To clear the confusion, read that part of the article I quoted. While the topic was "NATO allowing U.S troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan", his comment was about US military being ordered to arrest civilians. I can see where that might cause a little confusion, but, lets face it, some people here post a bit off topic in some forums also. It would be a bit clearer for all of us if the press had printed or if someone actually had a copy of just exactly what he did post. I didn't see the actual post, only what is in this article and the one posted on Foxnews.com, which was pretty much the same.Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.
In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.
Also, when active duty military refer to citizens, they are usually refering to civilians, not themselves or other military memebers. They are of course Citizens (at least any after their first enlistment), but it is very rare for them to include themselves in any general statement of "citizen". He would not be ordered to arrest anyone on active duty unless he was military police or shore patrol, or assigned to provide that duty.
I am niether a TEA Partier or on active duty anymore, so I have never seen that forum. Personally, I prefer a nice open forum where all sides give input vs one that has a particular focus and is more like everyone posting to prove thier view right when they almost always agreed from the start.
Last edited by DVSentinel; 03-24-12 at 03:37 PM.