisoner in my own country.

Last night at the pool hall, I met Gunnery Sergeant Bob. He was on leave from LA and visiting family in St. Louis. A few vodka tonics gets me past the pleasantries very quickly and so I asked him some questions that I was curious about. I rarely have the opportunity to speak directly with military personnel.

Conversation…

So what do you think about Afghanistan and our occupation there?

”Not much. It doesn’t involve me and I’ve never been there.”

You don’t keep up with the news? You must have an opinion about our presence there.

”Not at all. I just take orders for my command. Couldn’t tell you a thing about it. I don’t know a thing about it.”

Any ideas what’s going to happen with that?

”Well I can tell you that we’re definitely going to be sending a lot more troops. A lot more. Our General’s are very smart people and if that’s what they want then that’s what they’ll get.”

*Hmmmmmm*… OK, he didn’t really offer much so I wanted to lighten up the conversation a bit.

Say Bob, what do you think happened to Ron Paul. Why did he dropped out of the presidential race.

”Who is Ron Paul?”

Ron Paul? You don’t know who he is? He had more support from the people serving in the military than all other candidates combined! You don’t know him?

*Hmmmmmm*… OK, almost in disbelief I let it go.

Alright then Bob, I’m interested in getting your opinion about something. How do you feel about American Troops being deployed on American soil?

”I’m all for it.”

Well really? For what reason?

”To keep domestic peace.”

Would you fire your weapon upon an American Citizen?

”Absolutely!”

Why?

”If that was the order, I’d definitely do it, no problem.”

Would you follow orders beyond what your conscious allowed?

”I’m not paid to have a conscious. I’m paid to follow orders.”

How could you shoot an American Citizen? Why would you need to when local law enforcement is supposed to police society?

”My job is to protect the Constitution from the American People. I’d do anything to do that.”

Whaoah!!! Did you just say that your job was to protect the Constitution from the American people?

”Yeah, that’s exactly what my job is.”

But I thought the Constitution protected the American People. Why should it need protection from them? I thought the military protected the American People too.

”We protect the Constitution from all threats, domestic and foreign. If the people threaten the Constitution then they are the enemy of the Constitution.”

But we can change the Constitution, the People are the Masters of it, not the other way around.

”That’s not my problem. I just take orders.”

Bob, have you actually read the Constitution? Do you know what you are protecting?

He paused, averted his eyes and said, “Oh yeah, sure I’ve read it”

Sorry people, I don’t have any military experience at all so I just can’t get that mindset into my head so easily. I’d personally like to see all troops brought home today, right now, no questions asked, just do it and end it all immediately.

Am I being unreasonable here? Should we have our own military deployed on our own soil with the possibility of having it fire upon us? I just don’t get it at all.

Wow… here’s an answer on that thread from a that I missed. This answer came three years after the OP. I missed it until right now. Interesting perspective…
________

As quoted from @noraasnave who still looks to be an active fluther member.

To answer your question: NO
Being a brother in arms (fellow Gunnery sergeant) to Gunnery Sergeant Bob I would have to say that I could see those answers coming.
We are being taught via disciplinary examples what to say and not say in any type of ‘interview’ no matter how informal.
Would I reply with the same answers? Nope, but then I am one that has, while honorably serving my country, used the Marine Corps as a step towards accomplishing my dreams.
Staff Non-Commissioned Officers SNCOs (E-6 thru E-9) are being punitively dealt with regularly for posting the wrong thing on their facebook, or supporting the wrong agenda in a public way (anti-Obama sentiment recently).
So…what is always the right answer? ”I follow the orders of those over me.”
I am somewhat surprised, that even with alcohol involved you didn’t get a “no comment”, but if you paid for the alcohol then that suddenly makes sense!
I consider the oath that I took upon enlistment and every reinlistement very seriously ”...to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America…” I believe Americans have the “right to bear arms” for a reason.
Lately, it seems like what we generally consider the government don’t consider the constitution when deciding what their powers are. I see a possible future conflict there, especially in the situation you are inquiring about. I have no doubt about which side I will choose to be on, though I refuse to comment here ;)
Not knowing more of the context surrounding this ‘informal’ interview, I refuse to speculate further, but rather respond based on what @RealEyesRealizeRealLies chooses to reveal with us:
If a person tried to ‘interview’ me in this manner, I would pay for my own drinks, hire a taxi, or call my wife and take my impaired self home, and remain insulted for a time.
When I get in a better mood and my decision making returns to normal, solemnly right hook him the next time the interviewer approaches me. Don’t worry, I would post pictures on fluther.
Shoot you…nah…punch the person that threaten the income I provide my family…yeah.
But it wasn’t me, and I can predict now that it probably won’t ever be based on the context of the story, so everyone is safe.

If 51% of all Americans voted for theocratic fascists, the American military would defend pluralism, freedom and democracy. If wish the German military had done that in 1933, although it was 43% of Germans who voted for Hitler, but his party won most of the seats.

I’m so glad the Egyptian military removed Morsi, who clearly is a theocratic fascist.