U.S. Marine faces boot for anti-Obama Facebook posts

Originally posted by Xcathdra

That law, and nowhere in the Constitution, does it prevent the use of military units to engage in civilian law enforcement functions. Posse Commitatus can be revoked / modified by congress at any point. Publically calling out the President and stating he would refuse an order because its illegal, when in fact its not, is a problem.

Thank you for pointing out that it is ABSOLUTELY AND CATEGORICALLY ILLEGAL TO DEPLOY THE MILITARY ON CIVILIANS UNTIL THE POSSE COMMITATUS ACT IS REVOKED, REPEALED, OR MODIFIED BY THE CONGRESS AND IN A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED PROPERLY. So...until that time...it is illegal to deploy the military on US Citizens and/or detain them in violation of the Bill of Rights. The opinions of the Congress, the Supreme Court, The President, The Vice-President, Your Governor, and the TV Pundits are simply irrelevant until each and every state ratify a Constitutional Amendment repealing ALL of the previously mentioned Articles, Sections, and Amendments and replacing them with verbage that WOULD allow for such a thing. An Amendment is a HELL of a lot harder to pass that Bill...so good luck with that.

The military is not supposed to be engaging the government when it comes to policies / domestic / federal law. Hence the reason they are subject to the UCMJ and not domestic laws. They accept limits on their constitutional rights to specifically keep the military in check and under the control of civilian leadership.
Make up your mind. Is the President "Commander-in-Chief" or is he "civilian leadership"? He can't be both simultaneously. During wartime the President is not a "civilian".

.

I am sure that you have had a job where you did not agree with a boss or employment policy. Do you think you would get in trouble if you decided to challenge that policy? Even if you did it at home on your own time does not negate the fact you can still be held accountible by your employer and fired from your job.

Ummm...no. It's actually HIGHLY illegal to attempt to bar what someone thinks, does, or says, in the privacy of their own home, on their own time, and (presumably) in non-work related situations. I had an employer who tried it with me once. I took the $40K the court awarded me in punitive damages from this employer and stuck into Apple stock at @ $103/share. Perhaps I should ask...do you live in the United States? If you are Canadian or something this might explain a great deal of the confusion.

You really need to quit fear mongering... Attack his own people. Please point out where the NDAA or even Posse Commitatus states that. I have no sympathy for him because as a 9 year vetrine who has been in trouble for theis before opted to go back down the road again.

Yes. Nobody feels "sorry" for him. I feel a great deal of pride...but no sadness. Nobody wants your sympathy or pity.

The President is the commander in Chief, and as such the Marine should be choosing his words / posture carefully, specifically to avoid whats coming down the pipeline.

So...the President is military again? He was just a "civilian" a second ago.

As a member of Law Enforcement I have issues with the NDAA, and have stated many times I would not engage in any action that would violate my oath or the laws of my state or the constitution of my state or the federal one. With that being said im subject to a chain of command as well, as we have policies in place that prevents an officer from engaging in political actions that would lead a person to the conclusion the personal view point is supported officially by the agency.

Oh...christ. That explains everything. You're a damn cop. No wonder you are 80% of the way to goose-stepping already. You haven't had an independent thought in YEARS.

No...you are not subject to any "chain of command". It's all in your imagination. Laws are obeyed only when THEY ARE CONSENTED TO. If at any point you disagree with your supervisor, a politician, or have a personal moral objection to carrying out an order...I would SURE AS HELL hope you would refuse. True...your boss might fire you or attempt to coerce you into obedience. However...please have a spine and tell them to go screw themselves if you are confronted with that decision.

I would much rather take my chances with the drug dealers and murderers than with goose-stepping soldiers and cops who have been militarized to the point of most countries elite special forces units. I am TRULY terrified by how willing you are to "follow orders" now that I know they let you out of the house with a GUN in your hand everyday.

Wake up. Be your own man. Do what's RIGHT. Stop being lap-dog for your lousy $50K/yr and pension you won't ever see.

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
If I posted rants on Facebook about my company's CEO I would be fired within the week.

FACT.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Wow... Thats a lot of..... nothing.

You have the reading comprehension level of a small child. You understand the words...but miss the the greater context and don't have the ability to grasp the greater meanings of those words.

I love the SS comment by the way. It reinforces my other comment about you needing to grow up and act your age.

Well...it's basically true, isn't it? You pretty much came out and said you support placing American citizens in concentration camps provided your boss orders you to.

For the military and civil freedoms there nothing is illegal in terms of curtailing those rights. Why you may wonder while failing to do the research? Because the people who join the military do so freely and with full knowledge that their rights are limited. As far as it being highly illegal the US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

FOR THE LAST AND FINAL TIME...NOBODY IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU THAT YOU RELINQUISH SOME CIVIL LIBERTIES WHEN YOU ENLIST IN THE MILITARY. It is IS highly illegal to do so with a civilian, except in cases where the company can show monetary damages, a breach of confidential and/or proprietary information, or where it might damage a relationship with a key client of some sort. Hence...the large amount of cash I have in Apple stock right now.

However, this is all irrelevant to the argument anyways. My point is that OBEYING THE LAW IS OPTIONAL. Just because "the law" says you are obligated to attack your own citizens and forcefully detain them in concentration camps if ordered to do so...doesn't mean a military person or a cop for that matter is obligated to do so. There may be consequences for disobedience...but so what? The people who are brave enough to violate laws of these nature need and deserve our SUPPORT. They are the real heroes.

I know the whole "nazi" thing get's overplayed a lot these days...but all hyperbole aside this is pretty much what happened in Nazi Germany. All those "police" officers who rounded up the Jews, gays, and Russians and tossed them in concentration camps knew damn well that what they were doing was WRONG. But they did it anyways...because "the law" said so. After the war, every single one of them claimed to "just be following orders". When people follow orders without thinking...very, very, bad things happen.

Therefore...it does not matter what "the law" says. So get off your high horse. This guy is probably breaking rules of some kind. If not laws, then codes of conduct or some such thing. GREAT!! If only we had more people just like him the world might not be such a festering wound.

The President of the United States is the countries elected leader. Since our military is required by the Constitution to be under civilian control, that authority was given to the President, who is Commander in Chief of the military. This is not a hard concept to understand so im not sure why you are responding in the manner you are.

Yes...but the conflict comes into play because we are now in a time of war. The President is only "Commander-in-Chief" during wartime or under the threat of imminent attack. Likewise, the oath taken by any and all military personnel is to uphold the Constitution and protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. Therefore...WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENS WHEN THE "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF" ISSUES AN ORDER DURING A TIME OF WAR THAT ALSO VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, DUE PROCESS, CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE NECESSARY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to carry out the action?
HINT: Nobody knows....including the Supreme Court. It's never come up before.

As for the remainder of your personal attacks and ignorant comments save it for people like yourself. I have come to find that when people make comments like yours, its because they cannot support their position with facts. Its because they dont have an adequate understanding of how government works, how the military works, or how our laws work.

Hey goofball...you asked for specific portions of the Constitution which would prevent the deployment of the US military to detain US citizens in concentration camps without trial. Amazingly...you didn't seem to know that this was already unconstitutional...but I provided them for you anyway.

You don't get to then turn around and try to play it off as though I[/i] am somehow not knowledgeable about our system of government. As you stated...you're a cop. I have a bachelor's in political science and in history and an MBA. It really shouldn't surprise you that I am more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

Lastly...those are not personal "attacks"...it's just downright scary to me to think that our nations cops are so passive and obedient.