OMG! B, you have officially jumped the shark. Not only are you advocating a military coup, you are citing whackadoodle nutjob websites to support that crazy, illegal, unconstitutional notion!
I linked you to an official opinion paper by the Department of Justice which cites the Constitution, laws, and court cases to conclude that the President of the United States may not be arrested and detained. You obviously ignore anything which doesn’t support your desire for the military to arrest and detain a sitting President. Instead you search on the internet for anything which might back your idiotic idea. Well, lo and behold, you come across a whackadoodle nutjob website which does just that.
I like how you conveniently omit part of what that whackadoodle you quoted said. You left out: “The good guys outnumber the bad ones, but the bad ones have their allegiance tied to the New World Order, and the Illuminati Masters, so they utilize that power to override the authority of the good guys.”
Of course, if you bothered to do a little research, you might find out exactly who is behind that whackadoodle website. I just love their objectives, found on their Mission Statement page (http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_static/general/our_mission.php). Go there and read all the objectives, but they include things such as: “To reveal the evil world leaders’ cover-up of off-world humans (our ancestors), who are here in starships in Earth’s atmosphere at this time, and who have come with good intent to help us prevent the evil Plan 2000 from being accomplished, and to help us establish the New Age of Enlightenment.”
Yup, B, that’s the group you’re going to for legal advice. They’re about as unChristian a group as you will find.
I brought this information here so I could ask retired and active military Freepers to tell me if these claims are credible.
It’s something researchers do. I don’t expect you to understand.
The answer this guy says he got from the retired and active military officers he spoke to matches what was claimed in a report by a guy who claimed that Obama had shipped a nuke from Nevada to the east coast to detonate but a military commander instead had the nuke detonated in the Atlantic - which would explain an “earthquake” with a seemingly abnormal/unnatural seismic pattern. The claim at that time was that the Navy Yard shooting was to stop the Joint Chiefs of Staff from carrying out what this guy says is taught in the officers’ classes where they address such scenarios.
I watched at the time, to see if military people would refute/contest the claim that this Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting would happen or that this is the way that officers are supposed to keep their officers’ oath when the POTUS is clearly waging attacks against America. I was neutral on the story because I don’t know anything about any of this stuff, so I wanted to hear if this was credible. Though some said they don’t believe this is what happened, or who questioned whether the purge of military officers afterwards was related to this, I don’t remember seeing military people here saying that this procedure is non-credible. Maybe I just missed it; if so perhaps somebody can show me the posts by military Freepers who contested the plausibility this procedure for arresting a POTUS at war with the country he’s supposed to protect.
I addressed the DOJ opinion using some questions. I noticed that you never responded to this questions, which is par for your course. I’ll briefly restate them:
Is there a difference between somebody arresting a POTUS for a minor infraction, versus arresting him for attempting to nuke a US city? If the DOJ sees no difference between these 2 scenarios and their opinion is so inflexible that it cannot adapt to the difference, then their ability to grasp legal nuances is seriously in question.
There is back-up in case the POTUS is unable to carry out his Constitutional functions, temporarily or permanently. The Constitution assumes that cases will arise where this happens - due to illness, death, or Constitutional disqualification, for instance. Why, then, should the DOJ insist that Constitutional disqualification (for instance, treason or national security reasons which are to be handled by Congress) must NEVER EVER be able to happen with the POTUS only, even though others whose jobs are also critical MAY be arrested? What function would the nation be without if the POTUS was arrested/detained for trying to nuke a US city, for instance?
How would the DOJ allow the nation to be protected from a desperate enemy-combatant POTUS while impeachment was underway? If the POTUS was truly a traitor/enemy and was allowed to still control the nuclear football, for instance, what would stop him from using it on the US? Or if he was truly conspiring with America’s enemies what would stop him from deliberately clearing the way for 20,000 Manpads that he allowed Al Qaeda and other terrorists to get (or the weapons he directly provided to terrorist groups) to be used against an American city, airplane, etc so that he could declare martial law and effectively get rid of the impeachment process?
I’m asking serious questions and they deserve serious answers, not just more of the blah-blah Alinsky you regularly serve up.