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.

 

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

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

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is ABSOLUTELY AND CATEGORICALLY ILLEGAL TO DEPLOY THE MILITARY ON CIVILIANS UNTIL THE POSSE COMMITATUS ACT IS REVOKED, REPEALED, OR MODIFIED BY THE CONGRESS AND IN A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED PROPERLY.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.




posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
If I posted rants on Facebook about my company's CEO I would be fired within the week.

FACT.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


He did not expect to have an investigation occur into what he said.. His view is he did nothing wrong, and was surprised when this came down the pipeline.

As for the rest how about you go back and actually answer the question I asked, instead of throwing items out that dont answer the question?

On the off chance you forgot - Please point out in the Constitution where it forbids the military from civilian law enforcement functions. Being I gave you the answer you should not have gotten it wrong.

As for your comment using the term deuschebag -grow up and act your age.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


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

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


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.

Its illegal to forcefully curtail those rights and in this case the military is not forcefully doing so. Again the people who join know full well whats to be expected.

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.

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.

When you decide to learn about the topic instead of only seeing hat you want, fell free to come back and rejoin the conversation / debate. and maybe answer the questions that were posed to you that you ignored.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

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

FACT.


The only reason certain members are making a fuss is because its yet another chance for them to seize on an issue while arguing the government is evil. They could care less about the Sgt. and are more interested in using this incident to further their paranoid views.

Its ironic that they will argue that the law is being violated by the governments action while in the very same breath ignore the fact that the marine violated the law.

Hence seizing this opportunity to push their position about the "evil" government.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

FACT.


The only reason certain members are making a fuss is because its yet another chance for them to seize on an issue while arguing the government is evil. They could care less about the Sgt. and are more interested in using this incident to further their paranoid views.

Its ironic that they will argue that the law is being violated by the governments action while in the very same breath ignore the fact that the marine violated the law.

Hence seizing this opportunity to push their position about the "evil" government.


No...the government is "evil"...but there are certainly elements of the government which are currently displaying an "evil" set of behaviors.

I actually VOTED for Obama last time. Mostly because I was appalled by George W's circumvention of the Constitution with the US Patriot Act and unjustifiable acts of war. However...just because I voted Obama LAST time...doesn't mean I will apologize for him doing the same.

I'm not a believer in "small" government or "big" government along the traditional party lines at all. Instead I support the idea of a more DIRECT government with less middle-men. Theoretically speaking, I'm IN FAVOR of government regulations and whatnot because THEORETICALLY, you and I and the other 300 million Americans are SUPPOSED TO BE "The Government". If we pushed "The Government" out of business, our communities, etc we are simply pushing OURSELVES out of these things....at least in a THEORETICAL sense.

However, the REALITY of the situation is that our country is run by a HUGE assortment of self-interested middle-men. I alway find it ironic that the political "right" wants to get rid of unions...but keep trade organizations and lobbyists. Isn't the International Association of Drilling Contractors nothing more than a union for oil & gas drilling companies? It's the same thing.

Unfortunately, with all these middle-men come a WHOLE LOT of other agendas. Everything from small time politically bribery scams to outright war profiteering. THIS IS WHY WE SHOULDN'T JUST PUT BLIND FAITH IN "THE GOVERNMENT".

Again...I would be "against" the good Sgt. if he was "badmouthing" the Commander-in-Chief with petty insults, political rhetoric, racial slurs, etc. However, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE COUNTRY WHEN IT BECOMES "CONTROVERSIAL" FOR A MARINE TO STATE THAT HE WILL NOT DETAIN US CITIZENS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS?

The rationale for this sort of behavior will always come back to the fear of a "terrorist" on the loose, right? I agree...terrorists should be arrested and dealt with. However, there seem to be PLENTY of civilian agencies to do this...why would the Marines need to get involved?

More importantly...why is ANYBODY in the military upset that this guy is saying he will refuse to do this if ordered to? You're a cop, right? Would the Chief of Police be upset with you if you put a statement on facebook that said "I refuse to use excessive force?" Of course not...because it's fully in line with the generally accepted and legally establish values of a domestic police force in a first world, industrialized nation, right?

Same difference. This guy didn't get on facebook and say that he thinks Obama is a Muslim and working for Al Queda or a whole lot of the other nonsensical notions that the "Lower-Quartile Stanford-Binet All Stars" keep spouting. There's a difference, right? Likewise, the guy is not refusing MILITARY orders. It's not like the President is ordering him into Iran and he is refusing. He's simply saying he won't turn on his own people back home. Again...there is a difference, right?

I'm against the war in Iran...but I'm actually pretty happy each military guy isn't coming to his own conclusions about when the appropriate time to start bombing them is. No doubt, somebody would have taken it upon themselves to start shooting long ago by now if that were the case.

But again...this is much different than rounding up your own citizens, right?

What am I missing here?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I see you are incapable of holding a conversation without name calling. Your lack of knowledge on how the Constitution and laws work is the main reason your argument fails. As I stated before its not what he said, its how he said it. As for your comment about citizen government you do understand the United States is not a Democracy right? We are a representative Republic, which means the people elect individuals to represent their interests in government.

Back to being on topic -

The Marine violated DoD policy - plain and simple, and in the process he violated the UCMJ and can be held accountable under the UCMJ.

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the military at ALL times, not just during times of war. What part of civilian leadership over the military are you not comprehending? Constantly bringing up civilian issues adds nothing to the debate since we aren't dealing with domestic laws.

As I stated earlier, please take some time to research and learn before making even more comments that are incorrect and based on ignorance.
edit on 27-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   


Your lack of knowledge on how the Constitution and laws work is the main reason your argument fails. As I stated before its not what he said, its how he said it.


FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME...THERE IS NO "ARGUMENT"!!! You are the only person here who is trying to "justify" anything. I have consistently said that this guy at the very least has violated DOD policies and/or some sort of Code of Conduct or whatnot. Furthermore, I have acknowledged that President is the Commander-and-Chief.

If you care to simplify the argument...let's not even worry about peacetime. Right now we are at war so that's all that matters, right? Thus...the President is Commander-and-Chief? I've already agreed as much. Note...I didn't bring up any civilian issues until you drew the comparison between "what would happen to me" if I refused orders from my boss. However...I agree...it's neither here nor there.

So we can ALL AGREE that this guy certainly seems to have violated DOD/USMC policies and/or Codes of Conduct and the President is the Commander-In-Chief, right? I am not in any way disputing that with you.

Sooo....let's get back on topic.

I AM PROUD THAT MARINE CORP. SGT. GARY STEIN HAS STATED THAT HE WILL REFUSE ORDERS FROM THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF TO ATTACK AND/OR DETAIN U.S. CITIZENS. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODY I DISAGREE WITH THIS PRACTICE, AND I PERSONALLY FEEL WE OUGHT TO GIVE MARINE CORP. SGT. GARY STEIN A MEDAL FOR BRAVERY SIMPLY FOR HAVING THE BALLS TO STAND UP AND STATE HE IS OPPOSED TO IMPLEMENTING MARTIAL LAW ON US CITIZENS AND WILL HAVE NO PART IN IT IF ORDERED TO DO SO.

Once again...just so we are clear. It doesn't matter WHAT the law says. Sometimes...laws are morally wrong. When they are morally wrong I believe that we all have an obligation to practice civil disobedience. True...sometimes those people get locked up. However...in the long run the world generally has looked favorably upon Henry David Thoreau and Nelson Mandela...wouldn't you agree?

Therefore...I encourage, endorse, and support any member of the military or domestic police force who also refuses to place American citizens in concentration camps. Seems to me that it should be a non-issue so long as nobody is intending to put anyone in a concentration camp, right?

Are we clear? The fact the guy seems to have "broken the law" doesn't make him "bad", nor do I feel it makes him deserving of punishment. Will he probably get punished? Most likely. Was he fully aware of this? You bet. As you pointed out he was already warned once and given the guidelines as to what he can and cannot do/say. He followed them to a "T".

He made no endorsements or derogatory remarks about specific political candidates. He simply noted that he has no intention of violating the US Constitution even if ordered to by the President. The specific provisions of the Constitution which prohibit standing armies, detainment without charge or trial, random search and seziure and provide for the right to due process, legal representation, and trial by jury will be quoted verbatim (again) in the next post as I have run out of room...again.

...continued.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Article I
- 8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
- 8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Article II
- 2.1 The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article IV

- 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


That being said...the only thing which can supersede or remove a constitutional amendment is ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

It just plain old fashioned doesn't matter WHAT the NDAA or the Patriot Act says or what the Supreme Court's opinion is either..at least in a LEGAL sense.

In a PRACTICAL sense...it certainly will. Mostly because there are hordes of military people and cops who will willfully choose to enforce laws of lower standing in place of the highest law of the land. Unconstitutional abuses of power ALWAYS require willing participants to act as the "muscle" and bully people into it by force.

Clearly...you are one of those people. You find nothing wrong with a soldier getting in trouble for saying that he will not deny YOU AND YOUR FAMILY your Constitutional rights by force or violence and using weaponry paid for by your own tax dollars.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Sooo....let's get back on topic.

...................

Once again...just so we are clear. It doesn't matter WHAT the law says.


Actually it does matter - a great deal actually since its the reason he is in the situation he is in. The moral argument in this case has no bearing. It has nothing to do with the NDAA and its provisions at all.

Its why the Sgt. is in trouble.

It has everything to do with how the Sgt. argued his position and presented himself and his viewpoints. Your argument seems to be all over the place. From violation of the Constitution, to the President not being Commander in Chief during peace time, etc etc etc. Would it be possible for you to pick an objection and stick to it?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Article I
- 8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
- 8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia....

I am familiar with the Constitution and the law and how it works.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
That being said...the only thing which can supersede or remove a constitutional amendment is ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

No rights are being denied.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
It just plain old fashioned doesn't matter WHAT the NDAA or the Patriot Act says or what the Supreme Court's opinion is either..at least in a LEGAL sense.

The NDAA is legal, and with congressional action the Posse Commitatus Act can be removed / modified to allow military to act in law enforcement functions.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
In a PRACTICAL sense...it certainly will. Mostly because there are hordes of military people and cops who will willfully choose to enforce laws of lower standing in place of the highest law of the land. Unconstitutional abuses of power ALWAYS require willing participants to act as the "muscle" and bully people into it by force.

REspectfully - That is a very ignorant comment to make. The paranoia people have about the military, police and all governments in the US is stunning to say the least. People see conspiracies in everything and it results in in a forest of mirrors.

Again please define what amendment is being violated.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
Clearly...you are one of those people. You find nothing wrong with a soldier getting in trouble for saying that he will not deny YOU AND YOUR FAMILY your Constitutional rights by force or violence and using weaponry paid for by your own tax dollars.

I am not one of those people. What I am is educated on the facts and how the law works. Just because you do not understand doesn't mean im part of the delusional paranoid conspiracy theories people have.

And again, you have shifted your position, coming back to the Sgt. being denied his constitutional rights.

Which is it?



Originally posted by milominderbinder
Clearly...you are one of those people.

Ah yes.. The typical attack the person personally when you cant refute the facts.
edit on 27-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Again please define what amendment is being violated.


How stupid are you? I cut and pasted them VERBATIM in here TWICE. FYI: It's not just Amendments...the Articles are also being violated.


I am not one of those people. What I am is educated on the facts and how the law works. Just because you do not understand doesn't mean im part of the delusional paranoid conspiracy theories people have.


Hey, dumbass. I have two degrees on the subject and I start law school next fall. On the other hand, I keep pasting the specific Articles and Amendments which are being violated and it goes right over your head. I have a thirteen year old who has a higher level of reading comprehension than you do. You don't know sh&^%t about "the law". If you REALLY are a cop, you are a disgrace to the uniform and the country for having such a piss poor understanding of the Bill of Rights.



And again, you have shifted your position, coming back to the Sgt. being denied his constitutional rights.


How many times do I have to tell you that the Sgt.'s Constitutional rights are probably not being violated? Fifty? A Hundred? A thousand? What part of that are you having problems with? Why do you keep insisting that the Sgt. is being denied his Constitutional Rights? I think the part you're wrestling with is how someone can ENDORSE "breaking the rules". There are times when it is perfectly acceptable to violate the law and refuse to obey. In my opinion, this is one of them.

I think his flagrant violation of DOD policy in this instance makes him an absolute hero, a role model, and amongst the finest and most responsible young men this country has to offer. Furthermore, I've already contributed to his legal defense and I'll chip in to support his damn family if he gets locked up too. It's not that I'm super-concerned about the good Sgt.'s Constitutional Rights....it's that I'm concerned about MINE.

Therefore, I really don't care if Sgt. Stein committed a felony or five in the process of refusing to deprive me of my civil liberties. He's got my support anyways.

Why are you so confused about that?

"The law" is no way "sacred". In fact...it's quite corrupt, more often than not.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
How stupid are you? I cut and pasted them VERBATIM in here TWICE. FYI: It's not just Amendments...the Articles are also being violated.

Actually I am not stupid. I won't bother to sink to your level and respond in kind as I am not a 2 year old. If you would take the time to learn what you are talking about, you would be in much better shape than you are now.

Its is NOT illegal / unconstitutional for a business / groups / entity, in this case the military, to have stipulations in their hiring / contracts, which are made known to the person up front, that by accepting employment / signing a contract for the military that they are going to be restricted in their actions and what they can or cannot say.

Its only illegal and unconstitutional when the entity forces those restrictions on people without their knowledge or consent. People who enlist in the military acknowledge the restrictions and agree to comport themselves accordingly.

If a person going for employment / military don't agree with the terms, then they are under no obligation to sign the contract / accept a job offer.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
Hey, dumbass. I have two degrees on the subject and I start law school next fall. On the other hand, I keep pasting the specific Articles and Amendments which are being violated and it goes right over your head. I have a thirteen year old who has a higher level of reading comprehension than you do. You don't know sh&^%t about "the law". If you REALLY are a cop, you are a disgrace to the uniform and the country for having such a piss poor understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Again its sad you resort to name calling when your argument gets shot down time and time again. As far as your degrees go, based on what I see in this thread I would suggest you go back to the places your degrees are from and ask for a refund. Your position and complete lack of knowledge and understanding does nothing but serve as an indictment of our failed school systems.

You can keep pasting them all you want. The problem you seem to have is you don't understand how they work or are applied. If you did you would understand the difference between caveat emptor and a forced violation of 42 USC 1983.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
How many times do I have to tell you that the Sgt.'s Constitutional rights are probably not being violated? Fifty? A Hundred? A thousand? What part of that are you having problems with? Why do you keep insisting that the Sgt. is being denied his Constitutional Rights? I think the part you're wrestling with is how someone can ENDORSE "breaking the rules". There are times when it is perfectly acceptable to violate the law and refuse to obey. In my opinion, this is one of them.


And yet in the comments above this section you keep arguing what rights are being violated. Ket me refresh your memory -

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Hey, dumbass. I have two degrees on the subject and I start law school next fall. On the other hand, I keep pasting the specific Articles and Amendments which are being violated and it goes right over your head.


So were you lying then or are you lying now? Which is it - The Sgt.s rights are violated or they aren't? Your position on this topic is the equivelant of a Ferret on crack.

Apparently you are failing to read my posts. I have never stated the Sgt.'s rights are being violated. You are arguing that not me.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
I think his flagrant violation of DOD policy in this instance makes him an absolute hero, a role model, and amongst the finest and most responsible young men this country has to offer. Furthermore, I've already contributed to his legal defense and I'll chip in to support his damn family if he gets locked up too. It's not that I'm super-concerned about the good Sgt.'s Constitutional Rights....it's that I'm concerned about MINE.

A lawyer who is only out for himself... imagaine my shock and surprise. So in this post you claim the Sgt.s rights are being violated, then you state they arent being violated, then you accuse me of arguing that his rights are violated, only to finish this off with you dont care about the Sgt or his position as your only goal is to protect only yourself.

I stand corrected - You will be more than welcome in the ranks of the ambulance chaser's who are only out for themselves. You do know what it means to be an officer of the court right? Apparently not, so if you are going to be a lawyer you should brush up on that term / principle.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
Therefore, I really don't care if Sgt. Stein committed a felony or five in the process of refusing to deprive me of my civil liberties. He's got my support anyways.

Again, you have changed your argument position. Now its all about you and your rights, which have nothing to do with the topic.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
Why are you so confused about that?

Im not the one who is confused. The proof would be for you to go back to page 1 of this thread, read the posts in their entirety and then lookj at your responses.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
"The law" is no way "sacred". In fact...it's quite corrupt, more often than not.

Yet you just got done listing off Constitutional rights, how our federal government is set up with the different branches all the while arguing, although at this point we would need a group of highly trained Crypto-analyst to actually decipher what your argument actually is since is as clear as mudd in your posts / responses.

As far as your comment about your degrees and going to law school - and?
Any person can read a book or watch a movie. As an example I would wager that if you sat down and watched the movie 10 things I hate about you or O, you would be completely clueless and lost as to what the movies actually are.

My point is any person can read / memorize or watch something, but it doesn't mean they understand / comprehend the information. A degree means nothing if the person who worked for it has no clue on how to apply it.

edit on 28-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are beyond stupid. It's not name calling...it's just a statement of fact and record.

1. I have stated in every response to you that THERE IS NO ARGUMENT.
2. I have stated in every response to you that I AGREE this guy probably broke DOD policy.
3. I have stated in every response that his breaking the aforementioned DOD policies is PRECISELY why he has my support.
4. I have stated in every response that the truly important part of this story is not the semantics DOD regulations...but ONLY that his superiors are pissed because HE HAS OPPOSED PUTTING AMERICAN CITIZENS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

...and you still remain confused about this. My position has not changed. YOU'RE the one who keeps bringing up the semantics of the DOD regulations. I KEEP SAYING THAT I DON'T CARE IF HE BROKE THE LAW...HE'S ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS in my book. And I will do whatever I can to support and aid him and his family.

As far as the constitution goes, are you stating that you feel the NDAA and some of this other police-state legislation that has gone through recently supersedes the Constitution without Amendment in a legal sense?
Interesting "analysis". You should try to get that paper published....I would love to read it.


Yeah...the guy with a B.A. in History, a B.A. in Political Science, an MBA with an emphasis in Business Intelligence, and soon-to-be Juris Doctorate, and over 20 years with a Mensa Card in his wallet is the one who "is confused" and "can't apply concepts but only memorize them", or whatever. Yep...that's it. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

By the way...I never knew that IP attorneys were known to chase ambulances.
Is that where all the patents are stored now?

Again...just to clarify...I'm not disputing that in a PRACTICAL sense we will see all kinds of good, honest, Americans being rounded up in FEMA camps. The Federal government has a long history of moving potentially "problematic" but peaceful people into concentration camps in this country. (The Japanese Internment is the one that most people think of...however what else would you call an Indian Reservation except a concentration camp without walls or fences? Especially when they were first implemented and American Indians were not allowed to leave...that's the very definition of a prison camp.)

Whatever. On a positive note...I think I now know why you are so bewildered by the Articles and Amendments I posted. You made a particularly eye-opening statement when you said: "Yet you just got done listing off Constitutional rights, how our federal government is set up with the different branches all the while arguing, although at this point we would need a group of highly trained Crypto-analyst to actually decipher what your argument actually is since is as clear as mudd in your posts / responses."

I guess I took it for granted that you would be able to interpret the meanings of those items without assistance and then be able to draw more or less the same conclusions about our system of government that the rest of the world has in the years following 1789. To say it seems self-evident is a bit of an understatement...but I guess I was wrong. Sorry, dude...I'm just not used to dealing with people that have such a hard time with things.

...and you're a cop, huh?

edit on 28-3-2012 by milominderbinder because: minor formatting error.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Again, he's not being booted for saying bad things about Obama.

He's being booted for saying he won't follow his orders. In World War One, he would have been shot.

Obama is Commander in Chief of the military. If you're working for a corporation and are publicly critical of the CEO, you'd probably be fired, too.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

Marine sergeant who started a Facebook group that is openly critical of President Obama and posted comments saying he will not follow the unlawful orders of the commander in chief is facing possible dismissal from the Corps.

The Marines on Wednesday told Sgt. Gary Stein — a Camp Pendleton Marine who started the Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party — that he is in violation of Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities.

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights. He has also criticized U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his comments on Syria.

USA-TODA

This is an interesting turn of events and since the policy he signed when he entered prohibits him from voicing his political opinion then i guess the free speech scenario is a non-existent theory. In my opinion if he wanted to voice his political beliefs he should have resigned from the armed forces and entered the civilian life that allows such conduct as a civilian.


Free speech doesn't apply to members of the military. It's the same when you work for corporations too. You don't have free speech about the policies of corporations in many cases. You speak badly about your CEO, you'll probably be fired too, as I stated in my previous post.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


You might as well save your breath (typing). Several members in this thread don't seem to grasp the concept on how this works, let alone what their rights are and how they work.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Yes.. I am still unable to figure out what the hell you are talking about because every time you post, it contradicts previous comments you have made in your other posts in this thread.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea how the Constitution works.
You have no idea how the military works.
You have no idea how the legal system works.

By all means, keep spouting off about your degrees and your law school attempt. Its about the only thing you have posted that is not contradicted by you in a later post.

I have no doubt you can graduate from law school. I have every doubt that you will pass the bar, and in this case im referring to the licensing body and not the place you apparently spend most of your time, which is the only thing that explains your inability to make a coherent argument.

If need be - We can do this 2 ways.

You can go back to page 1 and read all of your posts and responses to posts, at which point you should see what ive been telling you.

or

I can go back and point it out to you, while spoon feeding you the facts that you missed the day they taught law at law school.

A question to see if you can actually answer it -
In your above comments you stated -

As far as the constitution goes, are you stating that you feel the NDAA and some of this other police-state legislation that has gone through recently supersedes the Constitution without Amendment in a legal sense?

Please point out in the Constitution where the NDAA and other "police state legislation" have violated it. It being the Constitution / amendments etc etc etc etc.

I look forward to your response as I need a good laugh today.
edit on 28-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join