Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army accused of threatening to 'Taser' officer
WorldNetDaily ^ | August 13, 2010 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 08/13/2010 4:35:58 AM PDT by roaddog727

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 last
To: Bushbacker1
The politically connected upper echelon officers in the D.C. area is unacceptable in prosecuting this case. Move the venue!

If they wanted to keep it quiet, they would not prosecute. It won't be the generals who make the decision about "discovery", it will be the trial judge, who is a lady Colonel.

121 posted on 08/13/2010 2:37:47 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
What a ridiculous situation...if the Commander in Chief is uneligible, our entire military freezes and has no orders?

Sure they do, but they'd need to be issued by Acting President Biden. Lord Help Us All. But that would be preferable to having an Constitutionally ineligible usurper issuing them, and passing laws and executive orders that affect us all.

122 posted on 08/13/2010 2:42:12 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Wow, planes falling from the air if he’s declared ineligible. I suppose we hold courts martial for the pilots who are flying their planes without legal orders to do so.


123 posted on 08/13/2010 3:17:08 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Wow, planes falling from the air if he’s declared ineligible.

Don't get stuck on stupid.

Doesn't take orders to land your plane safely.

Part of the 'defacto officer' doctrine would hold people not liable for following the orders of someone most everyone presumned to be President, as long as those orders did not involve doing something otherwise illegal.

124 posted on 08/13/2010 4:40:37 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

You are a moron but you knew that.


125 posted on 08/13/2010 5:24:47 PM PDT by Frantzie (Television controls the American people/sheep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

Some days I just feel like being nice.


126 posted on 08/13/2010 6:04:28 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

You ever find those 430,000 Haitians hiding under your bed?


127 posted on 08/13/2010 7:09:16 PM PDT by wtc911 ("How you gonna get down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727
" Actually, that’s more accurate then you realize - If an officer whom you did not know showed up in your fighting position and ordered you to do something, would you enquire as to his authority to take the hill? would you ask him to show ID? "

In time of war, or even in the Intel agency, if word got out that there was a infiltrator among the ranks, then, yes, we should ask them for their ID.
128 posted on 08/14/2010 3:26:28 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USAis no civility in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727
" Exactly - or continues to operate outside any legal authority - which is what we are doing right now if Zero is inelligible. And by his own admission he IS inelligible - his father was a Kenyan exchange student - therby disqualifying him from being a Article II, Section 1 (US Constitution) NATURAL BORN Citizen. "

No oversight, no accountability to the citizens.

129 posted on 08/14/2010 3:33:46 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USAis no civility in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

What’s the definition of marriage ? is it between a man and a woman ? or blur the lines, and say it is what you want it to be ?


130 posted on 08/14/2010 3:55:49 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USAis no civility in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: LorenC

Going to war in this country is always a political decision. The President, IAW the Constitution is the Commander-in-Chief. That is to say, a lawfully qualified President. A deployment order to a unit or individual soldier is inherently an order from the C-in-C.

Larkin refused the order to deploy because he believes—and so do I—that the Marxist now occupying the WH is not a lawful president. This man has never produced a credible document proving he is a native born American. In addition, the demrat party and the state-run propaganda organs have covered for him by passing off outright bogus documents and/or documents that prove nothing. And then, of course, we have recordings of Onada’s grandmother saying Onada was born in Kenya. And then, Onada’s various name and social security number changes make this all a bit difficult to track. Oh, and let’s not forget the rampant voter fraud perpetrated by the demrats in the last presidential election. But people have tracked Onada’s past, to the extent it can be, and sorted it out. Upshot: The available credible evidence strongly points to Onada’s Kenyan birth.

Assuming this is true—in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary—Onada is not a lawfully elected president. Therefore, he cannot be a Constitutionally empowered C-in-C. Therefore, any strategic orders emanating from his bogus C-in-C role are unlawful. An order to deploy is a strategic not a tactical order. I’m hoping that you understand the difference between the two. Larkin would be simply insubordinate if he, for example, disobeyed, an order to wear the designated uniform of the day or salute a superior officer.

As far as I know he’s done none of these things. What he has done is challenged a bogus C-in-C strategic order to deploy. As an American citizen he has a perfect right to do that. Being an American soldier does not take away one’s citizenship and the responsibilities that go along with it.

As for Larkin’s personal longer term situation, I don’t think he’s concerned about that. He’s concerned about the larger question of Onada’s eligibility to be president and ordering American soldiers to go to war. That you apparently have no clue about the larger question and Larkin’s courage in taking on this fight I find quite astounding. Is there anything else in the Constitution that you’re indifferent to?

The precedent of having an ineligible presidential candidate sitting in the WH—and being allowed to stay there—is unfathomable to me.

A number of states have passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation that establishes a process for vetting presidential candidates. In other words unless they’re Constitutionally qualified they cannot be presidential candidates in those states.

I’ll bet you a case of beer or a bottle of you’re favorite wine that Onada will not qualify to be on the ballot in those states in 2012.


131 posted on 08/14/2010 5:12:13 AM PDT by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

No doubt.

In fact, I would think an article 32 investigation needs to be started immediately


132 posted on 08/14/2010 5:14:11 AM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

It makes me sick as well.

And you are spot on - it will be tried in the court of public opinion.

BUT, with that, ZERO and the ass-clown posse can not have this in the open.

Quite a sticky whicket......


133 posted on 08/14/2010 5:18:04 AM PDT by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

Oh, okay. But only ‘cause you said so.


134 posted on 08/14/2010 5:25:43 AM PDT by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

You are an idiot - keep your heaqd buried in the sand. You must be a Dem. Although Germans elected a psychopath during one of the worst depressions and hyper inflations in history - the country survived.

Americans elected a muslim during 6% unemployment due to idiots like you. 7 years after 911 - they elected a muslim who will destroy america and will build a mosque next to the WTC thanks to idiots like you.


135 posted on 08/14/2010 8:40:08 AM PDT by Frantzie (Television controls the American people/sheep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

It is so easy to push your buttons fritzie....wipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth, it’s unbecoming.


136 posted on 08/14/2010 10:55:33 AM PDT by wtc911 ("How you gonna get down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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