WMDs & The UN Inspectors...

[M14 Shooter]

The office of the president is not subject to the same form of justice as the common man. This is quite clear given the use of executive privelage, the fact that they cannot be subpeonad, and the fact that they do not have to take an oath.

Please cite for me a reference that says he is not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. A court case would be nice.

Not that I expect you to, just as I dont expect that you'll cite anything that says he is a member of the military (whcih you havent done).

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Please cite for me a reference that says he is not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ. A court case would be nice.

You're a real idiot. The common man doesn't have the right to say no to a subpeona, use executive privelage, or refuse to take an oath. Thats what makes it a lower level of justice and standards than the common man is subject to.

Not that I expect you to, just as I dont expect that you'll cite anything that says he is a member of the military (whcih you havent done).

You're the one that forwarded the idea that the President is always a civilian even when taking on the role of CINC. Provide a source to back up your claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're a real idiot. The common man doesn't have the right to say no to a subpeona, use executive privelage, or refuse to take an oath. Thats what makes it a lower level of justice and standards than the common man is subject to.

So... where is your reference that says he is not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ?
A court case would be nice.
Dont have one? I thought not. Thanks for playng.

You're the one that forwarded the idea that the President is always a civilian even when taking on the role of CINC.

Yes. After it was claimed that he is a member of the military.
So, again - where is the support for that claim?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

So... where is your reference that says he is not subject to prosecution under the UCMJ?
A court case would be nice.
Dont have one? I thought not. Thanks for playng.

He's not subject to the same justice system we are. He cannot be forced to testify like a normal person, he is allowed to withhold doccuments from the court, he is allowed to refuse to take an oath. That is a different level of justice. You're a real pinhead.

Yes. After it was claimed that he is a member of the military.So, again - where is the support for that claim?

I responded to your assertion that the president is always a civilian. Unless you can provide a source to prove it then can it. I've noticed that this is how you operate..you make wild assumptions and assertions and rarely ever back them up with a source.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He's not subject to the same justice system we are. He cannot be forced to testify like a normal person, he is allowed to withhold doccuments from the court, he is allowed to refuse to take an oath. That is a different level of justice. You're a real pinhead.

Yawn....
Still waiting for that reference that supports your claim that the President is not subject to the UCMJ. A court case would be nice.
Unless you can provise a source, then can it.

I responded to your assertion that the president is always a civilian...

...made in response to the claim that the President is a member of the military - a claim you have been asked to support any number of times, and have yet to do so. Unless you can provise a source, then can it.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Yawn....
Still waiting for that reference that supports your claim that the President is not subject to the UCMJ. A court case would be nice.
Unless you can provise a source, then can it.

The president is not subject to punishment under UCMJ. Section 802 Article 2 lists all of those to whom UCMJ applies..the president is not amoung them. If the president was amoung them he would be in prison by now for violating Articles 97 and 107.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000802----000-.html

...made in response to the claim that the President is a member of the military - a claim you have been asked to support any number of times, and have yet to do so. Unless you can provise a source, then can it.

It is common sense. A civilian cannot tell a general to deploy his troops. I can't walk up to Tommy Franks and order him to do something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The president is not subject to punishment under UCMJ. Section 802 Article 2 lists all of those to whom UCMJ applies..the president is not amoung them.

Which means that the President is not a
(1) Member of a regular component of the armed forces
(2) Cadet, aviation cadet, or midshipman.
(3) Member of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training,
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who is entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Member of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Person in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

Or, in other words - a member of the military (as very boradly defined by your source).
Thanks for proving my point. I knew you would.

It is common sense.

You and common sense are complete strangers.

A civilian cannot tell a general to deploy his troops. I can't walk up to Tommy Franks and order him to do something.

-You- havent been given the title of the Commander-in-chief of the armed forcesby the US Constituion.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Or, in other words - a member of the military (as very boradly defined by your source).
Thanks for proving my point. I knew you would.

The president technically falls under number 1 since he is CINC however the law does not apply to him because the office of the president is not specifically mentioned. Thanks for proving my point ie that the president is subject to a lesser form of justice than the common man. I knew you would.

-You- havent been given the title of the Commander-in-chief of the armed forcesby the US Constituion.

Because I am a civilian. The president ceases to be a civilian when taking on the role of CINC because he becomes part of the chain of military command.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The president technically falls under number 1 since he is CINC however the law does not apply to him because the office of the president is not specifically mentioned.

If he falls under (1), then his office doesnt need to be mentioned.
If he falls under (1), then for the code to not apply to him, there would have to be a specific exception in the code. Please point this exception out.

Because I am a civilian. The president ceases to be a civilian when taking on the role of CINC because he becomes part of the chain of military command

Then you need to explin why he, as a member of the military, is exempt from the UCMJ when there is no exemption listed for his office.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

If he falls under (1), then his office doesnt need to be mentioned.
If he falls under (1), then for the code to not apply to him, there would have to be a specific exception in the code. Please point this exception out.

There are specific exceptions in Part C.
"(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned."

Then you need to explin why he, as a member of the military, is exempt from the UCMJ when there is no exemption listed for his office.

There are dozens of exemptions in terms of legal accountability when it comes to the president. Executive privelage, right to refuse to take an oath, right to refuse a subpeona, etc etc. which extends throughout the leaderships. You cannot deny that and you cannot deny that the common man does not have the right to refuse a court order. The President doesn't really answer to any court of law like the common man..he answers to Congress. The common man does not have the right to withold doccuments vital to a case, the common man does not have the right to refuse to take an oath, the common man does not have the right to refuse a subpeona. He is exempt from UCMJ probably because the president is only a member of the military in times of war or when he orders military action therefore UCMJ would not apply outside that time period. "is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned." (The president falls under number 4 of section C)

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are specific exceptions in Part C.
"(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned."

So, this creates a Presidential exception to those covered by the UCMJ, how?

There are dozens of exemptions in terms of legal accountability when it comes to the president.

Show me the specifc ecxeption in the law for the President.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

So, this creates a Presidential exception to those covered by the UCMJ, how?

Because the president only takes on the role of CINC during war. Once the war is over he returns to civilian status. Read the last sentance in that quote.

Show me the specifc ecxeption in the law for the President.

Executive privelage (even though there is no constitutional basis for it! Those in favor cite the seperation of powers but that would mean that the president has the ability to operate above the law), right to refuse to take an oath, right to refuse a subpeona, and the president does not answer to a court of law..the president answers to Congress.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because the president only takes on the role of CINC during war. Once the war is over he returns to civilian status. Read the last sentance in that quote.

All you're doing is showing that he is a memeber of the military... without explianing why he isnt subject to the UCMJ.

Executive privelage (even though there is no constitutional basis for it!

Nope. Doesnt cover personal crimes committed in office. Ask Nixon.

So, where is the exception in the law that exempts the Presisenf rion the UCMJ.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

All you're doing is showing that he is a memeber of the military... without explianing why he isnt subject to the UCMJ.

Do you know how to read? Section C clearly states that UMCJ is only applicable to military members while they are a member of the military. The president ceases to be a member of the military in times of peace therefore UMCJ does not apply to him during peace time.

Nope. Doesnt cover personal crimes committed in office. Ask Nixon.

Yep. It covers everything unless congress decides otherwise..which is what happened with Nixon. The president witheld information in the 9/11 hearings and continues to do so in the Valery Plame investigation citing executive privelege. The president also refused to take an oath during the 9/11 hearings. In fact both the president and vice president made demands if they were to testify..the common man does not have that right. The common man would be subpeonad or held in contempt of court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you know how to read? Section C clearly states that UMCJ is only applicable to military members while they are a member of the military. The president ceases to be a member of the military in times of peace therefore UMCJ does not apply to him during peace time.

Yep. It covers everything unless congress decides otherwise..which is what happened with Nixon. The president witheld information in the 9/11 hearings and continues to do so in the Valery Plame investigation citing executive privelege. The president also refused to take an oath during the 9/11 hearings. In fact both the president and vice president made demands if they were to testify..the common man does not have that right. The common man would be subpeonad or held in contempt of court.

Bwwaahahahaha!
Keep that entertainment comin' boy! I'm just ROLLIN' over here!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Bwwaahahahaha!
Keep that entertainment comin' boy! I'm just ROLLIN' over here!

How's this for entertainment? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700562.html I guess, according to the Supreme Court soon, were going to find out just how much "chief" the "commander" has.

Bwwaahahahaha, that!

 

[M14 Shooter]

How's this for entertainment? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700562.html I guess, according to the Supreme Court soon, were going to find out just how much "chief" the "commander" has.
Bwwaahahahaha, that!

This has little to do with the subject at hand.

Bwaaaahahahaha this!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
This has little to do with the subject at hand.

Bwaaaahahahaha this!

I think it does, BH, I think it does. Your the one who keeps saying the Cinc is just this side of an emporerer, dictator, etc. with no restraints on his war power. Well, the Supreme Court is taking a look on just how much power he can have...........by permission from Congress!

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think it does, BH, I think it does. Your the one who keeps saying the Cinc is just this side of an emporerer, dictator, etc. with no restraints on his war power. Well, the Supreme Court is taking a look on just how much power he can have...........by permission from Congress!

You're talking about prisoners.
Rules for prisoners are created by Congress - says so right in the Constitution.

As such, there is no relevance to the questions of the CinC's power to direct the military.

 

[tecoyah]

Sorry to interupt the Love Fest here...but, is it not the Military that takes these prisoners? And, arent many of these prisoners privy to information that may help in the planning of Warfare Tactics/campaigns? And, wouldnt placing a restriction on the Ways this information is gathered effect the Military? I would think this would have some effect on the Commander in Chief, unless he just decides to ignore the rules.....but he would never do that....would he?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry to interupt the Love Fest here...but, is it not the Military that takes these prisoners? And, arent many of these prisoners privy to information that may help in the planning of Warfare Tactics/campaigns? And, wouldnt placing a restriction on the Ways this information is gathered effect the Military? I would think this would have some effect on the Commander in Chief, unless he just decides to ignore the rules.....but he would never do that....would he?

Sheesh.

Article I Sec 8:10
[Congress shall have the power to]
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

And so, as we see here, the Congress has the power to make laws dealing with POWs; this power has NO bearing on the question of the limits of the CinC to direct the military.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
You're talking about prisoners.
Rules for prisoners are created by Congress - says so right in the Constitution.

As such, there is no relevance to the questions of the CinC's power to direct the military

Not just for prisoners. Congress creates all the rules that have to do with the execution of a war with US military forces. These rules apply to all departments of the government (including the Presidency).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not just for prisoners. Congress creates all the rules that have to do with the execution of a war with US military forces. These rules apply to all departments of the government (including the Presidency).

Yawn.

So you have claimed.
You still havent cited the part of the Constitutioin where Congress gets this power over the President in the role of CinC.

 

[tecoyah]

Yawn.

So you have claimed.
You still havent cited the part of the Constitutioin where Congress gets this power over the President in the role of CinC.

Actually...he has. It may simply be that you were yawning when the link between the articles of Geneva, and the ability of the Commander in Chief to gain information was placed before you. Unless of course....you just cant see the way one effects the other.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually...he has. It may simply be that you were yawning when the link between the articles of Geneva, and the ability of the Commander in Chief to gain information was placed before you. Unless of course....you just cant see the way one effects the other.

Allow me to yawn again.

The article he posted had everything to do with POWs and nothing to do with the power of the CinC to command the military absent a DoW.

As such, its irrelevant to the conversation.

For whatever reaon, you just can;t see that - I'd wager because you dont want to.