Should these US military commanders be Court Marshaled?

[justone]

Well, may be not Court Marshaled for the 1st time, but disciplined so nice and easy, that nobody in my unit would ever think to think about his rights and Ammendments.

 

[Scorpion89]

Guys, I pronounced the offenses 3 times at least. I couldn’t think that you wanted me to put ## of articles in front.

ART. 88 - 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
ART. 92 Mutiny and sedition
"Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;


Article 90— or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

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.

Let me repeat: originaly pointed by me

I don’t know how do you take the oath and do not understand the simplest promise you make: ‘’I will, no reservation’’. The loonies in their actions are explicitly reporting – ''I reserve the right not to obey direct orders or orders passed to me through the chain of command. I will not''. I don’t know how that cannot be absolutely clear.

Well, may be not Court Marshaled for the 1st time, but disciplined so nice and easy, that nobody in my unit would ever think to think about his rights and Ammendments.

Let's say I am your commander. You tell me, write me, show me that you will not obey my orders.
You go Court Marshaled nice and easy, - for all 3 offenses. With a good atorney you may get off 1 or 2, but you are out of my unit.

I don’t know how that cannot be absolutely clear.

These are 3. And there are more. The offenses are described in my posts. Any chance of stopping red herring and getting back on the truck? Any chance you’d address my ASSERTIONS and facts?

Your missing the larger picture here the Military Folks who have filed this Law Suit are Claiming that Mr. Obama isn't the rightful President because under Artcile 1 of the US Const. he doesn't meet the stander. Hence Article 88,90 and 92 don't apply in this case.

Look I work in the Pentagon and this is a big discussion, I would like to add that this case seems to be growing these are just the ice tip by what I understand. You know the Major who started all of this well it looks like he is going to file a Whistle Blowers Lawsuit and if that happens then this will end up in Federal Court. I know that some JAG folks I'm friends with told me that JAG is a tad worried that the :hitsfan: .

 

[justone]

Your missing the larger picture here the Military Folks who have filed this Law Suit are Claiming that Mr. Obama isn't the rightful President because under Artcile 1 of the US Const. he doesn't meet the stander. Hence Article 88,90 and 92 don't apply in this case.

Look I work in the Pentagon and this is a big discussion, I would like to add that this case seems to be growing these are just the ice tip by what I understand. JAG folks I'm friends with told me that JAG is a tad worried that the .

Should I believe it is a big discussion in Pentagon, when on DP such discussions allowing a thought that Mr. Obama isn't the rightful President are - as the matter of the fact anyone can check - have been consistently moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum? The only exclusion has been the treads referring to the same law cases started by me. Thus I have to reserve the right not to believe that you work for Pentagon, as it is difficult to imagine Pentagon taking the conspiracy theory in a serious way. Do I have to believe this is what Pentagon does? Others assure me that the Pentagon and JAG remain to be in the same monolith moral spirits as at Bush’s presidency, no big discussion about rightfulness of Obama being CinC. Whom should I trust? As the matter of the fact bringing this conspiracy theory into my tread you put it into a danger to be moved, as I was warned it could be moved. I have managed to keep my treads about the lawsuits a float for over 3 days under your, guys, bombardment, and I am not going to give up so easy. The more of you come to try, the more fun I have. Keep on trying. Keep on coming.

You know the Major who started all of this well it looks like he is going to file a Whistle Blowers Lawsuit and if that happens then this will end up in Federal Court.

You have not even read my OP referring you to http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death...otect-us-courts-loonies-2.html#post1058146291

You can go and try to build your objections against my points over there.

 

[Scorpion89]

Should I believe it is a big discussion in Pentagon, when on DP such discussions allowing a thought that Mr. Obama isn't the rightful President are - as the matter of the fact anyone can check - have been consistently moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum? The only exclusion has been the treads referring to the same law cases started by me. Thus I have to reserve the right not to believe that you work for Pentagon, as it is difficult to imagine Pentagon taking the conspiracy theory in a serious way. Do I have to believe this is what Pentagon does? Others assure me that the Pentagon and JAG remain to be in the same monolith moral spirits as at Bush’s presidency, no big discussion about rightfulness of Obama being CinC. Whom should I trust? As the matter of the fact bringing this conspiracy theory into my tread you put it into a danger to be moved, as I was warned it could be moved. I have managed to keep my treads about the lawsuits a float for over 3 days under your, guys, bombardment, and I am not going to give up so easy. The more of you come to try, the more fun I have. Keep on trying. Keep on coming.



You have not even read my OP referring you to http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death...otect-us-courts-loonies-2.html#post1058146291

You can go and try to build your objections against my points over there.

Do what every you want but right now it is starting to become a rather big thing. You do understand that this is starting to get the Higher Ups attention, If the Major Law Suit goes forward then all hellis gooing ot breal loose. By what I have heard there are allot more Military Personal that "MIGHT" join any Law Suit over this subject.

As for it being moved to the Consp. I would like to have a Mod explain that this is an legitiment discussion and question.

As for the thread I might take a look at it but I will tell you this. In my opion the easist way for all of this to go away is for Mr. Obama to order the release of his Long Form Birth Cert. that would settle everything now wouldn't it.

 

[justone]

As for it being moved to the Consp. I would like to have a Mod explain that this is an legitiment discussion and question.

So you went to the Law and Order Forum. And you found the way to shut me and my treads down: http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death...otect-us-courts-loonies-2.html#post1058143915

I am sorry, I am not bordering with you in any way or measure. Keep on trying to get my treads moved all on your own.


It is also funny – “big discussion at Pentagon’. How has it happened to be so big, when the only source for such a discussion has been my source and my treads on DP linking to the source. Absolutely no newspaper, no magazine, no TV channel, no major democratic or republican blogs have ever mentioned the info I have posted. It is like there is a “big discussion at Pentagon’’, but nobody knows about it. How comes - no newspaper, no TV station?


It seems like Pentagon has it’s tubs on me. :shock:I am sorry, I asked, - please, no classified information. You are not supposed to give me the classified info about Pentagon which cannot be and is not reported to the general public.:2wave:

And then you try to tell me that you work for Pentagon… :rofl

 

[celticlord]

These are 3. And there are more. The offenses are described in my posts. Any chance of stopping red herring and getting back on the truck? Any chance you’d address my ASSERTIONS and facts?

Articles 88, 92, and 94 I addressed directly in very second post on this thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/milit...ommanders-court-marshaled.html#post1058143706


Article 90 is constrained by the word "lawful".

Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;​

shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

As I understand the thrust of the lawsuit, the claim is that the deployment orders are unlawful because of a presumed defect in Dear Leader's claim of citizenship. The claim in the lawsuit is a question of law requiring adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. As a court-martial cannot rule substantively on the issue of whether there is or is not a defect in Dear Leader's claim of citizenship, a court-martial lacks jurisdiction to address this question. Thus, a lawsuit in a federal court is the appropriate venue to address the issue.

You can argue, perhaps, that a court-martial can rule on whether or not orders are lawful, but, given the particulars of this litigation, I do not believe the claim is within the scope of a court-martial's jurisdiction.

The word lawful is the undoing of your argument. There is no oath, no promise, no obligation by any member of the United States Armed Forces that binds him or her to obey any order that is unlawful or contravenes particulars of the Constitution. When an order given to military personnel is unlawful, the obligation of those military personnel is non-compliance.

Are the orders lawful? I believe they are--and I am certain you feel likewise. However, belief is not law, nor does belief hold the force of law. Asserting that orders are or are not lawful is an assertion of law, and requires adjudication by a court of law. Indeed, the courts are the only entity that can dispose of the question competently, for, as Chief Justice John Marshall stated so very eloquently in Marbury v Madison:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Where there is a question of what the law is, the answer to that question is obtained by supplication to the courts--by petitioning, via a lawsuit, seeking proper relief for an alleged grievance. It then falls to the court to dispense with that question properly, granting or denying such relief as the court deems appropriate.

These military men and women, by virtue of their lawsuit, may very well have harmed their standing in the military, and, if so, will face appropriate consequence in terms of career limitations and loss of opportunities. However, the lawsuit in and of itself does not, to my eye, contravene the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, thus, does not merit a court-martial.

 

[justone]

Article 90 is constrained by the word "lawful".

celticlord, you had made a post. I said I will get to the post. I have not managed to get to it, yet. There is no need to make another post when your previous post has not been answered by me, yet.

Also, if you took some labor to look at my answers to other members you would see my answers often are answering your points as well.

On a short note, the President has not given any unlawfull orders, and the law suit posted by me has no references to the article you have been trying to invoke. For more details about the merits, please try to read posts of other posters and my answers to them. The merits of the suit are almost laid down here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/milit...manders-court-marshaled-3.html#post1058148239 very close to what they are. That is totally different from what you try to pull on me. Try to read and understand.


As soon I have time and see it as a priority I will get to your original post. Try to put it in your mind, there can be no anarchy in my unit. One post at a time and in the order of importance.

 

[justone]

And, please try to understand my objections to the merits and references to the Codes and the Oath laid down in http://www.debatepolitics.com/milit...manders-court-marshaled-3.html#post1058148239

Start counting them and reply one by one. But please don't be distructed, follow exactly, the merits and references to the Codes and the Oath laid down in http://www.debatepolitics.com/milit...manders-court-marshaled-3.html#post1058148239 and to merits and references of my reply.

 

[celticlord]

On a short note, the President has not given any unlawfull orders, and the law suit posted by me has no references to the article you have been trying to invoke.

First--whether deployment orders or other orders which may have instigated the lawsuit referenced in the OP are lawful is a determination that can only be made by a court of competent jurisdiction. I tend to agree that any deployment orders proceeding from the Oval Office are lawful, but the final say on that belongs to a judge. The lawsuit is a claim about the law, it is a matter of the law, and it falls to a judge to resolve that claim under the law.

Second--I am not invoking any article. I am pointing out the limitations and permutations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and its intersection with fundamental rights elucidated in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[justone]

First--whether deployment orders or other orders which may have instigated the lawsuit referenced in the OP are lawful is a determination that can only be made by a court of competent jurisdiction. I tend to agree that any deployment orders proceeding from the Oval Office are lawful, but the final say on that belongs to a judge. The lawsuit is a claim about the law, it is a matter of the law, and it falls to a judge to resolve that claim under the law.

First, did you read the links in my post above?
Second, did you ever read any of my posts with a minimal attention?
Why don’t try to take earplugs out?

Why don’t take shower and try to reread my posts with cool head? What am I saying? Not what kind of feelings I am expressing, but what info/facts I am putting together for you to make your own decision; and possibly, if you can, what logic I am using to impose my desicion/feelings on you. Not how I am bad or good, but what are the facts, the oath, the Codes and etc. I know it would be a new thing for you to try, but try.

Or if you cannot crack the notshell of the basic KGB tactics, just forget about trying to win over Putin.

Second--I am not invoking any article. I am pointing out the limitations and permutations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and its intersection with fundamental rights elucidated in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Since you are not invoking any articles (?????????????), but just want the Court to decide if my orders are lawful, you are asking to be Court Marshaled.

There is one and only one case when you can question the 2 equal parts of the same 1st sentence which is one rounded thought of the Oath, that is if and only if you have an evidence that the 2 equal parts are in conflict in the sentence only and never outside of it. If they are not and if the President de facto is also the President de juro, you better never ever give a second thought about lawfullness of his order. Not even for a nanosecond.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Well, may be not Court Marshaled for the 1st time, but disciplined so nice and easy, that nobody in my unit would ever think to think about his rights and Ammendments.

Disciplined for fileing a lawsuit?

What, are the members of the military no longer protected by the Constitution? Do they no longer have the right to file lawsuits like any other citizen (and even non-citizen) of this country?

If these people were disciplined for fileing a lawsuit, the outrage would be tremendous. And they would be rightfully protected if they claimed to be "whistle blowers". Frivilous or not, the Government has no right to persecute them for exercising their constitutional rights.

What unit are you in, that nobody considers their rights under the Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend?

However, do not think these Officers are getting away scott-free. I expect them to all end up with bad Efficiency Reports. So they will all be retired, or pushed into dead-end positions and denied retention when their terms expire.

 

[justone]

Disciplined for fileing a lawsuit?

What, are the members of the military no longer protected by the Constitution? Do they no longer have the right to file lawsuits like any other citizen (and even non-citizen) of this country?

If these people were disciplined for fileing a lawsuit, the outrage would be tremendous. And they would be rightfully protected if they claimed to be "whistle blowers". Frivilous or not, the Government has no right to persecute them for exercising their constitutional rights.

What unit are you in, that nobody considers their rights under the Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend?

Either you did not read my posts or you are not a military member. I have been asking not to bother in either case.

However, do not think these Officers are getting away scott-free. I expect them to all end up with bad Efficiency Reports. So they will all be retired, or pushed into dead-end positions and denied retention when their terms expire.

So you expect them not to get away scott-free for exercising their Constitutional right but you expect me to let you get away scott-free for exercising your rights? You are using some unusual and unknown to me logic.










And no, you cannot get them, because serving under the usurper would be a disgrace for a US military officer and gentlemen. They will not go for that.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Either you did not read my posts or you are not a military member. I have been asking not to bother in either case.

Actually, I am a member of the US Military. In fact, I have been serving our country on Active Duty for over 12 years now (1983-1993, 2007-present). And I am currently deployed in a combat theatre.

So you expect them not to get away scott-free for exercising their Constitutional right but you expect me to let you get away scott-free for exercising your rights? You are using some unusual and unknown to me logic.

I am exercising my Constitutional Rights of free speech. And it is not only my right, but my duty to defend those Constitutional rights.

And sadly, there seems to be no law about being a fool sir. YOu seem to be implying that people should be punished for utilizing free speech. And frankly, I find that abhorant.

And no, you cannot get them, because serving under the usurper would be a disgrace for a US military officer and gentlemen. They will not go for that.

What usurper? Are you implying that President Obama is not rightfully President?

I am sorry, but your statements and arguments seem to make little or no sense. And since you seem to be free to challenge my credentials as to being in the Military, let me extend the courtesy in reverse. What is your authority?

 

[apdst]

Show me the DoD regulations you are referring to. I would love to see them. Show me where DoD ignores military Codes. Show me where Military Codes allow you breaking/denouncing, not following the 1st and foremost sentence of the oath you take in application to this particular case.

There is no possible way that within the Constitution and the Military Codes you are allowed to exercise your rights when exercising goes against the Codes and the oath. You have the right to the free speech, but it is not like you can leave the battle to exercise it on streets of LA or in Courts whenever you feel like exercising. That would be not a Constitutional Republic, but anarchy; not a Military, but a gang of hippies.

And you, guys, are one of my facts showing how this case is bombing the moral when you misread and misinterpret the Oath. You all should talk to a military attorney, because when you talk to me you make my hair go up. For now I would advise you, - you better follow orders of A Constitutional POTUS without giving them a 2nd thought.

(I'll be back for Celtic.)

Oh, that's easy.

Chapter 6: Grievances & Filing Complaints
Article 138
Under Article 138, "any member of the armed forces who believes himself [or herself] wronged by his [or her] commanding officer" may request redress. If such redress is refused, a complaint may be made and a superior officer must "examine into the complaint."

Article 138

 

[Oozlefinch]

Oh, that's easy.

Quote:
Chapter 6: Grievances & Filing Complaints
Article 138
Under Article 138, "any member of the armed forces who believes himself [or herself] wronged by his [or her] commanding officer" may request redress. If such redress is refused, a complaint may be made and a superior officer must "examine into the complaint."

Article 138

You have to realize, this poster has little to no idea what he is actually talking about. His understanding of how the military works probably is learned from watching Gomer Pile and In The Army Now.

Yet he freely challenges those of us that really do have a clue, and understand how things work for those in uniform.

 

[justone]

Actually, I am a member of the US Military. In fact, I have been serving our country on Active Duty for over 12 years now (1983-1993, 2007-present). And I am currently deployed in a combat theatre. .

So, you did not read my posts.

I am exercising my Constitutional Rights of free speech. And it is not only my right, but my duty to defend those Constitutional rights.

And sadly, there seems to be no law about being a fool sir. YOu seem to be implying that people should be punished for utilizing free speech. And frankly, I find that abhorant. .

You had not read my posts, and when I pointed to that, you did not read my posts yet. What are you replying to? Who is the fool then?

What usurper? Are you implying that President Obama is not rightfully President? .

You did not read my posts yet. What are you replying to? This is what the law suit implies.

I am sorry, but your statements and arguments seem to make little or no sense. And since you seem to be free to challenge my credentials as to being in the Military, let me extend the courtesy in reverse. What is your authority? .

When you doubt the credentials of the officers and they make little sense I have to doubt your credentials.
Here, in a DIFFERENT law suit, you can find some other military members who are, according to your logic, abhorrent fools or have no military credentials.

Lt. Scott Easterling, in his capacity as a US army officer, Resident of Tennessee, currently stationed in Iraq
Active Duty Alan C. James, resident of North Carolina, currently stationed in Iraq
Active Duty Specialist Jason James Freese, resident of Alaska
Active National Guardsman Matthew Michael Edwards, resident of Wyoming
Active duty SPC Charles Crusemire, Resident of Pennsylvania, resident of Pennsylvania, currently in Iraq
Active duty Captain Robin D. Biron, resident of Arizona, bronze star recipient in Iraq
Drilling Reservist scheduled for deployment Lita M. Lott, resident of California
Active military James N. Glunt, resident of Pennsylvania
Citadel staff sergeant Timothy W. Kenney, US Marine Corp veteran, Virginia Army National Guard
Major General Carrol Dean Childers, Ret. Lifetime subject to recall, resident of Virginia
Colonel Harry Riley, Ret. Lifetime subject to recall, Silver star recipient, resident of Florida
Colonel John D. Blair, US Army, Ret, lifetime subject to recall, resident of Florida
LCDR Jeff Graham Winthrope, US Nav, Ret. Lifetime subject to recall, resident of Texas
Lt. Col Dr. David Earl Graef, Active Reserves, resident of Virginia
Commander Charles Maxwell, US Navy, recipient of 4 gold stars, Ret., lifetime subject to recall, resident of New York
Lieutenant Colonel Donald Sullivan, resident of North Carolina
Lieutenant Colonel John David Klein, US Airforce, subject to recall, resident of Kentucky
Commander David Fullmer LaRocque, US Navy reserves, Ret, subject to recall, resident of California
Lieutenant Colonel Charles L. Miller, Ret US Air Force, lifetime subject to recall, resident of Ohio
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach, US Air Force, Inactive Reserve, silver star recipient, resident of Arizona
LTC Chetwin M. Hurd, Ret, resident of Texas
Lieutenant Commander John Bruce Steidel, US Navy reserves, resident of Washington
Lieutenant Colonel John P. Petersen, Active Reserves, Resident of Colorado
Chief Major Tony W. A. Donnelly Army National Guard, resident of Virginia
Major Stephan F. Cook, EN US Army
Major Paulette M. Klein, Ret. US Air Force, subject to recall, resident of Kentucky
Major Bradley Charles Franklin, Ret, life time subject to recall USAF, resident of Illinois
Major Robert W. Fry, Ret. Lifetime subject to recall US Army veteran, resident of Washington
Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, ret., resident of New Mexico
Judge Advocate for the charter of American Legion, Jack Cannon, Ret., resident of New Mexico
Major David Grant Mosby, Ret US Air Force, resident of Washington
Major Art Scheffer, , US Air Force, Ret., subject to recall resident of Louisiana
Captain Edward Adams Ret, GA National Guard, resident of Georgia
Captain Pamela Barnett, Commander, training officer on temporary medical disability
Captain Neil B. Turner US Army Aviation, Ret. Subject to recall, resident of California
Captain Harry G. Butler, US Navy Seal
Captain Larry A Shewmaker, US Air Force Ret., resident of South Carolina
Captain Ralph H. Jenkins, Ret US Marine Corps, resident of Texas
Airline Captain and Naval Officer D. Andrew Johnson, Ret. Lifetime subject to recall resident of California
Officer Clint Grimes, Long Beach California Police Department and Navy active Reserve
Lieutenant Will Harper, US Navy reserve, resident of Virginia
First Lieutenant Renee A. Kania, resident of Ohio
Pilot Dana Eugene Latta, ret., resident of North Carolina
SMsgt Gary M. Morris, bronze star recipient, Ret., resident of Florida
Sergeant Jeffrey Wayne Rosner, Hon Dis., resident of Texas
SFC Susan K Irwin, US Army reserve, resident of Indiana
Aircraft Pneudraulics Specialist Thomas J Taylor, US Air force resident of California
Specialist Jennifer Leah Clark US Army Reserve, resident of Illinois
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry, US Army, Ret, resident of Iowa
Mr. Frank Adelman, Ret military
SFC Lowell K Doherty, US army, resident of Florida
Sargeant First class Morgan Samuel Ward, US army recruiter, resident of Texas
PFC Jean S. Charles, resident of Vermont
Corporal Gary Stuart Cox, US Marine Cop, Virginia National Guard, Ret., Retired State Trooper, resident of Virginia
First Sergeant William Shires , Ret US Army
Chief Warrant Officer Thomas S. Davidson, Ret., lifetime subject to recall, resident of Arizona
E8 Senior Chief Journalist, Richard E. Venable, US Navy, resident of California
E7 Paralegal, MSGT USAF Steven Kay Neuenschwander, ret., resident of Washington
E6 James Randolph Reid Lapp, US Navy Cryptologist, Inactive Reserve, resident of Virginia
E6 Ronald Whaley, US Navy Veteran, residing in Georgia
E6 Mark Francis Rayome, US Navy Seabees, resident of Colorado
E6 Ronald Durward Howell, Air Traffic controller, resident of Tennessee
CW4 David Robert, Black Hawk Helicopter pilot,Ret., resident of Mississippi
Sp4-E4 Richard M. Keefner, honorably dischatrged US Army, resident of Illinois
E4 Thomas R. Knight US Navy Reserves
Sp4 US Army Artur J. Olscszewski, retired, resident of Pennsylvania
E4 Larry W. Highlen, resident of Indiana
E3 Jim Szakmary, US Marine Corp, Federal Employee, resident of New York
E2 Wayne Eugene Keller,Ret., resident of Pennsylvania
Mr. Robert David Riley, US military Ret., resident of Georgia
Mr. Jeffrey Schwilk, US military ret., resident of California
SGT USAF E4. Danney L. Lawler US Air Force veteran, currently international law student in Manila, Philippines
Mr. David L. Bosley US Air Force veteran, resident of California
Ms. Loretta G. Bosley US Air Force veteran, resident of California

 

[justone]

Oh, that's easy.

Indeed they have violated the procedure and requirements of the Article 138. You are not addressing my question as it was imposed. The question was – what rights to break their oath and military Codes in order to exercise what they feel like their Constitutional rights do they have? Show me where DoD ignores military Codes. Show me where Military Codes allow you breaking/denouncing, not following the 1st and foremost sentence of the oath you take in application to this particular case.

It is getting more and more difficult. You,gus, don’t even read my posts. I specifically link to my posts http://www.debatepolitics.com/milit...manders-court-marshaled-4.html#post1058148654 and ask you to read. You keep talking to yourself.

 

[Oozlefinch]

So, you did not read my posts.

You had not read my posts, and when I pointed to that, you did not read my posts yet. What are you replying to? Who is the fool then?

*endless lines of nonsense omitted*

Yes, I actually did at least try to read your posts. But I find them to be a lot like rice, all filler no substance.

Not only my English is far from being English, but also I have never served in the US military so I may not know terms, I deserve and ask of for correction, but pointing that the fruits in the basket are called apples and not oranges does not change the fact discussed – that they are fruits and are in the basket.

It was obvious to me that you had no comprehension in how the Military actually works. But I was wanting to see if you could at least give some kind of reasoning to your beliefs. But I should have known that was fruitless, since you only answer questions with challenges.

In this country, everybody is entitled to file a lawsuit. Period. Convicted felons can even sue themselves for putting themselves in jail. The issue of if I think the case has any kind of merit is irrelevant. I believe it is everybody's right to be a fool.

It has been pointed out to you many times that they have not broken their oath. They have comitted no violations of the UCMJ. In fact, during lunch the other day I discussed this with our local JAG clerk. Even he agrees that no violation was comitted, and that if they were punished for it, the people that punished them would be in violation of the UCMJ.

And FYI, the lawsuit implies that President Obama does not legally hold power, that is not the same as being a usurper. A usurper either rises to power Unconstitutionally (coup), or is exceeding their Constitutional powers (President Lincoln's Habeus Corpus). These lawsuits do not claim either of these things, they only claim he is not eligable to hold his office.

There is one thing I learned long ago. You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

And you, sir, have not one iota of knowledge about the subject you seem to be going on about. But it is obvious that you want to prosecute the people involved, and are pissed that you are unable to do that.

 

[justone]

It was obvious to me that you had no comprehension in how the Military actually works. But I was wanting to see if you could at least give some kind of reasoning to your beliefs. But I should have known that was fruitless, since you only answer questions with challenges.

I understand it is such a big of a challenge for you to read my posts, before you answer. How is it obvious to you that I have no comprehension how the military works, when so far you have been showing very little comprehension how the DP works, and what is the procedure of a debate?

Please tell me – what are my beliefs, - I have all reason to think that, as you do not read my posts you do not know, and that what you think are my beliefs is totally opposite to my beliefs. So tell me what are my beliefs.

In this country, everybody is entitled to file a lawsuit. Period. Convicted felons can even sue themselves for putting themselves in jail. The issue of if I think the case has any kind of merit is irrelevant. I believe it is everybody's right to be a fool.

I believe so too and I believe that if exercising his right to be a fool a military member does not understand the oath, Constitution and UCMJ, he has to be punished. And so I go by my belief.

It has been pointed out to you many times that they have not broken their oath. They have comitted no violations of the UCMJ. In fact, during lunch the other day I discussed this with our local JAG clerk. Even he agrees that no violation was comitted, and that if they were punished for it, the people that punished them would be in violation of the UCMJ.

However, do not think these Officers are getting away scott-free. I expect them to all end up with bad Efficiency Reports. So they will all be retired, or pushed into dead-end positions and denied retention when their terms expire.

So you expect them not to get away scott-free for exercising their Constitutional right but you expect me to let you get away scott-free for exercising your rights? You are using some unusual and unknown to me logic.










And no, you cannot get them, because serving under the usurper would be a disgrace for a US military officer and gentlemen. They will not go for that.

When did you point anything to me, when did you ever brought in and supported a clause of the oath, the UCMJ which allowed them to do file the lawsuit, which would be correct? Can you point to one justone post which has done that? If I ever bring you face to face to the truth, chew it for you and put it in your mouth, can you point it to me?

Just a minute ago you said that ‘’Originally Posted by Oozlefinch
However, do not think these Officers are getting away scott-free. I expect them to all end up with bad Efficiency Reports. So they will all be retired, or pushed into dead-end positions and denied retention when their terms expire.’’

Now you say ‘’the people that punished them would be in violation of the UCMJ.’’

At the same time my belief remains all persistent, I said ‘’ you cannot get them, because serving under the usurper would be a disgrace for a US military officer and gentlemen. They will not go for that.’’

Moreover if they were not loonies and conspirators people would mind them to be moved to the conspiracy tread. I see no military member who ever minds, who does have problems with that, - except for celticlord complaining to me.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...g-conspiracy-theory-now-2.html#post1058153054

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...g-conspiracy-theory-now-2.html#post1058153065

And FYI, the lawsuit implies that President Obama does not legally hold power, that is not the same as being a usurper. A usurper either rises to power Unconstitutionally (coup), or is exceeding their Constitutional powers (President Lincoln's Habeus Corpus). These lawsuits do not claim either of these things, they only claim he is not eligable to hold his office.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usurper]Usurper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In order to hold power illegally, Obama had to rise to power illegally, as you say Unconstitutionally. Unconstitutionally=/coup.

There is one thing I learned long ago. You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

And you, sir, have not one iota of knowledge about the subject

*endless lines of nonsense omitted*

Yes, I actually did at least try to read your posts. But I find them to be a lot like rice, all filler no substance.

You have not learned anything. So far you have not showed me an article or a clause or a sentence in Military Codes and the oath which would allow but not prohibit them to file this law suit.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You have not learned anything. So far you have not showed me an article or a clause or a sentence in Military Codes and the oath which would allow but not prohibit them to file this law suit.

The UCMJ are the framework for the enforcement of regulations used by the UCMJ. They in fact are not "laws", but the process of prosecuting violations of laws and regulations.

There is a reason the Articles sited during a trial by Court Martial are called the "Punitive Articles". If you look at the UCMJ, Sections 1-9, 11, and 12 are all procedural. The only articles that you can be charged with are violations specified in Section 10, Articles 77-134.

You repeatedly bring up Article 138. Article 138 is not a punitive article, it is a procedural article. And as such, you can not be charged with a violation of it.

You do not seen to be able to grasp what many of us here have been trying to inform you of, that it is not some kind of kangaroo court that can be used to persecute somebody because you do not like them.

BTW, there is no law against breaking an oath of office, military or civilian. Name me one Civilian public official, doctor, judge, who has been prosecuted for "violating the oath of office".

And by the way, I understand debate just fine. This however, is not a debate. It is a bad replay of an old Monty Python skit, "The Argument Clinic".

The difference is that myself and multiple others who actually know what we are talking about are telling you repeatedly where you are wrong.

And you repeatedly simply stand up and go "No I'm not!" You offer no substance, simply attacking people who disagree with you, spouting off the articles which you have been told have no bearing on the issue, and not even trying to understand how the UCMJ works.

As I said, you are merely frustrated that you want these guys persecuted, and you are unable to do it through the UCMJ. And you can debate all day and night that the sun really rises in the West, but your belief in your "debate ability" will never make it so.

 

[celticlord]

The UCMJ are the framework for the enforcement of regulations used by the UCMJ. They in fact are not "laws", but the process of prosecuting violations of laws and regulations.

Small quibble. The UCMJ most assuredly is law. The UCMJ is found in Title 10, USC Chapter 47. As law, it is applied only to members of the US Armed Forces, but it is still law.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Small quibble. The UCMJ most assuredly is law. The UCMJ is found in Title 10, USC Chapter 47. As law, it is applied only to members of the US Armed Forces, but it is still law.

True, but it can be viewed either way.

Most of the UCMJ are simply procedures, not actual "laws". The Punitive Articles (77-134) are the closest thing in them to what most people consider to be "laws".

The procedures in the UCMJ are like the procedures in any criminal court system. A Judge or prosecutor may ignore them, and nothing really will happen to them if they do. However, that would also likely give the defendant cause for appeal.

In an Article 15, hearsay is allowed, but it is not allowed in a Courts Martial. If the President of a Court Martial allows hearsay, he is not going to be prosecuted for breaking the procedural rules, the most that will happen is that the case will be thrown out on appeal.