EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
“…the
President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty,
which is to execute, not to make, the laws; and there is
"no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of
jurisdiction."
Rand Paul squares off with John Kerry over Syria
And Kerry blusters resorting to the losing argument of emotionalism.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579
(1952) @ 585
"The
President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of
Congress or from the Constitution itself."
Rand Paul argues from a similar view to a dissent by Justice Holmes, who once wrote:
"… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”
Myers v. United States, 272
U.S. 52 (1925) @177The focus of the Rand Paul v. John Kerry argument was over Presidential Power versus Congressional Power to authorize and go to war.
The fundamental point missed in the Rand Paul v. John Kerry exchange is that Al Nusrah IS AL QAEDA, and that Obama is giving material aid and support to those who are the enemies of the United States, and many who also personally warred against and killed U.S. soldiers and personnel in Iraq.
Our soldiers and sailors and various military personnel are being forced to make choices they should not have to make. Should I or should I not obey unlawful orders to obey and abet the enemies of the United States and commit treason against the Constitution?
What is one of the two oaths spoken by our military?
"I,____________, do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders
of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed
over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God"
The underlined above is the FIRST
and paramount duty of the military personnel that we swore the oath to, to
firstly defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, and that our faith and allegiance is to our Constitution,
NOT the POTUS or the officers appointed over us.
The POTUS, and the officers over us, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) are directed by
the oath to be in conformity by the oath we took, or else we are legally freed
to deny and resist all orders contrary to the Constitution. And that allowance is granted in the U.C.M.J. manual itself.
The U.C.M.J manual gives them an out to conscientiously and legally disobey a direct order if they are issued one contrary to that of the Constitution of the United States.
Uniform Code of Miltary Justice,
Article 92 (1)(c)
"A general order or regulation
is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United
States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the
authority of the official issuing it."
How about the counter excuse, that it is one's
duty to follow an unlawful order? The UCMJ states:
"(a) Duty. A duty may be
imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating
procedure, or custom of the service."
So if we have laws in place saying
that we are at war with Al Qaeda, and it is Treason to give aid and comfort and
material support to Al Qaeda, and Obama says "screw the laws of the U.S.
and the Constitution itself, obey ME!!!", what is the military personnel
supposed to do other than say,
"No sir, you are issuing an unlawful order,
and I refuse to act in a manner that violates the Constitution of the United
States as well as the Laws enacted under it by Congress declaring Al Qaeda as the enemy, the very
organization that is attacking and killing our own citizens and troops in the
field, sir."
It is a speech that I personally believe that while it is protected,
the military, if it chooses to do so, has the right to terminate their service, and that the military might have those who nefariously act within the Administrative to also further that separation in spite and hate as unaccountable bureaucrats representing the employer while unjustly and unrighteously maligning them as having a psychological disorder for wanting to dare follow the Constitution and NOT support terrorists,
in order to unjustly push on them a dishonorable or general discharge so they can scoot them out with a "bad name" or as if something was wrong with them, rather than an honorable discharge if the military refuses to tolerate a call to honor the Constitution as according to the Constitution, their oaths to it, and even the manual of the U.C.M.J. itself insists it (in the proper context of application to this Al Qaeda - Syria situation) supports these military personnel as having the right and duty to lawfully refuse (in materially aiding and supporting enemies who have killed their brothers and sisters of the U.S. military in Iraq, if not elsewhere as well).
If it comes down to it, I say fight for an honorable discharge if you are "pushed out", and settle for nothing less in your separation, because Obama is violating the Constitution, NOT you!!!
When Obama acts outside the Constitution and specifically commits a Constitution defined act or on-going activity of Treason, in regard to his orders to demand those under him commit Treason with him, are they binding? No.
Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”
Question: Should Obama be IMPEACHED for his many violations of the U.S. Constitution and for giving material aid and comfort to terrorists of the same group at war with the U.S., which killed U.S. soldiers in Iraq, which terrorist group the U.S. Department of State in December 2012 labeled as Al Qaeda in Iraq reconstituted as Al Nusrah while in Syria?
Under the
U.S. Constitution Obama has committed TREASON.
Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States shall
consist only in levying war against them OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES,
giving them aid and comfort."
Was Al Qaeda in Iraq our enemies? Yes.
Did we ever sign a truce with them or call off our
war with them by federal legislation through Congress? No.
So what's the
problem? Or is Obama always to be given
a pass because of the color of his skin, even were he to throw up a baby in the
air and skeet shoot it (such being a heinous but necessary example of a high
crime)?
How far above the Law can Obama go and still always
have the Left and those who are in the U.S. mainstream Corporate Media demand that Barack NEVER be held accountable
to the Constitution? Can anyone answer
that?
2 months ago, on July 1, 2013, I posted the ff., which is good to review presently (in the green text below).
Obama used his Leftist
and Black Operations forces in overthrowing an ally, Egypt, in January -
February 20011, for the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization: the same one
that Obama ordered as the quota to be hired by the end of February 2009, a
brigade of some 400 Islamic enemy agents against the United States ideologues
Obama used to infiltrate the Executive Branch of the Government of the
United States as moles; the same organization which is a Islamic Terrorist
Organization in itself, and the parent Organization to HAMAS, a more violent
wing in the Gaza Strip constantly murdering innocents in Israel.
In March - April 2011, Obama ordered various Black Operations within the authority of the Executive Branch of the United States to invade Libya "en masse" on the heels of overthrowing Egypt, in a defacto 6 month war outside the powers of the office of the Presidency and a war he started and perpetuated for months involving the United States in. It was a war not started or authorized by Congress, but by Obama without Congress. It was planned and executed in an explicit manner openly contrary to the U.S. Constitution in a clearly IMPEACHABLE Offense, using more than 4,000 United States Black Operations forces under the Executive Branch authority, materially aiding and supporting terrorists of Al Qaeda against Ghaddafy, and then afterwards Obama gave an overthrown Libya over to Al Qaeda affiliates. Now, because he got away with it, he seeks to do the same in Syria in 2013, in a flubbed invasion that also began in 2011 and that (for whatever reason) he left floundering in the Central Intelligence Agency back-channels. Perhaps, because he or his advisers were that worried about the 2012 election because they weren't fully sure they could steal it again? Who knows.
The Obama Administration continues it overt acts of Treason against the United States in giving material aid and comfort and training to those troops which were previously called Al Qaeda in Iraq and reconstituted under the name of Al Nusra(h) in Syria, as admitted to by the U.S. Department of State in its public memo dated December 12, 2012.
In March - April 2011, Obama ordered various Black Operations within the authority of the Executive Branch of the United States to invade Libya "en masse" on the heels of overthrowing Egypt, in a defacto 6 month war outside the powers of the office of the Presidency and a war he started and perpetuated for months involving the United States in. It was a war not started or authorized by Congress, but by Obama without Congress. It was planned and executed in an explicit manner openly contrary to the U.S. Constitution in a clearly IMPEACHABLE Offense, using more than 4,000 United States Black Operations forces under the Executive Branch authority, materially aiding and supporting terrorists of Al Qaeda against Ghaddafy, and then afterwards Obama gave an overthrown Libya over to Al Qaeda affiliates. Now, because he got away with it, he seeks to do the same in Syria in 2013, in a flubbed invasion that also began in 2011 and that (for whatever reason) he left floundering in the Central Intelligence Agency back-channels. Perhaps, because he or his advisers were that worried about the 2012 election because they weren't fully sure they could steal it again? Who knows.
The Obama Administration continues it overt acts of Treason against the United States in giving material aid and comfort and training to those troops which were previously called Al Qaeda in Iraq and reconstituted under the name of Al Nusra(h) in Syria, as admitted to by the U.S. Department of State in its public memo dated December 12, 2012.
According to the Los
Angeles Times Internet Edition, the United States Military obviously under
Obama's policy directive, has been training Al Qaeda troops in the use of heavy
weaponry in 2 week courses at an apparent rate of almost 80 a month since at
least late 2012. The Obama Administration on June 13, 2013,
pretended that only now and for the first time it was going to supply weapons
to Al Qaeda in Syria ,
when in fact, that
very arms pipeline and supply was why Ambassador Stevens and 3 other U.S.
Citizens died in Libya, two of them on what was deemed as U.S. Soil if it was a
consulate in Ben Ghazi, which was why it was down-scaled in language to the
language of simply being a "diplomatic mission" as the location in
which Ambassador Stevens was attacked. The only difference between
September 11, 2012, arms smuggling and now, is, as of June 13, 2013, Obama
decided that he has so much corruption support and "I can destroy
anyone through the NSA" intimidation, that he feels comfortable in
bringing his Treason out into the open and not be beaten up by a cowering press
too used to divaricating themselves for his pleasure or committing journalistic
fellatio, that Obama need not concern himself of being gummed by a toothless
and corrupt Corporate Media. The facts that Obama has supplied weaponry
to Al Nusrah, or Al Qaeda in Iraq reconstituted and renamed for its operations
in Syria, hasn't changed. And even Intelligence services like Stratfor
are intimidated by the NSA and IRS persecution powers at Obama's disposal
should he specifically want someone targeted. When "We The People"
have enough of us who join us in getting past that fear, suddenly, on this
other side, where we fear GOD rather than men, the freedom and the empowerment
of liberty is refreshing as well as aimed toward a peaceful and legal
resolution that turns the fear back on the lawless (such as Obama and those
others breaking the law with or for him) and empowers us collectively, just as
even many of the Founders of the United States must have felt in the spirit of
the opening words of the Declaration of Independence.
…
[Lest we forget, there was a] failed Chemical Weapons
attack by Al Nusrah upon Turkey by some of those same U.S. sponsored Al Qaeda
troops in Iraq who possessed 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) of Sarin Nerve Gas,
"Turkey finds Sarin gas in homes of
suspected Syrian Islamists – reports
Published time: May 30,
2013 16:56"
as I
also relayed in a post earlier this month
the Government of Turkey has finally come to its senses and shut down the Obama Administration's Arms and Material support for Al Qaeda terrorists corridor or "pipeline" (if you will), through the sovereign nation of Turkey into Syria. Thank you, to the nation of Turkey for at least that much!
-----------------------------------------------
For those unfamiliar with the Department of State Press Release
and who will not take advantage of the hyper-link, or should the Department of State erase its memo, the text appears as follows:
Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for
al-Qa'ida in Iraq
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012
The Department of State has amended
the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224
designations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) to include the following new aliases:
al-Nusrah Front, Jabhat al-Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and
Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant. The Department of State
previously designated AQI as an FTO under the Immigration and Nationality Act
and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under E.O. 13224 on October 15,
2004. The consequences of adding al-Nusrah Front as a new alias for AQI include
a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to
provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with,
al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of
the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United
States or the control of U.S. persons.
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah
Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide
attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major
city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr.
During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these
attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate
Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the
struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes. AQI emir Abu Du’a
is in control of both AQI and al-Nusrah. Abu Du’a was designated by the State
Department under E.O. 13224 on October 3, 2011, and by the United Nations under
UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on October 5, 2011. Abu Du’a also issues
strategic guidance to al-Nusrah’s emir, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, and tasked him
to begin operations in Syria.
The United States takes this action
in the context of our overall support for the Syrian people. We have provided
approximately $50 million in non-lethal assistance to the unarmed civilian
opposition and nearly $200 million in humanitarian assistance to those affected
by the violence in Syria. The violent, sectarian vision of al-Nusrah is at odds
with the aspirations of the Syrian people, including the overwhelming majority
of the Syrian opposition, who seek a free, democratic, and inclusive Syria and
have made clear their desire for a government that respects and advances
national unity, dignity, human rights, and equal protection under the law –
regardless of faith, ethnicity, or gender. Extremism and terrorist ideology
have no place in a post-Asad Syria, and all responsible Syrians should speak
out against al-Qa’ida and other extremist elements. By opting for the use of
force against its own people, the Asad regime has created the circumstances
that attract the violent extremists of al Qa’ida, who seek to exploit civil
strife for their own purposes. The sooner the political transition to a
post-Asad Syria begins, the better it will be for the Syrian people and the
region.
PRN: 2012/1952
And again, the Al Nusrah - Al Qaeda In Iraq now in Syria forces have admitted to reporters in Syria that they were responsible for the chemical attack in August that killed over 400 and injured over 1,000 more, stating that it was simply an "accident" that they committed while mishandling weapons supplied them by Saudi Arabia, which they were not informed as containing sarin gas.
But with this, there is the question as to whether Obama and not just the rebels as supplied
by sarin gas by Saudi Arabia is or is not directly complicit in the sarin gas
attack he and John Kerry falsely blame Assad for?
Perhaps what should be asked by Congress in regard to materially aiding Al Qaeda in attacking Assad in Syria, is a question of consideration asked in Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322,
"The single question for consideration is whether the act ...is consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?"
The answer will be,
"Attacking Assad while specifically supporting and elevating the Al-Qaeda enemies of the United States is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America."
"Attacking Assad while specifically supporting and elevating the Al-Qaeda enemies of the United States is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America."
No comments:
Post a Comment