StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens - Page 5

post #61 of 200
Mike- youa re arguiing a minute point about the procedure involved with the President of the United States assasinating American citizens at will.

I get it. Your pom poms are a wavin
post #62 of 200
Thread Starter 
Ok was the woman killed by the ATF under Clinton at Ruby Ridge , not an American citizen? Were not the 50 or so women and 28 Children killed by the ATF & FBI using tanks under Clinton at Waco, not citizens?
post #63 of 200
Classic paranoia overreach. Only because it involves Obama. If the POTUS was a Republican, nary a peep about this, i bet. wink.gif
post #64 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by LI BeachRat View Post

Ok was the woman killed by the ATF under Clinton at Ruby Ridge , not an American citizen? Were not the 50 or so women and 28 Children killed by the ATF & FBI using tanks under Clinton at Waco, not citizens?

and then there's that
post #65 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by NS Mike D View Post

the law was made more than 50 years ago. once again, since it's Obama, the right wings suddenly has problems with it.


8 USC § 1481 ........

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States .....




Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.






The only debate is wether or not terrorist organizations are deemed a foreign state. That was decided by the Bush admin and so far still in place as it relates to armed forces who are engaged in hostilities against us. There is no trial or court martial requirement for 3(A).

Does that refer to assasination?

No... no it doesnt

so you strip them of citizenship and call it a targeted killing.

I dont like it for a democrat president or a republican president.
but I dont own pom poms
post #66 of 200
post #67 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Williams View Post

You're wrong, Mike. American revolutionaries were t fighting fellow citizens. We were fighting German and English soldiers, not citizens of the American colonies. What got us all so pissed off back in the day is that, because we weren't "England", we had no representation. You need a different justification because your remark that we were founded on citizens killing fellow citizens is just plain wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Williams View Post

You're reaching. English and German troops vs American colonials can't honestly be characterized as citizens against citizens. You should have gone with the civil war and then you wouldn't have to weasel on this one. That was "citizen vs citizen".

Normally, you're spot on, Robert. This time, you're a little off. There was, indeed, quite a bit of citizen vs. citizen fighting during the Revolutionary War. (A buddy of mine lived in a house in Fairfield that was owned by a Tory, which was spared when the British marched from Westport to Danbury, burning Revolutionist houses along the way. They were joined by Tories, loyal to the crown. )

At the end of war, Tories who fought for, or even supported, the Crown, packed up and moved out of the Colonies. Some went to England, most went to Canada.

As to the OP, the question shouldn't be if there will be officers loyal to the Mugabe, er, I mean Obama regime. The question should be how many ground pounders will actually OBEY the orders of the officers who order them to fire on US citizens. My guess, is that there are going to be an awful lot of dead officers fairly quickly. cwm13.gif
post #68 of 200

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will

Quote:
Originally Posted by NS Mike D View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Williams View Post

You're reaching. English and German troops vs American colonials can't honestly be characterized as citizens against citizens. You should have gone with the civil war and then you wouldn't have to weasel on this one. That was "citizen vs citizen".


they were subject of the crown until they took up arms against he crown. At that point they were deemed enemies and not subject to the protection of the crown,



The use of the word citizen was used in the constitution the way the word subject was used under english law. While John is technically right they were subject, the concept of protection of the people of the state is identical whether you say subject or citizens

I think maybe it would be more accurate if you had said this country was founded on colonists rejecting the tyranny of the crown and its henchmen, the English soldiers and their hired mercenaries. It is very misleading to characterize it as citizen vs citizen because it wasn't American colonists vs fellow American colonists. Citizens of England and citizens of the colonies weren't really fellow citizens. They were different countries. Australia, South Africa, India, American colonies were all under English rule. Subjects of the crown and English citizens were not the same thing. Just sayin'. But if you want to stick to it, that's fine. We're off topic and its a silly argument. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Life goes on.
post #69 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Williams View Post


I think maybe it would be more accurate if you had said this country was founded on colonists rejecting

let's keep parsing words and ignore the big picture......

 

does what name you affix to them change reality?

 

people from England (let's call the subjects)

came here and became..... colonists? (were they no longer subjects of the crown?)

 

but then they rebelled and they fought with other people from England wearing a red uniform?

 

does it change the reality that a lot of people most likely related were spilling each other's blood?

post #70 of 200

and is a nation's military really it's "henchmen"?

post #71 of 200
You guys realize that the Revolutionary war happened before the writing of the constitution right?


Just checking
post #72 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by John M View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Williams View Post

No it wasn't. The redcoats weren't "fellow citizens". They were King George's long arm of the law from England.

even if you throw in loyalists. They were subjects, not citizens.

Let us not draw distinctions without a difference. Obviously the British Regulars were "citizens" of Great Britain AND "subjects" of George III, as were we just before the point shots were exchanged. There were also Hessian mercenaries hired by GB. Those who were "residents" of the colonies could be either with the Continental Congress or loyal to the Crown (tories). Each saw the other side as traitors.

One of the classic battles of the southern campaign was King's Mountain in North Carolina, which other than a British officers leading the tories was entirely resident-of-north-america against resident-of-north-america. I say that because the "over the mountain boys" on the side of the Continental Congress really did not see themselves as having loyalty to either government.

A British military history site writes:
This [King's Mountain] was a battle between Americans, the only Britain present being Major Ferguson. It would be hard to envisage a more savage encounter. Major Ferguson occupied an outpost well to the West of the main British army with a small force of his own riflemen and a larger band of Tory militia. The militia on each side remained consistently unreliable in battle during the war. The one area in which the Tory militia excelled was in plundering their enemies. Ferguson had built for himself an unenviable reputation for ferocity against the rebels. A substantial Revolutionary force gathered against Ferguson from Watauga, west of the mountains, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. One group, armed with rifled weapons with which they had considerable skill, were the “Over the mountain men”. The Revolutionary force caught up with Ferguson encamped on the steep and wooded King’s Mountain, on 7th October 1780. The Revolutionaries surrounded the Tories on the top of the mountain and a classic battle between the bayonet and the rifle ensued. The Revolutionaries attacked with the battle cry of “Tarleton quarter” (ie “No prisoners). The Tory militiamen, attempting to drive back the assaulting Revolutionaries at the point of the bayonet, were shot down until they were huddled in a confined group on the summit. Ferguson suppressed all attempts to surrender until he was shot from his horse and killed. The Tories threw down their weapons but the Revolutionaries continued to shoot, in spite of the efforts of their officers to bring about an end to the carnage. The battle exactly reflected the savagery of the war in the Southern Colonies. Finally all the Tories were killed, wounded or captured. Only a party that had been out foraging escaped to warn Cornwallis of the disaster.



A better example was the War between the States (a.k.a. "Civil war" by the Yankees). There is set of all the military records of both sides published by the War Department under the name "Official records of the War of the Rebellion", which is an interesting title for the "late unpleasantness". To the point of the original post that shooting at people who you called your countrymen just a few short years before is something we have done before in the interest of deciding national issues -- that is hard to deny.


Or remember Dwight D. Eisenhower sending the 101 Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas and nationalizing the Arkansas National Guard to enforce integration. I don't think any blood was shed, but if it had been . . .
Edited by midwestexile - 1/24/13 at 4:50pm
post #73 of 200
NS Frank D has managed to once again change the subject to the meaning of the word 'is'
post #74 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotcow? View Post

All threats foreign and domestic.


I, (NAME), 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.

The military will never turn on US citizens.I don't see that happening. They would side with us for sure. Well except for Kent State.
post #75 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by NS Mike D View Post

Please read the law, you don't know what you are talking about. While it is true that he doesn't need a court to do so, the Secty of State first would have to revoke the citizenship. The law provides the Secty of State guidance for the criteria. The Secty of the State is subject to the law, regardless of what the POTUS thinks.

the secy of the state that works appointed by and working for the president?

Please stop. You are being naive

Multiple U.S. Attorneys-General resigned rather than fire the special prosecutor of Watergate. Robert Bork actually fired him, but did not close the special prosecutor office. While it was legally within Nixon's power to keep replacing the Attorney-General, the subsequent publicity was near the end for him.

I have no doubt that poorly thought-out decisions by past presidents effectively have been blocked by principled cabinet officials who did not choose to go public with their defiance or resignation. Even Kissinger said that he worried enough about Nixon's mental health to tell the military not to obey illegal orders from RMN.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Graffiti
StripersOnline › SurfTalk › Community Forums › Political Graffiti › Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens