"... against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[Cyrano]

Every single member of the military and federal law enforcement agencies (the FBI, the CIA, the U.S. Marshal's Service, the secret service, etc.) took an oath to "... protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The oath is to the constitution, not the president. That Bush and his cohorts are domestic enemies, intent on destroying the constitution, is undeniable. He has put himself above congress, the courts, the constitution, and international laws we have agreed to and signed. I believe that any reasonable observer would define him as a threat to this country, its population, and to the rest of the world. If this doesn't fit the definition of a domestic enemy, I don't know what does.

It is therefore lawful for the military, and/or federal law enforcement agencies, to arrest him and turn him over to the courts for trial. Realistically, it won't happen. But it is a fully constitutional course that can and should be followed.

(Edited for spelling.)

[rogerashton]

1. Impeachment would be the necessary first step, but

with the Congress controlled by domestic enemies, that won't happen.

[marmar]

2. "with the Congress controlled by domestic enemies"

Ain't that the truth. We live in an occupied country.

[Cyrano]

3. I'm not sure if impeachment is necessary. Given the nature of the

oath, it might be possible to bypass impeachment. But I think we'd need the opinion of a constitutional lawyer on that.

[cali]

12. Who are the domestic

enemies that you believe control Congress?

[rogerashton]

14. The Totalitarian Republican Party

If you buy that George* is an enemy of the constitution, and the Pub congress won't impeach him because it would harm their partisan power, that makes them part of the anticonstitutional conspiracy.

[Solly Mack]

4. The full oath

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC502



``I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. So help me God.''

Now, that doesn't mean they can obey an illegal order(the UCMJ states plainly that troops cannot)...but our government has in no way acknowledged that Iraq was/is illegal(and it will never acknowledge it). Yes, by all the laws governing warfare, it IS illegal. You'll never hear me say otherwise. However, America ain't exactly operating on the premise that it's doing anything illegal in Iraq.(or anywhere else for that matter)

That goes to show just how much of a crisis America is in...our government is legitimizing it's own crimes simply by not calling a crime a crime. But then no one really expects the government to hold itself responsible do they? The government isn't going to ever say - "Yeah, we committed a war crime..Yeah, the invasion was illegal"...Oh, they'll speak of "mistakes made" but the U.S. government ain't about to hold itself accountable. It doesn't have the courage to do so.

And you best believe that Bush sees the part about obeying the orders of the President as far more important than defending the Constitution. And we all know how Bush cherry picks which laws he will follow, and he has no problem ignoring laws either.

Now, nothing I've said excuses a single war crime committed by any of the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan , GTMO or wherever they are..."following orders" is not an excuse...especially since you are obligated to not follow an illegal order

But there's the rub...America will never admit to Iraq being illegal and a war crime...so just being in Iraq isn't following an unlawful order...even if the invasion is illegal. The illegality of the invasion falls squarely on the government...the same government that will never admit the invasion was illegal. However, war crimes committed while in Iraq/Afghanistan/Cuba are the government's doing and the doing of the troops that engage in war crimes.

I'm trying to show just how fucked up it all is....our country is in a Constitutional crisis of mega-proportions. Where the "rule of law" means absolutely nothing and breaking the law by one branch of government is legitimized by another branch of government.


When troops say "we we ordered by our command" to torture,etc., they are telling the truth...but since it's unlawful to obey an unlawful order, they get all the punishment and it doesn't go to the top..afterall, the distortion of our current reality allows that the government isn't doing anything illegal..."a few bad apples" are...so even though we know it's government policy to torture, the government refuses to call it's actions illegal - so it's not them...it's the "bad apples".

The U.S. government is getting away with war crimes - because the U.S. government isn't going to blame itself. It'll use the law to break the law and blame all the bad on a "few bad apples"

Again, this in no way excuses the troops that engage in war crimes - but it does further expose just how fucked up the whole thing is...

[Cyrano]

6. Good analysis, Solly Mack. Unfortunately, it brings us full circle to

where everything being done in our name is illegal and there's not a thing we can do about it. Nor can individual military personnel who may agree with us.

The only way it could be done is if it were led by the top military brass who may or may not agree with the lunatics running the government. And assuming they were willing to act, it sets up a "Seven Days In May" scenario: a military coup after which, who would be in charge? Not a pretty picture no matter how we look at it.

[Solly Mack]

13. We really are screwed. No one wants to admit just how bad it is

but that I mean no one in government. The very same system that is being used to commit the crimes is also being used to legitimize those crimes - and propping up the illusion that this same system, which is infected with corruption, can be used to cure the problem.

The cure isn't as simple as an election. There must be accountability for the crimes. There must be a public airing of all the crimes. The depth of the crisis must be exposed for all Americans to see...and see clearly. Americans can handle the bad - they'll recover. I'm so sick of the thinking that Americans are too weak to take the truth. Sure, it'll shatter some illusions but those illusions need to be shattered.

We can't lie this away. We can't pretend it's not happening. Time alone will not heal these wounds. The very foundation of our society is being torn asunder. The face of America has been altered and not for the better.

And unless we honestly - no matter how painful - address the crimes and hold the guilty accountable, America will continue on this downward spiral.

But how do we hold the guilty accountable with a Congress all too willing to legitimize the crimes of the executive?

And unless government can admit the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and that America is committing war crimes, and say it in those exact words - and not use the safe phrase "mistakes were made" - they're still just legitimizing crimes.

It's a horrible, horrible mess.

[Hugin]

18. That oath is particular to serving members of the military...

All of the rest exclude any reference to the CIC.

[Solly Mack]

19. Yes, I know. I was using the enlisted oath to make a point

the OP was also talking about oaths and the military.(not just the military, I know)

[bdamomma]

5. then we as a people can overthrow this government

if we feel threatened by this government, that is why it is in our Constitution we do have a say in this, we all can see our government is totally deranged. I would hate to think of ourselves as being gutless/powerless to not to do anything and let this regime continue their reign of terror.

[Cyrano]

7. Nonetheless, alyce, we are powerless to do anything about it.

Bush and his thugs would immediately turn loose the military and police on those who took to the streets. Students at Kent State were shot down during the Vietnam War just for protesting. They weren't armed. They weren't attacking the national guard. They were only exercising their right to speak out against the war.

Do you think madmen like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't react to widespread unrest with everything at their disposal? The only way we can beat them is through the ballot box, and I wish I had more confidence that they won't steal it again this year. And if they do, their reign of terror will continue.

[bdamomma]

17. then why do other nations get out in the streets to demand

changes in their governments for those who are abusing peoples' rights, they would rather see justice done then to live in terror and abuse of law. This regime knows they have been unchallenged, and until they are challenged they will keep doing what they are doing, and we are nothing but their victims. I do believe in the ballot box but there is a point when you just have to make a stand.

[Cyrano]

20. Everyone who has tried to protest this administration has been

swift boated, called traitors, and mercilessly attacked by the corporate, lapdog media.

As far as taking to the streets, it would be suicide. People in Europe and South America (for the most part) can take to the streets without fear of being shot down. A closer analogy of what would happen here is what happened in Tienamen Square in China where they brought in tanks and proceeded to murder their own citizens. Do you really believe Bush & Co. aren't capable of that? Who's to stop them?

[hootinholler]

8. Prove it.

Show me the oath they swear, verbatim, where is it defined?

I looked for a long time on the net and couldn't find the oath the US Marshals swear.

The Military does, but I'm not so sure about everyone else. Oh, I was headed down the same path when I started looking in 2004, gave up in early 2005.

-Hoot

[Cyrano]

9. I did a google search for federal oath of office.

The second item is posted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and it states the oath of office for federal civil servants, which, as far as I know, is everyone who works for the federal government.

http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

(on edit: the one for the military is stated above in post #4.)

[hootinholler]

10. Thanks.

It didn't occur to me to use federal oath. I wonder if this is the one used by the US Marshals, as there were articles of dubious quality which state that references to the Constitution were dropped.

-Hoot

[Cyrano]

11. I'm not sure. It could vary a bit depending on the department and

their area of responsibilities. For example, it's possible that the Secret Service adds a phrase referring specifically to the president, but I really don't know.

[shadowknows69]

15. If Bush were somehow convicted of crimes against the Constitution

Couldn't the Military then use the oath to remove him as he would be officially an enemy combatant at that point heh. Good dream eh?

[bdamomma]

16. well, the American Bar Association are trying to hold bush

accountable about all his abuses for those signing statements.