How Would A Well-Armed Citizenry Have Changed History?

[ovcatto]

The first police officer, federal agent or soldier killed by any armed civilian will irrevocably change the equation and not in the favor of any rebellion.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

The US military is going to let elected civilian leadership make the decision. As I mentioned before, they're going to look at both the Executive and the Legislative and go with those two in agreement.

You mean, up until now they have always done so. There are countless examples in recent decades of a nation's military recognizing a single leader, and then mindlessly obeying his command. When ordered into Grenada, military leaders did not "look at both the Executive and the Legislative and go with those two in agreement". They simply jumped out of bed and scrambled, when told to by a deranged commander in chief.

Keep in mind that the Second Amendment (authorizing a citizens' militia) exists precisely because it was thought that elected civilian leadership might make a decision that is inimical to the liberty that the constitution guarantees. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states that all the Amendments were added "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers". In other words, "elected civilian leadership" run amok.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by jtur88

You mean, up until now they have always done so. There are countless examples in recent decades of a nation's military recognizing a single leader, and then mindlessly obeying his command. When ordered into Grenada, military leaders did not "look at both the Executive and the Legislative and go with those two in agreement". They simply jumped out of bed and scrambled, when told to by a deranged commander in chief.

I was there. Yes, we did look at both the Executive and the Legislative.

[quote]Keep in mind that the Second Amendment (authorizing a citizens' militia) exists precisely because it was thought that elected civilian leadership might make a decision that is inimical to the liberty that the constitution guarantees. [quote]

I would dispute that.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states that all the Amendments were added as a safeguard against abuse or misconstruction of the Constitution.

And we aren't talking about obstructions to the Bill of Rights where the voters of the country will be concerned.

Here is my point: We're talking about a scenario in which the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the state governors and legislatures, and the predominance of voters will all be on the same page.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

I was there. Yes, we did look at both the Executive and the Legislative.

If you can do so without violating classified material, I'd love to hear how you, as the ranking officer in command of the Grenada expedition, determined in the middle ol the night that that particular invasion was the will of the assembled Congress. How far in advance did you know it was to take place?

That Congress debated and concurred in this invasion would seem very surprising, since no news leaked out about such a debate, so heated that an attempt was made by Congress a month later to impeach President Reagan (the de-facto dictator of the USA at the time -- I was there) over that very issue.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If you can do so without violating classified material, I'd love to hear how you, as the ranking officer in command of the Grenada expedition, determined in the middle ol the night that that particular invasion was the will of the assembled Congress. How far in advance did you know it was to take place?

Actually, I was involved, and we knew a couple of weeks in advance that the President had given the order. It should not have been a surprise to anyone--the president had been hammering in public for months that action needed to be taken.

In March 1983, U.S President Ronald Reagan began issuing warnings about the
threat posed to the United States and the Caribbean by the "Soviet-Cuban
militarization" of the Caribbean as evidenced by the excessively long airplane
runway being built, as well as intelligence sources indicating increased Soviet
interest in the island. He said that the 9,000-foot (2,700 m) runway and the
numerous fuel storage tanks were unnecessary for commercial flights, and that
evidence pointed that the airport was to become a Cuban-Soviet forward military
airbase

Since you were there, you should remember the president even going on the air to the entire nation about a week before the attack and showing a blow-up of reconnaissance imagery taken of the "Cuban built" airfield.

It was no surprise and Congress had had plenty of time to react to what was brewing. I knew about it in advance, hundreds of military people knew about it in advance, and I doubt we knew anything that key Senate members did not know. Prior to the attack, there was no official Congressional opposition. Even after the attack:

A month after the invasion, Time magazine described it as having "broad
popular support". A congressional study group concluded that the invasion
had been justified, as most members felt that U.S. students at the university
near a contested runway could have been taken hostage as U.S. diplomats in Iran had been four years
previously. The group's report caused House Speaker Tip O'Neill to change his position on the issue from
opposition to support.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE]

From the military point of view, if Congress doesn't vote some kind of very strong resolution against an Executive action, then Congress does not oppose it. The generals are quite astute in gauging whether Congressional bluster is merely political posturing.

No, "Congress" did not attempt to impeach President Reagan over the incident, political posturing by the Black Caucaus not withstanding.