We generally agree with your presentation; however, we also recognize why veterans would like the proposal and active military personnel might fear taking such actions. Veterans are free from the military command structure; however, acting military personnel are not; and, ones time in the military is usually benefitted by honoring command (even if the command is wrong). Further, progression through the military system is rewarded by both advancement in rank and choice of duty. The opposite is also true. Punishment can include anything from loss of rank to death. Thus, it is no wonder that active service personnel might be frightened by a proposal that required them to challenge command due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Of course, the events of that day (evidenced by the remaining physical record, the missing (confiscated) evidence, the unanswered questions and the obvious cover-up) all point to the action being an inside Corp. U.S. job supported or inspired by the highest levels of Corp. U.S.’ powers of governance. Nonetheless, to date, no legal action has been sustained that succeeded in bringing the parties or the events to a reckoning. Thus, though turning to military personnel for such a challenge does make sense, the dangers of so bringing such an action remain; even though, military law requires military personnel to bring such actions; if they are aware of them.
The problems related to bringing such an action also stand in the way. For example: though any lame brained idiot can look at the facts of that day of destruction and murder and see that the facts that have been released to the public do not match the events of the day and that the available evidence of the truth has been confiscated and not made available either to the media or to the congressional review. Thus, there is significant evidence of corruption at the highest levels. So, to bring such an issue to justice one must find the parties responsible.
The bottom line: to act on the remedy you suggested, it is not enough to know that acts of mutiny, sedition or espionage have taken place; for there to be any cause for action regarding such acts, you have to be able to prove, with specificity, who the responsible parties are. The difficulty in bringing a successful action is then limited by the fact that all official capacities are essentially contractually created capacities; therefore, it is impossible for any official to violate the law. Thus, to contest the lawfulness of any official’s action, one must prove the party lending consciousness and physical capacity to the office acted unlawfully. Again, that requires knowing what the individually responsible party did and proving their actions beyond any reasonable doubt.
Again, you cannot lawfully withhold services based upon the mere allegation of mutiny, sedition or espionage; you have to be able to show who the guilty parties are.
You indicated: “Soldiers cannot be constitutional if they just start shooting.” However, soldiers are compelled to follow orders and those orders have to be followed even though the soldier may not agree with the cause. Again, that is part of the contractual agreement the soldier agrees to at signup. Further, though there is a proper chain of command process for contesting questionable orders that process cannot be taken lightly. We are reminded of the WWI story about 'Sergeant Alvin Cullum York
’. He was a Tennessean that contested his being drafted into the Army as a conscientious objector based upon his religious conviction in God’s law: “Thou shalt not kill.” His contest was denied because the Christian Church he was a member of was not part of a formally organized religion; accordingly, he was compelled into service. In boot camp he was treated poorly by command because his record showed that he was a conscientious objector; but, when his proficient performance on the rifle range proved he was a dead-on shot, his base commander took an interest in him and offered him a rank advancement and training position. In an interview the commander sought to understand why he was a conscientious objector and discovered the righteous roots of the objection. Respectively, the commander (also a Christian) gave York a national history book to read and leave time to go and reconsider his objection offering to grant his objection if York did not change his mind. York went home to consider the matter while he read the history of this nation wherein Liberty was proven to be a right that required defense. York also found support for that concept in the scriptures and returned to the military base willing to continue forward. After training, York was sent to Europe with his troop and there he was responsible for almost single handedly capturing 132 of the enemy. When the commander asked how he accomplished the task he responded by relating the story, of how he obtained command and then virtually single handedly captured the enemy’s command post virtually securing the surrender of its entire command. The story related the necessity for York’s shooting several of the enemy in the process. However, they discovered York’s motive for shooting those men was to save lives of both his men and of those he captured. Respective to these events Sgt. York became one of the most decorated soldiers of WWI.
The point of this story is the fact that regardless of Alvin York’s personal beliefs, he still had to fight in the war and he was still to defensively kill other men. Though it should go without saying, most people are of the same mind, not to kill others, just as Alvin York was; but, wars cause death; and, defending against attacking enemies with lethal force is lawful and proper.
So, you might ask: “What does all of that have to do with your proposal and/or your question?”
It’s simple. Similar to the situation described in our article on Sovereignty
, where we reviewed State statutes that require marriage licenses, though such laws remain on the books in most States, that does not mean those laws are lawful. However, so long as the people fail to lawfully contest and compel the removal of such unlawful laws their enforcement will remain constant. That being the case, though a soldier may be aware of acts of mutiny, sedition and/or espionage, if that soldier cannot provide evidence of those crimes against any individuals that may have been so involved, the soldier does not likely possess enough evidence to call into action a board of review. Further, if the evidence available to the soldier is common knowledge (such as is the case of the media disclosed events that surround September 11, 2001), but is not specific enough to identify the perpetrators of the respective action, then it is highly unlikely that reporting those events would qualify even under the codes you referenced.
However, if a soldier was aware of specific actions and/or events, including but not limited to, respective commands from superiors and they did not report those matters, they would come subject to those requirements for reporting the crimes.
Still, those that are so aware might fear for their lives if they did so come forth with such a report; given the level of the cover-up and the number of lives that have already been lost.
From what you provided, the only element we can see beyond those limitations that you might be referring to would be the proposal that a soldier might question command merely because it is apparent that the chain of command has potentially been compromised. In that case, a soldier could voice that opinion, but like Alvin York, he was still subject to the draft and had to go to war even though he objected. Like with him, a soldier might get poor treatment due to the report; but, such a report would not provide any means for the soldier to avoid compliance with command or suffer the respective consequences.
Again, that is because though people filling offices can (and often do go wrong) the office itself cannot; and it is the office that compels compliance with the command.
Thus, again, where the codes you referenced all reference: “If any person” [regardless of : “Earth shaking (proof)
about the way civil government handled it (the events of 911)
; pursuant to title 18, part I, chapter 115 §2382 …submitted to a US district court” (italicized content added)
], absent proof that specifically identifies one or more actors as the perpetrators of the acts in question, the soldier would have nothing to report. However, if the soldier did have evidence that specifically identified such an actor, then the soldier would be required to raise such charges to a rightful board of review.
For us to delve into the specifics necessary to help such a soldier learn what acts they could take if such an action were warranted would require Team Law beneficiary support
We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law!