- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If He Needs to, Can Obama Successfully Claim "Presidential Immunity" For His Crimes?
Posted on 7/22/25 at 6:59 am to TutHillTiger
Posted on 7/22/25 at 6:59 am to TutHillTiger
quote:
Sorry Boyd but since the ruling in Thrump, all he had to do is say he was performing an official state act, which he clearly was and thus immunity will be applied. I told everyone that this will be a two sided sword and it is. This will go nowhere
Holy shiit yer ignorant.
0
Posted on 7/22/25 at 7:03 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
I was arguing with an idiot who is in denial that Russia targeted the US
And it is very clear that he was arguing with an idiot who refuses to admit that a sitting President, along with his intelligence commitee, knowing lied about the level of interference by Russia, in an attempt to paint the incoming President as if he was a Russian asset.
This post was edited on 7/22/25 at 7:04 am
Posted on 7/22/25 at 7:13 am to Goforit
Everything after this point was a sham and they knew it.
Posted on 7/22/25 at 7:29 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
I’m not a big Obama fan
But yet, you are one.
Is it because you find Big Mike attractive?
Posted on 7/22/25 at 7:32 am to TutHillTiger
quote:
all he had to do is say he was performing an official state act, which he clearly was and thus immunity will be applied.
Sedition is an official state act?
None of what you think is relevant anyway.
The UCMJ doesn’t care about what the judicial system has to say.
As the CiC, he is not subject to it.
However, if the civilian judicial system is deemed to be corrupted, then it can apply to acts of sedition or treason.
Will something come of it, who knows.
However, the pathway clearly exists.
This post was edited on 7/22/25 at 8:47 am
Posted on 7/22/25 at 7:38 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
The UCMJ doesn’t care about what the judicial system has to say.
Obama isn't subject to the UCMJ
What retardation
Posted on 7/22/25 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama isn't subject to the UCMJ
Wrong.
ANYONE can be subject to the UCMJ if the circumstances warrant it.
quote:
Civilian Employees
The Uniform Code of Military Justice stipulates that military law also covers civilians “serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States—except in Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Hawaiian Islands, and the Virgin Islands.”
quote:
The Code also states that any person, military or civilian, who “aids or attempts to aid, the enemy,” or who, “knowingly harbors or protects, or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with, or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly,” may be tried by courts-martial or military commission and, “given death or such lesser sentence as may be appropriate.”
The question is, does this apply?
I would suggest that Obama being the CiC when we are at war in Afghanistan provides a pathway.
Additionally, under the “Law of War” provision of the UCMJ:
quote:
Military commissions and tribunals can conduct legal proceedings against US and non-US citizens charged with violating the law. Aside from military-specific crimes, such as cowardice, desertion, and insubordination, like traditional civilian courts, the UCMJ hears various types of crimes committed under its jurisdiction; among them theft, robbery, assault, fraud, and murder. The UCMJ likewise carries out many international laws of war, which apply during an armed conflict, whether domestic or international.
Just a reminder, Obama ordered a U.S. civilian to be droned.
This post was edited on 7/22/25 at 8:57 am
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:14 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
ANYONE can be subject to the UCMJ if the circumstances warrant it.
Not "anyone"
quote:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice stipulates that military law also covers civilians “serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States
Has no application to the President/CIC, who is always considered a civilian with respect to the military.
quote:
The Code also states that any person, military or civilian, who “aids or attempts to aid, the enemy,” or who, “knowingly harbors or protects, or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with, or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly,” may be tried by courts-martial or military commission and, “given death or such lesser sentence as may be appropriate.”
How is providing intel assessments and orders as the head of the intelligence agencies aiding the enemy? What enemy?
Also, the Trump era is consolidating and solidifying power in the Executive with near-unquestionable power and little oversight. Obama was the head of the Executive as President. He alone determines who is "the enemy" for this discussion (remember the discussions about the Aliens and Enemies Act? Where this same distinction was argued to be a political question that cannot even be reviewed by courts?)
quote:
The question is, does this apply?
No
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:14 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Just a reminder, Obama ordered a U.S. civilian to be droned.
You may have won the award for most random and irrelevant post of the day on here...by 915am (CST)
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama was the head of the Executive as President. He alone determines who is "the enemy" for this discussion (remember the discussions about the Aliens and Enemies Act? Where this same distinction was argued to be a political question that cannot even be reviewed by courts?)
So just to clarify your position, you believe that Americans can be arbitrarily labeled as enemies by the President, and then be killed without due process?
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You may have won the award for most random and irrelevant post of the day on here
Irrelevant?
quote:
Military commissions and tribunals can conduct legal proceedings against US and non-US citizens charged with violating the law. Aside from military-specific crimes, such as cowardice, desertion, and insubordination, like traditional civilian courts, the UCMJ hears various types of crimes committed under its jurisdiction; among them theft, robbery, assault, fraud, and murder.
So murder doesn’t apply in your view, despite it being listed in the UCMJ otseld?
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:20 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
So just to clarify your position, you believe that Americans can be arbitrarily labeled as enemies by the President, and then be killed without due process?
No. I'm saying that was the position of MAGA a few months ago (see: "was argued"...I didn't make that argument. I argued there should always be judicial oversight).
I'm pointing out their non-shocking pivot when given Pavlovian stimuli from online echo chamber content creators/grifters.
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:21 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
So murder doesn’t apply in your view, despite it being listed in the UCMJ otseld?
Read the important part of that quoted text:
quote:
under its jurisdiction
It only has jurisdiction over certain murders that fall within the statutory framework giving that jurisdiction.
As has been explained to you, Obama was not under that jurisdiction.
This post was edited on 7/22/25 at 9:21 am
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:25 am to SlowFlowPro
The Laws of War provision of the UCMJ is something that you choose to ignore.
It’s willfulness ignorance on your part.
I posted the relevant info.
You have chosen to double down on your ignorance.
Just out of curiosity, when you served as a JAG officer, how well versed were you with the UCMJ?
It’s willfulness ignorance on your part.
I posted the relevant info.
You have chosen to double down on your ignorance.
Just out of curiosity, when you served as a JAG officer, how well versed were you with the UCMJ?
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So just to clarify your position, you believe that Americans can be arbitrarily labeled as enemies by the President, and then be killed without due process?
quote:
No. I'm saying that was the position of MAGA a few months ago
Links for your non-answer.
Let me rephrase the question:
Do you believe that Americans can be arbitrarily labeled as enemies by the President, and the via orders from the President, be killed by the US military with no accountability or culpability for the President?
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:34 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
I posted the relevant info.
What you posted, I already refuted, in detail.
quote:
The Laws of War provision of the UCMJ
How did this apply, specifically? Cite the relevant portions of the code and the contemporary statuses/decisions/behaviors that apply.
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:35 am to jimmy the leg
quote:\
Links for your non-answer.
I answered. You just chose to leave that part out of your quote
quote:
Do you believe that Americans can be arbitrarily labeled as enemies by the President, and the via orders from the President, be killed by the US military with no accountability or culpability for the President?
Do you want my opinion or the legal standard?
I already gave you my opinion.
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:36 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
JAG officer
So close.
Remove the “icer” and you’ve described him to a tee.
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I already refuted, in detail.
Why lie?
quote:
How did this apply, specifically?
Murder
quote:
the relevant portions of the code
Murder
quote:
and the contemporary statuses/decisions/behaviors that apply.
Murder
Posted on 7/22/25 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I already gave you my opinion.
You deflected with some bullshite MAGA comment while providing a non-answer.
The following requires simply is a yea or no answer:
quote:
Do you believe that Americans can be arbitrarily labeled as enemies by the President, and the via orders from the President, be killed by the US military with no accountability or culpability for the President?
You chose neither (cowardice).
I’m not surprised.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News