RE: Its over

RE: Its over (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 9:18:47 AM)
double post.

Phydeaux -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 9:35:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether The President signs off on it; it becomes pretty damn legal. To some extent. Recall the nuremberg trials. quote: If those military men were given orders to shoot at fellow citizens, those men could resist. In which case they too are arrested and put on trial.? The moment those men resist the order, they cease to be standing soldiers in the US Military. They only regain it if they are found not guilty. By then, its very unlikely those soldiers would get anything but a 'cold shoulder' to any unit they join in the future. And their chance of promotion? Yeah, that will not happen. You have obviously never been a member of the military. I suggest you google marines pledges not to fire on citizens. The last time this came up 74% of military surveyed would not fire on american citizens. quote: No, they would not have enjoyed the idea let alone the action; but they would do it if ordered. Because that is their job; to be a professional soldier. Uh huh. And when has any pantywaist liberal had any experience in the military; they're too busy wearing their bunny slippers, drinking cocoa and talking about healthcare. In short - your opinions have no value. quote: Those that took over the buildings are citizens only in legal standing. The moment they tresspassed on federal land and took those buildings over; they become LAW BREAKERS. These law breakers, were....ARMED.... ....Therefore (using logic), they were hostile combatants. Thats not logic. Owning and carrying a gun is legal in this country, ether. Until they fire them - they are protesters. And you are a bloodthirsty tyrant calling for the killing of people whose views you don't support. quote: No shit moron. If this nation treated our soldiers better, several things would be true: 1 ) Pay increased by quite a bit Are you willing to decrease welfare spending (53% of the budget) to do it? quote: 2 ) Free tuition to college for them, or their families if they were killed Earth to ether.... quote: 3 ) State-Of-The-Art healthcare and health facilities nationwide So you'll be donating to Trump, who has made this one of his signature issues, right? quote: 4 ) They are not used when ever a Republican in the White House wants to 'go play in the sand' with the Arabs Oh and what about when a democrat wants to play in the sand.. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan...

BamaD -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 9:47:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On top of the fact that it would have been illegal. You really should check those law books..... Very much allowable under the US Constitution. Before there were standing public police forces in the late 19th century; militias handled all the domestic injustices. Those militias formed the backbone of any armed defense to the young nation. I know this is all hard for you to understand, since you often ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Notice the part of "...A free State...."? How is that achieved? A ) Thugs with Guns (i.e. right wing conservatives) B ) A well regulated Militia Even a 4th grader could figure this one out.... You called for sending in regular army. That is not the same as sending in the National Guard. You are just looking for an excuse to declare martial law and kill anyone you disagree with. The oath of enlistment says they must obey LEGAL ORDERS sending the regular military into a situation like this would not be a LEGAL ORDER so there would be no need to follow it. You forget that Clinton tried to send the Army in at Waco and they told him what he could do with it, nobody went to jail and the people who (in appropriate language) told him to shove it not only were not given the cold shoulder but where considered heroic for standing up for the Constitution.

Aylee -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 9:49:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On top of the fact that it would have been illegal. You really should check those law books..... Very much allowable under the US Constitution. Before there were standing public police forces in the late 19th century; militias handled all the domestic injustices. Those militias formed the backbone of any armed defense to the young nation. I know this is all hard for you to understand, since you often ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Notice the part of "...A free State...."? How is that achieved? A ) Thugs with Guns (i.e. right wing conservatives) B ) A well regulated Militia Even a 4th grader could figure this one out.... The 1600's are not considered the 19th century. Lovely. The New York Sheriff's Office was founded in 1626. The US Marshall's in 1789. Ancient Greece AND China had police forces. Twit.

Aylee -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 9:56:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On top of the fact that it would have been illegal. You really should check those law books..... Very much allowable under the US Constitution. Before there were standing public police forces in the late 19th century; militias handled all the domestic injustices. Those militias formed the backbone of any armed defense to the young nation. I know this is all hard for you to understand, since you often ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Notice the part of "...A free State...."? How is that achieved? A ) Thugs with Guns (i.e. right wing conservatives) B ) A well regulated Militia Even a 4th grader could figure this one out.... You called for sending in regular army. That is not the same as sending in the National Guard. You are just looking for an excuse to declare martial law and kill anyone you disagree with. The oath of enlistment says they must obey LEGAL ORDERS sending the regular military into a situation like this would not be a LEGAL ORDER so there would be no need to follow it. You forget that Clinton tried to send the Army in at Waco and they told him what he could do with it, nobody went to jail and the people who (in appropriate language) told him to shove it not only were not given the cold shoulder but where considered heroic for standing up for the Constitution. I don't think he knows that there is this little thing called the UCMJ that states that soldiers are NOT to obey an illegal order. Illegal orders are those that violate the constitution. By joether's own typing he would revoke their citizenship and class them as enemy combatants. It is a violation of the Constitution to revoke a natural born citizen's citizenship no matter WHAT crime has been committed. There is also a right to a trial, facing your accusers, and proportionate punishment. Fire bombing, spray'n'pray, whatever, is a disproportionate punishment to civil disobedience.

BamaD -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 10:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On top of the fact that it would have been illegal. You really should check those law books..... Very much allowable under the US Constitution. Before there were standing public police forces in the late 19th century; militias handled all the domestic injustices. Those militias formed the backbone of any armed defense to the young nation. I know this is all hard for you to understand, since you often ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." Notice the part of "...A free State...."? How is that achieved? A ) Thugs with Guns (i.e. right wing conservatives) B ) A well regulated Militia Even a 4th grader could figure this one out.... You called for sending in regular army. That is not the same as sending in the National Guard. You are just looking for an excuse to declare martial law and kill anyone you disagree with. The oath of enlistment says they must obey LEGAL ORDERS sending the regular military into a situation like this would not be a LEGAL ORDER so there would be no need to follow it. You forget that Clinton tried to send the Army in at Waco and they told him what he could do with it, nobody went to jail and the people who (in appropriate language) told him to shove it not only were not given the cold shoulder but where considered heroic for standing up for the Constitution. I don't think he knows that there is this little thing called the UCMJ that states that soldiers are NOT to obey an illegal order. Illegal orders are those that violate the constitution. By joether's own typing he would revoke their citizenship and class them as enemy combatants. It is a violation of the Constitution to revoke a natural born citizen's citizenship no matter WHAT crime has been committed. There is also a right to a trial, facing your accusers, and proportionate punishment. Fire bombing, spray'n'pray, whatever, is a disproportionate punishment to civil disobedience. Anyone not consumed with hatred for those who disagree with him would not even suggest such a thing. As for the UMCJ I am retired military and I know a "little bit" more about it than Joe does. In our breifings they were very specific about shooting US citizens not being a legal order. It is the sort of thing that would justify fragging.

joether -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 10:06:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or First of all note that this is not Cliven Bundy here, they have not sent in the navy Seals to get him as some here would advocate. No, it was someone else. If the US Government decides he should be arrested; they'll come for him. If he resists, the law enforcement will deal with the issue. However, if him and his 'gang' show heavy resistance; maybe we should give them what they want: armed resistance from the US Government. But rather than send in a pile of infantry for their 'last stand', we just shell their asses with artillery from a few miles away. Show them and every other 'thug with gun' conservative what happens when you fuck with the US Government. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or First rule of this shit though is you don't occupy government buildings. What is the exit strategy ? You BOMB government building, if that is your desire. He who kills and runs away lives to kill another day. They didn't have an 'end game' strategy in mind. They did this in protest to others being found guilty of lawful crimes and being sent to prison. They wanted the government to revoke standing laws as it applies to them and their friends. Sorry, but once a law breaker, you have little to no real argument of merit worth listening to! They did try to run away. All of them were arrested and one was killed. Here is the video quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or this is not Iraq where you got millions of warriors and not much government. Local college security forces could defeat most of these people who protest these days. Even with rubber bullets they killed four in Ohio. No, this is a bird sanctuary where existed a dozen armed 'warriors' and not much government (in the immediate area). The FBI showed great restraint the whole time. Funny how conservatives can not praise the government on that..... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or It is nice that someone has the balls to stand up to the government, I just wish they had more brains. this whole fucking thing was pointless in the first place. What was the goal, to create a few martyrs ? People "...stand up to the government..." all the time. They do so peacefully and without breaking laws. Every time a town law goes into effect that someone doesn't like, they are given the option of taking it to court. If a judge favors their viewpoint, the law is often struck down. Happens every day and in every state of this wonderful nation! People on trial for either criminal and/or civil charges are found 'not guilty' or given a favorable ending to the issue(s). These guys did not have balls. They did not have brains. They are not even martyrs. They are just 'thugs with guns'. Whom (foolishly) thought their 2nd amendment rights allow them to do anything and everything they wanted without reprisal from the law or the government. Now....where...the fuck would they get such ideas? Conservative Media! quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I guess I can understand somewhat. Those people are not used to the government treading on them at will. They believe this is a free country and are very discontent with how things are, and how they are getting worse. And I mean worse as in government getting its tentacles into every part of life. If anything moves, tax it. If it pollutes, tax it, if it doesn't pollute, tax it. If it doesn't move charge rentes. And no more competition for the big agra. No more competition for their buddies. It keeps coming and coming with no signs of slowing down, in fact the advance of tyranny is accelerating. Maybe you should check in with a good therapist. Take about all your concerns with someone that resides in reality and has the knowledge to help you understand your problems. And I do not mean this in a mocking/mean way either Termyn8or! Seriously, what you view and what is happening are two very different things. I see tyranny coming from certain sources: 1 ) Wealthy people, 2 ) Mega Corporations, 3 ) Religious Groups, 4 ) Government. Funny how the conservative 'movement' has all four of these? Often they wish/demand the US Constitution be placed in 'conservative hands', rather than "...Of the People, By the People, For the People...". And they are increasingly becoming armed. As if to take over the whole of the nation and push their ideology down everyones throats by force if they have to. How is that.....NOT....tyrannical? Its been shown on this forum and many places that conservative voters do....NOT....how their elected officials to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power as they slam Democrats on an hourly basis! Government that behaves without accountability nor responsibility allows corruption and tyranny to flow onto the good citizens of the nation. An where are those 'defenders' of the US Constitution whom state they would resist tyrannical government? Oh, they are the ones helping it into place! Helping it into place because they are often either misinformed or uninformed due to being uneducated, mature, and/or civilized. Look at your top two candidates for the GOP nomination: A Nazi and a Traitor. How much do things have to be dumb down before you start understanding the reality here? quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I have had exposure to people from other countries. People from Russia and Poland ask me "Where is the freedom ?". In Russia you do not need a fishing license, and once you qualify with a firearm you hunting license is good for life. Not like here where you have to pay the state of Montana thousands upon thousands of dollars just in case you hit something. And, in some of the more civilized countries fishing is simply illegal. If Russia is so nice and special, move there! I have exposure to people from other nations too. They often state the nation is far better than anywhere else on the globe. Yes, they will say we suck in different areas (i.e. areas to improve upon). But for the most part, they like the nation. In this nation you can tell the President he is an asshole to his face; try doing that to your buddy Putin. Tell all of us what happens after that if your still in the land of the living. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Bottom line is that the US government thinks it owns every blade of grass, as well as the fruits of your labor. Actually it does. Its in the US Constitution. That document explains the level of control over all persons found under its domain. It also explains the limitations of the government to all persons found under that same domain. If the government stated "This area of land is not to be trespassed", it can. If you dont believe me, go 'hop the fence' at Area 51..... ...Or the nice black fence in front of the White House. Or get aboard a docked US Navy ship without authorization. The government owns part of "....fruits of your labor.". How is that possible? We the people of the nation voted to have it that way. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or They do not. As proven by a couple friends of mine you do not have to pay income tax. Nothing in the law states you have to pay taxes. HOWEVER, there is a penalty for not paying those taxes. That is why they call it 'tax evasion'. You only pay income tax on what you gross. That's why they call it 'income tax' boys and girls! So if you have a cool five million in your bank account and live off it for five years; you do not pay income tax on that five million. You would however have to pay income tax on any interest generated on that five million! quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or As proven by those with patented titles to land, you really don't have to pay property taxes. Again, nothing in the law states you have to pay taxes. HOWEVER, the court, could remove ownership of that land from you depending upon circumstances. In addition, the land can be taken away by 'eminent domain'. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And, as proven by a friend, at considerable expense, if you actually buy a car and have the MSO, the state cannot take it. When they tow your car and you don't go and get it soon they dispose of it. Well my buddy with the MSO got towed and refused to go get it out. Note that he had bought the car new and paid cash. That car sat there until the day he died and then some. So your friend buy a brand new car and never really used it. What does that have to do with the topic? quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Most of the rights you lose to the government are by contract. Like if I drive without a license they cannot charge me with not having insurance. Depending on the state, yes, they can charge you for not having insurance. Try that in Massachusetts. Tell me how far you get. If you drive without a license, your car is impounded. That means your 'walking' to your destination.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or If I build something without a permit in one of those anal jurisdictions and they order me to tear it down, all they can do is fine me. Not only can they fine you, but hire a contractor to come in and tear down the object. Giving you the bill for the fee. Tell us what happens when you dont pay that bill.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or They could fine me a million dollars a day but they'll never see that money. Particularly if you do not have that sort of money. However, once you start earning money, the court can demand your employer reduce your pay check any amount deemed. The bigger of an asshole you are, the bigger of a slice the government takes to pay of your fines. Its kind of funny how the two go 'hand in hand'. In some states, if you can not pay the fines, they put you in jail. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I state, officially that they do not have jurisdiction over me. Unfortunately for you, they can and often do have jurisdiction over you. Or hold you until someone with jurisdiction can take over. Your 'sovereign citizen' bullshit will get you in deeper trouble with the law and courts. Juries are not very forgiving of asshole-types fucking around and putting our law folks lives at risk! quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or then they have to prove jurisdiction and it has been proven time and time again that lines on a map do not create, nor even define jurisdiction. They get around that (rather easily) with treaties. That's right, town A signs a treaty with other towns in the area. If their police forces are needed to help another town's, they will give it. A car chase may start in one town and end in another town/state. The law breakers (whom are still considered innocent of their accusation until proven otherwise in a court of law) are sent back to the original town. Yeah, people have gotten wise to the 'sovereign citizen' movement. The FBI has done a good job in educating police forces across the nation. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or For example if you are on probation in Cleveland, they say you can't drink or get high, and that means everywhere. How is that possible? Simple, you break the law, you get charged the penalty. This is like 2nd grade stuff.... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or In fact, how can Julian Assange be wanted in the US when he has never fucking set foot here? Osama bin Laden was wanted by the FBI. Yet that guy never stepped foot in the United States of America. Why did the FBI want that guy, Termie? If you ever figure out how to research something, you'll figure out why the nation wants that guy..... quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or But it really is getting to the point where it is not going to happen in court. We got courts telling people they will be held in contempt if they mention the Constitution at trial. Can you point out which courts have stated this and the circumstances surrounding it? quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or We got judges ruling summarily, I mean without even tinking about it, that doctors may not discuss the ramifications of poisoning by fracking fluids with their patients who have been poisoned by fracking fluids. The shit wrecks your kidneys and you end up on dialysis. They got a law to keep them from getting sued, like the Monsanto Protection Act but actually better. You mentioned fracking. Another politically conservative group that demands special privileges from the GOP/TP in exchange for donations. Yes, there should be laws protecting people from the effects of fracking. As long as Republicans control Congress, that is not likely to happen. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or People who know things are fed up with this shit. Every day, more and more get fucked over and the time will come when there will be enough. And we will have guns. And nobody is going up to government buildings for a standoff. Wait until they come out. Your little insurrection against the full might of the US Military? How fast do you think the 2nd will be revoked by the people after that? Before you could blink! Such a thing would be the death blow to the 2nd amendment. But I agree, people are getting tired of how government is behaving towards us US Citizens. The difference is in perspective. Conservatives hate the government because their is a liberal President. One whom was elected in two elections by not only the majority of US Citizens, but, more importantly, the majority of votes in the Electoral College. Liberals hate government because it is not handling the many thousands of important problems that exist right now. Which we see in the debates. Republicans are bitching about the President while stating nothing on how to fix any serious problems. The Democrats are arguing over fine points on how to fix those problems. The difference? The Democrats understand the problems. They have thought in depth on many hundreds of ways to fix those problems. How many of the Republicans running for the GOP nomination can give a solid, concrete solution to reducing the massive debt this nation has? Not a single one. Because that would involve raising taxes to accomplish. Something Republicans and their Tea Party lackeys can not voice, let alone, accomplish. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or That is the future history of this country. If any. No, no it isn't. What you think is the history already written, is just a fantasy. The nation will elect either the first Jewish President, or the first female President. In Congress, many voters will be 'fed up' with the 'Do Nothing' Republicans and vote them out of office. Within a two year stretch, one of those conservative justices on the US Supreme Court will no longer be active. Thus giving the liberals a five-four majority. Citizens United will be overturned; much to the cheer of ordinary Americans whom are tired/annoyed of big money in politics. If Sanders is elected, expect the ACA to be turned into a single payer system. If Clinton is elected, expect Putin to back down on things towards the United States. In six months, no one will care what happened on a bird sanctuary in Oregon.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 10:15:31 AM)
Execution orders are different from detaining. And the two marines, one corpsman and one guy from the Air Force that I still get drunk with occasionally are all liberal. I would have joined straight out of highschool but felt our aggression was unnecessary during the bush era. If not for my girlfriend, I would have joined last year when I was between jobs And yes, they still make fun of the air force guy years later. I never would have guessed how many jokes about boot leather and the air force there are. Military might should be used like a scalpel to remove only malignancy. We cannot win a war against the Islamic world, but we may just be able to defeat ISIS militarily or ideologically

joether -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 10:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You called for sending in regular army. That is not the same as sending in the National Guard. Yeah, let those morons understand just....WHO...they fuck they are dealing with. You take up arms against my nation; you better be able to resist its arsenal! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are just looking for an excuse to declare martial law and kill anyone you disagree with. Ah yes, the ever typical and highly predictable response..... Martial law would not need to be declared. The external area could easily be blocked by the police. Americans would understand not to venture into the area unless they were members of the media. If you understood....ALL....my words and not just the ones you wanted; you would have observed me stating "....giving them a chance to fully and unconditionally surrender'. The law enforcement gave those guys.... ....DAYS..... To surrender peacefully. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The oath of enlistment says they must obey LEGAL ORDERS sending the regular military into a situation like this would not be a LEGAL ORDER so there would be no need to follow it. It would be a legal order. Funny how conservatives whom were US Army would have....NO PROBLEMS.....attacking extremist Muslims; yet bitch high and wide of extremist conservatives threatening their fellow Americans. Why is that? Here is the Oath of Enlistment From the US Army: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Notice the bold part.... What is that word in there? 'Domestic'? I wonder why that is there.... Maybe you could....enlighten....me, Mr. JAG Lawyer..... quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You forget that Clinton tried to send the Army in at Waco and they told him what he could do with it, nobody went to jail and the people who (in appropriate language) told him to shove it not only were not given the cold shoulder but where considered heroic for standing up for the Constitution. What was that over the skies of Washingon, D.C. and New York City, NY on September 11, 2001? [image]http://cdn.globalaircraft.org/media/img/planes/lowres/f-16-2.jpg[/image] Maybe that's just a crop duster, right? Couldn't be a.....MILITARY JET..... ....an F-16.... According to your 'understanding' of the circumstances.... Let's bring up Waco Texas ans the FACTS.... "The government's integrity has been damaged by other discoveries as well. Within the past six months it was forced to acknowledge that military Special Forces, believed to be the secret Delta Force, were present outside Waco. And a surveillance tape with suspicious gaps was discovered at FBI headquarters." SOURCE How about those military vehicles? Yes, they were allowed to use them. Its found in the US Constitution under an amendment. The....SECOND...amendment. Oh, you thought the 2nd only applies to individual Americans having access to firearms, right? WRONG! The FBI and local police forces (you know, the ACTUAL "....well regulated militia...") have a Constitutional right to such arms. If the need was there, the US Military would have stormed that location and taken down all opposing forces. I imagine a platoon of M-1 Abrams could handle that problem very well. Either by concentrated fire or simply pushing holes in the building's structural supports.

BamaD -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 12:47:37 PM)
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Funny, since every time I re-enlisted it specified THE LAWFULL ORDERS and the briefings all pointed out that unlawfull orders do not have to be obeyed, remember Nurenberg? Once again you have twisted things to fit your warped view. While martial law might not technically be declared there is nothing else you can call it when you send Federal troops after citizens. And as usual you blew your explination of the confrontation. They were not trying to flee, they were in route to a piblic meeting that was intended to ease tensions. You whole page is made of distortions if not outright lies.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 1:11:13 PM)
Are they being charged by the military or civilian courts?

BamaD -> RE: Its over (1/29/2016 1:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Are they being charged by the military or civilian courts? Who? The protestors would be charged in civilian court, the military has not been involved in any way. Joe just has this wet dream of the government slaughtering conservatives.

jlf1961 -> RE: Its over (1/30/2016 4:05:46 AM)
First to Joether: Dude, seriously, research the Posse Comitatus Act, in essence the US military can not be used to enforce federal, state, county or local laws regardless if the President 'signs off on it' or not. In a situation like this, the National Guard could be used, but only at the order of the Governor, and still only IF there was a large enough danger to a much larger population, like the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict. And the county has to ask the governor to declare a state of civil unrest before that can happen. At most, the US military can be used to patrol the borders, as was the case with US Army cavalry units prior to WW1. Now, if the President did 'sign off on it,' and mobilize the national guard or the regular army units stationed at Fort Lewis Washington, it would constitute an illegal act under Federal Law, and as such, would also be unconstitutional since the President had decided to over step his authority. At which point, the commanding officers, and every soldier who obeyed such orders would be facing life in prison after a shit ton of court-martials under the UCMJ. The president would also be immediately subject to arrest for trying to do so. Now on another note: The morons still holding the refuge want pardons before they would be willing to leave. Ammon Bundy has urged the remaining protesters to "turn yourselves in and do not use physical force." He asked the holdouts to use the national platform they have to "defend liberty through our constitutional rights." source

vincentML -> RE: Its over (1/30/2016 4:40:52 AM)
quote: Dude, seriously, research the Posse Comitatus Act, in essence the US military can not be used to enforce federal, state, county or local laws regardless if the President 'signs off on it' or not. Seriously, you are wrong. In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[3] The Enforcement Acts were three bills passed by the United States Congress between 1870 and 1871. They were criminal codes which protected African-Americans’ right to vote, to hold office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. Passed under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, the laws also allowed the federal government to intervene when states did not act to protect these rights. The acts passed following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which gave full citizenship to anyone born in the United States or freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment, which banned racial discrimination in voting.

HendLVDom -> RE: Its over (1/30/2016 5:56:41 AM)
The Posse Comitatus Act only pertains to the US Army, and Air Force. The Air Force being added, after the split off from the control of the US Army. The Department of the Navy, which the US Marines are part of. Are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. It also has nothing to do with State Governments. Which is how Johnson got around it when troops were sent to Arkansas to assist in integrations there. Nixon used it by having the Governor of Ohio requesting the National Guard for the Kent State University protest. Where 4 protesters where shot and killed.

jlf1961 -> RE: Its over (1/30/2016 11:16:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Dude, seriously, research the Posse Comitatus Act, in essence the US military can not be used to enforce federal, state, county or local laws regardless if the President 'signs off on it' or not. Seriously, you are wrong. In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[3] The Enforcement Acts were three bills passed by the United States Congress between 1870 and 1871. They were criminal codes which protected African-Americans’ right to vote, to hold office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. Passed under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, the laws also allowed the federal government to intervene when states did not act to protect these rights. The acts passed following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which gave full citizenship to anyone born in the United States or freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment, which banned racial discrimination in voting. Actually, he called up the Arkansas national guard, when the Governor REFUSED to enforce the law. In this case, the governor, sheriff, etc are trying to enforce the law, AND there is no overwhelming state support not to. In other words, no reason to mobilize troops, so once more, if the president 'signed off on it' he would be violating the law, unless specifically requested by the governor, who in turn has to have a statement from local saying "we need help." Between FBI and the US Marshal service, they could easily put together a react team of 300 agents to storm the building. However, considering the aerial shots of the buildings and these yahoos wondering around like Rambo, a couple of FBI snipers could probably finish the occupation in a couple of minutes, leaving a strike team to mop up. As for Kent State: The mayor of Kent, Leroy Satrom, declared a state of emergency on May 2. He requested that Governor James A. Rhodes send the Ohio National Guard to Kent source I hate to make this statement, but does any American citizen pay attention in History class? Know how to google facts? Or do they just assume that if the national guard is called up, it is the president? The national guard is subject to the command of the state governor first, the President second, which due to the fact it is considered a reserve force of the US military, is exactly why it does not fall into the category of state militia. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, due to them being naval services, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The US coast guard, while technically a military branch is primarily tasked with customs enforcement within US territorial waters, which was why it was formed in the first place, so it is also a Federal Law Enforcement agency. However its jurisdiction only applies to navigable water ways. So, unless the buildings in question are on an island in the middle of a river with a shit load of barge traffic, the coast guard does not have jurisdiction.

BamaD -> RE: Its over (1/30/2016 11:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Execution orders are different from detaining. And the two marines, one corpsman and one guy from the Air Force that I still get drunk with occasionally are all liberal. I would have joined straight out of highschool but felt our aggression was unnecessary during the bush era. If not for my girlfriend, I would have joined last year when I was between jobs And yes, they still make fun of the air force guy years later. I never would have guessed how many jokes about boot leather and the air force there are. Military might should be used like a scalpel to remove only malignancy. We cannot win a war against the Islamic world, but we may just be able to defeat ISIS militarily or ideologically This is ridiculous. You cannot detain without the ability to kill. It isn't just illegal for regular military to kill civilians, it is illegal for them to be used agaist civilians.

jlf1961 -> RE: Its over (1/30/2016 11:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD This is ridiculous. You cannot detain without the ability to kill. It isn't just illegal for regular military to kill civilians, it is illegal for them to be used agaist civilians. Actually, the regular military can be used against armed civilians in a very specific circumstance, that being an armed rebellion against the legitimate government. Note Legitimate, meaning abiding by the constitution. Now if the government is abiding and adhering to the constitution, there is no chance of a rebellion, hence it is a moot point. Now, if the President does something stupid like suspend congress and declare martial law, the military is no longer obligated to follow his orders (unless of course congress was suspended because it no longer existed due to a first strike) and are obligated by their oath to defend the constitution. Really is a confusing mess, when you look at the constitution, the UCMJ, not to mention the various acts passed by congress to deal with sedition.

ifmaz -> RE: Its over (1/31/2016 7:21:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether .. How about those military vehicles? Yes, they were allowed to use them. Its found in the US Constitution under an amendment. The....SECOND...amendment. Oh, you thought the 2nd only applies to individual Americans having access to firearms, right? WRONG! The FBI and local police forces (you know, the ACTUAL "....well regulated militia...") have a Constitutional right to such arms. ... ... wow.

BamaD -> RE: Its over (1/31/2016 8:27:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD This is ridiculous. You cannot detain without the ability to kill. It isn't just illegal for regular military to kill civilians, it is illegal for them to be used agaist civilians. Actually, the regular military can be used against armed civilians in a very specific circumstance, that being an armed rebellion against the legitimate government. Note Legitimate, meaning abiding by the constitution. Now if the government is abiding and adhering to the constitution, there is no chance of a rebellion, hence it is a moot point. Now, if the President does something stupid like suspend congress and declare martial law, the military is no longer obligated to follow his orders (unless of course congress was suspended because it no longer existed due to a first strike) and are obligated by their oath to defend the constitution. Really is a confusing mess, when you look at the constitution, the UCMJ, not to mention the various acts passed by congress to deal with sedition. The Civil War being a case in point, but occupying a federal building hardly qualifies.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02