Re: OT: James Forrestal

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:07:12 +1000, Mike Burke <mburke@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:30:57 -0500, Howard Duck <hbduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

You may feel that the military is not answerable to the public they
are sworn to protect and defend. There are many police who take that
attitude also. Believe me, there is a lot of "public" who do not
agree, regardless of the attitudes reflected in this group. I'm sorry
that I'm not able to express myself with more aplomb on these and many
subjects that I have strong feelings about.

I don't fell that the military is not answerable to the public that
they are sworn to protect and defend (hold that latter thought,
because I'll get back to it!).

However, that doesn't mean that the military, individually or
collectively, are answerable, to every single member of that public,
at whim or on demand. The military is answerable to and through its
chain of command, and Joe Public isn't in that chain of command. The
military buck stops with the C-in-C, and it is the C-in-C who is
answerable to Mr & Mrs Joe Public.

On the latter point, I can't find any provision that includes anything
that can legally be construed as swearing "to protect and defend the
public". If the oath found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331----000-.html

?I, AB, 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; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.?

is the one taken by US military personnel, it is near enough in style
and content to the British (and Australian) one but for the reference
to the Queen in the latter. Thus, in the US case, military personnel
are sworn to protect the Constitution and to well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office.

This latter phrase could easily include shooting one or more members
of your public to death should the C-in-C so require it in the
President's "well and faithful discharge" of the duties of HIS office
from time to time.

Mique

This last statement you made is staggering, but in view of events we
read about in recent times I must think it fairly reflects government
policy and attitude. It seems that individuals that have displeased
government and military leadership have unaccountably died or
disappeared. Without considering due process by way of the courtroom
whereby criminals may justly be punished and even executed, there are
those who seem to have died unaccountably because the C-in-C
considered them a personal threat or simply offensive. This all
smacks of the reign of kings in past ages. At some point an incensed
public has been moved to a violent overthrow of tyrannical rule
because justice and due process have gone out the window. Consider
the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence and other
revolutionary acts of the people. The public, once unified in purpose
and moved to act in concert, can show itself powerful against tyranny
when peaceful protest no longer prevails. But heaven help us when a
nation implodes under the weight of anarchy. However, our government
was supposed to be more enlightened that. It was supposed to be a
government by the people and for the people. Government, police and
military were supposed to be considered subservient to the public
safety. But needless to say, due process was not intended to be ruled
by any individual's whim or by mob rule. And, no, it is not by pure
democratic rule of the majority either, but a republic guided by laws
set forth to protect the public from despotic tyranny.
--
Howard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Ping Razzo - Obama Gun Grab
    ... consider health care a fundamental human right. ... Most folks consider it a duty of government not only to protect human ... Rights are not things that government protect. ... Of course they can't literally and physically be everywhere all the time, but the very existence of laws, police, courts, prisons, etc. protects me. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Your rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, are gone by just the false accusations!
    ... nothing to protect me and or my men that are hunting Osama Bin Laden ... Government, of CNN, or Time Warner Cable. ... Jackson Michigan had already found the truth about those drugs and ... no real Scientist would claim AGW exists, and the Communists used the ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT: Ping Razzo - Obama Gun Grab
    ... If I refuse to give you my gun, your right to keep and bear arms has ... Most folks consider it a duty of government not only to protect human ... time, but the very existence of laws, police, courts, prisons, etc. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Karl Rove steps down
    ... There is precedent for this, as government has a long history, going growth of the industrial revolution in this country, of government stepping in to regulate private industry excesses. ... Isn't it better to protect ... two prominent progressive Republican presidents like Teddy Roosevelt ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: How to murder people with wood?
    ... non-citizens and use it to suspend their human rights. ... If you think most politicians are trying to actually protect you, ... Our government needs to be accountable to us. ... Every single thing America is ...
    (rec.woodworking)
Loading