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.
The issue of whether a sitting President of the United States can be arrested and detained is a legal question. What's your legal research background? For me, I have a Master's Degree in Business Taxation. My University professors knew how to teach legal research! You look to the Constitution. You look to laws, to regulations, to court case analysis and decisions. I may have specialized in tax law, but I certainly appreciate what goes into researching Constitutional law. Ultimately, the Constituion rules. All laws, regulations, and court decisions must be decided based on the Constitution. The Constitution controls.
Let me make an analogy you might appreciate. If you're researching a Biblical question, where do you start? I start with the Bible. I will look at what my church teaches and read the verses they use in support of their position. I will look at respected Commentaries and the writings of religious folks I respect. But I always go back to the Bible verses referenced by all those sources. The Bible is the source of Truth.
So now the question before us is: Can a sitting President of the United States be arrested and detained? I look to the Constitution. I look to respected sources. That's where I found the opinion of the Department of Justice. They don't say "That's what they taught me." No, they quote from the Constitution. They quote from court cases. They discuss why they are deciding what they are deciding. But ultimately everything is based on the Constitution.
Your approach to Constitutional research? Apparently you didn't like the Department of Justice's opinion. But do you read the carefully researched document and show where they are wrong based on the Constitution and relevant court cases? No. You do the equivalent of Christian-lite cherry picking of Bible verses. You find the Bible verses which, when taken out of context, clearly support your unChristian viewpoint. Except that, in this case, it's an unConstitional website you've decided is worthy of your respect. Did you even read the viewpoints on that website??? "The longer answer is that the Constitution was suspended by FDR in 1933 via his EMERGENCY BANKING PROCLAMATIONS and subsequent LEGISLATION. Since then we have been ruled by 'public policy' not the Constitution." Those are the folks you're looking to for answers about the Constitution??? And the opinion you like is one person just saying, "That's what I was taught." No legal rational. No cites or references. Just "trust me, we can arrest a sitting President." Shoot, that's even lower than cherry picking Bible verses, because they aren't even quoting Bible verses!
Again, no, the military is not allowed to detain a sitting President. That is a military coup. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional.
And paranoid ranting from the lunatic fringe - "He may nuke a U.S. city" - are given the weight they deserve - NONE.
You didn't like that I didn't respond to your questions, but they are all answered in the DoJ opinion. I'm not going to regurgitate the document if you are incapable of reading and understanding it.
If you are concerned about the actions of the President, bring your concerns up to your Representative. They are the ones who can initiate impeachment proceedings.
You bring up the idea of Obama committing treason and call for special rules in that instance. That's not necessary. Treason by the President is specifically covered in the section on impeachment. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors." Removed from office after convicted. Until then, they continue to hold their office. That's what the Constitution says!
If Obama does something clearly illegal, such as 2nd amendmenting John Boehner, than I suppose that he would be declared disabled (by reason of insanity) under Article Two, Clause Six of the Constitution. But the Constitution and all the procedures in place would be followed to declare him disabled. I also suppose that would be the fastest impeachment and trial possible.
But, again, there is no provision for the military to get involved. We are not a banana republic. We do not sanction coups. We follow the Constitution.
I’m asking serious questions and they deserve serious answers, not just more of the blah-blah Alinsky you regularly serve up.
No, like usual you are imagining outlandish scenarios and rejecting answers you don't care for. Instead of looking for the right answer, you are cherry picking sources to get the answer you want. That's intellectually dishonest.