In their Orders they will not obey (3) they say:
"We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal."
Would this mean that they wouldn't be able to detain John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban?
There are other questions that beg asking when reading their "non-exhaustive" list of orders they will not obey. But, what do you think? Are these the true patriots?
Critics might call them treasonous, but what occurred to me is the mercenary aspect of the web site. Prominently displayed are ways to "donate." Could it be nothing more than a slick con which appeals to so many? The paranoid self-aggrandizing characters whom I often say suffer from "grandiose victimism" probably number in the millions. I'll bet that site is a money maker.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Critics might call them treasonous, but what occurred to me is the mercenary aspect of the web site. Prominently displayed are ways to "donate." Could it be nothing more than a slick con which appeals to so many?"
ReplyDelete1. Those who defend the Constitution are traitors? Thanks for showing your true colors.
2. They are primarly made up of active duty and retired military and police.
3. Asking for donations? Ever visited the Brady Bunch site?
Who's getting conned?
Whoa! Kaveman surely knocked the stuffings out of you, mike, with those decisive points!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what are 'true colors?' I learned in first grade that yellow, blue and red were the primary ones, perhaps the 'true' ones.
Am i wrong here?
And that 'Brady Bunch' reference knocked me out. BAM!
Funny stuff, Kave. Always a hoot on the far-right side of life.
Of course, you don't answer the question: would they detain John Walker Lindh? Are they selective as to who they will or won't detain?
ReplyDeleteTreason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution:
Article III, Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Also, Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, violating an order which was made lawfully (that is using the Constitutional process) would be treason.
As I like to say, people who defend the constitution should bone up on what they are defending.
"Are these the true patriots?"
ReplyDeleteThe true patriots? I don't know about that. I'd have to see how many of them would actually live up to their oaths when TSHTF.
But from their words, they are definitely more patriotic than most government employees.
"Of course, you don't answer the question: would they detain John Walker Lindh?"
ReplyDeleteIt's not that hard people.
Of course they would. What they're stating is that they would treat it as a criminal case and not label him AN ENEMY COMBATANT.
Mudrake, you add nothing to the discussion. I was making observations based on mike's remarks, you just know how to insult people, and poorly at that.
"Would this mean that they wouldn't be able to detain John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban?"
ReplyDeleteJohn Walker Lindh forfeited his citizenship the moment he joined a foreign military force.
As I like to say, people who defend the constitution should bone up on what they are defending.
ReplyDeleteKinda ironic coming from someone from the UK who has shown she has little to no understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
Mike W, hardly!
ReplyDeleteI show a much better understanding of the US and US Constitutional history than you do.
Otherwise, you could dispute what I say. As in, are you saying that treason isn't the only crime mentioned in the Constitution? Are you saying that the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof are not the supreme law of the land?
You realise that puts paid to citing the Declaration of Independence as anything other than a historic document (as would be citing the Articles of Confederation).
That's a pretty good understanding of US Constitutional law.
Kaveman, so, then they would treat a US person as a criminal?
Of course, any law which was enacted through the constitutional procedures would be legal and they would have to enforce it whether or not they agreed with it.
Or would they?