I get it. Your pom poms are a wavin
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens - Page 5
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
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.
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.
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will
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.
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?
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:
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
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.
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.