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

[Bigum1969]

To fan the fire, I found that civilians can be under the UCMJ. Check this out:

Frequently Asked Questions on the UCMJ Change and its Applicability to Private Military Contractors - Brookings Institution

The 2007 Defense Bill, enacted in October, places contractors and others who accompany the military in the field under UCMJ (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), by defining UCMJ to cover civilians not just in times of declared war but also contingency operations. To put it another way, basically 100,000 contractors woke up to find themselves potentially under the same set of military laws that govern the armed forces.


So, it would seem that, theoretically, the President, as a civilian, could be accountable to the UCMJ.

But, I found the following explanation which makes sense to me:
#1. As a practical matter the president is not under UCMJ jurisdiction. In theory he (or she) might appear to qualify in certain circumstances, but if ever put to the legal test (i.e. litigation) the courts would almost certainly say "No Way." There has never been specific case law that I'm aware of, and I doubt the U.S. military is going to try it.

#2. There is no such charge as "malicious intent to conspire to deceive the armed forces in the contrivance and issuance of unlawful orders for the escalation of the Iraq war." Things like "malicious intent" and even outright "lying" are not violations of the UCMJ. Troops are often lied to. It is generally not illegal. To the extent that you believe the invasion of Iraq is itself illegal, the courts will call it a "political question."

As the state of the law currently stands, a U.S. president can start a war under any circumstances with anyone he wishes with no permission from anyone. Unless his subordinates refuse to follow his orders, and/or unless congress takes very specific action to prevent/halt him. The courts will refuse to intervene, "plain language" of the U.S. constitution notwithstanding.

 

[ATF Consumer]

If you were a little older, and maybe a student of history, you'd find that we've had troops "in harm's way" in many more countries over many more years than since 9/11 just not on the evening news every night, ALL without formal declarations of war. Congo, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon, and many others that never made the news. No declaration of formal war, but our boys took and returned fire in every one of them.

All unconstitutional...

Laws are being passed every month that are unconstitutional by our elected officials that don't care about the Constitution.

Just because actions have been taken, doesn't make them legal.

 

[Vigilant]

Show me where it says the President is EXEMPT from UCMJ.

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who--

(1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority;

(2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority:

(3) received military pay or allowances; and

(4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-

(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);

(B) trial by court-martial; or

(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was

(A) on active duty; or

(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.

(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.

(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not--

(A) be sentenced to confinement; or

(B) be required to serve a punishment of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).

OK, this is from the actual UCMJ, not a blog or C-span, or otherwise, but from the actual UCMJ. now, nowhere in there does it say POTUS or President, if however the POTUS were an Active Component retiree collecting a check, he could then be subject. As an aside, many people who hated Clinton(me included), asked he be tried by courts-martial after Monicagate, as adultery is illegal under UCMJ, they could not, so they went the impeachment route, which didn't work out so well either.

 

[Metro 40]

WTFEVER.

Well, that settles it.

 

[Joe Williams]

Looks like this discussion isn't moving forward much, as those that disagree with the constitution keep posting unconstitutional laws to prove their point, but it is all invalid as they keep turning a blind eye to the truth.

Those who disagree with policy continue making up Constitutional requirements that simply are not there. It's invalid, and displays a disdain for the truth.

 

[dburkhead]

No, I was stating it as it is. The President IS part of the military, A declaration of war, not a BUDGET bill, is required for a legal war, and if the Prez isn't legally Prez, then all orders from him are moot and illegal orders. Those are my points, they are fact, any arguement against them are poo, I"m right, you're wrong, deal with it and move on.

Ah, the old "declare victory by simple assertion" approach.

Lets go through these point by point:

1) The president is not part of the military. "Civilian control of the military." He gives orders to the military, but he is not part of the military. Among other things, he's not subject to he UCMJ.

2a) Let's leave aside the budget provisions for the time being (we'll get back to that later). Does a resolution passed by Congress that the President is authorized to use military force against a particular nation qualify as a declaration of war against that nation? If not, why not? What is required, in your view, to make it a "declaration of war"? And, if not, then consider the following:

Quasi-war between US and France, US commanders: President John Adams, Lieutenant General George Washington, Major General Alexander Hamilton. 1798-1800

First Barbary War between the US and Tripoli et al, US, President Thomas Jefferson (I'm not going to get into commanders beyond the President unless they are of particular historical interest). 1801-1805

Second Barbary War. President James Madison

Raid of slave traffic in Africa, President James Monroe. 1820-1823

War with Paraquay (redress for attack on US Navy vessel) President James Buchanan, 1859

Intervention in the Russian Civil War Woodrow Wilson 1918

and so on.

All of these (and others more recent that I didn't bother to list) were done based on a Congressional authorization to use military force--exactly what we are talking about here. And note that I stopped at 6 of these "wars" authorized by Congress without using phrases such as "we declare that a state of war exists...." or similar. That's more than the number of cases where the US did use such verbiage. Historically, the congressional authorization without that specific verbiage is actually the norm. Indeed, we fought two wars that way before we first actually used such verbiage.

If you really think that you're understanding of what the Constitutional requirements are for the US using military force against foreign powers is better than that of folk like John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, I'd love to hear your rationale.

2b) So, if an "authorization to use military force" can serve for Congress's Constitutional role of declaring war (and, as we see above, it has from the very earliest days of the Republic), then how can adding funding to it make it less so? It would seem to me that "you are authorized to use military force" is completely included in "you are authorized to use military force and here's some money to do so." The bills you dismiss as "budget bills" are authorizations to use military force. That wording is right there in the bill. They also include funding to carry out that use of military force. The funding adds to the authorization; it doesn't detract from it.

3) Even if the President isn't legally President*--and here you'd be on pretty shaky legal ground since you'd, frankly, have to prove it--he's only one stop on the chain of command. You might argue that SecDef and even SecArmy/Navy/AF are likewise invalid. However, once you get down into the military itself, you get to officers whose authority is not dependent on who is sitting in the top seat. And when I was in the military my orders weren't signed "Ronald Reagan, President" (from the time of my service) they were signed "Captain Bohica, XXXX Electronic Security Squadron." His orders I had to obey "according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" (per the oath I took) whoever was sitting in the Oval Office. And if he took orders from someone not authorized to give them (which is the case you are stipulating here about Obama) and gave me orders based on those orders, I was still obligated to obey his orders on his authority unless the orders themselves were illegal in their content (violation of laws of war, that sort of thing). If, for example, the Base Commander's wife (who is not in the chain of command, just in case that isn't clear ) "ordered" him to haver her car painted yellow and he ordered me to paint the car yellow, then I would be in violation if I refused. Now, if the situation was that the order was to paint the XO's car yellow in furtherance of some feud then I would be obligated not to obey the order since he would be ordering me to commit the crime of vandalism. In either case, his authority to give orders to me is his authority and not dependent on whoever else might be up the chain of command at that particular time.

It's about discipline, something that a military organization cannot function without. An individual is responsible to the authority of their immediate officers, to the people who actually give them their orders. It's the folk higher up who have to worry about the authority of the officers, and eventually the civilians, over them. You pretty much have to get to Corps commanders before you get to the point where whether or not Obama being legally the President of the United States has any bearing on whether orders are legal.

And that pretty much covers your points. At the very least, they are not as cut and dried as you seem to think.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Those who disagree with policy continue making up Constitutional requirements that simply are not there. It's invalid, and displays a disdain for the truth.

Well, as long as it's policy...it must be right. I mean...our elected officials all swore to uphold the constitution, so they must all be following the law of the land and only passing constitutional laws. None of them would lie...right?

 

[dburkhead]

So, it would seem that, theoretically, the President, as a civilian, could be accountable to the UCMJ.

Um, no. That civilians, under certain circumstances, are covered by the UCMJ, does not mean that the President can be. And I wasn't using "President is not part of the military" as a reason for not being under the UCMJ, but rather that the President is not under the UCMJ as reason for President not being part of the military.

The only writ that runs against the President is Impeachment followed by trial by the Senate. That's spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[Bigum1969]

Um, no. That civilians, under certain circumstances, are covered by the UCMJ, does not mean that the President can be. And I wasn't using "President is not part of the military" as a reason for not being under the UCMJ, but rather that the President is not under the UCMJ as reason for President not being part of the military.

The only writ that runs against the President is Impeachment followed by trial by the Senate. That's spelled out in the Constitution.

That makes sense. I was just taking that reasoning a little too far

 

[dburkhead]

Well, as long as it's policy...it must be right. I mean...our elected officials all swore to uphold the constitution, so they must all be following the law of the land and only passing constitutional laws. None of them would lie...right?

"I abjure you in the bowels of Christ to consider the possibility that you might be mistaken." Oliver Cromwell.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your interpretation of what makes a law "constitutional" or otherwise might not always be correct? I certainly have--which is why I spend a great deal of time looking at things like historical precedent and things like what the folk who actually wrote the Constitution said and did.

Now, if I had found that these "undeclared wars" were a new thing, a 20th century phenomenon or something (much like the "militia" interpretation of the 2nd is a historically recent development) like that, then I'd probably agree with you, and it would go onto the queue of things to be dealt with as we attempt to reassert the actual Constitution. But that's not what I found. Men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe presided over wars "declared" exactly like we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Congresses of their day considered the authorizations they passed sufficient. I am unable to find any record of anyone challenging the procedure in court.

The recent "innovation" is claiming that such use of military force is Unconstitutional, much like the recent "innovation" is claiming that the 2nd only applied to a National Guard that didn't even exist when it was formed and to formal State Militias.

 

[SavageEagle]

If you were a little older, and maybe a student of history, you'd find that we've had troops "in harm's way" in many more countries over many more years than since 9/11 just not on the evening news every night, ALL without formal declarations of war. Congo, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon, and many others that never made the news. No declaration of formal war, but our boys took and returned fire in every one of them.

I'm not stupid. Of course we've been to many many places, even places that are classified, in CONFLICT with one person or peoples or another. Those are simply conflicts and not a LEGAL WAR.

When I say legal, I don't just mean by our laws. Also as set forth in the Geneva Convention and others. Something that if put on the world stage would be considered legit.

Why have so many of our allies pulled troops, all troops, from our war zones? It's not for National Security, I'll tell you that.

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who--

(1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority;

(2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority:

(3) received military pay or allowances; and

(4) performed military duties: is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-

(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);

(B) trial by court-martial; or

(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was

(A) on active duty; or

(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.

(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.

(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not--

(A) be sentenced to confinement; or

(B) be required to serve a punishment of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).

OK, this is from the actual UCMJ, not a blog or C-span, or otherwise, but from the actual UCMJ. now, nowhere in there does it say POTUS or President, if however the POTUS were an Active Component retiree collecting a check, he could then be subject. As an aside, many people who hated Clinton(me included), asked he be tried by courts-martial after Monicagate, as adultery is illegal under UCMJ, they could not, so they went the impeachment route, which didn't work out so well either.

Good. Real facts. President would fall into the first category...

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces,

Component. The office of the POTUS is a component of the armed forces. He gives orders. That is a component. Nonmembers of the AF would be FDA, DA, Sheriffs, local PD, town mayor, they don't have a say, so they are not a component.

Just because you couldn't try Clinton on Adultery doesn't mean anything. He was not Prez when they were doing their thang. He was a Governor at the time of the Scandal, IIRC, not Prez.

This all still doesn't prove anything.

Those who disagree with policy continue making up Constitutional requirements that simply are not there. It's invalid, and displays a disdain for the truth.

I dunno if this was at me, but....
I'm not making up anything. I'm just saying the requirements they say are not there. Nothing about the POTUS being exempt from UCMJ, nothing about CONFLICTS being considered legit wars, and that there is enough reasonable doubt about the POTUS's legitimacy for this soldier to question the legality of any orders coming directly from the Prez.

If your CO told you to shoot innocent people, would you not question that order? If so, then why would you not question an order from someone who is most likely not legally able to give you an order.


Look people, the media, Congress, the American People, all failed to demand the truth, the proof that he is or is not Natural Born. All his records are sealed. This is unprecedented in our Nations History. And now Congress has what it wants. A full blown, fool-proof law-making machine. Someone in the POTUS that will fall in line with the status-quo and be there for TPTB's beck and call. They are destroying our Country and there's little we can do about it. And here you guys are defending them. Why? Don't say you aren't because you are. Here is a perfectly legit way to get to the truth and you are saying it CAN'T be done. What's wrong with you people? Don't you see the good this soldier is trying to do?

You know what? He's probably just some slob who can't hack it and wants out.
(^sarcasm)

 

[Cwood]

Clinton was President during the Lewinsky scandal.

 

[SavageEagle]

Clinton was President during the Lewinsky scandal.

Hmm, thought he was governor and not prez... Thanks for the correction. Maybe it was going on since he was governor.... I'll have to go look that up real quick...

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
If your CO told you to shoot innocent people, would you not question that order? If so, then why would you not question an order from someone who is most likely not legally able to give you an order.
snip

Part of my training was, in fact, to shoot anybody who crossed certain lines in certain circumstances. No matter who they were. We trained at that frequently to desensitize us to the issue. You know, exercises where they would have us "machine gun" school busses full of kids and such. Would have done it, also, because the alternative would have been worse.

But, we always had to evaluate such orders. I once gave an order to my partner to shoot a man, and he refused. My order was perfectly legal, and in fact required by regs. His refusal was also legal, and required by regs, because I was rather busy at the time and unable to evaulate the risk to bystanders. We both ended up with little medals out of that incident, btw, so the powers that be were clearly pleased with our decisions.

This soldier has done pretty much the same thing. He has evaluated an order he has received, and determined that because the person sitting in the White House does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President, he cannot give legal orders. As young airman partner did, he has evaluated the decision, and is prepared to face the consequences of disobeying. I hope he is... it will have to be proven that Dear Leader is a natural born citizen, but if it is our soldier is gonna be visiting sunny Kansas for a number of years, most likely.

Assuming he is court martialled. I don't think he will be. Barry Soretto probably cannot produce a valid US birth certificate, and the powers that be will wish to avoid having the fact that the United States Constitution is no longer the law of the land rubbed in our face to quite that extent. For now, at least.

 

[SavageEagle]

Part of my training was, in fact, to shoot anybody who crossed certain lines in certain circumstances. No matter who they were. We trained at that frequently to desensitize us to the issue. You know, exercises where they would have us "machine gun" school busses full of kids and such. Would have done it, also, because the alternative would have been worse.

But, we always had to evaluate such orders. I once gave an order to my partner to shoot a man, and he refused. My order was perfectly legal, and in fact required by regs. His refusal was also legal, and required by regs, because I was rather busy at the time and unable to evaulate the risk to bystanders. We both ended up with little medals out of that incident, btw, so the powers that be were clearly pleased with our decisions.

This soldier has done pretty much the same thing. He has evaluated an order he has received, and determined that because the person sitting in the White House does not meet the Constitutional requirements to be President, he cannot give legal orders. As young airman partner did, he has evaluated the decision, and is prepared to face the consequences of disobeying. I hope he is... it will have to be proven that Dear Leader is a natural born citizen, but if it is our soldier is gonna be visiting sunny Kansas for a number of years, most likely.

Assuming he is court martialled. I don't think he will be. Barry Soretto probably cannot produce a valid US birth certificate, and the powers that be will wish to avoid having the fact that the United States Constitution is no longer the law of the land rubbed in our face to quite that extent. For now, at least.

True but you weren't shooting people in their homes and what not. That was the point.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with all that. If court martialed, obamatard would have to lift the veil and expose his truth, whatever it may be. I don't think he wants to do that. But now that this is in the spotlight, they have to do something.

If he's dishonorably discharged, does he get a hearing or an appeal or something? Can he challenge the Dishonorable part?

 

[Vigilant]

I'm not stupid. Of course we've been to many many places, even places that are classified, in CONFLICT with one person or peoples or another. Those are simply conflicts and not a LEGAL WAR.

When I say legal, I don't just mean by our laws. Also as set forth in the Geneva Convention and others. Something that if put on the world stage would be considered legit.

Why have so many of our allies pulled troops, all troops, from our war zones? It's not for National Security, I'll tell you that.



Good. Real facts. President would fall into the first category...



Component. The office of the POTUS is a component of the armed forces. He gives orders. That is a component. Nonmembers of the AF would be FDA, DA, Sheriffs, local PD, town mayor, they don't have a say, so they are not a component.

Just because you couldn't try Clinton on Adultery doesn't mean anything. He was not Prez when they were doing their thang. He was a Governor at the time of the Scandal, IIRC, not Prez.

This all still doesn't prove anything.






It proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The POTUS is NOT a component of the AF his office is a component of the Executive Branch of our government, which has, as granted by the Constitution, civilian command of the Armed Forces. President Clinton was a president when he "did not have sexual relations" with that woman, a "Presidential Intern", not a Gubernatorial Intern. But nevermind, I guess your years in the military learning chain of command, AND HOW IT WORKS, supercede everyone elses. So debating with you is useless since you already know everything.

 

[flagtag]

In order to CONVICT the soldier (? I can't remember what branch of service he is in now), they would have to PROVE that the order was valid and the only way to do that would be to prove the President is legit wouldn't they. (They couldn't just say: We believe he is legit) Correct?

McCain was investigated by congress and had to prove that he was a natural born citizen of the U.S., but no one demanded the same of Obama. So, it's never been proven (by anyone) that Obama is legally able to hold the office of President. (All he would have to do would be to release his records and the questions would stop. )

How could the young man be convicted if no one can prove Obama's eligability and the young man is in error? Prosecution would have to justify a "conviction" would they not? If there is no proof, no conviction.

Actually, I believe that Obama's owners will have the case dropped (promise an honorable discharge, whatever to shut the young man up.) (OR disappear him?) in order to avoid having to prove legality.
A conviction would make the news, no matter who tries to keep it quiet. (Surely the young man has family/friends?)

 

[ATF Consumer]

"I abjure you in the bowels of Christ to consider the possibility that you might be mistaken." Oliver Cromwell.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your interpretation of what makes a law "constitutional" or otherwise might not always be correct? I certainly have--which is why I spend a great deal of time looking at things like historical precedent and things like what the folk who actually wrote the Constitution said and did.

Now, if I had found that these "undeclared wars" were a new thing, a 20th century phenomenon or something (much like the "militia" interpretation of the 2nd is a historically recent development) like that, then I'd probably agree with you, and it would go onto the queue of things to be dealt with as we attempt to reassert the actual Constitution. But that's not what I found. Men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe presided over wars "declared" exactly like we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Congresses of their day considered the authorizations they passed sufficient. I am unable to find any record of anyone challenging the procedure in court.

The recent "innovation" is claiming that such use of military force is Unconstitutional, much like the recent "innovation" is claiming that the 2nd only applied to a National Guard that didn't even exist when it was formed and to formal State Militias.

Yes, I have given some thought to it, but I am with the thinking that the noted conflicts you stated in your previous post were done so without proper authorizations, yet nothing was done to challenge those actions at the congressional level, as they were in fact, the ones that diverted the declaration of war. Question is, why would they authorize actions against others without the declaration of war? But rather, to pass an act such as in 1819...
Congress passes an "Act in addition to the acts prohibiting the Slave Trade," which authorizes the president to send a naval squadron to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders. It also appropriates $100,000 to resettle recaptured slaves in Africa, finally enforcing the 1808 ban on the slave trade.
Am I just a simpleton with the defining terms and you are correct that they are in fact informal declarations of war?

I understand there were several instances where action was taken without declaring war...such as the example of the Barbary pirates, where our Navy was sent to protect the merchant vessels, not necessarily to go kill pirates. Killing of the pirates was a result of protecting the merchant ships.

I do fall back to the fact that throughout history, our congress has passed legislation that has been unconstitutional from the inception of our government...just look at the federal reserve for one.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm not stupid. Of course we've been to many many places, even places that are classified, in CONFLICT with one person or peoples or another. Those are simply conflicts and not a LEGAL WAR.

And you complained about me arguing semantics?

When I say legal, I don't just mean by our laws. Also as set forth in the Geneva Convention and others. Something that if put on the world stage would be considered legit.

If you want to argue about the Geneva and Hague conventions, I would suggest you read them. They don't say what a lot of people think they say.

For one thing, signatories are not obligated to follow them when in conflict with nations that aren't signatories and don't follow them. That provision is in the treaties.

Why have so many of our allies pulled troops, all troops, from our war zones? It's not for National Security, I'll tell you that.

Why should they spend men and materiel when we're doing it. </cynic>

Good. Real facts. President would fall into the first category...

Component. The office of the POTUS is a component of the armed forces. He gives orders. That is a component. Nonmembers of the AF would be FDA, DA, Sheriffs, local PD, town mayor, they don't have a say, so they are not a component.

Sorry, but no. Giving orders to the military does not in and of itself make one part of the military.

[/quote]Just because you couldn't try Clinton on Adultery doesn't mean anything. He was not Prez when they were doing their thang. He was a Governor at the time of the Scandal, IIRC, not Prez. [/quote]

As was pointed out uptopic, he was, actually. And note, he wasn't tried for adultery. He was tried for perjury. And the procedure was exactly what the Constitution spells out for "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the President--impeachment by the House followed by Trial by the Senate. He was tried. Now, the Senate didn't convict since I guess too many interpreted "beyond a reasonable doubt" to mean "since he's a Democrat and I'm a Democrat, I can't vote to convict" but he was tried.

This all still doesn't prove anything.



I dunno if this was at me, but....
I'm not making up anything. I'm just saying the requirements they say are not there. Nothing about the POTUS being exempt from UCMJ, nothing about CONFLICTS being considered legit wars, and that there is enough reasonable doubt about the POTUS's legitimacy for this soldier to question the legality of any orders coming directly from the Prez.

The UCMJ doesn't say that the President is exempt because the Constitution spells out only one procedure for dealing with a President who accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and it's not through courts martial (the mechanism applied within the UCMJ).

If your CO told you to shoot innocent people, would you not question that order?

You see, the legality/illegality there is based on the content of the order.

If so, then why would you not question an order from someone who is most likely not legally able to give you an order.

Ah, but the person who would be giving me the order (since I never rose above E4 Sergeant--rough equivalent of a Corporal in Army and Marines) would be someone who was legally able to give me the order: the ever popular Captain Bohica.

Look people, the media, Congress, the American People, all failed to demand the truth, the proof that he is or is not Natural Born.

And none of that nothing to do with the orders given by Captain Bohica to Private Droopy. It's only when you get to the level of Corps Commanders or the Joint Chiefs that the question of whether the one giving the orders has has the authority to do so arises.

As I said before, my orders came from Captain Bohica. And he, most certainly had the authority to issue orders to me.

All his records are sealed. This is unprecedented in our Nations History.

"Unprecedented"? As far as his birth certificate is concerned the only "unprecedented" is that he is from (if it's as he claims) Hawaii where the so-called "long form" is sealed by policy for everyone.

And now Congress has what it wants. A full blown, fool-proof law-making machine. Someone in the POTUS that will fall in line with the status-quo and be there for TPTB's beck and call. They are destroying our Country and there's little we can do about it. And here you guys are defending them. Why? Don't say you aren't because you are. Here is a perfectly legit way to get to the truth and you are saying it CAN'T be done. What's wrong with you people? Don't you see the good this soldier is trying to do?

Lots of people were "trying to do" things that, in their minds (and even in the minds of others) were "good." Doesn't mean they were right or justified or taking appropriate actions. The end does not justify the means.

You know what? He's probably just some slob who can't hack it and wants out.
(^sarcasm)

This may come as a shock, but you do get those in the military. I take back seat to no one in my respect for the military but part of that respect is recognizing that the military has its share of "bad apples" too. That isn't to say that the soldier in question is one of them, but, frankly, he's wrong. Unless he was personally ordered to deploy by Obama, then whether or not Obama is de-jure (that he is de-facto is unquestionable at this point) authorized to give orders has no bearing on his case. His commander is most certainly authorized to give him orders and I'm pretty confident it's that commander who actually issued those orders.

 

[Rob377]

Just saw a report that the Major's orders have been revoked.


Here comes the Court Martial