Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.



Ummmm....OK.

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.

1.SOPA
The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the “prior restraint” doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website, merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” – even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt. The Supreme Court has made clear that “only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression [and] only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint.” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965). “[P]rior restraints on speec hand publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).
To compound the problem, SOPA provides that a complaining party can file a noticealleging that it is harmed by the activities occurring on the site “or portion thereof .”Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement. Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, andYouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.

2. Various police actions and local court orders against the "Occupy" protests:
Categorically violates peaceable assembly as well as has ORDERED police officers from coast to coast to BE REQUIRED to become domestic terrorists as defined by the USA Patriot Act and Article I.5 of the Convention On The Prohibition Of The Development, Production, Stockpiling And Use Of Chemical Weapons and On Their Destruction. See Below:
107th Congress. 2001. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Session 1, H.R. 3162. Defines an "Act of Terror" as an attempt to do any one of the following:

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, etc.
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The CWC Treaty, Article 1.5 specifically declares riot-control agents such as, but not limited to, tear gas and pepper spray to be chemical weapons and they are banned even in open warfare.
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
(b) To use chemical weapons;
(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. 3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

...oops. Out of room on the 1st amndmt alone




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


...by the way. The big, scary, bar exam is about as difficult as the GED. It represents the absolute bare minimum an individual should know about law before practicing.

I personally believe it should be a requirement to graduate high school.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Reasoning with Xcathdra is like trying to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a bucket.

You should see the exchange I have going with him in the "U.S. Marine faces boot for anti-Obama Facebook" thread. Link: U.S. Marine faces boot for anti-Obama Facebook

I've literally copied and pasted portions of the Constitution verbatim and Xcathdra is still maintaining that there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids Americans being detained in concentration camps without trial.

No exaggeration or hyperbole. The guy actually came out and said that there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the NDAA and that in Xcathdra-ville the human resources practices of the U.S. Marine Corp trump Articles I and II of the Constitutions, the entire Bill of Rights and Amendment XIV to boot.

However his inherent lack of critical thinking skills made a lot more sense to me when he told me he was a cop. At first I didn't believe him, but after a while he sorta convinced me that he is actually willfully ignorant and hypocritical enough to truly be one.


The above is your post in this thread - Your post

So, were you lying in this thread or are you lying in that thread? Your post there contradicts your posts in this thread.

I dont need to waste any more time destroying your arguments.. You do that on your own. You are now going back to the constitution was violated argument, when you just got done stating it was not a violation but a DoD policy violations. You hope from excuse to excuse with the frequency of a cheap ham radio.

I need a good laugh so by all means, try to explain your hypocrisy and inability to tell the truth.

Also since you have ignored this - Please point out in the Constitution where it prevents the military from engaging in law enforcement functions.
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Also since you have ignored this - Please point out in the Constitution where it prevents the military from engaging in law enforcement functions.
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




OK...maybe the third time is a charm, huh?

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;

The Constitution clearly states that it is unlawful to raise a standing army for a duration of more than two years. Note that in the language of the day, the term "standing army" means an assembled army in times of peace.
This should be no surprise. One of the biggest sources of friction between the colonies and England was the deployment of British troops in the colonies during times of peace to "police" them, squash dissent, and otherwise bully them. Indeed, a great deal of attorneys, judges, and esteemed legal minds have actually come to the conclusion that the modern municipal police departments nationwide are Unconstitutional as they have been slowly militarized to becoming nothing other than a standing army. But hey...don't take my word for it. Here's a link to the academic journal of one of the finest and most respected law schools in the whole country...ESPECIALLY on the subject of Constitutionality. Link: www.constitution.org...

Admittedly, I see their point. When police officers have machine guns, chemical weapons, body armor, airpower, and electro-shock torture devices at their disposal they do seem to be running perilously close being a military force to me. This latest trend of civilian authorities now deploying predator drones and getting armored personnel carriers from the Feds clears any doubt in my mind, personally.
Fortunately, no matter what anyone's opinion is on the thugs we call "police" these days one fact is clear. THERE CAN BE NO STANDING ARMIES FOR LONGER THAN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES ACCORDING TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 8.12 of the United States Constitution. This means that not only would it be illegal for the military to carry out any long-term "policing" functions...it ALSO MEANS THAT EVERY SINGLE MILITARY BASE IN THE COUNTRY OUGHT TO BE CLOSED IMMEDIATELY UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CAN BE RATIFIED BY ALL 50 STATES WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR SUCH A THING TO OCCUR.

Secondly, the Constitution clearly cites that only a MILITIA may be used to "execute the laws of the nation, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions". The definition of the word "militia" is:

mi·li·tia   [mi-lish-uh] noun
1.a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

You will note the sharp distinction between a militia and a full-time, professional soldier. Just to be clear...I'm totally in support of a good, honest, law-abiding organization like the Hutaree being available to keep the government in check and enforce laws when necessary....just like the Constitution specifically calls for.

Likewise, this is why I am for the immediate disarmament and disbanding of all full-time civilian police forces, except those who do not have a locally elected executive. The whole idea of a Republic in a general sense is that the people are at least somewhat self-governing. It's pretty hard to self-govern yourself when there are hordes of thugs in uniform who are hired and appointed, but not directly chosen by the people to run around and commit acts of domestic terrorism on peaceful demonstrators, such as attacking the octogenarian Dorli Rainey with chemical weapons last fall in Seattle.

Satisfied...or do you want to keep digging yourself deeper? You should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.... Thank you for responding though as it only added to my point that you dont know what you are talking about.

Next time read and understand before responding.

Nothing you cited prevents the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions. We know this because if there was, there would have never been a challenge to the use of military personell in the south after the civil war. There never would have been legal standing to challenge it. There never would have been a need for possee commitatus.

Posse Commitatus is the only law that prohibits active duty / fdederal military units from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Posse Commitatus does NOT apply to individual state guard units.

Read the Constitution and understand before citing it. I would expect that since you claim to be a law student you would know this and what the constituition states. When I went through the police academy our first classes out of the gate were state law and Con law.
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



Nothing you cited prevents the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions. We know this because if there was, there would have never been a challenge to the use of military personell in the south after the civil war. There never would have been legal standing to challenge it. There never would have been a need for possee commitatus.


You are a stone-cold idiot. The Posse Comitatus Act was implemented SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the Northern Army was lingering for over TEN YEARS after the Civil War ended. Clearly this was Unconstitutional under normal circumstances, however the North had been using the recent attempt at succession to essentially extend the "we are at war" rationale seemingly ad infinitum.



Posse Commitatus is the only law that prohibits active duty / fdederal military units from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Posse Commitatus does NOT apply to individual state guard units.


Regarding the exemption of the state guard from the Posse Comitatus Act...no sh&%t Sherlock. Much as the aforementioned post mentioned the EXCLUSION OF THE MILITIA. This was the same rationale that allowed more than one 20th century President to call up the National Guard for civil disturbances such as organized labor protests in the Roosevelt administration, the civil rights movement, and the shootings of unarmed, peaceful, civilian protestors at Kent State.

The difference of course being that at those times the National Guard WAS actually a state defense force and/or non-professional militia. In todays day and age, the National Guard are quite often some of the FIRST to get deployed to whichever unwinnable task we set them to in the Middle East while the REAL Army maintains bases all over gods green earth. The Navy has ALWAYS been exempted from the Posse Comitatus given the Constitutional provisions which DO ALLOW for a standing Navy. In 1956 the Posse Comitatus was revised to include the Air Force, which obviously did not exist in 1878. Likewise, the Marines and Coast Guard were not included included the Posse Comitatus due to their mutual non-existence in 1878. However, prior to this country becoming a fascist hellhole and police state the Marines and the Coast Guard BOTH agreed in writing to abide by the Posse Comitatus Act as well. Thus, the only "wildcard" is conceivably the National Guard, IF AND ONLY IF they do not fit the definition of a STANDING ARMY. It's not my opinion, it's absolute LEGAL AND HISTORICAL FACT.


Read the Constitution and understand before citing it. I would expect that since you claim to be a law student you would know this and what the constituition states. When I went through the police academy our first classes out of the gate were state law and Con law.


This statement is just idiotic. How is it that you can consciously state that you derived your understanding of state and constitutional law in a low-level, rudimentary, vocational education program with spectacularly low standards of acceptance into the program and not see how this might be more of a disadvantage to you than an asset.

Think about it. You work in a profession which ROUTINELY bars people from entering the police because THEY ARE TOO SMART FOR THE JOB!!! link:blogs.discovermagazine.com...

The average national IQ of a police officer is 104. A score of 100 is the arithmetic mean of the population meaning that 50% of humans can be considered to be above this and 50% of humans to be below this 100 mark. You gotta love a profession who so stringently strives for mediocrity that they place a ban on smart people. LOL.


Just to put this in perspective for you, Koko the "Talking" Gorilla was able to fairly routinely clock in a score in the high 80's or low 90's once her grasp of American Sign Language was sound enough to facilitate an accurate communication of her answers. This a ballpark difference of around 15-20 IQ points between an average cop and a particularly clever gorilla. The average college professor in the US has an IQ of about 120. This still isn't really what I would consider exceptionally bright by any means... but it does put about as much difference between a cop and a professor as a cop and a gorilla, albeit an exceptionally clever one.

Perhaps this should tell you that maybe you shouldn't put quite as much stock in the validity of that vocational education when it comes to reading comprehension and analytical thinking.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Update -

Judge refuses to block anti-Obama Marine from discipline


SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A federal judge refused on Wednesday to block disciplinary action against a Marine who criticized President Barack Obama on Facebook and called him a "domestic enemy" in a posting to an internal military network.

Marine Sergeant Gary Stein, 26, a meteorologist stationed at Camp Pendleton near San Diego, filed suit on Tuesday, saying the Marine Corps was violating his right to free speech. A Southern California congressman has rallied to his defense.

The Marines have said they initiated discharge proceedings against Stein after he posted political statements about Obama on a Facebook page he runs called the "Armed Forces Tea Party."

Military experts have said that by associating the name of his Facebook page with the Armed Forces, Stein was essentially putting himself in the position of publicly expressing his personal political opinions while in uniform, which Defense Department rules prohibit.


It was his actions and how he came across that got him into trouble. The article contains more specifics -


Military experts have said that by associating the name of his Facebook page with the Armed Forces, Stein was essentially putting himself in the position of publicly expressing his personal political opinions while in uniform, which Defense Department rules prohibit.



for anti-Obama comments he posted to the military's internal network for meteorological and oceanographic information.



online message posted by Stein read: "As an active-duty Marine, I have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Obama is the economic enemy, the religious enemy, the domestic enemy."


His thoughts about Obama and the Quran burning -

Stein initially ran into trouble for comments he made on his Facebook page in an online debate over the punishment faced by NATO and U.S. military personnel over burning copies of the Koran in Afghanistan.

The remarks at issue have since been removed from Facebook. But in an account he gave the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, Stein paraphrased himself as stating: "I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me."


He "clarified" his position when he got called out by stating "unlawful orders".

As has been stated.. 9 years in the Marines.. An NCO..

he should have known better.


reply to post by milominderbinder
 

Is the Federal Judge wrong as well?
edit on 5-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join