Soldier refuses to deploy/follow Obama due to the POTUS is not US Citizen

[MoparMan]

No saw it on some movie. Didnt know thats where it came frome. Awesome poem though.

 

[jeremy]

I believe regardless of the president's citizenship status, just the fact we are waging war in a foreign land without congress declaring war makes the order unlawful.

here is a good quick read...


[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Declaring and Waging War: The U.S. Constitution[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]Jacob G. Hornberger[/FONT], [FONT=Arial,Geneva,sans-serif]April 2002[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Excuse me for asking an indelicate question in the midst of war, but where does President Bush derive the power to send the United States into war against another nation? Blah, Blah, Blah, etc...[/FONT]

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va.​

President bush did not Declare War on Foreign Countries or defy Congress in sending the boys to a third world hole to kill innocent people who did nothing wrong...

Don't believe me here you go...
Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force

 

[SavageEagle]

Yea, but the problem here is it's not a conventional war. It's not a war against any one certain Country. Not yet anyway. How can Congress declare war when there's no one Country or person to declare war on? The war on terror or war on drugs or war on poverty are not real wars that can be "Declared". Not conventionally anyway. Yes, technically those wars were declared, but not as if when we declared on Japan, Germany, Italy, Iraq, etc.

The war as it is now is not the same as it was before Sadaam was captured. We are now fighting in 4 Countries and none of them we've declared war ON. Just certain people within them Countries. That's the problem with this war. The rules still apply, but even though Congress approves the budget, they've never made the Declaration like they have in the past.

Now if you can show me the Declaration of War after Sadaam fell that was signed I'd be happy to recant all of the above...

 

[Bill of Rights]

AHAHAHA

But seriously, the courts have dismissed lawsuits regarding his birth certificate. What's next? You refusing to follow a courts ruling because of activist judges or something? What if someone said the same thing under George W. Bush and not wanting to serve? You guys would probably call him a coward. I mean, not wanting to serve after you've signed a contract is fine, just face the penalties. And to accuse Obama as a war criminal is fresh, because we know how you guys reacted when liberals accused Cheney and Bush of war crimes.

No sir. Refusing to follow a legitimate, legal order given by a legitimate authority (as in your example of refusing to serve under Bush) calls into question the legitimacy of the order, but not of the man giving it. That is, the proscution might ask, "Is this your signature on your enlistment papers?", and if the answer is yes, "On what grounds, then, did you refuse an order to deploy with your unit on (date)?" "I disagreed with the order."

Long and short of that is that his court martial would lead to a dishonorable discharge.

Conversely, if, say, a sergeant gives a PFC an order to not admit anyone to a particular building without the sergeant personally being present, BUT the sergeant is not in his direct chain of command, he would be within his rights to confirm the legitimacy of the order within his direct chain of command. We are not talking about a building, however. We're talking about the lives of Americans; soldiers today, but civilians tomorrow? Suppose the order given is for the military to enter American cities and support local law enforcement? A good soldier knows that the Posse Comitatus Act forbids this, but his oath requires he obey all lawful orders. Clearly, violating known US law would not be a lawful order. The soldier would be in the right, and whoever gave the order should be arrested, brought up on charges, and punished.

That all said, the military courts can try the soldier for failure to follow orders. The soldier's defense may include the legitimacy of the CIC and his eligibility to give those orders, but in the final analysis, the authority to demand that proof should fall to civilian authority-for if the military was to assume command to oust an ineligible CIC, I know of no Constitutional provision nor procedure to return that authority to civilian hands.

As I have noted many times, I am not an attorney. I have never served in the military, and I freely and openly admit these facts. However, if anyone who is an attorney or has served in the military and can speak with experience and/or authority is willing and able to refute my above points, I welcome the opportunity to learn better. If someone wishes to do so, I ask that he or she please PM me to let me know, just in case I miss the posting in this thread.

Thanks and Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

Yea, but the problem here is it's not a conventional war. It's not a war against any one certain Country. Not yet anyway. How can Congress declare war when there's no one Country or person to declare war on? The war on terror or war on drugs or war on poverty are not real wars that can be "Declared". Not conventionally anyway. Yes, technically those wars were declared, but not as if when we declared on Japan, Germany, Italy, Iraq, etc.

The war as it is now is not the same as it was before Sadaam was captured. We are now fighting in 4 Countries and none of them we've declared war ON. Just certain people within them Countries. That's the problem with this war. The rules still apply, but even though Congress approves the budget, they've never made the Declaration like they have in the past.

Now if you can show me the Declaration of War after Sadaam fell that was signed I'd be happy to recant all of the above...

That is total drivel... Which Blog or Media outlet did you garner that bit of worthless drivel from?

President bush did not Declare War on Foreign Countries or defy Congress in sending the boys to a third world hole to kill innocent people who did nothing wrong...

Don't believe me here you go...
Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force

Do you believe everything that you see and hear in the Media.
Read both of the above and then comment.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not true. It is unproven that the person giving the order is legally qualified to do so.

I believe he should have to do so to hold office, Joe, however there is that pesky detail of the presumption of innocence. He does not have to prove innocence of the charges, we must prove his guilt.

We have his own words and some historical facts, but these are circumstantial, not evidenciary. Someone could enter the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Hawaii and make a copy of the original long form, however it would be inadmissible, having been obtained outside of legal channels, a.k.a. "fruit of a poisonous tree". What we need is for a federal judge with jurisdiction to do so to order the document to be revealed. I think it is fair to say that this will not happen during this Congressional session.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

I believe he should have to do so to hold office, Joe, however there is that pesky detail of the presumption of innocence. He does not have to prove innocence of the charges, we must prove his guilt.

We have his own words and some historical facts, but these are circumstantial, not evidenciary. Someone could enter the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Hawaii and make a copy of the original long form, however it would be inadmissible, having been obtained outside of legal channels, a.k.a. "fruit of a poisonous tree". What we need is for a federal judge with jurisdiction to do so to order the document to be revealed. I think it is fair to say that this will not happen during this Congressional session.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't think it will happen, either. Nor do I think this soldier will be court martialed.

 

[dburkhead]

I believe he should have to do so to hold office, Joe, however there is that pesky detail of the presumption of innocence. He does not have to prove innocence of the charges, we must prove his guilt.

We have his own words and some historical facts, but these are circumstantial, not evidenciary. Someone could enter the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Hawaii and make a copy of the original long form, however it would be inadmissible, having been obtained outside of legal channels, a.k.a. "fruit of a poisonous tree". What we need is for a federal judge with jurisdiction to do so to order the document to be revealed. I think it is fair to say that this will not happen during this Congressional session.

Blessings,
Bill

Frankly, I really suspect that Obama was born in Hawaii just as he claims, and he did not renounce citizenship in Indonesia (another claim made) regardless of what his stepfather may have thought he was doing on his behalf.

As for why he hemmed and hawed and stalled and was secretive when the question first came up, I can see two possible motives:

1) That's just the way he treats questions that he or his his handlers wrote for him to "answer" and even when he had "nothing to hide" he nevertheless acts that way.

2) That kind of response sure gave the question "legs" and now whenever any questions about Obama's past are brought up, the birth certificate issue is trotted out as part of the campaign of belittling the question. Perhaps the whole "Obama not natural born" issue into a "flypaper" to trap questions about Obama's past.

 

[SavageEagle]

That is total drivel... Which Blog or Media outlet did you garner that bit of worthless drivel from?

Do you believe everything that you see and hear in the Media.
Read both of the above and then comment.

How is any of that "drivel"? Specifically. I don't blog or watch much media, but I do speak with a lot of people, veterans and the like, who don't disagree with me. If you really think the War on Drugs, or War on Terror is a conventional type of warfare, you must not know what that is.

As for both those things you posted, they have nothing to do with the current war on terror. They do, however, speak directly to our invasion of Iraq, up until the time Sadaam was captured. Once he was ousted, those became more or less obsolete. We were no longer at war with a NATION's Standing Army. We are now at "war" with "Extremeists" and "Radicals". Otherwise normal people from many many different Countries. Somalia, China, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Afganistan, Pakistan, Turkistan, etc, etc, etc.

You mean to tell me the USA/UN has declared war on all those Countries? As far as I can tell, those resolutions say nothing about that.

So tell me just exactly what part of my previous post was drivel.

 

[ATF Consumer]

President bush did not Declare War on Foreign Countries or defy Congress in sending the boys to a third world hole to kill innocent people who did nothing wrong...

Don't believe me here you go...
Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force

If you read Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, those two Public Laws directly conflict with it...therefore they are unconstitutional and not justified...here I'll clip it for you...

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again...just because Congress passes laws, does not make them constitutional...look at all of the stuff going on currently...like you really believe it is all constitutional?

 

[jeremy]

Savage those 2 laws I posted are what you asked be provided to you. Those are the Declarations of War that has allowed the Military to be deployed against Our Enemies as decided by the President and the Congress.

Contrary to a LOT of popular belief it takes more than just one persons say to deploy the Military into combat operations. If Congress was really serious about not sending us anywhere all they have to do is say no, and cut the purse strings. If the Military is deployed then by God Congress and the POTUS have put on paper as a Public Law.

 

[SavageEagle]

Savage those 2 laws I posted are what you asked be provided to you. Those are the Declarations of War that has allowed the Military to be deployed against Our Enemies as decided by the President and the Congress.

Contrary to a LOT of popular belief it takes more than just one persons say to deploy the Military into combat operations. If Congress was really serious about not sending us anywhere all they have to do is say no, and cut the purse strings. If the Military is deployed then by God Congress and the POTUS have put on paper as a Public Law.

So let's see the text of the law declaring the war on these people. Those two you listed are not it.

 

[jeremy]

THOSE ARE THE TITLES TO THE LAWS IN QUESTION!

 

[dburkhead]

How is any of that "drivel"? Specifically. I don't blog or watch much media, but I do speak with a lot of people, veterans and the like, who don't disagree with me. If you really think the War on Drugs, or War on Terror is a conventional type of warfare, you must not know what that is.

As for both those things you posted, they have nothing to do with the current war on terror. They do, however, speak directly to our invasion of Iraq, up until the time Sadaam was captured. Once he was ousted, those became more or less obsolete. We were no longer at war with a NATION's Standing Army. We are now at "war" with "Extremeists" and "Radicals". Otherwise normal people from many many different Countries. Somalia, China, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Afganistan, Pakistan, Turkistan, etc, etc, etc.

You mean to tell me the USA/UN has declared war on all those Countries? As far as I can tell, those resolutions say nothing about that.

So tell me just exactly what part of my previous post was drivel.

If you think the continued presense in Iraq is invalid, then how does that same argument not invalidate the occupation forces in Germany and Japan after WWII?

As for the list of countries you've provided, perhaps you can point to the actual military operations we're taking in Somalia, China, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Afganistan, Pakistan, Turkistan, etc, etc, etc.

I'll give you Afghanistan but that, too, was authorized by Congress. I'll also point out that the Korean War has. not. ended. It's in a "cease fire," not even a "truce," let alone a peace treaty.

Don't confuse the rhetoric of "war on ..." (I've been known to refer to my diet and exercise program as a "battle of the bulge" but that doesn't mean Congress has to declare it) with an actual shooting war that requires Congressional declaration.

Only Congress has the ability to declare war, but Congress authorizing the President to use military force is effectively a declaration of war. The flip side of that is that evern from the very beginning of our history, we did not need an official declaration of war for every use of military power. Congress has officially declared war (using those words) exactly five times in its history. More frequently there have been congressional authorizations to use military force (call it "declaration of ware lite"), and the longest "war" in US history (Apache War 1840-1886) was fought without any formal Congressional approval at all. Note that this is true of the Indian wars in general. There was no formal declaration of war and if you think that just declaring "that plot of land is ours" and moving in and ousting the autochthons is adequate substitute for a declaration of war, then why could we not do the same thing in Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else we took a fancy to?

 

[SavageEagle]

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hjres114.pdf

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.​

(a) A​

​

​

​

UTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—​

(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council​

resolutions regarding Iraq.

No it is not. No where does it say Somalia, Afganistan, Syria, Pakistan and any other Country that I'm sure we've entered into in hunt for terrorists.

So again, those are not the documents I'm looking for as they ended with the liberation of Iraq.

 

[jeremy]

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

• Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

• (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

• (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

• • (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

• • (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
​

 

[Cwood]

.

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Those authorizations and resolutions are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL...show me where in the constitution that congress has authority to pass such...

 

[jeremy]

You have all ready posted that yourself...

 

[SavageEagle]

If you think the continued presence in Iraq is invalid, then how does that same argument not invalidate the occupation forces in Germany and Japan after WWII? Uh, hello, us being there is very unconstitutional. Those Countries just allow us to be there. Why I don't know.

As for the list of countries you've provided, perhaps you can point to the actual military operations we're taking in Somalia, China, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkestan, etc, etc, etc. Somalia, pirates. We've entered their territory to hunt terrorists on sea and land. China, cyberspace. If they did it to us, we've done it to them (north Korea). Every other Country, we've entered into to hunt terrorists. That is an invasion, regardless of permission. And that's not the whole point about this anyway. People from these Countries are going into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight us. They may be away from their Country, but so are we. Therefore that makes us at war with these people. If you want to call this Conventional War, that would mean we are at war with those Countries as a whole. That's why I say it's not a conventional war. Get it now? I can always explain it as if explaining to my 3y/o...

I'll give you Afghanistan but that, too, was authorized by Congress. I'll also point out that the Korean War has. not. ended. It's in a "cease fire," not even a "truce," let alone a peace treaty. Yes, I know this and I'm not arguing against it. Even though the Korean war was never a true "War" but a "Conflict". Congress never declared war on Korea.

Only Congress has the ability to declare war, but Congress authorizing the President to use military force is effectively a declaration of war.
No it is not. That's like saying Congress gives you money to re-gravel a road, but you actually use the money to blacktop the road, paint lines, and put up road signs, etc. It's not the same. There must be a declaration of war for it to be a Legal War. Otherwise it is just a National Security Conflict. Essentially. I'm sure there's a better term for it. Either way you get my point.

The flip side of that is that Even from the very beginning of our history, we did not need an official declaration of war for every use of military power. Congress has officially declared war (using those words) exactly five times in its history. More frequently there have been congressional authorizations to use military force (call it "declaration of ware lite"), and the longest "war" in US history (Apache War 1840-1886) was fought without any formal Congressional approval at all. Note that this is true of the Indian wars in general. There was no formal declaration of war and if you think that just declaring "that plot of land is ours" and moving in and ousting the autochthons is adequate substitute for a declaration of war, then why could we not do the same thing in Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else we took a fancy to?

Again. A declaration of war must be authorized for it to be a LEGAL war and not just a Conflict that carries National Security interests. You can call it a war, but by law it is not unless it carries a Declaration of war with it, signed by Congress. Just passing a bill for money to fund the conflict DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DECLARATION OF WAR.