If our Cmdr-in-Chief is suspected [beyond reasonable doubt] of having committed treason, can and should our military arrest him?

Capt Jeff S. — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:39:11 -0400

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 13 at 2014 11:53 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 23:53:28 -0400

Given the nature of American politics, such an accusation would have to be substantiated by a Congressional body.
At that point, someone should arrest him but I do not think that the military would be the appropriate arresting force.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jul 14 at 2014 10:12 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 22:12:50 -0400

Respectfully! Our founding fathers had nightmares about the military being involved in government processes........There is a protocol for impeachment through congress.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2014 9:41 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:41:29 -0400

I would think our current crop of politicians, few withstanding, would try to redefine what "is" is. The one thing that always comes to mind when I see questions like this being raised is "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2014 11:35 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:35:19 -0400

Why would anybody be arrested on a suspicion of anything?

Innocent until proven guilty? Pretty sure I have heard that somewhere before.

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2014 4:12 PM

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:12:47 -0400

Wow, that very question is ridiculously crazy. The idea of our military arresting American citizens is crazy. The idea of our military arresting its Commander in Chief is downright lunacy!

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jul 18 at 2014 6:47 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:47:23 -0400

Capt Jeff Schwager In a corrupt free and normal world yes that is what would happen. But when the president and congress openly break our Constitution on a daily basis this would never happen. Hell he could just write an executive order freeing himself.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2014 6:56 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:56:04 -0400

Actually, from what I understand, the President must be impeached by the House and then convicted by the Senate. This conviction, of whatever crime(s), will then remove the President from his position and authority. However, I am unaware of any removal of Secret Service protection from the President, even after a conviction by the Senate. Additionally, I'm not sure that the Vice President won't simply pardon the outgoing President as was the case when Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency. One of President Ford's first acts was to pardon Nixon. I'm not certain, even if the President were convicted by the Senate, that anyone would consider arresting the outgoing President.

As for the military arresting the President - unrealistic, bombastic, illegal and definitely crossing any of several laws that exist.

No matter how you feel about the President's actions/inactions etc. he is protected by executive privilege and law. He may or may not have exceeded his authority in any of several instances - but until he is impeached and convicted of said instances there is not a lot that can be done - legally. If you're not happy about that - just remember, when the guy YOU want in the White House is there and is doing what YOU think is right....there's somebody, somewhere in the U.S. that definitely and loudly disagrees with you and the President.

If you have HARD legal quality evidence that will withstand review and deliberation in the House of Representatives and then debate and legal wrangling in the Senate I suggest you provide same. Otherwise, a better option would be to work to get the person YOU want in the White House there. Simply claiming you "know" whatever "facts" you have are worthy of getting the President evicted from office is pure speculation, unless that evidence has gone through the process.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jul 18 at 2014 7:32 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:32:41 -0400

NOT THE MILITARY. but the other branches of government should act.

Response by SPC Dennis Mullins made Jul 18 at 2014 10:38 PM

SPC Dennis Mullins — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 22:38:58 -0400

My sources tell me that if Senate goes Republican there's indeed consider action in house to be validated by Senate in order to Impeach, or you have a situation like Bill Clinton Impeach by the house and let off the hook by Senate! Just saying what I hear read antucipate!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 12:04 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:04:23 -0400

This is why I am not a republican anymore. They have turned too radical for me. You have talking heads that spew hatred and claim it is just. I see that as an unlawful order. We don't have a dog in this fight. It would be hard for a person in such a position to commit treason. He was legally elected. It is not a surprise to what he is doing. He is doing the work of those who elected him. If you have crazy people in politics you need not blame the politician but the voters. I don't like his health care law but that is not for me to claim he is doing this on his own. The people who voted for him wanted him to do that. I think the military would be better suited staying out of this fight. We would be breaking many laws if a soldiers took a civilian into custody.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 9:15 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:15:36 -0400

You may be retired, but in many legal terms that puts you on equal ground with those on Active Duty. Your question has been answered correctly many times in this discussion: NO, the military does not and should not be involved in arresting a President, regardless of what he was (hypothetically) found guilty of.

You have responded to anyone's criticism of your statements with lengthy diatribes filled with angry and judgmental rhetoric, and many unsubstantiated claims. I do not find this line of thinking and passive call to action the least bit patriotic, as you probably envision it to be.

You phrase your question as a hypothetical, but you intend it as anything but. While many on this forum are no longer actively serving, I find this kind of false flag 'discussion' to be wholly inappropriate on this forum.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 19 at 2014 9:18 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:18:38 -0400

Just for the edification of those who seem to believe that I am advocating revolution... I am not. What I am advocating is the removal of our lawless and fraudulently elected Commander-in-Chief, who was never properly vetted for office and should have never been on the ballot in the first place.

I don't consider a forged birth certificate to be proof of one's qualifications, and none of you can tell me what pResident Obama's GPA in college was at Columbia, where he is rumored to have registered as a foreign national. AND nobody who attended Columbia, at the time when Obama alleges to have been a student there, even remembers seeing him on campus -- including the professor who taught every law student graduating from there, according to his classmate Wayne Allen Root. Nor can anyone tell me what Obama did at Harvard besides being the ONLY editor of the Harvard Law Review who never published even one article! Shouldn't one's academic qualifications be considered when running for office?!! And what does that say of a candidate if they refuse to reveal that information to the public? ???

I am not advocating the overthrow of our government but a return to the Constitutional principles and vision our founding fathers had when they created our government, and a return to free and fair elections, where VoterID is mandatory and freely available to all voters AND every U.S. citizen meeting the age requirement, and legal requirement of no felony convictions, gets to vote one time for each candidate in each election.

Meditate on these words from Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787. FE 4:370

And with reference to such "spirit of resistance," he wrote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --
Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372

He also believed the constitution should be renewed every twenty years or so, and wrote:

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it
is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to
Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

It is important to distinguish between rebellion and revolution, however.

A rebellion is an uprising, a resistance to government. A revolution, however, is an over-throwing of the government, and should be pursued only when absolutely necessary. With a proper, elective government, revolution is not necessary, because radical change can take place through the ballot box.

Response by PO1 Matthew Maxon made Jul 19 at 2014 12:52 PM

PO1 Matthew Maxon — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:52:30 -0400

As military people, we follow the orders of the duly and democratically elected government. It is illegal for the military to be used as police as defined in the Posse Comitatus Act, and the military being used in the arrest of the duly elected civil official is nothing short of sedition and treason. You can have your own political ideas and opinion, but you must express them in the way that is addressed and shown in the Constitution YOU SWORE AN OATH TO DEFEND! You don't like someone, VOTE THEM OUT! Coup d'état is not the way to do it!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 19 at 2014 5:30 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:30:15 -0400

Thank God our Military is somewhat removed by law from the Insanity in our Political Process right now. A Twice Elected President. Elected by a majority of Americans is Called Treasonous because he won't do what the Right Wing wants him to do (Not that I believe they would be satisfied anyway). Sad, sad, sad.

Response by Sgt Christopher Collins made Oct 7 at 2014 2:59 PM

Sgt Christopher Collins — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:59:05 -0400

Yup....arrested and charged but no one has the guts to. However, must go through Congress and I believe the SAA in the Senate makes the arrest.

Response by Sgt Christopher Collins made Oct 7 at 2014 3:04 PM

Sgt Christopher Collins — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:04:13 -0400

BO is the most corrupt president America has ever had. If there are those that disagree, then so be it. There will come a time when Americans will stand and say no. I see it coming.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 8 at 2014 10:09 AM

SSG John Erny — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:09:19 -0400

Ten foot pole

Response by CN Dennis Stender made Oct 31 at 2014 1:25 PM

CN Dennis Stender — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:25:48 -0400

This is a razor's edge, the Constitution as written would've have condemned at least 4 Presidents feet to the fire Nixon both Bushes and Reagan armed despots who turned on American service personnel so in that sense it remains in the hands of Congress!

Response by CN Dennis Stender made Oct 31 at 2014 1:39 PM

CN Dennis Stender — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:39:33 -0400

I'll ask you this How many conflicts or Police Actions were fought because a President and his Admin decide to arm Despots ? Think real hard you desk jockeys !!! Vietnam, Central America, Persian Gulf & Iraq all began when the Administrations armed dictators, with them turning on American service personnel ! The answer ironically corresponded with GOP Admins.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Oct 31 at 2014 2:22 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:22:11 -0400

Captain SCHWAGER, The people who gave you a down vote did they say why??you were quoting the constitution of the united states of america those people are Traitorous to me
AND COWARDLY.......

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 7:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:28:55 -0400

As PO3 John Jeter , and probably others too, have said we already have a system in place to take care of such a situation. Impeachment is serious business, serious business that the military has no place in.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Nov 1 at 2014 8:24 PM

1LT William Clardy — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:24:24 -0400

Simple answer: No.

That would be a clear violation of the Constitution by usurping Congressional authority.

By the same token, it would almost certainly be just as great a violation to interfere with a Congressional sergeant-at-arms arresting POTUS pursuant to one or more articles of impeachment.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 8:49 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:49:56 -0400

No, until someone can show that the military has the authority to make such an arrest. According to US Senate.go, the Sergeant at Arms does have the authority to arrest the President for any violation of Senate rules. I'm not aware of anyone else. If so, please share.

Impeachment...different story!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 11:53 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 23:53:13 -0400

SMH!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 10:23 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:23:46 -0500

Capt Jeff S.. Strictly speaking . . . the President would not have immunity for an actual act of treason . . . but the specific actions with which you disagree are well within the authority of the President . . . require the advice, consent, and concerted actions of many other federal officials to accomplish . . . basically come down to a matter of political opinion . . . and if prosecutable must be handled from beginning to end by civilian authorities . . . not the military . . . otherwise we would be no better than a bananna republic.. Warmest Regards, Sandy

p.s. If you really want a reason for the military to seize power . . . at least on an interim basis . . . comsider . . .

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/03/19/behind-al-haigs-1981-im-in-control-here-statement/

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 1:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:31:33 -0500

I would do it. We as the military are required to protect the people, even if from within.

Response by SCPO Albert Lee Smith made Nov 2 at 2014 1:52 PM

SCPO Albert Lee Smith — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:52:58 -0500

Although the question may seem, on the surface, thought provoking; the responses of the original poster to those who disagree with him lend itself to a political agenda rhetoric machine, and have no actual connection to the original question.

Whether or not you agree with the politics and policies of the sitting President of the United States; an accusation of treason is unrealistic and unwarranted.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Nov 2 at 2014 6:18 PM

1LT William Clardy — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:18:37 -0500

Capt Jeff S., you would be well-advised to read the whole Constitution, and not rely upon an out-of-context interpretation of a single sentence.

Section 3 goes on to state, "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."

Further, Section 4 of Article II unambiguously states, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

This means that the legal standard for removal from office is impeachment followed by conviction -- and Section 3 of Article I opens with "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." A little farther on, Section 3 explicitly states, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

By my reading, that means that a former President who has been impeached and convicted of treason (on the testimony of at least 2 witnesses) is liable to criminal prosecution on a charge of treason, but not until after being removed from office pursuant to a conviction by the Senate. Regardless, at that stage, he is no longer president and civilian law enforcement (presumably the FBI) would have jurisdiction -- while the U.S. military would not, at least under most readings of the Posse Comitatus Act.

So please restrain yourself from using Hollywood script logic to invent a dramatic role for the military in "saving" a nation which reaffirmed its choice for President 2 years, no matter how stupid you or I may think that choice to be. We are not Turkey.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 6:26 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:26:53 -0500

No, not unless we are under martial law. Arrest of a civilian is for civilian authorities under the Posse Comitatus Act...Legislation

The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[6]

Response by PO1 John Pokrzywa made Nov 2 at 2014 6:30 PM

PO1 John Pokrzywa — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:30:46 -0500

The Commander in Chief is no more above the law and the Constitution than any other citizen. The President is not a king. Anyone thinking different might as well resign, because the Constitution is right there in your oath. Respect? Absolutely. Obey constitutional orders? Yes. Above the law such that illegal activity should go unmentioned? No.
Think of this. If the General/Admiral/etc at the top of your organization was selling secrets to the Chinese/Taliban/Iran, and you found out, does military law require you also keep the secret, and let it slide?
There are channels, but no. The president is not above the law.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Nov 2 at 2014 6:40 PM

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:40:47 -0500

OK, so after reading through some of the posts I see that we "the Army" can not arrest him. But I have a question. If he is suspected [beyond reasonable doubt] of having committed treason, does the Army sill have to obey his orders? Wouldn't any order he gave after being accused of treason, but not impeached or removed from position yet, be questionable?

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Nov 3 at 2014 12:10 AM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 00:10:39 -0500

Tricky question captain. I think the only way the military could legally arrest the president is if given the order from congress after he has been convicted.

I would love to see the current POTUS out of office. Although I believe he has done some things that warrant an investigation by congress, I do not think the military is the answer to the problem.

If Congress can't or refuses to act, then I think it is up to the individual states to put political pressure on.

I am positive there will be a change in power in Congress after Tuesday, but I don't think the Republicans have the spine to do anything.

As long as peoples loyalty is being paid for by tax dollars in the form of entitlements, I don't think our elected officials are going to do much. No one has the balls to do what is right unless it gains them a vote.

Response by SPC Richard White made Nov 5 at 2014 4:00 AM

SPC Richard White — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 04:00:17 -0500

I would say yes.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Nov 5 at 2014 7:05 AM

Sgt Jay Jones — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 07:05:36 -0500

CPt McManus, I suggest you do some research on how many Executive Orders (EO) our current Commander-In-Chief has issued. You will find he has issued less EO's than any President in History since FDR except for those who only served one term. It takes two to tango. Congress must work with him as well instead of taking partisan stands vowing to block any legislation he supports. You have radio pundits going on record stating that they hope he fails. He has to use the only legal tools available to him to move the country forward. This includes doubling the gains on Wall Street, lowering unemployment, increasing the GDP, and lowering the deficit.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2014 8:43 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:43:31 -0500

So, does this include giving weapons to people who start out as allies, then turn on us later? Like Osama Bin Laden, for starters?

Response by MSgt Chris Adams made Nov 6 at 2014 11:59 AM

MSgt Chris Adams — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 11:59:11 -0500

I think the key word in the question is "suspected". With the army of lawyers that would step up for any president being indicted/convicted/(pick your legal term), it would have to be a stone cold lock.

The Congress would have to be the ones to levy the charges, with possibly an immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for prosecution. Not sure if it works that way as I am not a lawyer, but with the way checks and balances are supposed to work, having the Legislative and Judicial branches investigate and try a case like this makes sense to me.

The only time I think the military would be involved in something like this is under the power of the Congress. Not sure if this correct but I think I remember there being provisions where the Congress can remove the president's powers as CIC in extreme cases (again not a lawyer here)

Response by SSG William Patton made Nov 6 at 2014 12:36 PM

SSG William Patton — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:36:13 -0500

That is a slippery slope we need to avoid at all costs. The definition of treason can become a political hatchet and used to destroy an opponent just because his/her decisions do not fit what the rest of us may feel. Once we involve the military, to remove a sitting president, we become no better than a banana republic.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 1:18 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:18:30 -0500

This discussion is being used to denigrate our current leaders. It is not acceptable for active duty members to continue in this way. You guys are citing laws that are being broken to make your arguments while actively violating military regulations governing active duty members and politics.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 13 at 2014 7:54 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:54:08 -0500

So far 18 Pos and 8 Neg. Let's do the math:
18 x 50 = 900 - (8 x 30) or 240 = 660 net positive
That's like having 13+ Net Pos.

Those who voted up this response are overwhelmingly V with a couple SM and R.

Those attempting to suppress free speech and political discourse are split evenly between SM and R. They apparently are in the minority and not having the effect that they are seeking.

Response by Sgt Rich Mooney made Nov 13 at 2014 9:30 PM

Sgt Rich Mooney — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:30:13 -0500

Barrack Obama, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Hilliary, should all be tried for this violation of the constitution.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 11:51 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:51:34 -0500

Arrest the entire current and former congress first... Then go after every past president an ceo of every corporation and multimillionaire out there... Then arrest the president and declare yourself a dictator... You make no sense Sir.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 2:47 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:47:25 -0500

I can't agree with this. He is the boss. And even if I don't share the same political views as he and I didn't vote for him, I am flippin loyal. Until you actually 100% without a doubt prove treason, then absolutely not! You can't bend the definition to make it fit something.

Response by LCDR Gordon Brown made Nov 15 at 2014 2:33 AM

LCDR Gordon Brown — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 02:33:23 -0500

http://madworldnews.com/general-top-brass-obama/

Response by PV2 Eric Szabo made Nov 15 at 2014 4:46 PM

PV2 Eric Szabo — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 16:46:46 -0500

the only reason as to why, no one is doing anything about the commander in chief is because no one wants to ignite a country wide race war. Under the oaths which he took he is not abiding, as we swear upon our oaths and duties to protect the American People against all enemies foreign and domestic, it is only fair to say that our military should arrest him and charge him with treason. no bail no one phone call no lawyer. His trial should be by the American People.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2014 4:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 16:45:52 -0500

Pretty tricky here... biggest thing is especially on a public forum, for an officer to openly criticize the current administration , runs the risk of ruining his career. . We all sworn an oath to obey the leaders above us... however if said leader is an idiot and you follow them like a mindless drone what does that make you....?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2014 5:31 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:31:22 -0500

Impeachment as far as i know of is the only way, and congressional act at is the only way that i know of that can make it happen. I have been asked this before but couldnt answer. Recently I stumbled across a petition to Elect an impeachment Congress. We as soldiers arent allowed to partake in such events, right? That would be considered betraying the comander in chief. I know this may be a proposterous question.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2014 6:02 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 18:02:28 -0500

Absolutely not. First, it is a violation of the law for the US Military to act as law enforcement agents. Secondly, it opens up too many situations where a military official can simply decide the POTUS is in violation of what they think may be treason. Should Pres Reagan have been arrested for Iran/Contra? I would not want any member of the US Military to have to decide upon this issue.

Response by MSG Daniel Talley made Nov 15 at 2014 8:59 PM

MSG Daniel Talley — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:59:18 -0500

Yes

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Nov 15 at 2014 9:57 PM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:57:07 -0500

It would be up the Senate to convict a siting President. In the event of Impeachment and removal from office it would be up to the Justice Department and FBI or U.S. Marshal to pursue criminal charges and make an arrest. After Impeachment a President becomes a civilian and therefore, not subject to Military Law.

Response by MSG Daniel Talley made Nov 16 at 2014 12:23 PM

MSG Daniel Talley — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:23:59 -0500

I voted yes;
1) As Commander and Chief I believe the position should, it isn't but should, be considered a military position.
2) Impeachment processes are extensive and rightfully so.
3) However whom would decide beyond shadow of doubt in a military arrest?
4) should it be the case as stated by the time politicians took action more damage could be done.
5) i consider this an academic discussion. I have no proof of our current president having done this. 90% of all news today on both sides is slanted, opionated, inference or drama.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 12:33 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:33:49 -0500

My thoughts are generally in line with CPT McManus, but I'd also add one point to consider in terms of all of these discussions. As professional leaders (Officers and NCOs), do we have a responsibility to respect the "office" of the POTUS? Do you support the office and are concerned about a President's actions? Or do you only support the President when he shares your political affiliation and feel its okay to openly criticize our national leader if he doesn't share our political views.

This is where Kingdoms and Sultanates and Emirates I think get it right (and there is plenty there to criticize) -- in this regard, they never openly criticize their leader. In many, many discussions, very intelligent men that I have talked to say it is as much to do with maintaining pride and prestige in their country, especially to outsiders. To that point, how can we expect others to respect our country's leadership when we don't respect our own leadership?

If this is a veiled anti-POTUS rant because you don't like the current POTUS, will you allow the same criticism if your candidate wins the next election?

We are professionals. We are not politicians. We should leave the political speculation to the pundits and focus on our mission...as professionals, which is to be the best leaders we can for our Soldiers and the nation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2014 1:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 13:46:38 -0500

I was going to be polite.

You sir are an idiot. Think Michael Keating in Much Ado About Nothing. Seriously. I really can't find a better term.

Were there actual criminal charges. They would have been filed. (This is the same party that spent six years to take a financial investigation and turn it into an impeachment over lying about sex.) Yes the current politics is to blame the president for everything. It stopped being funny about the time that no republican presidential candidate would say that the Birthers were wrong.

More than that you challenge the Gift of Washington. You sir, undermine the very fabric of of the nation we serve. That one thing that allowed our revolution to survive when every other revolution of the enlightenment failed. The absolute foundation of our country.

THE MILITARY IS NOT A POLITICAL TOOL. We do not make policy. If you push that idea out to the Reconstruction, the military is a tool to be used on other people. W.T. Sherman stated clearly that his policy was to bring the pain to those who were outside the US but to protect and help those inside. You sir imply a desire to change that.

What the hell are you thinking, what twisted poisonous source of propaganda have you been listening to? If an elected official is charged he will be arrested by the DOJ, why? BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR JOB. We kill people and break things over seas so that we don't do that here.

Finally because I know you are going to bring up the use of US troops in side the US during emergencies I am going to give a very brief lesson on why your initial title is not only dangerous but also ill informed.

The armed forces of the United States are essentially under title 10 USC, it means many things but essentially that they are intended to kick peoples asses in other countries.

The National Guard is Title 32 USC, and can be Title 10 USC, Under Titile 32 troops function as limited Peace Officers. (The details get more complex but lets keep it simple) For instance after 9/11 when they put soldiers in the airports they used Title 32 soldiers that the federal government reimbursed the states for. This became an issue with the post 9/11 GI bill because reserves soldiers who had done 2 years of domestic security missions gained no credit towards benefits while a guy sitting n the pentagon did. Title 32 time is now counted towards post 9/11 GI Bill time.

Absolutely finally, if you want to go down the treason road... What does automatic opposition to the actions of the Chief executive constitute? Providing the enemies of the United States the comfort that no matter what the president does he will face strong internal opposition? Sounds pretty aid and comfort-y to me.

In conclusion. Not our job, not our tradition, not our mission, not legally possible, not theoretically probably, and probably falls under the exact crime of the accusation... (Now that is irony, the accusation of treason used to charge with treason.) I strongly recommend that you do not fall into the trap of Terry Lakin.

Sadly I don't think you are trolling, and even worse, I am.

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Nov 16 at 2014 3:41 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 15:41:08 -0500

There is a constitutional process to remove a president. The military is subordinate to civilian authority. Are you suggesting a coup? What military authority interprets constitutional law? Will the National Guard over throw a governor? If you do not like your civilian leadership, vote them out. But, you will need more than your vote.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Nov 16 at 2014 6:51 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:51:48 -0500

How many people want to see Joe Biden move into the Presidency? (yikes)

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Nov 16 at 2014 10:59 PM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:59:01 -0500

As soon as I read the topic post I immediately knew which direction this was going. Your subsequent posts only made it worse. You are not posting this as a philosophical discussion about the role of the military (which can be an interesting/appropriate topic) you are posting it as a direct political/ideological attack on the current Commander in Chief which is completely inappropriate for this forum. I don't care what political beliefs the Commander in Chief has, my service is still going to be the same.

This is not the first time you have posted an ideological rant on these pages. This is supposed to be professional forum for current and former military members, not a personal propaganda website.

Also, anyone who uses the phrase "Nixon's integrity" as a good thing needs to seriously reconsider their beliefs.

Response by PO2 Stephen Schlager made Nov 16 at 2014 11:54 PM

PO2 Stephen Schlager — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:54:08 -0500

Not sure the military is the correct "entity" which should be used to make such an arrest. However, I am not so sure that civilian branches will be eager to accomplish such a task...

Response by SGT Joseph Warren made Nov 17 at 2014 6:27 AM

SGT Joseph Warren — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:27:37 -0500

If the President is suspected of violating the Constitution, it is up to the House of Representatives to draw Articles of Impeachment. Once done, the President would be tried in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over the matter. If the President if found guilty of committing treason or other high crimes or misdemeanors, a conviction by 2/3 majority is required. Only two Presidents have ever faced impeachment proceedings. Presidents Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton. Both were acquitted. No matter how one may feel about this or any other President on a personal level, OUR Constitutional form of government clearly spells out the process for removal of the President, federal judge or Supreme Court justice from office. Therefore, at no time would or should the military arrest or detain the President.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 10:16 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:16:06 -0500

I think you ought to watch the Caine Mutiny. Paying particular attention to the statement by Jose Ferrer at the end. Like other rights we give up to be members of the military, we cannot challenge the orders of our superiors, with the exception of an order to commit an illegal act. That's up to civilians to do, and if they won't, then we have to live with it.

Response by PO3 Brendan "Smitty" Smith made Nov 17 at 2014 10:45 AM

PO3 Brendan "Smitty" Smith — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:45:04 -0500

My first reaction would be to say no. Our military can not, and should not be involved. There is a prescribed way of dealing with a President who has over stepped his authority, or even gone so far as to commit treason. The military is not involved with it.

For the military to become involved would be tantamount to a coup d'etat. Remember, in the military, we took an oath to "Support and defend the constitution..." We can not do that by subverting it.

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Nov 17 at 2014 10:56 AM

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:56:02 -0500

Whether on active duty or retired there must be questions in your minds as to why things are happening in America the way they are. President Obama has the lowest approval rating of any President. During our border crisis he went campaigning. Campaigning for what? The Democrats lost control of the Senate and many (including Hillary) have tried to distance themselves from President Obama. We have a health care law that had to be passed before it could be read. Our President's birth certificate (as mentioned previously) was a photoshopped fake. If I tried joining the military with a fake birth certificate, I would be dishonorably discharged if not imprisoned. I swore an oath (as did you all) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. I also swore to follow the orders of the officers appointed over me. I was taught a lawful and an unlawful order (which I sincerely hope all of you keep in mind....). If the President does not meet the qualifications to hold the office (fake birth certificate, proof of him being listed as a Muslim student and citizen in another country, etc.,) does that imply that all of the things he has done may be considered unlawful orders (he has signed a lot of executive orders)? Also, why would our President get rid of so many senior military officers? When we became service members we did not stop being Americans. I consider those who have served to be among the most patriotic of Americans and deserving of the rights outlined in the Constitution which we fight (or fought) to protect. It has been posted that the gentleman who started this thread could be in violation of the UCMJ. Why do we not worry more about what our elected leaders are in violation of? Does it bother you that we did send aid to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (and that the leader was supposedly our President's half brother Malik)? Does it bother you that nothing has been done to secure our border and deadly diseases are running rampant in our country? How about not being able to fly our own flag for fear of offending others? If you die, they will drape one over your coffin and give it to your loved ones but we cannot fly it here on American soil? When are you going to become enraged that if you had sexual relations with someone in your unit that you would get busted but if the President (slick Willy) does it he gets applauded??? We are the ones putting our lives on the line, but politicians get to decide the rules of engagement? What a load of tripe!!! The Senior Officers should decide the rules of engagement, because they have seen combat, put their lives on the line, and have the wisdom to make the choices that will bring their men and women home alive. When will you get irate about these things?? Thanks for serving!

r/

Steve

Response by SGT Kevin Gardner made Nov 17 at 2014 12:51 PM

SGT Kevin Gardner — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:51:13 -0500

Our system of government is by no means a perfect one, Fraud, abuse of power, corrupt politicians, even career Politicians seem to cause problems. I must say that I agree with some here that it is not the militarie's place to arrest a sitting president, levy charges, or even start a process by which the military could.

The way I see it active duty as well as veterans are bound by the oaths we took so there is a small case that could be made. Except one, who decides what crimes were committed? many of us were asked to go shed blood for our nation around the world, we never questioned those orders, even knowing full well that sometimes we were serving the interests of the United States, not necessarily the freedom and liberty of our own citizens.

Yes it is true that Government has grown beyond anything our founders foresaw, heck they even warned us about the expansion of powers. Now here is the crux, our founders were smart enough to give the citizens several avenues of readdress, you have the supreme court, the electoral process, as well as a constitutional convention.

Now even if all of these process have all been corrupted and no longer work for it citizens our founders gave them a last avenue of approach and extensive documentation exists to give the citizens legal authority to rise up against a tyrannical Government.

Now any order given from any person in government to the US armed forces to squash any such uprising by it citizens would be an unlawful order.

Our founders saw a threat to its citizenry from a standing Army, many of us would disagree, and say that the fear was unfounded, but history proves otherwise. There will always be people who would follow an unlawful order, there will always be some who would want to be a part of oppression. History is full of examples, and yes things that are happening here in the United states has happened before.
you can draw parallels from the fall of Rome, too what is happening here in the United States.

It started off with massive expansion of military might eventually forcing Rome to recede from the world. This is happening here now, if you look at the reduction of forces as well as the dwindling influence the United States has in the world community. Rome devalued their currency, instead of solid gold coins that carried a specific face value, the Roman government started minting coins plated in gold and silver, This was an early form of quantitative easing , sound familiar?

The lessons from the past don’t stop there, Rome started to fall faster after the Emperor took powers that belonged to the Senate, most people don’t understand that all of Roams power was shared between an emperor, the senate, and a Congress. Now most people think that it was the rise of Christianity in Rome that helped push the failed state over the edge, and in part it did have a little to do with it, most Christians in Rome at the time were residents of foreign nations. Sound familiar yet.
No one person can have the blame placed on them, so no you can’t just arrest one person for treason, even if that person knows he is violating not only his oath, but the constitution, and the people of the nation. In their mind they are doing right and no one will be able convince them otherwise.

Everyone in the system would need to be arrested, and if it ever came to that it would have to be the people we serve or have served, that make that choice.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 1:23 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:23:02 -0500

Can we? yes. Should we? this is where it becomes subjective. Who would then have the authority to give such an order? I think, and I am saying this based on logic without consulting regulation of any kind, that the next level down in the ultimate chain of command would have to give the order. Is that the Secretary of State? The Joint Chiefs by unanimous decision? Congress?

I would like to think that all would agree, Perhaps the best answer is the joint chiefs petitioning congress with the secretary of state backing them.

The issue with the post, however, is that you are alluding to situations in which our Commander In Chief has been involved, but he has done not singlehandedly, but moved forward after Congress had knowledge of it, even approval. While I, like many others in this site/military/country, am not personally happy with it there is little we can do when congress has the President's back. Now that Congress has changed significantly, he can be held accountable for things he attempts NOW, but we cannot go back and punish him for something he got approved before.

Response by Capt John Cable made Nov 17 at 2014 5:06 PM

Capt John Cable — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:06:05 -0500

Um no, the military arresting a President is called a Coup and we try to refrain from that type of behavior in the United States. We have the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government that take care of deciding who has and has not committed treason etc. If required, the Police (federal and/or local) will be happy to take care of any "arresting" that might be required. Those in the military can continue to focus their efforts on preparing for existing and potential foreign enemies as directed by their Chain of Command.

Response by SPC Delbert Cannoy made Nov 18 at 2014 9:09 AM

SPC Delbert Cannoy — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:09:46 -0500

Yes he should be arrested if he violated his oath. Simply put the Constitution is the law of the land and no one is above the law-even the President. However it is up to congress to impeach him before any arrest can be made.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 18 at 2014 12:00 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:00:49 -0500

Update for the benefit of my RP stalkers who serial downvote me:

While you've been busy downvoting (apparently the restriction of 2 per day given to the same person has been removed), my influence has grown. By a margin of > 2:1 people understand that what I have pointed out is a topic worth investigating. Those who didn't know the procedures for removing a sitting President have been educated. It is NOT the military's mission to remove a sitting President. But what happens when those we elected fail to uphold the oaths they swore to protect and defend our Constitution? The military is subject to their leadership but what is the remedy when they fail in their capacity and allow the Constitution we are sworn to protect and defend get shredded? ??? Our Founding Fathers recognized that this might happen some day and gave us the 2nd Amendment so that We The People would be able to protect and defend ourselves should the gov't we elected stop representing our collective interest.

In Egypt, the people protested a gov't that had done just that. And instead of following orders from the Morsi gov't, the military sided with the people. And Democracy was restored in Egypt much to the chagrin of our Executive who threatened to withdraw aid if the people of Egypt didn't reinstate Morsi. And the people of Egypt said in effect, "You can keep your stinking aid. We don't need it. We'd rather have freedom and Democracy restored. Thanks anyway." And as if to add insult to injury, the people of Egypt petitioned the World Court to bring Obama up on charges of supporting "Criminal Terrorism" and "Crimes Against Humanity".

At what point does the military step in and should it? Last resort, if our questionably elected gov't is failing, does our military need to intervene and should it? Should our military back the orders of an illegitimate gov't? Ask any Egyptian and they will tell you "NO!"

It's very sad when "We" [as America] are no longer looked to as the model of Democracy and when "We" [as Americans] are viewed as fools for electing leaders such as Obama who never even bothered to answer questions about their eligibility. We keep them scratching their heads. It's a disgrace when members of our own Supreme Court believe that the Constitution is outdated and they recommend that countries considering a new Constitution for their fledgling Democracies look elsewhere as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has suggested.

http://dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justice-ginsburg-i-would-not-look-to-the-u-s-constitution/

The topic is indeed controversial, but it has done a very good job of stimulating discussion.

Justice Ginsburg: "I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution"

Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant... Read More

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Nov 18 at 2014 1:34 PM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:34:53 -0500

Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 3:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:48:20 -0500

BLUF:

No.

Reasons:

1. The military does not have the legal authority to "arrest" the Commander-in-Chief.
2. You do not "arrest" suspects.

Response by MSgt Ryan Tanner made Nov 18 at 2014 4:39 PM

MSgt Ryan Tanner — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:39:53 -0500

Not going to touch this thread with a vaccinated crowbar...

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Nov 18 at 2014 5:09 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:09:39 -0500

"Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given".

1. The military has no role this to begin with. We are impartial in actions no matter what our personal beliefs are to any sitting president, and that protects us and separates us from other nations who rely on the military to remove governments that fall out of favor. The Sergeant at Arms would be the one to remove any president anyways.
2. Giving our enemies aid and comfort. This would be as old as America itself, so why would this be used as an argument against Obama? Did we give weapons just to see them used against us...yep. But running this backwards we as a country have a long standing history of doing just that and getting the same results lest we forget Iran Contra, giving Tomcats to Iran (when they were our "allies"), Panama, and the list could go on. This isn't any ground to remove a president lest we start going back and hooking up those that did it before.
3. If it is a betrayal to the country why is it being talked about now? In the paragraph above, it's a constant used to influence outcomes in other countries, so haven't we allowed the government as a whole to do this for decades, even centuries?
4. If we're so worried about something being able to weaken the power of the US, all we have to do is look at social media. People love posting any and everything that they do from new jobs or positions, to deployment schedules, units redeploying, schedules of leaders while in transit. There is nothing any president could do to weaken the US short of giving away the "football" that could honestly do serious harm. What is doing real harm is by those who want to divide the country (insert reason here), those who think they are above common sense (insert any member of congress or their staffer here), those who think they no longer report to the citizen who elected them to office (insert ALL politicians here), and those who find that it's easier to collect money while being an "anyomous source" (insert agency, military branch, secret squirrel unit, or "senior level" leader here).

The original question posted in this thread was one to give great discussion, but in the end, all it turned out to be was a way to badmouth the current administration along personal party lines. Since that was the intent, I'd question why hide behind a veiled intent when you could've said what was really meant? Say what you mean and mean what you say. Leadership lol

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 5:14 PM

1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:14:01 -0500

This is called a "coup."

Response by SSG John Erny made Nov 18 at 2014 6:01 PM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:01:54 -0500

Send in the Layers and Law Makers!!!

Lawyer Joke, No offence intended!

A Fox may steal your hens, sir
A Whore your health and pence, sir
Your daughter rob your chest, sir
Your wife may steal your rest, sir
A thief your goods and plate
But this is all but picking
With rest, pence, chest and chicken
It ever was decreed, sir
If Lawyer's Hand is fee'd, sir
He steals your whole estate

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Nov 18 at 2014 6:11 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:11:25 -0500

While the thought is worth pondering, I am of the opinion that should a time come when "A" president is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty of a treasonable offense against the Constitution or the Country, then it would/should be the auspices of the FBI to arrest & charge him/her after congress has completed impeachment proceedings and issued a congressional warrant for that arrest.
For the military to get involved, again my opinion, would be little more than a coup-de-tat and then where would we be? We would sink to the level of one of those 3rd world countries who, if they don't like the existing govt, forces it out and puts in one they do like. One junta after another does nothing to stabilize that country. If we (the military) were to become involved, where would it stop?

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 18 at 2014 7:35 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:35:02 -0500

The military wouldn't be the ones to arrest him. It would be up to the Sgt at Arms to arrest him if I'm not mistaken.

Response by PO3 Heather Brown made Nov 18 at 2014 9:36 PM

PO3 Heather Brown — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:36:43 -0500

Hell yeah! If your a traitor, your a traitor. And I DO believe in the use of the death penalty!

Response by SGT Erik Prano made Nov 18 at 2014 10:53 PM

SGT Erik Prano — Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:53:00 -0500

By the US Constitution, it is demanded of us to remove anyone from office for betrayal of the trust of the citizens of the United States

Response by TSgt Charles Holmes made Nov 19 at 2014 2:18 AM

TSgt Charles Holmes — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:18:09 -0500

Indeed, they should. And I hope it happens soon. Our current pResident-in-chief has already failed to enforce the laws of this nation, both domestically & internationally. There should be no more wasted time on this & action needs to be taken, now.

Response by TSgt Charles Holmes made Nov 19 at 2014 2:17 AM

TSgt Charles Holmes — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 02:17:09 -0500

Response by CMSgt Ray Theriault made Nov 19 at 2014 5:27 AM

CMSgt Ray Theriault — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 05:27:51 -0500

Over the top goofball question.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2014 5:28 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 05:28:36 -0500

Please, I beg for the elimination of this type of programming. Hate is hate, and I am sick of seeing racism. The military has no place for it. Get the money out of politics and close the politicians' pockets in regards to the military. No military service stands on separatist grounds. We are one.

Response by SSG Joseph Dienstag made Nov 19 at 2014 10:32 AM

SSG Joseph Dienstag — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:32:08 -0500

That is the job of others. Plain and simple. You can try to paint the picture anyway you like, but it is NOT and never will be the job of the military to arrest people as if they were police. What you ask would be considered a coup and that is also a form of treason which no self respecting Oath keeper would ever suggest or take any part in. If you are just stirring the pot I would suggest you stir it elsewhere.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Nov 19 at 2014 1:48 PM

SSG Tim Everett — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:28 -0500

No.

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Nov 19 at 2014 2:23 PM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:23:21 -0500

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/19/obama-to-announce-executive-action-on-immigration-thursday-in-primetime-speech/

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Nov 19 at 2014 2:27 PM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:43 -0500

I miss Al Haig

Response by Spc 1 J W. made Nov 19 at 2014 8:42 PM

Spc 1 J W. — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:42:34 -0500

It seems to me that many law and order/rule of law folks either don't know or don't care about the UCMJ.

"888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

I am of the belief that we are better off being governed more in the middle rather than left or right. US President, US Senator, US Representative, not Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal.

I am still serving in the military after originally enlisting in 1982. Military members have always had opinions regarding elected officials. But for the most part they were said in private or in front of a minimum group of people. Never were these opinions stapled to the unit's bulletin board.

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Response by SGT Pete Serrata made Nov 19 at 2014 9:56 PM

SGT Pete Serrata — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:56:26 -0500

I'm horrified that a U.S. Officer would even think this. The very notion is an affront to the rule of law and a hilarious and a complete misreading of the constitution. Go back to your right wing conspiracy theories.

Response by SGT John Rice made Nov 19 at 2014 10:49 PM

SGT John Rice — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:49:07 -0500

Sadly, while POTUS is the Commander-In-Chief of the Military, he is also, a civilian. So unless martial law is in effect, the Military really has no power to arrest him. Does this one deserve to be arrested? In my opinion, yes. He has done much that is contrary to the good of our country. He has quite often bypassed Congress, helped perform acts that if anyone else had done would have resulted in a charge of treason. I have yet to understand why no one in Congress has really even tried to impeach him. I asked the ones who "represent" me about it and have never really gotten an answer. They definitely beat their own drums in their responses, but stayed far away from my question. When he first was elected, I thought just maybe he could do our country some good, and from day one I saw the opposite. I was shocked when he was reelected. That reelection seemed to make him want to try to make changes that move our country even further away from what it should be and more towards either an Islamic or even Socialist State. Last I heard, he has not yet been able to get around the 2 terms rules, though I have been told he was trying. I pray that the next POTUS is better for our country.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 11:53 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:53:06 -0500

Everyone always has something negative to say about every sitting President. Here's how I see it if you think that you can do a better job, then you should run for President. Riddle me this, how has the President committed treason? Do you feel that it's because he did something that you didn't agree with? He's the President, he doesn't need your approval to run the country. It's just like when President Bush was in office. You had people calling him an idiot and saying that he couldn't run an amusement park let alone a country. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama actually cares about how you feel about everything. This is why we haven't ransacked through Iraq yet. All because he promised the American people back in 2011 that we will not conduct another ground war in Iraq, although troops are now just sitting like ducks waiting to be plucked. Bush would've said "fuck what they think and fuck that dumb ass promise, it's war time!" How about we stop talking bad about the President? His job is already extremely difficult due to that fact that he's trying to keep everyone happy. If you feel that you can do better, then put your name on the ballot and start campaigning.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 1:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:25:47 -0500

If Capt Jeff S. is suspected [beyond reasonable doubt] of having committed treason, can and should our military arrest him?

Response by 1SG Don Stand made Nov 20 at 2014 4:10 PM

1SG Don Stand — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:10:13 -0500

The fact you mentioned (reasonable doubt) is a loose term in the Army. We have innocent Soldiers here being court martial for crimes of SHARP they did not commit. Reason I'm mentioning this is because I sat during one at Fort Polk.

I waited for some type of evidence or a small clue to convince me that this Soldier committed those acts. Here's exactly what was presented victim testimonies. I'm sorry folks but hey if you or I was up for any type of sexual assault allegations you would want to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt correct?

I support the SHARP program but if this is where the Army is heading I ask all of you to be careful. In all my years and Court Martial appearances I never witnessed such a tragedy rendered amongst a person that was innocent. Someone is always watching but no witnesses? Victims said they yelled in a building but not one person heard? Folks I find that very hard to believe but hey it's the Army's definition of "reasonable doubt".

Response by SSG Matthew Belden made Nov 20 at 2014 4:11 PM

SSG Matthew Belden — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:11:02 -0500

I do believe the man is a criminal. Scandal after scandal. Lie after lie and yet nothing is done. Our government is what u call a house of cards , you take one down and they all fall. Maybe that's why things like Obama care just get swept under the rug.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 21 at 2014 10:19 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:19:15 -0500

What would you say to this Marine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho0vHa8Qwew&feature=youtu.be

Patriots Headed to White House; Arrest Barack Obama NOW! Pete Interviews US Marine Manny Vega

Manny Vega will be live streaming out in from of the White House at http://guerillamedianetwork.com.whitehouselive Also follow GMN's FaceBook page for ongoin...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2014 11:36 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:36:37 -0500

Presidents can't commit treason; when they do it, it's foreign policy.

Response by SGT Roy Eimer made Nov 21 at 2014 9:47 PM

SGT Roy Eimer — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:47:10 -0500

Yes, without a doubt

Response by Cpl Sabrina L. made Nov 22 at 2014 12:34 AM

Cpl Sabrina L. — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:34:40 -0500

Yes, and maybe "oops" he'll trip and hit his head.

Response by PO3 Bob Walsh made Nov 22 at 2014 12:39 AM

PO3 Bob Walsh — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:39:25 -0500

I think he would have to be impeached, by the Congress, and found guilty of: Treason, Bribery. or other high crimes and misdemeanor. If found guilty Congress would determine the sentence, and how it would be carried out.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 22 at 2014 12:58 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:58:47 -0500

A little math update:

Okay, now we're up to 39 net up votes and 21 net down votes. So doing the math again...

39 x 50 = 39 x 100/2 or 3900/2 or 1950
21 x 30 = 20x30 + 1x30 or 600 + 30 or 630

1950 - 630 = 1320 net positive which is the same as 26+ net up votes.

And while this topic has been debated, I've gone from 34 to 29 in influence... not that I care. The point being, the naysayers aren't succeeding in doing damage with their down votes. If anything they've just brought more attention to the subject of what to do with our fraudulent Cmdr-in-Chief... so thanks to all you naysayers for responding and mentioning me by name, and in so doing unwittingly lending your support. ; )

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 4:03 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 04:03:50 -0500

In the given situation I would say impeachment is the first action that should be taken. If he is impeached and the military needs to be involved in making an arrest, then so be it. But in that situation he is no longer president because he has been impeached, so no, the military can and should not arrest the president.

Response by SA Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 11:06 AM

SA Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:06:33 -0500

Not sure about that...but there is an impeachment process if need be and if he got impeached, then he could be arrested, but that's usually done by police and/or FBI. However, this will never happen because they are protected by the Builderburgers and the Kabal who overturn all authority in the world if there's ever a crisis like that ;)

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Nov 22 at 2014 4:52 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:52:41 -0500

You don't want your name anywhere near this kind of discussion. Trust me on this.

Response by PO3 Chris Yowell made Nov 22 at 2014 7:53 PM

PO3 Chris Yowell — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:53:43 -0500

Of course...

Response by SGT Jason Weisbrich made Nov 22 at 2014 8:05 PM

SGT Jason Weisbrich — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:05:37 -0500

CPT Schwager allow me to refer you to 18 U.S. Code 2339B and the Defense Authorization Act of 2013 which were also violated. We swore to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. Considering the multitudes of constitutional law violations, I will leave you to decide what should be done sir.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 8:12 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:12:45 -0500

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." Attributed to Cicero, 106-43 BC

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 22 at 2014 10:48 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 22:48:12 -0500

This is a most instructive discussion thread. It seems an excellent example of how far afield these things can stray.

If you dig deep enough, you'll find that the questions presented in the original posting is adequately answered: No, the military should not arrest the President for treason. Most importantly, as several have noted, it is not a legitimate function of the military in the United States.

Also, several persons have reasonably posted the measure of what amounts to treason. It is as complex as it appears to be simple. Merely quoting the law is far from sufficient. If you really want to know the subject, you have to delve deeper, much deeper, into case law and academic treatments on the subject. (That's really, really dry stuff. I know. I went to law school and spent three years reading the stuff.)

Ultimately, many of us (most of us?) agree that Barack Obama was poorly suited for the position of President of the United States and his shortcomings have been repeatedly displayed in just about every aspect of his performance of his duties. Even more egregiously, the people he has selected to assist him, from the Cabinet level to his "band of czars" are likewise woefully inadequate. That being said, none of this rises to the level of treason. Hell, it isn't even a misdemeanor to be incompetent. If anyone should be punished, it is the voters who elected and reelected him. (Well, to be accurate, we are being punished.)

However, the truly instructive part of this discussion thread is how well it demonstrates the manner in which many participants use the opportunity to vent their frustrations. Mention the President and they're prepared to complain. Complain about the President and another group jumps to defend. None of which has anything to do with the question at hand.

My contribution to this study will be simple: Don't expect to convince anyone of anything. We left the realm of politics and political discourse several years ago. It is now a battle of ideologies. Whereas Democrats and Republicans were once able to debate, progressives and conservatives speak from belief systems; that is, they do not have a common language and are incapable of communicating. Thus, you should enter the realm of Internet discussion with your eyes wide open. You're here to vent or you're here to be abused. Preach to the choir or throw verbal brickbats at the idiots of the opposition.

In other words, it's a virtual riot.

Now, I'm off to peruse the available discussion threads to see if there is something more rational going on elsewhere.

Enjoy yourselves...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 2:57 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 02:57:56 -0500

i am so disheartened by the total lack of disrespect that some of the members of our military have for the Office of the President, OUR Commander in Chief. Over the past 10 years With the last 8 years being the worst in my opinion, I have seen and heard more members from all branches of the military make negative, unfounded, disrespectful, and most definitely unacceptable comments, accusations, remarks, jokes, and even threats about OUR Commander in Chief.
I remember a time when regardless of whether or not you respected the person, you still respect the office and would not have dreamed of doing or saying such a thing. Call me old fashioned but I still hold the respect for the office of the Presidency and believe that those of us in uniform that speak out openly against him should be the ones charged with treason.
If people think terrorists aren't watching and listening to Americans openly bash the President don't you think they feed off of that.
I appreciate you allowing me to share my .02

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2014 1:57 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:57:28 -0500

Capt Jeff S. By the very definition, our last few Presidents have all aided and abetted the enemy. We are in this position for a reason. We trained them, we armed them, and now we have to kill them. Sounds like job security to me. I read a biography about Oliver North and the Iran Contra Scandal, it seems there are many people in place between the President and actual enemies receiving weapons. I know our COIN philosophy has sort of back-fired, how will we ever know the true allegiance of the fighters we train, are and finance? We don't, and therefore we are the fools.

Response by PO1 Jotham Anderson made Nov 24 at 2014 12:07 AM

PO1 Jotham Anderson — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:07:22 -0500

I think we should. However, since the president is a civilian, it would make us like communist Russia was or Nazi Germany.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 2:07 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:07:35 -0500

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQlHsjHUKiXqdSHajMQcI-g

Your digital foot print speaks volumes, sir.
You stand for what you believe and that is an indicative sign of persuasive character. Perhaps your veteran preference and level of charisma can serve you well in a political career. As you can clearly see not everyone agrees with our politicians; let alone you. Sentiments about our elected Commander-in Chief are clearly polarized. The same can be said about our Senates, Congressmen/women, Mayors, Judges, Sheriffs, etc.

In the midst of all of this chaos, my soul is crying out: I would like to continue serving the people of the United States without discord within our formations! Our loyalty status must remain ALL GREEN! and no political views shall divide the Armed Forces. Our shared vision is NOT and was never political. We have a job to do too and a code of conduct, ethics, value, and UCMJ to adhere.

We live in the age of information (and unfortunately misinformation as well). The average person does not take it kindly when they feel like someone is attempting to educate them through an argument especially in a social media setting. We all have our two cents and piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc. There is no need for diatribes and ad hominem.

Jeff Schwager

Response by SPC Robert Walo made Nov 24 at 2014 11:12 AM

SPC Robert Walo — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:12:29 -0500

The Potus has already committed numerous felonies and treasonable offences. Using another persons SSI number is a treasonable offence, providing aid and comfort to the enemy on numerous occasions should have had the noose around his neck already, but our Brass don't seem to think it is a big deal for Obama to arm ISIS (not ISIL as Obama says), arming Al-Queada affiliated rebels in Syria. They won't do anything.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 1:53 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:53:34 -0500

That's fckng NUTS! What you suggest is we take part in subverting the executive in some form of a coups. We have federal law enforcement branch called the FBI that would be more than capable of arresting the POTUS if he were charged with a federal crime.

The day that such a thing would ever happen is the day we cease to exist as a nation, in its current form.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 1:11 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:11:30 -0500

No, there are several federal agencies with policing powers who would be more than capable of arresting a POTUS/VPOTUS/cabinet if needed.

Response by CPL Steve Connolly made Dec 2 at 2014 8:42 AM

CPL Steve Connolly — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 08:42:36 -0500

To the question absolutely! What is the purpose of the Constitution if you are not going to enforce it? Personally I don't care if your black, white or pink with purple polka dots! If you are suspected of violating the your oath to the Constitution than you must be held to account! To do anything less would dishonor all those who served and died for ideals the Constitution and Bill of Rights puts forth.

Response by PFC Aaron Knapp made Dec 3 at 2014 1:31 AM

PFC Aaron Knapp — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:31:10 -0500

If your still in the Military is it even legal to answer a question like this? This is boarder line at best. You can't question the CIC while on active duty can you?

Response by SSG Robert Blair made Dec 3 at 2014 2:19 AM

SSG Robert Blair — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 02:19:29 -0500

For one thing, believe anyone committing treason should be punished by UCMJ.
Second is just a few general questions I have and some of you that have worked in law or JAG may be able to answer this:

In a case where the Commander in chief is accused of such a crime who's job is it to retain and prosecute him/her?
Who makes this decision?

Response by PO3 Bob Walsh made Dec 7 at 2014 2:05 AM

PO3 Bob Walsh — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 02:05:20 -0500

The question of the role of the Military when the Commander in Chief is guilty of treason or other high crimes has been answered several times. The question of our presiding officials that needs to be answered is, what is an act of treason? There are many actions that appear to qualify, if they are acts of treason, why is Congress passive? Is it possible that many Congressmen have chosen loyalty to the POTUS over their Oath of Office, to uphold the Constitution, I find that hard to believe.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Dec 7 at 2014 12:36 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:36:35 -0500

"If our Cmdr-in-Chief is suspected [beyond reasonable doubt] of having committed treason, can and should our military arrest him?" is a multiple part question.

[1] "Can the US military 'arrest' the President of the United States of America"? [A] LEGALLY - No. [B] Physically - Yes (although they would have to call it a "detention" as they don't have the legal right to "arrest" anyone who isn't a member of the US military or who hasn't entered US military property without permission.

[2] "Should the US military 'arrest' the President of the United States of America?" - Only if you want to toss the Constitution of the United States of America out the window and start over with "The Militarily Ruled States of America".

Then there is the question of exactly what would happen after the military "arrested" the President of the United States of America on "suspicion of treason" ALLEGATIONS? Would the military have to release him on bail? (The US Constitution certainly implies that it would) Would he be able to continue in office pending his trial? (The US Constitution certainly implies that he would.) Would the military have to PROVE its case "beyond a reasonable doubt"? (The US Constitution certainly implies that it would.) Would "Congress" go along with the US military usurping the power of the civilian government? (And lose all of those lovely perks? Don't be silly)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2014 1:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:15:47 -0500

Passive Aggresive Racism is not cute!
You are special form of cancer, your thoughts are treasonous & your type of covert verbiage do not belong among American fighting men!
Remove yourself immediately!

Response by Sgt Christopher Collins made Dec 7 at 2014 1:36 PM

Sgt Christopher Collins — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:36:53 -0500

It is truly amazing of how many vets do not know the Constitution and think Obama is the best president ever. Too many liberal vets who have the nerve to vote my comments down especially when the facts are straight forward and what this president is doing to this country. My oath never ended when I left the military and will never end until the Lord takes me home.

Furthermore, if POTUS injects ANY unconstitutional executive order that affects me, I will disobey it. Plain and simple. I am so thankful I served under Reagan and not this useless POTUS.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Feb 7 at 2015 2:08 AM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 02:08:30 -0500

I believe that responsibility lies with the US Marshal service. What are they waiting for?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 11:59 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 23:59:19 -0500

I jiust don't know anymore what to think, I am not sure of anything.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 9:11 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:11:57 -0500

Sometimes I wonder if I'm on Stormfront...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 9:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:41:45 -0500

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member Whenever I read these informational articles, I always check the comments underneath. Here are some pictures from the comments.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Feb 21 at 2015 10:07 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:07:42 -0500

Either it was just a regular hand gesture used by thousands of people of all nationalities and religions or he was attempting to connect with a group. Either way, there isn't nothing to be up in arms over.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 21 at 2015 5:16 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:16:18 -0500

Option E, the Fox News Answer:
President Obama is actually one of our reptilian overlords, hell bent on destroying our society, and handing us over as chattel for the mole people!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2015 10:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:00:52 -0500

Capt Jeff S. Why the military instead of the FBI or other law enforcement agencies? What about the Secretary of Defense? Army? Navy? etc?

Interesting.

Response by SSgt Thomas L. made Feb 22 at 2015 11:09 PM

SSgt Thomas L. — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:09:53 -0500

Capt Jeff S., what you describe is a coup d'état. The military are expressly forbidden to make ANY civilian arrest, let alone of our head of state. Our constitution has impeachment procedures in place for presidents who are suspected of high crimes.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Feb 23 at 2015 2:23 AM

SSG Jim Foreman — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:23:00 -0500

I think that is a slippery slope that we should not go down. There are checks and balances in place. With the Senate and Congress, they are there to insure anyone in the office of president stays within the lines. The current POTUS is always close to going over the line, but I believe as a soldier it is our responsibility to just stand by and await orders.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Feb 23 at 2015 3:11 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 03:11:33 -0500

Hypothetically, even if the President were to be found guilty of treason, it would definitely not be the military's responsibility to arrest him. The military has no authority on U.S. soil except in times of declared states of emergency (i.e. martial law) and whenever the National Guard is called up to operate on U.S. soil.

The actual process would begin with an impeachment by the House of Representatives (aka an accusation of a felony), followed by a trial by the Senate (presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and if he was convicted he would be removed from office and depending on the crime taken into custody. Only two Presidents have been impeached in U.S. history: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. There has never been an actual conviction of a President (though Johnson was only one vote short).

With that said, despite the hot-headed rhetoric from some of the louder and more extremist Republicans, our current President has not committed any known acts that would be considered grounds for impeachment.

Also, because so many in the military I've seen making this kind of mistake, keep in mind that there are laws dictating the ways and extent to which military members (I'm not sure if they include veterans as well) may express partisan political views in a public way. It is also against Article 88 of UCMJ for any commissioned officer to slander or speak contemptuously of the President, subject to court martial.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 5:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 05:15:40 -0500

Congress and the Supreme Court have their jobs. The uniformed services has theirs, arresting civilian leadership isn't one of them.

It may not always work out the way it should however, Democracies have a way
with Checks and Balances. When Central Gov't fails, we have fifty redundant Capitols for perpetual liberty. No other Nation on the planet can boast that.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Feb 24 at 2015 10:06 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:06:36 -0500

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4, "impeachment" is clear.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Feb 25 at 2015 8:47 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:47:42 -0500

Uh, no. And free speech does not include incitement to commit treason.

Walt

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 10:50 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:50:10 -0500

No man is above the Constitution.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Feb 25 at 2015 8:10 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:10:50 -0500

I'd lay off the incitement to commit treason if I were you.

Walt

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Feb 26 at 2015 4:45 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:45:32 -0500

I get where you are coming from. Treason is a serious crime; it should not be ignored when it occurs.

Really, the matter is a legal question: Is the President -- as Commander in Chief -- subject to UCMJ?

The Commander in Chief is a civilian; civilians are generally not subject to UCMJ.

Arresting the President for treason would thus not be the Military's duty; it would fall to someone else -- perhaps the FBI.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Feb 27 at 2015 6:10 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 06:10:08 -0500

It is one thing to say that yes, the Military can overthrow the government. To say that it -should- overthrow the current government or to take steps to bring this to fruition is NOT protected speech.

It is treason.

And you can bet your comments along those lines are being noted somewhere.

You certainly shouldn't assume that such comments are not being taken note of, not in 2015.

Walt

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 8:22 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:22:42 -0500

On the orders of the Senate, the SAA is the only person who can arrest the president of the United States. The SAA also protects the senators and can arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules. Additionally, the SAA can compel senators to come to the Senate Chamber to establish a quorum.

Response by 1SG William Mayberry made Feb 27 at 2015 4:29 PM

1SG William Mayberry — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:29:43 -0500

Do they have the authority. We are commanded by civilian authority by the Constitution. Any arrest ideas is probably illegal and would be considered a military coup d'etat. As much as I disagree with obama and his vurrent administration, arrest is not the answer

Response by MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 1:37 AM

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:37:41 -0400

Absolutely not. That is not our purview nor our mission. Unless he were to come before a court martial or military tribunal (which most likely to my understanding he wouldn't), that is a civilian issue, for the congress to decide and civilian authorities to enforce. We should stay far far away from policing citizens of any type on our own soil which is why there are several laws preventing that very thing unless under very specific and very select and EXCEPTIONAL circumstances.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Mar 11 at 2015 9:20 AM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:20:24 -0400

I got to admit...I don't know much...I thought that was the sgt at arms job....and if so.....he is delinquent

Response by SGT Kenneth Jack made Mar 13 at 2015 4:59 PM

SGT Kenneth Jack — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:59:12 -0400

Yes I think if the President has given aid to our enemies and it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt then yes he or she under the law should be arrested and tried for the crime.

Response by TSgt Joshua Lynch made Mar 19 at 2015 10:18 AM

TSgt Joshua Lynch — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:18:28 -0400

Capt Jeff S. It's too bad you haven't lived for 300+ years in this country; it would seem you would've been the perfect candidate to defend against the countless harms done at the hands of the politicians and lobbyists during that time.

But, why so angry, you feel you're doing a good thing (fighting for the good of our Country by attacking the POTUS)? Usually people acting or speaking without malice tend to have a welcome aire about them or a sense of compassion. You seem to be blinded by something else entirely.

Response by SSgt Randy Saulsberry made Mar 19 at 2015 9:32 PM

SSgt Randy Saulsberry — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:32:19 -0400

No. The military doesn't have the authority to arrest a president.

Response by SGT Chris Reese made Mar 19 at 2015 9:35 PM

SGT Chris Reese — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:35:57 -0400

Short and Simple: I will NOT say anything bad about our Commander and Chief no matter how I personally feel about him. Neither do I believe any other SM or Veteran should after Swearing into the United States Military.

Response by SGT Chris Reese made Mar 19 at 2015 10:01 PM

SGT Chris Reese — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:01:58 -0400

Isn't this against the terms of service? (7.2 (a))
defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

Response by CPL Jesse Vasconcelos made Mar 19 at 2015 10:04 PM

CPL Jesse Vasconcelos — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:04:07 -0400

Absolutely. He is the leader of our great nations military and should be held to our same laws including court martial. And serve as any other service member would. He can commit such a crime he should pay as bad of time. Hands down great question. But it will never happen. Had it ever in our country?

Response by SGT John Wesley made Mar 20 at 2015 4:59 AM

SGT John Wesley — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:59:12 -0400

It's obvious to me that your comments stem for your dislike of the President and most likely anything affiliated with the Democratic Party. Your post is "Rush Limbaugh" fueled. I'm not a fan of President Obama, but your post is just anti Obama with no real meat to it. Like you just threw it out there to incite people.

Response by MSG David Chappell made Mar 21 at 2015 12:08 AM

MSG David Chappell — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:08:56 -0400

debate and opinion are critical in leadership. The fear of speaking against officials is not our way. We may offer opinion and as long as we don't call for aggressive action it is just opinion. Have we become so fearful we have forgotten our 1 at amendment? This is a military SOCIAL forum use logic and quell passion, fact without hate and let's find the common ground as we have been taught to do.

Response by CPL George Mann Jr made Mar 21 at 2015 8:41 AM

CPL George Mann Jr — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 08:41:14 -0400

The Commander-in -Chief suspected of treason should be Impeached, indicted, prosecuted, stripped of citizenship and imprisoned at the leased. unfortunately we have a gutless congress that is scared to death to do what needs to be done.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Mar 21 at 2015 9:36 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 09:36:09 -0400

One topic closer to worldnetdaily we go.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 2:23 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:23:43 -0400

in 1979 December 5th I took an oath to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies for me that still holds today

Response by MSG William Weatherell made Mar 26 at 2015 6:46 PM

MSG William Weatherell — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:46:13 -0400

My oath of enlistment goes far beyond a date on a piece of paper and I'd be there to help put the shackles on.

Response by SPC Donald Tribble made Mar 30 at 2015 1:32 AM

SPC Donald Tribble — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 01:32:50 -0400

The Military has no business arresting the President. There is a civilian process to handle this situation.

Response by PO2 David Hagwood made Apr 1 at 2015 2:51 AM

PO2 David Hagwood — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 02:51:21 -0400

I don't think we, the military, would arrest the POTUS. There is a process for this kind of thing. I respect the office of the POTUS, even though I respectfully disagree with him on nearly every issue. If it is found without a doubt that the POTUS has committed treason, our Congress would begin the process of impeachment. What would happen afterward, if they voted in favor of impeachment, we would have to just see what happens. I would draw the line if there were ever a possibility of the Constitution were to be put in jeopardy by a tyrant government. We serve the Constitution, the people, first and foremost. I don't foresee that kind of thing happening, though. I still have faith in our forefather's design for our government, even if it's not always exactly as they intended.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 5:56 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:56:32 -0400

Using Politics to hide you're Raceism shows poor judgment .
I too "I find this kind of false flag 'discussion' to be wholly inappropriate on this forum." I agree Both CPT. McManus and Lt. Miller .

Response by SGT Mark Odegaard made Apr 1 at 2015 11:43 AM

SGT Mark Odegaard — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:43:11 -0400

Retired or not we all too the same OATH-don't remember it as an oath with a time limit. ALL ENEMIES always both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!!!! As far as I am concerned it was and is a LIFE OATH!!!!

Response by SGT David Wright made Apr 1 at 2015 12:39 PM

SGT David Wright — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:39:26 -0400

I am by far not an Obama fan, but he is our Commander and Chief. Though that seems a bit confusing from time to time with all the controversy in his Presidency, I believe he is a bit of an idiot, but I have to back the fact of the people spoke up and wanted him in office. Though I did not vote him in on either election, I have to (with hardship) hope that we still have someone in office that will reign him back from time to time. From one veteran to the next.... AATW Hoooaahh!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 6:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:13:02 -0400

Who did we send for Snowden???

Response by SGT Jesse Williams made Apr 2 at 2015 9:11 AM

SGT Jesse Williams — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:11:23 -0400

I feel that yes Obama should be arrested for treason against the US. He has not been thinking about the US citizens and how his decisions are destroying this country.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Apr 7 at 2015 10:09 AM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:09:59 -0400

I will respond to you by asking are you referring to President Reagan involvement in Iran Contra or his orders that made the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings possible in which Suicide bombers detonated a truck bomb. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers. The three soldiers were from my training battalion. What seed was planted back then to which the Sins of The Father is applicable today?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2015 11:44 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:44:34 -0400

I am not aware of a mandate for the military to be a policing organization (although it seems to be used as such in some conflicts). The congress could certainly authorize the arrest of the chief of the executive branch.

In what documents would you state that the military has enumerated powers to arrest the chief executive?

To be on solid ground to stage a military coup would require extraordinary circumstances. It is still power from the people and legislative branch to remove a president either by voting him out or prosecuting him.

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made Apr 9 at 2015 1:53 AM

CPL Jay Freeman — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 01:53:05 -0400

The military learned a lesson when Clinton got cought with his pants down. He is a civilian and not subject to the ucmj like we are.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 1:23 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:23:53 -0400

You are bashing others for "not upholding the constitution " but what your talking about here is the same thing you claim to detest. You are twisting the intent to your desires. The military is not our police force, nor should it be.

Response by SFC Ronnie Seaton Jr made Apr 9 at 2015 6:07 PM

SFC Ronnie Seaton Jr — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 18:07:22 -0400

We are not a band of pirates. We do not challenge our leadership. If so, everyday someone would challenge every decision we make as leaders.

Response by SFC Stephen Hester made Apr 10 at 2015 8:29 PM

SFC Stephen Hester — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:29:16 -0400

NO! That's up to the Congress to decide and Federal law enforcement to act upon. The military has to remain impartial no matter what.

Response by Cadet PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 9:34 PM

Cadet PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 21:34:40 -0400

The military should not ever have the ability to depose of the president. That is called a coup de tat in any way you look at it and is also unconstitutional. The congressmen need i depose the president if necessary and federal agents will escort him from his premises. The government must be felt with by the government no one else.

Response by PO3 Angela White made Apr 10 at 2015 10:51 PM

PO3 Angela White — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 22:51:41 -0400

Call me a simpleton if you will but that seems pretty straightforward to me and the actions that we have all seen seem pretty straightforward also! This is why I am so confused by the lack of action from the people! Military and civilian!

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 10 at 2015 11:30 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:30:02 -0400

Who are the people who are judging what 'beyond reasonable doubt' is? And will they be above reasonable doubt themselves?

Response by SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA made Apr 11 at 2015 2:39 AM

SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 02:39:19 -0400

yawn.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Apr 11 at 2015 5:00 AM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 05:00:40 -0400

No the military should not as it would appear to be a coup of sorts however the military should present that evidence to the spineless legislators in congress as it is their function to have him arrested. I am not sure at what point the presidents men, secret service and marine guards would be required to cease protecting him. I am sure that it would be considered a racial incident by the present administration either way.

Response by SFC Gordon Potter made Apr 11 at 2015 8:21 PM

SFC Gordon Potter — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:21:18 -0400

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

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.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made Apr 11 at 2015 9:30 PM

SGT Anthony Bussing — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 21:30:15 -0400

everyone keeps talking about how President Obama has committed treason and how he has taken away our rights...I ask this question all the time....1. HOW has he committed treason? I mean hell, Ronald Reagan dealt arms to Iran for hostages, Reagan refused to allow US Marines the ability to defend their selves in a war zone and qound up getting 241 US Marines and Sailors killed...He was laundering cash from Iran to the Contras to over throw the government there...if those arent treasonous acts, I dont know what is....2. What rights have we had taken away? We still have freedom of speech, religion, to assemble, to bear arms, to vote etc...I just dont see what rights YOU have all lost, compared to me...because I havent lost any rights...When Bush pushed through the Patriot act, I lost my right to privacy...but you didnt hear any right wingers crying then....so, if someone could just enlighten me as to exactly how and what President Obama has done wrong...Id be greatly appreciative. 3. As many of us on here are combat vets...wouldnt you agree that after 14 years of non stop warfare and thousands of our men and women have been killed or maimed, that its a nice change of pace to have a president who prefers diplomacy to warfare? I certainly think so...Ive lost enough friends...Ive gone to too many funerals...Iran knows...if they piss us off or dont do what we want them to do...we can and will run through them like crap through a xmas goose...just like saddam knew...

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 12 at 2015 5:36 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 17:36:47 -0400

At the risk of opening mouth and removing all doubt:

Lots of passion, lots of innuendo. Military intervention makes us no better than all the crap juntas, dictatorships, etc. out there. We're better than that and if we know what's good for this country, the military better stay apolitical and save contentious stuff about the CinC privately for the ballot box. We exist to serve our country and its citizens. Stick to that and life is easier. If you need to invest in political aspects, either way, a career change is recommended.

Give a lot of credit to the Founding Fathers who had a pretty good idea in what manner a house should be cleaned. Saw SFC Potter was kind enough to cite the source. I've been to many of the "crap" countries and interesting enough, the citizens are surprised about two things in our culture. One is the military never jumps into government rule; after all that's what militaries do, isn't it? The other is there isn't government sponsored religion support by having shrines in schools, post offices, etc. They think the USA is the strange one. Having somewhat regular military intervention and essentially state sponsored religion is their "normal" and it's hard to visualize different.

I'm retired but honor the long tradition of our military by still acting responsible to the uniform. That means I keep certain thoughts private and save a touch of leakage over cigars and cognac on the porch privately.

The good thing about this string is a reminder that some things are "hands off, no way" making sure we know the "why".

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 6:38 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:38:22 -0400

The succinct answer is: no. The President is not under the jurisdiction of MPs; the military has no jurisdiction to make such an arrest.