Would the Army fight it's own people?

Iwasfrozen · 28-11-2014 08:46PM

keithclancy wrote: »

I don't think they would rape someone if ordered to.

Similarly I don't think they would kill someone if it was not right within their moral compass.

Soldiers don't have a moral compass. That sort of thing is long beaten out of them. It's one of the things that makes a standing military (organized thugs) so dangerous.

" ...overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty."

George Washington

The Diabolical Monocle · 28-11-2014 08:49PM

lolol. 1 extra large tub of popcorn please.

catallus · 28-11-2014 08:53PM

Mao said the people are the water and the army is the fish.

Arsemageddon · 28-11-2014 08:53PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Soldiers don't have a moral compass. That sort of thing is long beaten out of them. It's one of the things that makes a standing military (organized thugs) so dangerous.

BEST. POST. EVER.

Manic Moran · 28-11-2014 10:03PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Meh.....it's all relative.

I was in an airport in the UK yesterday and found it disconcerting to see police walking around in what can only be described as paramilitary tactical gear - aside from the chequered baseball caps with 'police' they looked like soldiers.

The other disturbing point was that they seemed to be carrying AR-15s instead of the MP5.

although, I have to say one of them was a female........:D

The MP5 is losing favour in police forces these days. The AR is substantially the better weapon for the job, despite the PR issues accompanying them. The MP7 isn't wholly replacing the 5.

As to the OP, is he seriously questioning if soldiers, told to guard money from thieves, would hesitate to shoot said criminals if appropriate?

porsche959 · 28-11-2014 10:06PM

FionnK86 wrote: »

Simon Coveney announced that soldiers from the Defence Forces might be required to provide armed protection for all major Irish banks if a cash shortage was triggered, back in 2011.

The bank runs occured from 2008 to 2010 (on and off). 2011 was a bit late to be developing these kind of contingency plans, surely?

Cantremember · 28-11-2014 10:09PM

The army has already fought and won a civil war. It fought, killed and defeated other Irish people. Thank fcuk, because at the end of it we had an army that went back to barracks and left power to democracy.

Stojkovic · 28-11-2014 10:13PM

Yes they would and so would the Gardai.

Try for yourself.

Climb over the railings at Dail Eireann and run towards the building and see what happens to you !!!

Arsemageddon · 28-11-2014 10:14PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

As to the OP, is he seriously questioning if soldiers, told to guard money from thieves, would hesitate to shoot said criminals if appropriate?

The scenario referred to would have involved troops protecting banks against people protesting or a mass panic caused by a total banking collapse. If this had actually happened there would probably have been feck all cash left in the banks to rob.

The Central Bank have diplomatically suggested that Simon Coveney's entire story is boll0cks and Eamon O'Cuiv (the minister for defence) before FG came into power had said he never heard such a scenario being discussed.

MRnotlob606 · 28-11-2014 10:14PM

Well soldiers in Ireland can't really call a strike.

Arsemageddon · 28-11-2014 10:20PM

Stojkovic wrote: »

Yes they would and so would the Gardai.

Try for yourself.

Climb over the railings at Dail Eireann and run towards the building and see what happens to you !!!

Not really though.....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/youth-who-ran-into-d%C3%A1il-with-sword-gets-community-service-1.1972874

The Dáil was not sitting on the day but members of the Oireachtas and the public were present. No one was injured during the incident.
Garda Dwayne Conlon told Judge Michael Walsh that at about 4.30pm he had been on duty at the front yard of Leinster House when Buckley, ran in “carrying a large sword in his hand”.
Garda Conlon said he drew his baton and Buckley came to halt and raised the sword “as if he was preparing to strike”.
The 19-year-old then ran around Garda Conlon and made for the doors of Leinster House. However the garda gave chase and caught up with Buckley who had reached the building’s revolving doors.
“I managed to grab him and pull him to the ground. He was still in possession of the sword and I ordered him to drop it,” Garda Conlon said.
During the struggle another garda hit Buckley with a baton to “get him to relinquish the sword”, after which the youth was arrested.

corner of hells · 28-11-2014 10:27PM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Not really though.....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/youth-who-ran-into-d%C3%A1il-with-sword-gets-community-service-1.1972874

I think theres a YouTube piece of a Garda grabbing Aongus O Snotface by the head and giving him a kick when he was acting the maggot in grounds of the Dail , in the background theres a couple of soldiers , I think they're depot police and may be armed.

Fukuyama · 28-11-2014 10:37PM

Surely it would be expected of soldiers (if the gardaí had lost control) to step up and protect state buildings, secure banks/airports and patrol the streets? They swear an allegiance to the state not to the people.

Now, if there was a massive, stationary (non-violent) protest similar to the Maidan in Kiev, I can't imagine soldiers sniping un-armed civilians like the Ukranian special police did. They'd be well within their rights to disobey an order to do so (provided the person they were told to shoot wasn't breaking the law or posing a threat).

It's part of their job to protect the state and there'd be no (mandatory) need seek approval for their deployment as the triple lock system (Dail, president, UN) only applies to deployments outside the state.

During the London/UK in 2011 riots when law and order vanished in many cities there were many ordinary people calling for the army to be deployed in housing estates with live ammunition, baton rounds and CS gas to restore order. So it's not really an unthinkable situation in Ireland - just an unlikely one and a far cry from the Army massacring citizens or "fighting their own".

In the US, the National Guard can be deployed by governors which circumvents the need for approval for "Federal Troops" because they're technically local forces. They're used quote a bit in emergency situations and have been used to keep/restore order many times (Katrina aftermath and numerous race riots).

cajonlardo · 28-11-2014 10:38PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Soldiers don't have a moral compass. That sort of thing is long beaten out of them. It's one of the things that makes a standing military (organized thugs) so dangerous.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

BEST. POST. EVER.

Bollocks.

How do you reconcile that brain fart with lads spending their off duty time building orphanges, digging wells, repairing bomb damaged homes etc?

How do you account for lads returning to the Leb under their personal expense and time to help with humanitarian aid?

My grandfathers, uncles and father and I were all soldiers. Nothing was ever beaten out of any of us (except maybe a bit of laziness

)

Thugs? You are seriously mistaken and out of order taking strangers characters like that.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 10:42PM

I think the oath is to uphold the Constitution, which may not necessarily mean defending the State apparatus, if that apparatus was misdirected against the people.

Fukuyama · 28-11-2014 10:44PM

cajonlardo wrote: »

Bollocks.

How do you reconcile that brain fart with lads spending their off duty time building orphanges, digging wells, repairing bomb damaged homes etc?

How do you account for lads returning to the Leb under their personal expense and time to help with humanitarian aid?

My grandfathers, uncles and father and I were all soldiers. Nothing was ever beaten out of any of us (except maybe a bit of laziness )

Thugs? You are seriously mistaken and out of order taking strangers characters like that.

I think he's exaggerating but his point does have some merit. I'm not saying that soldiers are unthinking bulldogs but when they're in the middle of a crap storm surely they're expected to do as they're told, exactly as their told and with as much aggression as possible (if needed).

So if there's a crowd of 500 angry protesters surrounding a bank protected by 10 soldiers I'd imagine "free thinking" or a "caring, understanding empathy" wouldn't be appreciated by fellow soldiers or officers (in that moment).

Fukuyama · 28-11-2014 10:52PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the oath is to uphold the Constitution, which may not necessarily mean defending the State apparatus, if that apparatus was misdirected against the people.

The first few articles of the constitution set out the organs of the state and the position of the people. The people can elect people to run the state, but the state receives the allegiance of the military effectively.

So, if the government ever decided to use the Army against the people, technically the army would have to follow. However, in practice, this wouldn't happen as the (impartial) president and potentially the council of state provides oversight to the Army and can step in. Also the army could, potentially, disobey orders from government which puts the state and those elected to run it effectively in a coup situation.

I'm pretty sure the president can take power if the dáil collapses and there's no chance of an election (eg. emergency) and he could use the army to enforce law and order. But if he went OTT the army would likely seize control.

Anyways, long story short, a soldier swears allegiance to the constitution which is effectively the nation and the state (which the people run) but not the people).

Cookie_Monster · 28-11-2014 10:53PM

Xios wrote: »

On the firing ranges in the defence forces, I believe there's an armed marshal behind the guys firing while training, just in case one of them snaps and decides to go 'full metal jacket' and shoot his colleagues.

Is there someone behind the marshal in case he snaps?

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 11:02PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

The first few articles of the constitution set out the organs of the state and the position of the people. The people can elect people to run the state, but the state receives the allegiance of the military effectively.

So, if the government ever decided to use the Army against the people, technically the army would have to follow. However, in practice, this wouldn't happen as the (impartial) president and potentially the council of state provides oversight to the Army and can step in. Also the army could, potentially, disobey orders from government which puts the state and those elected to run it effectively in a coup situation.

I'm pretty sure the president can take power if the dáil collapses and there's no chance of an election (eg. emergency) and he could use the army to enforce law and order. But if he went OTT the army would likely seize control.

Anyways, long story short, a soldier swears allegiance to the constitution which is effectively the nation and the state (which the people run) but not the people).

Ok, without dragging this into a debate on the Constitution, I'll just make two points.

First, The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas by Art 15.6.1 of the Constitution. So even though the Government has de facto authority and control of the armed forces, it's the Oireachtas that makes sure they get paid, fed and watered.

Second, Military Law in Ireland by Humphrys & Craven is worth a read if you want to get into the legal basis for the Defence Forces in Ireland.

Fukuyama · 28-11-2014 11:07PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok, without dragging this into a debate on the Constitution, I'll just make two points.

First, The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas by Art 15.6.1 of the Constitution. So even though the Government has de facto authority and control of the armed forces, it's the Oireachtas that makes sure they get paid, fed and watered.

Second, Military Law in Ireland by Humphrys & Craven is worth a read if you want to get into the legal basis for the Defence Forces in Ireland.

So, the Oireachtas can basically say "we no longer want an army". But surely by the time the Army are protecting state building, the Oireachtas is hardly going to decide to scrap them and swing open the gates to Leinster house to an angry mob.

The constitution sets out that the overall control of the Defense Forces rests with the president. I'm sure there are several Oireachtas laws (which the president signed) which state that the Defence Forces can be used day-to-day for the security of the stat so the president isn't needed every time there's a cash delivery, but if the government were ordering the army to fire on protesters (and it was unwarranted) I think the president could step in and take control, provided he acts within the constitution.

Mackas_view · 28-11-2014 11:13PM

Xios wrote: »

You're mis-informed. Lethal force is used to neutalise a threat. When you fire lethal ammo, you are intending to kill your target. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. You do not have a choice where the round lands.

I don't know what hollywood films have you convinced otherwise. There is no such thing as shooting a gun or knife out of someones hand, you shoot them to kill them, end of. If the situation calls for anything non-lethal, rubber bullets, pepper spray, tazers, tear gas, batons are what you use. Cops in the US are trained to empty their entire clip into the threat. You do not discharge your weapon unless you intend to kill that person.

Shooting someone in the leg can nick an artery, they'll bleed out without immediate hospitalization, and in the scenario OP listed, they rioters won't get that care.

Completely inaccurate. Lethal ammo can be discharged without the intention to kill. Indefinitely

RoscommonTom · 28-11-2014 11:30PM

The state of the Irish army, a few oul women coming out of mass of a Sunday would beat them in a scrap,

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 11:31PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

So, the Oireachtas can basically say "we no longer want an army". But surely by the time the Army are protecting state building, the Oireachtas is hardly going to decide to scrap them and swing open the gates to Leinster house to an angry mob.

The constitution sets out that the overall control of the Defense Forces rests with the president. I'm sure there are several Oireachtas laws (which the president signed) which state that the Defence Forces can be used day-to-day for the security of the stat so the president isn't needed every time there's a cash delivery, but if the government were ordering the army to fire on protesters (and it was unwarranted) I think the president could step in and take control, provided he acts within the constitution.

Separation of powers - the President has de jure control over the Defence Forces, the Executive has de facto (day-to-day) control of them, the Oireachtas has administrative control.

If the a Government had the degree of control you are suggesting then there'd be no need for the Defence Acts, which vests (for the time being) "all executive and administrative powers in relation to, the Defence Forces, including the power to delegate command and authority" in the Government.

According to the book I mentioned, (Military Law in Ireland) "an Irish soldier on duty in Ireland is simply a citizen armed in a particular manner & (who) cannot because he is a soldier excuse himself if without necessity he takes human life."

I believe it is standard procedure for troops to be briefed as to their legal obligations when engaged on aid to the civil power type jobs, And that the principles of minimum force, justification, prevention and legal requirements would apply if the Army was deployed to protect banks.

In other words the response would have to be at least subjectively appropriate and proportionate to the situation - firing live ammunition would be a proportionate response only in the most dire situation.

Soldiers, even if "following orders" are still amenable to external scrutiny and potential prosecution. It might also be worth noting that such force cannot be applied punitively, after a criminal act has been committed by a third party.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 11:35PM

Mackas_view wrote: »

Completely inaccurate. Lethal ammo can be discharged without the intention to kill. Indefinitely

You're forgetting about recklessness - that'll get you into as much hot water, as objective intention

Mr_Muffin · 28-11-2014 11:38PM

RoscommonTom wrote: »

The state of the Irish army, a few oul women coming out of mass of a Sunday would beat them in a scrap,

So true. If they had to actually do a bit of work they wouldn't know what hit them.

Fukuyama · 28-11-2014 11:43PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Separation of powers - the President has de jure control over the Defence Forces, the Executive has de facto (day-to-day) control of them, the Oireachtas has administrative control.

If the a Government had the degree of control you are suggesting then there'd be no need for the Defence Acts, which vests (for the time being) "all executive and administrative powers in relation to, the Defence Forces, including the power to delegate command and authority" in the Government.

According to the book I mentioned, (Military Law in Ireland) "an Irish soldier on duty in Ireland is simply a citizen armed in a particular manner & (who) cannot because he is a soldier excuse himself if without necessity he takes human life."

I believe it is standard procedure for troops to be briefed as to their legal obligations when engaged on aid to the civil power type jobs, And that the principles of minimum force, justification, prevention and legal requirements would apply if the Army was deployed to protect banks.

In other words the response would have to be at least subjectively appropriate and proportionate to the situation - firing live ammunition would be a proportionate response only in the most dire situation.

Soldiers, even if "following orders" are still amenable to external scrutiny and potential prosecution. It might also be worth noting that such force cannot be applied punitively, after a criminal act has been committed by a third party.

So what would constitute "reasonable" force?

For example, lets say an angry mob was trying to gain access to the National Mint, Central Bank vaults, Garda Headquarters, Aras an Uachtatán, Leinster House and other facilities at the same time. Being Ireland, the crowd are likely only armed with petrol bombs and rocks at the very most.

In my mind, it'd be justified to fire on the crowd. Not punitively, but to disperse them and protect the buildings. Obviously, you'd try CS gas and baton rounds (I presume the army have these?) first, but if it was minutes away from mob-rule surely the only action left is to fire on "unarmed" people.

Or, lets say a "London Riots" situation occurred in Dublin and spread to other cities. The gardaí don't have half the experience, vehicles or equipment that UK police forces do. I doubt they'd hold out two days before needing the army to step in. Surely the best course of action to take would be to use live ammunition to quickly bring things under control?

Without using live ammunition all you've got is a bunch of gardaí wearing green. Your only other option would be to request police reinforcements from other EU countries (likely PSNI and UK forces) which could take weeks.

Surely Ireland has "marshal laws" type legislation in case of a zombie apocalypse. How could they (if indeed the exist) be invoked? President? Taoiseach?

Genuinely interested. I didn't know the Oireachtas had so much say in the Defence Forces during emergency times.

Jawgap · 28-11-2014 11:50PM

If property is at risk, and it's the only thing at risk - lethal force would not be justified.

reasonable force is subjective - if you use it, be prepared to justify it.

marshal laws were referred to earlier - they're the guys in the hi-viz with the big knives making sure troops don't go all FMJ.

martial law is something different again

........and marital law is something even the most combat hardened veteran fears

:D:D

Faith+1 · 29-11-2014 12:01AM

We have an Army?

Jose Mourinho GOAT · 29-11-2014 12:18AM

What was the hierarchy of control commanding Die Wehrmacht and what happened when there was conflict between them, the Gestapo and the SS ?

Cookie_Monster · 29-11-2014 12:20AM

Jawgap wrote: »

A 5.56mm round Fires a 62-grain semi-armor piercing projectile at an initial velocity of 3,050 fps (924 mps). The projectile contains a 10-grain .182 caliber hardened steel penetrator that tumbles on impact - that's why, in the real world, when someone gets hit by one they don't just get a bit of red in their vision before getting up 5 seconds later - they get dead, if not from the initial wound then from the shock and trauma caused by the catastrophic blood loss.

I thought the whole point of moving to smaller rounds was to try and reduce fatalities and cause injury instead as it takes more people out of the picture dealing with the injured soldier/person rather than being able to simply ignore a corpse

Would the Army fight it's own people?

Comments