Just thought I'd share a quote...

[badapple40]

...why, of course the people don't want war. ... But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

The quote is not nearly as interesting as who said it and where it was said.

 

[Litigation!]

The quote is not nearly as interesting as who said it and where it was said.

My response:

Sounds like something Bush would have said, had Bush been educated enough to speak the English language so colorfully.

But, Bush's and his crony's intent is there, just like Goering.


IAAL

 

[seniorjudge]

The quote is not nearly as interesting as who said it and where it was said.

Good one....

 

[tryingtoplease]

My response:

Sounds like something Bush would have said, had Bush been educated enough to speak the English language so colorfully.

But, Bush's and his crony's intent is there, just like Goering.


IAAL

It's all part of Bush's "strategory".

 

[badapple40]

I just want to make clear that I was not commenting in any way, shape, or form about the government of the United States or elected officers thereof. I just found a historical quote and it provoked thought.

 

[seniorjudge]

I just want to make clear that I was not commenting in any way, shape, or form about the government of the United States or elected officers thereof. I just found a historical quote and it provoked thought.

I have this really nifty swampland around Amite City, Louisiana that would make a GREAT alligator ranch!

 

[fozzy2]

In 1946 Truman was talking of increasing military spending, which most people assumed would just about dissappear after the end of World War II (we were 'technically' still at war, but neither Germany nor Japan looked like it was going to fight the occupation).

Senator Arthur Vandenburg famously warned that you couldn't just spend a bunch of money, first you had to "scare the hell out of the American people." This was one element in the creation of NSC-68, a document well known to historians of the cold war and even many others.

It is an ancient theme, there are Greek and Roman (and British) pronouncements along the same lines. You've got to scare the people to get anything done. Silly little people, they just want to be left alone to their pathetic little lives. Empire demands more! Viva La....whatever.

It is a very interesting, and discussed, issue in the history of Germany and of Fascism of the era, about how much the original German leadership "truly believed" that Jews were a threat to Germany, and how much was just kowtowing to public opinion and attempting to inflame fear and loathing. "There is an enemy in our midst" makes things so much more personal than just some enemy overseas.... (similarly, the legend of the "Wreckers" in Stalinist Russia and so on).

So let's put a legal/constitutional spin on this: What role, if any, does the uniformed U.S. military have in "scaring" or "informing" the public? Is it the duty of the military to "drum up support" for the CinChief's policies? Should it oppose them if it collectively disagrees? As an asidel, the United States Army hires more Public Relations specialists every year than any other organization in the U.S. Hmmmmm.....

 

[seniorjudge]

Should it oppose them if it collectively disagrees?

No.

Hell, NO!

 

[fozzy2]

Should it oppose them if it collectively disagrees?

No.

Hell, NO!

But it should publicly support them if it agrees? But then, by simply remaining silent, that will be inferred disagreement. So, basically, the military has *no choice* but to be a cheerleader/PR machine for the president? ( Westmoreland thought so. Talk about quotes from interesting people... ).

 

[badapple40]

There is a fine line that military officers cannot cross. Article 88 of the UCMJ provides:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation,
or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

You can do less than use contemptuous words and be charged with a variety of other UCMJ charges since the military has a number of regulations on protesting and, in general, going against the grain. For instance, I cannot don on my service dress and protest in front of the white house, lest I risk punishment under the UCMJ.

My point here is that often the option is to shut up and color, notwithstanding your own personal views of policy. Keep in mind, there is a limit, as Ollie North learned. Unlawful orders cannot be followed and military members are obligated to testify truthfully before congress if called.