Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum U.S. Military

there have been recent discussions within the U.S. Military
and the Civilian Population about the possible issuance of Orders to kill U.S. Citizens.

IMO , if the issuing officer is within range then he or she
should be immediately placed under arrest and the chain of
command that issued the Order , ie..every Officer who issued the Order should be placed under arrest.

as evidenced



an Officer in the U.S. Military takes the above Oath.

the focus of the above Oath is.



a U.S. Military Officer swears an oath of allegiance to
the Constitution of the United States alone.

the U.S. Constitution , Amendment 1 ( The Bill of Rights )



the U.S. Constitution , Amendment 2 ( The Bill of Rights )



the U.S. Constitution , Amendment 5 ( The Bill of Rights )




the above Amendments to the U.S. Constitution contained in
the Bill of Rights were implemented to preserve the will of
the People which is the U.S. Constitution.

any orders issued to any U.S. Military Officer that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution such as illegal search and seizure , illegal infringement or obstruction of any peaceful protest, illegal infringement or denial of ammunition supplies in order to remove or lessen the ability of the People to defend the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the issuing Officer should be immediately arrested and the chain of command that issued the Order should be sought out and arrested on the grounds that the issuing Officer has revoked his Oath of Office.

if a U.S. Military Officer receives an Order to kill a
U.S. Citizen and does not arrest the issuing Officer then
he has revoked his Oath of Office.

The Constitution of the United States is the
will of the People of the United States.


as in "We The People of The United States"



that is the way I read the Constitution of the United States
does anyone else see it that way?

What (nowadays) constitutes a well regulated malitia?

Who would regulate it?

I don't really think this is by an stretch of the imagination about science, not even NQS, but I will take the bait. Can you give us a reliable source for this statement. Unless of course you are talking about Obama's idea that he can call a drone strike on American citizen's outside of the United States. That one I am aware of and disagree with.

Bill Gill

Still won't stop anything Paul all you do is strip them of there US citizenship and then shot them

Here is a list of involuntary US citizenship removals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States


As Bill said the way to stop it is not allow it to anyone.

thats a good question , I would think that a well regulated Militia
would be a group of Citizens who gather to train in the repulsion of
any infringement or invasion of their rights by any entity or other group.

we are seeing foreign troops in the U.S. being trained to disarm
U.S. Citizens.

so I suppose that a well regulated Militia would also train
in the acquisition and use of the vehicles and weapons
systems of any opposing groups of people and how to
resupply from these opposing groups, if they bring anything
to use to destroy the U.S. Constitution then , a well regulated Militia should
learn to use whatever they bring to defend the U.S. Constitution.

as far as who would regulate it , I suspect that there
would be a democratic type of elected leadership consisting
of citizens that follow the wording of the U.S. Constitution.

there is a lot of things to consider as far as supply ,
transportation , communication , etc , so to prevent a complete cluster fluk in the event that the different
States Militias are needed to defend the U.S. Constitution these Militias are probably already training and
supplying in preparation.

I personally would not want to be a foreign national troop
that gets caught up in the united nations illusion of world peace through the disarming of U.S. Citizens.



------------------------------------------------------------



there seems to be an enormous missconception about President Obama.
these actions we have seen lately and in the previous administrations
were nothing more than puppet strings being pulled by a group whos intentions and agendas are to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

that group is the united nations.
the united nations puppet strings are being pulled by a handful
of power hungry globalist.

they try to disguise themselves with a facade of peaceful intentions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWSbhn06q0



--------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldnt think that shooting a U.S. Military Officer would be
the correct thing to do.

Because.

1) he may not realize who and what his loyalty should be bonded to.
he needs to confirm his loyalty to the U.S. Constitution only.
his true loyalty should only be to the U.S. Constitution which
is the will of the People.
by attacking the People of the U.S. he is in effect attacking the U.S. Constitution.

2) he may mistakenly believe that he is to obey all
orders issued to him no matter who or what his loyalty
is bonded to.
his Oath of Office has no mention of loyalty to any entity other than the U.S. Constitution.

3) he also must understand that unless he personally carries out the illegal order that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution against a U.S. Citizens rights that he may be arrested by his subordinates when and if he issues any illegal orders that conflict with the U.S. Constitution or he may be arrested by any U.S. Citizen.

IMO , stripping a U.S. Military Officer of his Citizenship would not be the thing to do either.

he should confirm his loyalty to the U.S. Constitution only , and if he refuses to confirm his loyalty to the U.S. Constitution only , then he should be removed as an Officer of the U.S. Military because he is no longer capable or worthy of his Office.

Paul you missed totally what I was saying.

All the US will do if you make it illegal to attack a US citizen is take US citizenship from citizens they want to kill

... SEE ....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/...-about-snowden/


Edward Snowden can now be targeted by a drone because he is no longer a US citizen.

So no issue for a military person now they can target him all they like without breaking any of your rules.

Orac

you didnt comprehend what you read.

his passport was revoked , his Citizenship is intact.
this only limits his travel.

He is still a U.S. Citizen and his rights as a U.S. Citizen
are still intact.

IMO , he should return to the U.S. and stand trial.

his crime is revealing secrets , he was an contractor / employee of the NSA when he discovered these secrets from what I understand.

so he broke his contract , how large of a crime is that?

I dont know what secrets he has revealed or what
their impact is , but the punishment for the crime itself
cant really be that bad.

he was not in the Military , so he will not be standing a Military tribunal or courts marshal.

Manning was in the Military , IMO it was a mistake to
allow Manning to have access to information that was critical.

Manning got 35 years.

public opinion may sway greatly in Snowdens favor if he stands
trial in the U.S. , if he waits he may lose any advantage that the public opinion might have.

his other option is to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life , always on the run.

And I gave you a list of former US citizens who had their naturalized citizenship fully revoked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States

=> Not to be confused with List of former United States citizens who relinquished their nationality, for people who voluntarily gave up U.S. citizenship

That is the first step in a process and unless Snowden is born in USA he is in immediate trouble.

As a natural born US citizen he can still be stripped via option 6



Whether Snowden is a traitor or a whistleblower I leave to citizens of USA I have no real view on it.

Orac , your attempt at face recoverage has failed.
here is what you posted.



you were wrong.

Snowden is still a U.S. Citizen!!!

or were you suggesting a hypothetical situation?

if so you should have been more clear about that.

as in



even in that hypothetical situation the U.S. would need to
get permission from the country he resided in , in order to launch a drone attack.



unless he is somehow tried without being at the trial he cannot be convicted of treason.

at this time he is probably wanted for suspected treason
however its not as if he was arranging the selling of secrets to other nations on an ongoing basis or as if he had been embedded within the NSA as a spy to retrieve secrets from the
NSA by some foreign nation , from what I understand he was hacking into the NSA computer systems , which I find to be embarrassing to the NSA in itself.

he is most likely only considered as someone who is suspected of breaking his contract with the NSA by hacking into their computer systems.

if what he found is considered illegal or wrongdoing by the NSA in a court of law , then figure the odds that he
can be found guilty of wrongdoing by finding what he found.

IMO, its up to the courts to determine the outcome.

I am not sure why "face" comes into this Paul it seems to be overly important to you.





Yep I was definitely wrong I thought they had stripped his citizenship but seems they are merely starting down that path.


The point I was making is there is an easy way to get around your "it is illegal for a US military to kill a US citizen" is that all they need to do is make them not a US citizen.

The safest and best choice is for the US not be able to do extra-judicial murder at all not like the world voted USA judge jury and executioner.

yep, just make them not a U.S. Citizen!

and then murder them.

sounds like no one would ever notice that , even his family in
the U.S. would suspect no wrong doing.

and thats the way the U.S. should handle it?

comic books are fun to read also , I used to read the
fantastic 4 , the green lantern , superman , batman , etc...




I cant defend that one , because I agree with you.