Question: The Ruckus is in full swing. Us versus Them has come down to the Enemies of Liberty versus Constitutionalists.
When, if ever, do you permit your Enemies to tap out? When do you let a combatant walk off the field? When do you accept his "word" that he will fight no more and go home, and treat the Constitution with respect?
At what point is Surrender by the Enemies of Liberty considered viable? Is it not likely they would, at some point of enduring loss after loss, use "Surrender" as a tactic? Would They not still out-number Constitutionalists, and seek to take the fight back from the field and into the ballot boxes?
When it starts...do you ever quit until the Enemies of Liberty are eliminated from our shores?
Or: Are Patriots obligated to rid the continent, by any means necessary, of every Enemy of Liberty, Marxist, Socialist, Liberal, Blue Dog & Establishment R and supporter thereof...
Kerodin
III
"When do you accept his "word" that he will fight no more and go home, and treat the Constitution with respect"???????????
ReplyDeleteDon't really have a answer to that one.........
It's not like his "Word" has not been good before. Or is it?
Dennis
III
Texas
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats".
ReplyDeleteH. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)
"No quarter asked,and none given to those that would make us slaves".
We are obligated to remove them all period. No surrender or mercy. There is NO OTHER WAY!
ReplyDeleteCIII
Hint.....Take NO prisoners!
ReplyDeleteBob
III
You allow your enemy to walk off the field when he has surrendered his arms. You allow him to return home when he demonstrates his intention to no longer participate in hostilities against FREFOR in their quest to restore Constitutional government.
ReplyDelete'Just War' requires the killing of enemy combatants ONLY. Once they surrender, they are no longer 'combatants'. Afterwards, how one handles the 'peace' is equally important as how one handles 'war'.
As the goal is to restore Constitutional government, that means when/if the foe is vanquished on the field, we must provide the example of living within the framework of Constitutional limitations of government.
TRUE limitations.
That means the patriot must operate within the confines of both the spirit and intent of our founding documents, such as the unanimous Declaration as well as the Constitution. That we do not deprive men of life, property or liberty without due process, meaning, a full accounting before a jury of their peers. As was intended by the ratifiers of the Constitution.
Therefore, if a belligernt surrenders on the field, then it is up to the on-scene commander to restrain his men as much as possible and provide for the prisoners, however and with whatever accomodations can be provided.
To continue hostilities against them once surrendered will come under the heading of 'war crime' and 'murder', and will have nullified their rights as Americans under the 5th Amendment (remember our goal: Restoration of the Constitutional limitations upon government).
If enough are murdered, it becomes 'genocide' and there is no differentiation between the force fighting for liberty and, say, Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler.
On the question of use of 'surrender' as a tactic, nothing says that FREFOR lowers their weapons from a 'cover' position as OPFOR surrenders. A hostile move by a 'surrendering' combatant is justifiable cause to resume firing upon the surrendering person/party.
Morality in the acceptance of surrender and subsequent humane treatment of our countrymen who've had a change of heart does not include the suspension of self-defense against an enemy attempting to use that same morality to kill FREFOR.
That's the rub about fighting for Liberty: You have to model the behavior of the system you're fighting for in order for it to be taken seriously by your opponent. If you are trying to restore honor, justice, and 'fair play', you must act accordingly.
Otherwise....why not join the other side?
My .02
Patton's policy was to strongly discourage taking prisoners once combat had started. He didn't want the enemy shooting and inflicting casualties right up until the friendlies break into the bunker, only to surrender then and get off essentially scot-free. His argument was, if they make you fight at all, they don't get to surrender: kill them. That way the ones that haven't started fighting yet will think twice about starting anything.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Sun Tzu talks about building "golden bridges" for your enemies - giving them clear paths of retreat. I would say that is a strategic or grand tactical concern, while Patton's policy is tactical. I think they are both sound.
What about my neighbor - a lawyer who donates heavily to the DNC and is farther Left than Nancy Pelosi. He never picks up a weapon, never hurls a stone...what are we to do with him and his family?
ReplyDeleteDoes a loyalty oath cover it? I don't know about you, but if Nancy Pelosi signed a piece of paper swearing allegience to the Constitution as ratified, I'd think she is lying, and will continue to work toward Marxism.
Does the lawyer face trial for undermining the Constitution for having supported politicians and policies that are clearly unconstitutional, therefore revolutionary acts?
Do we give them 72 hours to pack up the family and exit the republic?
To my thinking, such a man will never stop trying to steer our republic Left, will never stop trying to skew and warp what my nieces and nephews are taught is Right and Wrong...he has no place among Americans.
Kerodin
III
Kerodin,
ReplyDeleteI'd answer your question with another question: What happened to the Torries after the revolution? Those that swung with whichever way the wind blew and accepted the 'new constellation' were allowed to stay and live in peace. Those that would not or could not were allowed to emigrate to Canada, a British possession. There were no trials of ordinary citizens or against the loyalists who fought against the Colonials. They were simply left to move out of the country if they would not give their allegiance. True enough, those who tried to stay while not giving allegiance to the new order of things were forced to leave under unpleasant circumstances, but nevertheless, they were offered the opportunity to adapt and stay. After all, they were colonists, too. For a later example, remember that Rhode Island was the last State to ratify the Constitution, and was held in such contempt for their valid beliefs about Liberty that the new US Congress iniated a bill to outlaw all commerce with the State or any citizen thereof. After they ratified, President Washington sent a concilatory letter to their governor and talked of forgiveness of old hatreds and angers on both sides, and that, as all the 13 states were now a family, they should begin anew.
Should we be any worse toward your neighbor, the attorney?
If, after any 'ruckus' A: he was still alive and B: could not or would not resolve to give an Oath to the Constitution, how would it harm the cause of Liberty to allow him and his family to emigrate elsewhIere? Especially (as we are speculating) if several of the contiguous 48 had determined they would not be part of the 'restored united States under a restored Constitution' and welcomed all 'liberals' such as Pelosi and your neighbor?
I can see none.
I can only see that we would 'walk the talk' of Liberty for all, demonstrating that so long as a citizen did not encroach upon the liberty of others, as codified in the restored Constitution, he or she may live and think as they please. With such a recent example as a 'ruckus' of significant proportions that a great number of the population had a SEE-LCE (significant emotional event - life changing event) by witnessing or experiencing a Restoration 'ruckus', logic and objective reasoning would indicate they'd either sign on to the 'new' restoration (to include the abolishment of the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments just for a start) or they'd take the opportunity offered in peace to leave by a certain date...say 60 days (during which time they'd be monitored by local citizen committees, possibly the militia) to ensure they didn't attempt to re-ignite hostilities.
Just brain storming here...but the main thrust is that in order to win the peace, we'd need to show the magnanimity of our cause by 'living while letting live' if at all possible. Strength and determination of cause will already have been shown more than enough to make an impact.
My .02
FREFOR will not have the means or capacity to accommodate "prisoners". We will have enough problems looking after ourselves and our own.
ReplyDeleteOne who tacitly approves of the man trying to kill me is just as much my enemy. I could care less who that person is. Wife, child, mother, father...
I will have no capacity for prisoners. I will have no compassion for the man trying to kill me or the people supporting him.
It will be up to them to exit the my AO.
Offer no quarter.
ReplyDeleteKill the enemy. Because If it comes, they WILL help their kind.
Protect the tribe at all costs
I have to take the position that any person who has actively facilitated the Marxist movement to the Left, the deliberate undermining of the clear intent of the Constitution, even if only by voting Left or donating money, is a person who has attacked my Liberty, my ability to feed my family, my ability to pursue Happiness, and generally proven to be an Enemy of Liberty guilty under Article III Section III.
ReplyDeleteIf you live in an AO riddled with such people and the war goes Hot, my position is that they are treated as Hostiles. Perhaps they do not deserve to be burned out of home & hearth on Day One. But I think it quite proper to give them 72 hours to clear out of the AO. The moment they pick up a brick or weapon, or they are still at home after the 72 hour mark...
I don't see a lot of gray in this one.
Kerodin
III
Let's use Eric Holder as an example. He has been the most corrupt and racist AG in the history of this country, AFAIK, and has nothing but hatred in his heart for those of us who support the Constitution. If there is armed conflict, and Federal law enforcement attacks civilians (and perhaps part of the military gets involved as well) at his direction, is overcome by FreeFor and Holder "taps out", does he deserve anything less than death?
ReplyDeleteI think anyone who has supported the Left should be permitted to leave this country, since they didn't approve of this country enough to support it. But anyone who was active in the suppression of freedom, anyone who ordered the incarceration or deaths of citizens, who damaged or tried to damage the Constitution (like SCOTUS), who voted to force socialism upon us should not be permitted to "tap out". That would be like letting one of the terrorists who tortured, raped, and killed children at Beslan being allowed to "tap out" when overwhelming force was brought to bear.
No effing way. Any politician, official, cabinet member or bureaucrat who participated in the attempt to destroy this country, to destroy or neutralize the Constitution, who was responsible for the imprisonment of citizens, raids upon civilians or businesses should be capped, not tapped. That includes the some of the people that like to vacation at Martha's Vineyard.
You see no grey because there is none. We haven't really been given any notices to clear out with their continued barages,and when we speak out, they label US.
ReplyDeleteThey've just shoved everything through regardless of how we vote,the countless letters we write,or the phone calls we write.
Trainer makes some good points,and always has over the years. But things have to change,and there's some ugliness coming. Be ready....
CIII
"...When do you let a combatant walk off the field?"
ReplyDeleteWhen every aborted fetus walks out of the operating room.
Period.
Shy III
I'd agree wholeheartedly that something ugly this way comes. We have been beaten, demeaned, murdered, robbed, swindled, and generally oppressed for many years. However, when and if battle commences, it will still be up the field commanders to restrain their troops from becoming that which they fight.
ReplyDeleteOn the Holder and other officials examples on 'tap out', , when FREFOR wins the day, those officials who've been active in the dissolution of the compact, enslavement of the citizenry, and ordered (or have been complicit in - including the trigger pullers) the murder of citizens under the color of law, mistaken identity or not, should be tried for crimes committed and if convicted, be sentenced accordingly.
Even at Nuremburg, all were afforded a reasonable defense; all were offered an opportunity to speak on their behalf; not all were hung.
In short, Nuremburg was conducted under law, as should any trials for crimes against the Constitution be done by Constitutional procedure. Not mock trials, either. We owe that to our posterity.
As to allowing surrender ('tap out'), consider a situation where no recourse is given for surrender without immediate or certain execution. OPFOR, even an office bound official with little to no chance of winning, will most likely see no choice other than to continue to fight, possibly getting lucky and killing a few more FREFOR.
If FREFOR is fighting to restore the Law of the Land, it must, especially when OPFOR attempts to surrender either in a single battle or en mass, comply with the Law of the Land. To do otherwise nullifies the strategic objective.
And later, when the history is written, the just action of FREFOR will be unimpeachable. Isn't that why we still restrain ourselves? To ensure we've done everything possible to demonstrate our willingness to return government to its purpose peacefully?
Trainer makes some very good points,and he is Correct.... But to tell the truth I have nowhere to hold any prisoners and cannot accept "their word" on anything. So until there is a secure holding place for these prisoners.... I am left with little choice except to either kill or incapacitate them in some manner.
ReplyDeleteDennis
III
Texas