| WHAT GUMMINT DOES Something fishy gwine on ... |
|
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Posse stuff
14 comments:
-
I-RIGHT-I said...
-
I guess they'll have to pass the law before we find out what's in it. I'm still going to buy a bigger gun though. Lindsay Graham is an elitist ass and I wouldn't put anything past him. Besides once these bastards pass a law it becomes whatever they want it to be.
-
11/29/11, 12:46 PM
-
El Jefe said...
-
I have always said that all branches of service include a class on the constitution. Why? Because you swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign AND domestic.
Maybe something has changed but the last time I swore the oath in 1998 there was no expiration date to that oath.
Just sayin'... -
11/29/11, 1:16 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
In December of 1960 when I took that oath there was not any date of expiration either.
DE644 -
11/29/11, 3:01 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
March 1964, no expiration date on mine either.
Looking back though, I never imagined I'd have to be deeply concerned about the 'domestic' part of that commitment.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick -
11/29/11, 3:27 PM
-
Skoonj said...
-
I don't need to buy a bigger gun. I just need to site in the ones I have.
-
11/29/11, 3:39 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
"GOT IT - DOES NOT EXTEND TO CITIZENS."
Based on past experience I would add "yet". -
11/29/11, 4:12 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Overheard at a high power rifle match a couple years ago: "Don't you know your zeros?"
Well, you can betcha your assa that I do.
Sir H the (zeroed) Comet.
wv = and I swear this is the truth, "align", as in "sight alignment", one of the fundamentals of marksmanship. -
11/29/11, 5:24 PM
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
I've been in depositions all day. Just chill.
This seems to codify the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals case of Padilla v. CO CHASN NAV BRIG. The Bush administration first held Padilla as a material witness then as an enemy combatant even though he was a US citizen.
Padilla filed a writ of habeas corpus asking to be released because he hadn't been charged w/ a crime. Judge Henry Floyd said the Feds had to charge him or release him. The 4th Circuit disagreed and ruled the Feds could keep him locked up indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court decline to hear his case.
So, that's the law of the land -- as far as the courts go. And now, the feds are getting ready to give it statutory authority -- maybe.
Graham is already on thin ice w/ his constituents in SC. This may tear it for them. -
11/29/11, 8:51 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
So Chuck, am I right that this pivots on who qualifies as an enemy combatant?
-
11/30/11, 5:05 AM
-
D J said...
-
Posse Comitatus was bypassed years ago when the state militias were converted to "National Guard". The Guard had been "federalized" before, and will be "federalized" again.
-
11/30/11, 5:47 AM
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
It hinges on a person's status as an enemy combatant. The problem is the risk of the Feds playing fast and loose with the definition.
Padilla's case in SC was heard by Judge Henry Floyd. Judge Floyd was a Democrat state legislator before he became a state judge. His reputation is above reproach. I think he would make a good US Supreme Court Justice.
His decision in the case is found here. http://preview.tinyurl.com/ch927bm
I find two quotes of his decision to be worth a close look.
"To be more specific, whereas it may be a necessary and appropriate use of force to detain a United States citizen who is captured on the battlefield, this Court cannot find, in narrow circumstances presented in this case, that the same is true when a United States citizen in arrested in a civilian setting such as an United States airport."
"For the Court to find for [the federal government] would also be to engage in judicial activism. This Court sits to interpret the law as it is and not as the Court might wish it to be. Pursuant to its interpretation, the Court finds that the President has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold Petitioner as an enemy combatant."
Although Judge Floyd was reversed by the 4th Circuit, the statute pending in Congress would give the President the power Judge Floyd said was needed to detain US citizens without trial as enemy combatants when they are arrested in the US. -
11/30/11, 7:59 AM
-
Kristophr said...
-
In the case of that American AQ who got offed by an explosive drone in Yemen ... he publicly announced he was fighting with AQ on the internet, and posted videos of himself saying so.
He got a real short military hearing, followed by a go order to the drone controller. -
11/30/11, 12:31 PM
-
Kristophr said...
-
Chuck: Which is why this apparently is needed.
If a 1940's judge had tried to prevent the execution ( let alone being detained as a POW ) of an American who had joined the Waffen SS, and had returned to US soil with a suitcase full of plastic explosives, he would be facing a hearing on his mental sanity by a higher court.
I don't consider this Democrat a good candidate for ANY position as judge. His mind is permanently clouded with this bullshit. -
11/30/11, 12:37 PM
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
Kris, I hate to sound condescending but that's not what Floyd did. Reread his order then get back to me.
-
11/30/11, 8:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)