|
25 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM (#2575726) Subject: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: John on the Sunset Coast Two servicemen in two days have grandstood (grandstanded) by claiming that the President is illegally (ineligibly) holding office and therefore has no authority over them. Damn it! The election is over, courts have ruled on this. Barack Obama meets all legal criteria for being president, not the least of which he was elected by a wide majority. He is the President. If these soldiers (marines, whatever) are so anxious to go home, let them shoot off their big toe instead of their big mouth. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 02:25 PM (#2575728) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger I think I got an e-mail from some congressman who was making those same allegations. This is not a good thing. I didn't realize there was ever a court decision realted to it. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 02:29 PM (#2575733) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Amos It's just right-wing Limbaugh style codswallop which permeates the problematic mental membranes of the not-too-bright and feeds their nucyular emotive reactors. A |
|
25 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM (#2575739) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger But was Obama's birthright ever challenged in court? |
|
25 Feb 09 - 02:52 PM (#2575747) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: GUEST,heric I think there were two federal court filings both dismissed, and the Supreme Court said "we're not listening" on at least one of them. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 02:56 PM (#2575750) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee That is correct. The Supremes have spoken, whether you agree or not. (I've always wanted to say this!) If you don't like it, go someplace else. Love it or leave it. (Those military folks are also being insubordinate, and that's an offense under the UCMJ.) |
|
25 Feb 09 - 02:58 PM (#2575752) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee I also don't think that one or two people voicing their opinions constitutes "troops questioning President's authority." The percentage is vanishingly small -- and I suspect that their sergeant will take care of it. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 03:03 PM (#2575756) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bill D You can see a copy of his birth certificate online...those who just don't LIKE him will continue to spread silly rumors just to plant doubt. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM (#2575758) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: GUEST,heric Hawaii had to put in a safe, which really fired up conspiracyists. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 03:10 PM (#2575760) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee McCain was born in Panama.... |
|
25 Feb 09 - 03:53 PM (#2575806) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Wesley S So if these soldiers refuse to take his orders wouldn't that be considered treason? Mutiny? |
|
25 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM (#2575810) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Donuel Wesley you are correct sir, almost. ignorance is no excuse for insubordintion in the military. Treason per se involves different issues However the veracity and identity of these soldiers is still in question as far as I am concerned. Rush Limbaugh can get Joe the soldier to say anything on the radio. It does not make it true. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 04:04 PM (#2575817) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: kendall Ignorance in action. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 04:08 PM (#2575821) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Wesley S Thanks Donuel - that's the word I was looking for - Insubordination. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM (#2575823) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee If they were given orders by someone -- anyone -- placed in a position of authority over them and they refused to obey they would be charged and punished for failing to obey a lawful order. If they then incited others to disobey the lawful order they could be charged with inciting mutiny. If they...well, the punishments range from fines and/or stockade (jail, gaol) time to death. Refusing to obey an order would normally get you an "Article 15" -- nonjudicial punishment. A fine, a bust in rank, confined to quarters, that sort of thing. A court martial is needed for greater punishment and a general court can punish by execution if need be. I believe the current death sentence in the military is by lethal injection. This would be done at the Fed. Prison in Terre Haute, Indiana (where Timothy McVeigh was executed). The President, as Commander-in-Chief, must approve all death sentences. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 04:18 PM (#2575830) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger For me, it would be hard to imagine Barack Obama approving a death sentence. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 04:39 PM (#2575851) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Well, The last US military execution was on April 13, 1961 so it is very unlikely he'd ever have the opportunity. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 04:40 PM (#2575854) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Peace I'd wonder whether the two troops involved have a history of race hatred. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM (#2575904) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Q (Frank Staplin) Who, what, when, where? According to this very biased website, one soldier is 1st. Lt. Easterling, currently on active duty in Iraq. He allegedly is a plaintiff in a suit, but has not refused orders. As far as I know, a soldier cannot be court-martialed for a belief and legal participation in a suit, in this century. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837 The second soldier also is serving in Iraq, but another post by this same website, WND, does not name him. A Bob Unruh wrote both bleeps. These and other similar allegations can by found with google search. To be true, the Hawai'i Department of Health would have to be part of the conspiracy. Second, his mother is American. There is no evidence of her being in Kenya at the time of her son's birth. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM (#2575930) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Greg F. Obama is the Commander in Chief. Its treason. Stop fu$king around and execute them- preferably before they breed. I've had more than enough of sort of stupidity to last me ten lifetimes. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 06:10 PM (#2575944) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bobert Lets get real here, folk... Alot of the kids who have been recruited come from rural areas where kids don't go to college... Plus, the army has had to turn its back on druggies and other bad stuff to get folks to sign up... Yeah, we ain't dealin' with Menza folks here... I'd say their CO's need to take these guys aside and do what CO's used to do and that is impress upon these guys that they could be charged with treason if they fail to obey an order... It's called the chain-of-command and by the time a corporal refuses to obey his sargeants order, his platoon leaders and his company commander, he's all ready in deep poo... Couple of dummies... B~ |
|
25 Feb 09 - 06:10 PM (#2575945) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger I don't think it begins to approach treason unless the guy refuses an order. As I understand it, there are some circumstances under which a soldier can refuse an order without expectation of reprisal. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 06:24 PM (#2575965) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee Yes, there are. This isn't one of them. Treason is a legal crime, defined by Article III of the Constitution as: consist[ing] only in levying war against the [United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. By the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Bobert, a first looie is almost always someone with a college degree and REALLY should know better anyway. Obama's birth was also announced in a 1961 issue of the Honolulu "Advertiser". That would be nearly impossible to fake -- you have to get to the microfilm records of the newspaper, which are held in MANY libraries around the WORLD and change those, for one thing. These people should get some reality. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 06:34 PM (#2575976) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bobert Well, Rap, yeah... They need some reality... The reazlity is that if their squad leader, who is most likelu a sargeant orders them to do something and they refuse, they have a problem... Okay, the squad leader might not be acting properly and in that case the guy might be vindicated in a courts martial trial but it is going to trial if during the investigation it is found that the squad leader was acting properly... These guys are on thin ice here... Very thin ice... B~ |
|
25 Feb 09 - 06:35 PM (#2575978) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Don Firth What is their basis for claiming that Obama is illegally holding office? The dog-squat about his allegedly being born in Kenya, Indonesia, or Mars instead of in Hawaii? Or that he and the Justice fumbled the Oath of Office (Obama took it again later, letter perfect, before a group of reports, just in case some butt-head might try to make an issue of it—which, predictably, some have tried to do)? Maybe we need to revive the dunce-cap and the stool in the corner. Don Firth |
|
25 Feb 09 - 06:55 PM (#2575993) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Even if he was born outside of the US (which he clearly wasn't), the fact that his mother was a citizen makes him one also. The lieutenant, if he was encouraging his subordinates to disobey orders which ultimately come from the Commander in Chief, could potentially be found guilty of incitement to mutiny. In that case, I hope he enjoys his stay in Leavenworth as a private. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 07:12 PM (#2576007) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Don Firth What was the nature of the orders they refused to obey? Don Firth |
|
25 Feb 09 - 07:20 PM (#2576015) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Now, far be it from me to suspect articles that appear in the electronic media, but this guy was supposedly 40 years old when he completed OCS (Officers Candidate School). Army Regulation 351-5 says that the maximum age for admission is 29. I suppose that there are always exceptions - and fibs. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 07:38 PM (#2576022) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bobert Hey, I don't care if Obam was born on Mars... The way I learnt it up came from Master Sarg. Haney when he said and I quote: "If I was odered to shoot my mother, my sister and my father, I'd do it..." That is the way the military is run, folks... Ain't a democracy in the military... Can't be... Chain of command doesn't allow Corporal Goofball to question the Commander in Chief umless that Commander in Chief has ordered him to do somehting that he knows to be illegal and wrong... And then Corporal Goofball is going tp have to stand trial for insubordination... Hey, I might be a rowdy leftie but I learnt up what the military is all about in my time in military school and, believe you me, you don't question... You do... That applies to 99.999 of the time... These two guys need another run thru boot camp... B~ |
|
25 Feb 09 - 07:51 PM (#2576028) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Q (Frank Staplin) There is NO evidence suggesting either soldier refused to obey an order. Both seen to be carrying out their duties. It is perfectly legal to participate as plaintiffs in a suit. A person's right to sue is not abrogated by U. S. military service. The soldiers are guilty of ignorance and/or stupidity (in my view) but neither is a courts-martial offence unless someone is hurt by their actions (i. e., negligent homicide and the like). (Digression. Yes, the army has to deal with certain types of ignorance, but gross stupidity is generally dealt with by discharge ('at the convenience of the Army'). I remember, in WW2, youths from Mexico and on our side of the border, the hill villages of New Mexico, were admitted to the Army although they had little knowledge of English. I particularly remember how one sergeant, detailed to them, taught them. He collected all of the sex magazines and auto-truck repair manuals he could get his hands on. It wasn't long before the recruits picked up enough English to serve effectively. Volunteering for service was a quick way for an immigrant, legal of illegal, to acquire citizenship. Of course some were killed in action before they were discharged and received their papers). |
|
25 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM (#2576042) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." The standards for members of the military are different than for civilians, and those for officers are different than for enlisted people. Calling Pres. Obama an impostor or a usurper would certainly seem to qualify as "contemptuous words". However, as I implied earlier, the issue of whether or not this person actually exists or is an invention of the writer of this "news article" is as yet unresolved. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 08:30 PM (#2576047) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger Still, I don't see how questioning the president's place of birth is in any way contemptuous. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 08:49 PM (#2576073) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bobert It doesn't matter if these guys refused to follow orders... When you join the military you forfeit the option of questionin' those above you... Especially when it is political... Period... Hey, if this old leftie coulda have learnt it up then there is no reason on Earth why these guys couldn't have as well... There are certian liberties that folks in the military give up... That is part of the deal... Been that way going back hundreds, maybe thousands, of years... It's part of the universal military code... These guys meesed up... B~ |
|
25 Feb 09 - 08:59 PM (#2576088) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee IF these people exist, and IF they have done what is alleged, THEN they should be dealt with by Courts Martial and punished as the Court may direct. Hmmm...nah, flogging, bucking the horse, drumming out of the service, riding the white mare, stringin' 'em up by the thumbs, spread eagling -- all the really good stuff is outlawed. Break 'em in rank, fine 'em all pay and allowances, give them some hard time in Leavenworth, and provide a dishonorable discharge. Life in a military prison isn't all sweetness and light.... |
|
25 Feb 09 - 09:04 PM (#2576096) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: bald headed step child Those who think rationally know the argument has been settled. The problem with the argument posed by Limburger and Insanity, is it doesn't matter where Obama was born. I hear guys on the CB radio talking about this crap all the time, saying the President has to be born in the US on US soil, when the Constitution states the President must be a natural born citizen. They don't seem to remember that Hawaii is a state, and was a protectorate before that. If either parent is a citizen, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born. These same people try to say that Washington was not a citizen cuz he wuz borned in Inglund. Washington was born in Virginia, I believe. Ignorant arguments, made by ignorant people. BHSC |
|
25 Feb 09 - 09:07 PM (#2576099) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Q (Frank Staplin) There has been NO reported violation of Art. 88. There is NO evidence that these soldiers refused to carry out their orders or duties. Suing for verification of birth data is not cause for discipline. "imposter and usurper" were never reported as utterances from either soldier. All that comes from the writing of Bob Unruh in WND or the over-active imaginations of readers of this garbage. There have been a number of similar actions, all tossed out or refused review by the courts. The whole thing is nonsense, not worthy of discussion. |
|
25 Feb 09 - 09:09 PM (#2576103) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Rapparee They also forget that Hawai'i was a State, properly admitted to the Union for two years, when Obama was born. Apparently your friends, BHSC, haven't read the Constitution. It exempted all those born during the period of British rule from the "natural born" provision -- Washington, Adams, Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson.... |
|
25 Feb 09 - 09:42 PM (#2576125) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: bald headed step child A lot of them don't distinguish between British rule and US. They actually think all those mentioned were born across the pond. They seem to think when Washington crossed the Delaware, he was actually crossing the Atlantic, and he just arrived from England when the war started. Like I said, ignorance. Why do you think I don't tell my mother I'm a truck driver? She thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse, and she's real proud. Please don't tell her, she would be greatly disappointed. ;) BHSC |
|
25 Feb 09 - 10:07 PM (#2576133) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger If they do exist, to date they haven't done anything wrong! |
|
26 Feb 09 - 07:33 PM (#2576839) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Stringsinger A couple of marines shot off their mouths. That's their prerogative. The videos I saw of Obama showed him playing basketball with the "troops" and they were happy with him. Where is this "troops" white man? |
|
26 Feb 09 - 07:40 PM (#2576846) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Well, they weren't Marines, and they really don't have that prerogative (or at least the lieutenant doesn't). What does Where is this "troops" white man? mean, anyway? |
|
26 Feb 09 - 07:48 PM (#2576853) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: pdq Once you are in the service, you have but one right: "the inalienable right to gripe". These folks are doing just that: exercising their right to gripe. So are the truckdrivers mentioned above. So is Al Sharpton. So is Rush Limbaugh. So is Jane Fonda... |
|
26 Feb 09 - 07:52 PM (#2576859) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: John on the Sunset Coast Making oneself a part of a lawsuit, as at least of of the guys is, is a tad more serious than 'griping'. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 07:59 PM (#2576861) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bobert Griping and the military go hand in hand in hand... It's a time honored activity... But questioning the validity of the Commander -in-Chief ain't just gripin'... It is grounds for a courts martial... These guys should know the difference... If not, then they need another stint in boot camp where this kinda stuff is dealt with by folks who are supposed to get that basic tennent of what it is to be in the military... I mean, I got it real quick in military school and once you get it, you get it... No ifs, no ands and no buts... That is the way it is... B~ |
|
26 Feb 09 - 08:09 PM (#2576871) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Jeri Simple questioning isn't grounds for a court martial. Refusing to follow an order because you don't believe a superior is your superior IS grounds for a court martial. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 08:38 PM (#2576883) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Jeri, nobody has said they have refused to follow an order - if fact, their very existence is questionable. However, if this LT Easterling is a real person, and has said what he is alleged to have said, he is liable for court martial under Article 88 of the UCMJ (which I quoted above). This Article has nothing at all to do with following orders. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 09:09 PM (#2576899) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Bobert Yeah, when you question the validity of the chain-of-command then you have telegraphed your feelings that you might not be the guy (or gal) you want next to you when it is very important to know that following orders it part of the deal... If Normandy had been a democracy with everyone having thise own say than we might all be speaking German... This is why folks in the miliatry have the right to vote but they should understand that if they loose that they did sign on... There ain't no draft... B~ |
|
26 Feb 09 - 09:28 PM (#2576914) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Q (Frank Staplin) Lt. Easterling is a petitioner in a court suit. This does not constitute violation of Art. 88, but his alleged remarks do. He was in KBR, and joined the Army at age 40, commissioned Lieutenant, and is on a 15-month tour of duty. I don't know if he had military service prior to joining KBR. However, his remarks in a letter to Attorney Orly Taitz have been released (NBC News); they violate provisions of the UCMJ in that he allegedly said he would refuse Obama's military orders. "U. S. Army Officar Calls Obama an "Imposter," Caitlin Millat, Feb. 24, 2009. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/US-Soldier-Calls-Obama-an-Imposter.html?corder=reverse |
|
26 Feb 09 - 09:47 PM (#2576920) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Jeri Art, I never said anyone refused to follow an order. I said refusing to follow an order is against the UCMJ, specifically Article 92. Article 88 is 'Contempt toward officials': Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.Again, questioning in itself is not contemptuous. It's how it's done, and I don't know if we know exactly what was said or if anything really was. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 09:54 PM (#2576921) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Jeri And yeah, 'grandstanding' would probably count, but I don't know what actually was said. 'Grandstanding' is only an interpretation. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 10:39 PM (#2576939) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger Well, in the interest of "getting real," the president doesn't have time to issue orders to lieutenants. The order would be coming from a senior officer, and the lieutenant would have to decide to obey the order or not. At that point, if he decided not to obey, legal issues would manifest themselves. Otherwise, it seems to me, there's no infraction. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 10:45 PM (#2576942) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: pdq "In that case, I hope he enjoys his stay in Leavenworth as a private." ~ artbrooks That speaks volumes about the poster. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 11:07 PM (#2576954) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Riginslinger Well, pdq and/or artbrooks, it's perfectly plausible, it seems to me, that a lieutenant might disagree completely with the political aspirations of the president, but still maintain a great deal of respect for his commanding officer. So if an order were to be issued, coming from his CO, he might very well obey it, in spite of his distaste for the Commander-in-Chief. In that case, he can still maintian his political point of view, but he'd done nothing that is actionable. |
|
26 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM (#2576968) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: artbrooks Article **: "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President... Disagreement with an order is not relevant. Disagreement with the political aspirations of the president is not relevant. If this person exists and if he called the president a usurper, than he would, IMHO, come pretty close to "using contemptuous words". That speaks volumes about the poster. You betcha. My post expresses the penalty for being found guilty of such a charge and specification and my personal contempt for such an individual. A military officer must respect the office, regardless of what he may think about the individual holding it. I say this from the perspective of 23 years of military service. |
|
27 Feb 09 - 08:13 AM (#2577142) Subject: RE: BS: Troops Question President's Authority From: Big Mick Anyone who believes that Obama is not a US citizen is seriously ignorant of how the investigative journalists work, or they simply are using innuendo to advance a personal agenda, and hence are liars. The simple fact is that if there were any evidence to support this allegation it would be the story of the century. Limbaugh and those like him are simply using these soldiers they profess to love so much, and putting them in peril by doing so. As to the officer's comments, he should understand that he will be held to a higher standard given his leadership position. |
