|
50th CONGRESS
Rules of Engagement Act of 2017
OFFICE OF ALEX_KLEIN
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS [IL - District 7]
1/20/2017
Shall it be enacted by the United States House of Representatives and Senate.
PREAMBLE:
The Rules of Engagement Act is to protect unarmed civilians in time of war and take appropriate action when there is a threat.
SECTION I:
This legislation shall be cited as the “Rules of Engagement Act.”
SECTION II:
(a) Nothing in these rules of engagement limits your right to take appropriate action to defend yourself and your unit.
SECTION III:
(a)You have the right to use force to defend yourself against attacks or threats of attack.
(b) Hostile fire may be returned effectively and promptly to stop hostile actions.
(c) When U.S. Forces are attacked by unarmed hostile elements, mobs and/or rioters, U.S. Forces should use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances and proportional to the threat.
(d) Detention of civilians is authorized for security reasons or in self-defense.
SECTION IV:
(a) If military personnel commit any crime against the “Rules of Engagement Act” they shall appear in military court.
SECTION V:
(a) The “Rules of Engagement Act” shall be taken effect on February 1st, 2017. |
|
|
aye
InfIuenced - That SWAT kid |
|
|
|
Bill hasn't passed committee votes don't count
|
|
IIBenWBJoin Date: 2014-06-30
Post Count: 541 |
Aye |
|
Mr_HeIIoJoin Date: 2012-07-26
Post Count: 663 |
Aye.
@Cal there is no committee for military affairs or dealing with such so it goes straight to the house floor. |
|
|
makes RoE, doesn't consult to CJCS or SECDEF. I'd hold off on this until you see what the military / DoD thinks. |
|
|
^ this is protecting civilians, thats all |
|
|
>expects usm to follow rules that have been proven over a century of combined modern warfare to do nothing but result in the death of millions of more heavily funded heavily trained men and women than any other policy enacted by any form of government in recorded histroy
If you have no idea what your talking about and are simply doing it because you think "guise its realistiahc wez gota be realizatc" you are blind to the fact that you, or anyone else can enforce this.
If the bill passes USM won't follow it, you have my word and the words of the entire joint chiefs of staff.
Signed, matthew904
Vice Chief of Naval Operations
|
|
|
also the fact that you think there is a active military court only proves my point that you have no idea what you are talking about. |
|
|
Remember to consult with the Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff next time. Instead of the RoE Act of 2017, we can follow the Geneva Convention and the RoE we have.
- P. Tech
ADM, USN |
|
|
Its obvious in this bill that Congress is Ignorant to the facts of USM. USM will not follow this no matter how many times you sign it, and for literally one reason, the JCS didn't approve. The JCS are the leaders of the Military no matter how much you argue it... The Enlisted and Officers arent going to do it unless the JCS say to, and the JCS arent going to do it when you decide to go behind their back to create a bill about their USM and not consult them. Good luck with that.
PatriotActual
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff |
|
|
@Matthew Then we'll see you in military court and you will be discharged. :) |
|
Saber516Join Date: 2011-08-11
Post Count: 725 |
Nay, I personally believe you should've consulted the military first for their honest opinion, whenever I make a bill impacting how things are run I always contact the agencies or departments to get their honest opinion, this is a general message to all representatives to contact people before you impact how they run their things.
Signed, Saber516 shake like a dog |
|
EcoBackJoin Date: 2012-11-02
Post Count: 1177 |
Nay, sorry but what they all say adds up. Plus, if citizens get in the way, they may have to die. |
|
|
I'm sorry but the RoE doesn't need to be established, since the only way the United States Military would ever get deployed on US Soil is during Martial Law, which has really never occurred in NUSA, and if that National Guard was deployed for national emergencies, which has never happened, nor do we have a National Guard.
|
|
AllenianoJoin Date: 2013-05-23
Post Count: 1834 |
Sorry, but no. Nobody would follow this. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and should have contacted the JCS first. |
|
|
"ill see you in military court"
Even after i sat there and said "there is no established or active military court" you replied with that. Honestly just resign, your incompetency is to much to bear. |
|
|
siteownerJoin Date: 2011-09-27
Post Count: 135 |
Nay, the current RoE are fine. Now now, saying you wont follow a law you disagree with, is stupid and that mentality. Its your job to also follow the rules of the land. If you dont follow the rules, you can be taken to court. Besides, saying "I wont do this because I dont want to" The POTUS will be on your butt so hard it will be numb. Remember he has to sign these things into laws (without overrule of senate) I think this is no way for our military to act in this regard, and I do say it must be stopped. I do nay, as the USM officials provided good points. However I think this will solidify things more. Sticking with nay though.
Jay S. Grant
Executive Director of the Plutocratic Party
United States Senator (P-TX) |
|
|