Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: EC1

Are there emergency actions that are allowed when lives (lots of them) are in danger? For instance, if Obama had done what Nidal Hasan had done, could anybody have stopped him - whether in the military or civilians? Would everybody just have to let him kill as many people as he wanted until Congress could be gathered together, vote to impeach him, have the trial, and convict him? Or maybe declare him insane (however that is done)?

And just to clarify: have you been through officers’ training? If so, are you saying that these scenarios are not discussed, as was claimed by the person in the quote I gave?

Thanks for any input.


218 posted on 07/04/2014 8:31:50 AM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion

It’s two different scenarios.

If any president goes nuts and starts shooting up the place, his security detail will stop him by whatever means necessary. There are others here (and elsewhere, you know who they are and who I mean) who can fill you in on that in a lot more detail, but it is a scenario they do train for. Unlikely, but it’s their job to cover any threat.

In terms of the military arresting the Worm for treason though - there simply isn’t a mechanism. The founders never figured on it. Assassination, sure, it’s covered. Death during an attack - that is covered about 12 levels deep. The idea that the President himself could be a traitor never really caught their eye, apart from the (slight and legally and morally very weak) justification of the Oath every one in uniform swears.

There is a lot of protections in the law, the constitution and indeed in officer training against the possibility of a military coup - which is what the overthrow of a sitting president would be. Foremost is the deeply entrenched tradition of civilian oversight of the military.

Obaama has an odd status. He is both considered military (as CinC) and not considered so - as he is technically in charge, he’s in the chain of command and can be over-ruled by the SecDef, who is both his subordinate and his superior at the same time.

On a more cautious front - treason is very hard to prove. Sedition has much looser standards for a conviction. Please be careful what you advocate? Pick your words wisely.

Blessings to you and you have my email if you wish to take this more private.


219 posted on 07/04/2014 11:51:19 AM PDT by EC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion
Or maybe declare him insane (however that is done)?

That's covered by the 25th Amendment.

220 posted on 07/05/2014 2:55:28 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson