Well, I’m done with you.
You have absolutely no respect for either the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States.
You call for a military coup while stubbornly refusing to see it for what it is.
Again, in the United States, you remove a sitting President by impeaching and convicting him. Rogue military troops will not detain a sitting President. Moreover, anyone attempting to detain the President would end up in a gun battle with the Secret Service.
You’re right! And it’s quite amazing that one finds a Freeper with so little knowledge of the USA and its Constitution. It makes me suspect a “plant” to make Free Republic look bad. No one can really be that dumb!
Can it be a coup if you detain somebody while still providing the opportunity for them to go right back to the White House if through due process they can show that in spite of the evidence that caused him to be detained, he actually HASN’T been funding, training, arming, releasing, etc the people with whom America is at war?
I am not talking about removing a President from office.
There has to be a way to protect the country from what a desperate enemy in the White House could do, even if impeachment proceedings were underway. If impeachment was for treason/waging war against the US, national security would DEMAND that he be disabled from acting as POTUS in the interim. Yet the system as you describe it would allow him full access to the nuclear football (for instance) even if he was being charged with attacking America - because if he were arrested he would be prevented from using the nuclear football...
(If he’s really an enemy, that is the whole point. Give the nuclear football responsibilities to the next person in the line of Presidential succession just like the Constitution prescribes, until it can be seen if there is some reason that the evidence of treason - without which military detainment WOULD be a “coup” but WITH which military detainment is necessary and authorized “national security” - is not valid.)
If the Secretary of Defense was found to be conspiring with Al Qaeda to allow them to carry out a hit on America, could he be arrested or detained? Being arrested would keep him from carrying out his duties, ya know - which is supposedly the same reason that a POTUS can’t be arrested, according to DOJ opinion. Never mind that BOTH have back-ups to perform the necessary Constitutional functions if they are disabled from doing so for any reason - health, imprisonment, death, Constitutional disqualification, etc.
I can see a POTUS not being arrested for reckless driving or something - stuff that political opponents like Ronnie Earl or the people who tried to bankrupt Sarah Palin with frivolous lawsuits might try just to keep a POTUS from being able to do anything. But conspiring with Al Qaeda to attack America and destroy her is a totally different story, and it needs to be treated differently, just as a speeding ticket is treated differently than a plane being flown into the Pentagon. If the DOJ and/or judges are incapable of seeing the difference, then we’re in big, big trouble.