It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Soldier doubts ( Obama's) eligibility, defies president's orders

page: 18
48
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
For all of the active duty military who don't believe that the president is eligible to be in office. Don't forget about the article 138 complaint that you can file. There are already a few in process right now.

For all of those who don't know about what an Article 138 complaint is here you go.

milcom.jag.af.mil...

ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINTS


Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) gives every member of the Armed Forces the right to complain that he or she was “wronged” by his or her commanding officer. The right even extends to those subject to the UCMJ on inactive duty for training.

- Matters appropriate to address under Article 138 include discretionary acts or omissions by a commander that adversely affects the member personally and are

-- In violation of law or regulation

-- Beyond the legitimate authority of that commander

-- Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; or

-- Clearly unfair (e.g., selective application of administrative standards/actions)

- Matters NOT appropriate for Article 138 action are

-- Acts not under the control of the commander

-- Complaints relating to UCMJ or Article 15 actions

-- Complaints filed to seek disciplinary action against another

- Procedures for filing complaint

-- Within 180 days of the alleged wrong, the member submits his or her complaint in writing, along with supporting evidence, to the commander alleged to have committed the wrong

-- The commander receiving the complaint must promptly notify the complainant in writing whether the demand for redress is granted or denied

--- The reply must state the basis for denying the requested relief

--- The commander may consider additional evidence and must attach a copy of the additional evidence to the file

-- If the commander refuses to grant the requested relief, the member may submit the complaint, along with the commander’s response, to the officer exercising General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) over the commander

--- Must be submitted within 90 days from the notice of denial

--- May be submitted directly to the GCMCA or forwarded through any superior commissioned officer

--- An intermediate commander or any other superior commissioned officer receiving such a complaint will immediately forward the file to the GCMCA. The officer may attach additional pertinent documentary evidence and comment on availability of witnesses or evidence, but may not comment on the merits of the complaint

- GCMCA’s Responsibilities

-- Conduct or direct further investigation of the matter, as appropriate

-- Notify the complainant, in writing, of the action taken on the complaint and the reasons for such action

-- Refer the complainant to appropriate channels that exist specifically to address the alleged wrongs (i.e., performance reports, suspension from flying status, assessment of pecuniary liability). This referral constitutes final action

-- Retain two complete copies of the file, and return the originals to the complainant

-- After taking final action, forward a copy of the complete file to HQ USAF/JAG for review and disposition by the SecAF

- The GCMCA is prohibited from delegating his or her responsibilities to act on complaints submitted pursuant to Article 138

- Matters outside the scope of the Article 138 complaint process

-- Acts or omissions affecting the member which were not initiated or ratified by the commander

-- Disciplinary action under the UCMJ, including nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 (however, deferral of post-trial confinement is within scope of Article 138)

-- Actions initiated against the member where the governing directive requires final action by SecAF

-- Complaints against the GCMCA related to the resolution of an Article 138 complaint (except for alleging the GCMCA failed to forward a copy of the file to the SecAF)

-- Complaints seeking disciplinary action against another; and

-- Complaints based on a commander's actions implementing the recommendations of a board authorized by Air Force regulations and governed by AFI 51-602, Boards of Officers
References:
UCMJ art. 138
AFI 51-904, Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138, UCMJ, 30 June 1994




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by verbal_assassin
 


"Ye shall know them by their fruits"



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dankai
You're an idiot.


Please cut it out. It still astounds me how I don't see a red "warn" flag next to this post but perhaps I'm faster replying than those who are monitoring the thread.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


Exactly.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
One thing that does spring to mind here: if he's already in Iraq, and likely has been for some time, then it was not the orders of the current president that sent him there, it was the previous administration and so it is those orders that he is carrying out.

This sounds more like a sour grapes and publicity issue more than anything else. The complainant doesn't seem to have a problem with the likelihood that the previous CIC only got to be president through rigged elections or that the order to invade Iraq was based on a pack of lies.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
God bless this soldier, and all the others like him. And may we get a few hundred thousand more to do the same -- and perhaps we will as these brave ones step up.

This government is criminal, illegitimate, not duly elected, unconstitutional, the wars are a travesty, illegal, and for the purpose of erecting a world government and destroying America -- all illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention immoral and wicked.

May God be with the soldiers who are trapped in the nightmare of being in the military at this time in history to help them do the right thing, mostly to get them out and bring them home with their souls intact.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I think his argument is weak, and so is his spine. This is the last desperate act of a coward. Like him or not, he is the president, this kid needs to shoot himself in the toe if he wants out that bad.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Why? Because he's following his A) Constitutional Oath, and B) Moral Compass? Anyone that follows YOUR mode of thought would do well in a dictatorial government. Funny thing is, the U.S. is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic!!!!!

The soldier is correct in his position and I applaud his courage! When was the last time any of you "Arm-Chair Generals" actually stood up for something you believed in while facing criticism FROM YOUR ENTIRE COUNTRY?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
I think his argument is weak, and so is his spine. This is the last desperate act of a coward. Like him or not, he is the president, this kid needs to shoot himself in the toe if he wants out that bad.


Interesting comment coming from someone who has a signature that reads:

signature
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
- Abraham Lincoln



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dankai
 



I agree with you dankai.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dankai
 


This soldier is not staging a revolution, he's scared.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dankai
 


You missed one thing dankai. People like the one that posted above only believe writings like that if and only if the statement is in line with their agenda. Typical Liberal hypocrisy



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by cjdny
 


and people who attack others because they can't defend their own position with logic and reason, well, there's plenty of words to describe them too.

Listen, I think this was sux, and we were lied to by the former administration, but I can guarantee you oe thing, the men who ae in ths boys unit, standing their posts, whether or not they agree with the war, they have a word for this kid too.

Attack me all you want, just because I believe this kid is scared and willfully disobeying an order, and NOT covering the back of his felloow soldiers who are following orders, well that's whats wrong.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
reply to post by dankai
 


This soldier is not staging a revolution, he's scared.


You don't know that. You should say, "in my opinion."

You don't know that man's thought process. You can't judge accurately what is going through his mind. What I do know is that he has the Constitutional Authority to assert his right to do what he is doing. Everyone is still waiting for Obama to show he is Constitutionally eligible to even be the President of the United States.

This country has become nothing more than the biggest soap-opera of the world where elections are stolen and corporations make laws. Where the People discuss only topics of the latest news regarding "Deal or No Deal" "American Idol" etc.

And for all of you pea-brained I'll-only-use-the-race-card-when-it-benefits me-but-I'm-not-a-racist individuals...Obama is White AND Black. Remember who raised him? This isn't about race (as Alan Keyes is a prime example of the effort to get the truth). This is about whether our Constitution is strong enough to stand.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by dankai
 


You missed one thing dankai. People like the one that posted above only believe writings like that if and only if the statement is in line with their agenda. Typical Liberal hypocrisy


Agreed cjdny.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Oh, thats nice, I shouldn't call this kid a coward, although he displays cowardice, but it's okay to attack and call others names becaus they don't agree with you. LOL Well, you win, I won't reply on this thread again because I seek intelligent debate wth adults, not the nanny, nanny, boo, boo that you folks have turned this thread into.

-children



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dankai
And for all of you pea-brained I'll-only-use-the-race-card-when-it-benefits me-but-I'm-not-a-racist individuals...


As a friend, you're stay at the "ATS Inn" is going to be a short one if you continue the namecalling. If you think "that's a ridiculous idea" then so be it and so say it, but it's possible to critique a thought without disparaging a person. If I did not care, I wouldn't say anything.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
Oh, thats nice, I shouldn't call this kid a coward, although he displays cowardice, but it's okay to attack and call others names becaus they don't agree with you. LOL Well, you win, I won't reply on this thread again because I seek intelligent debate wth adults, not the nanny, nanny, boo, boo that you folks have turned this thread into.

-children


What was nanny nanny booish about what I wrote? I spoke factually. You threw your opinion around. When a person can't combat fact they run.

Makes me wonder if you are somewhat of a disinfo agent. Someone who just seeks conflict by trying to stir emotions with statements based only with opinions. Read the Constitution. Study it. If you still don't understand it, please don't throw meaningless drabble around.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics




 
48
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join