BBC: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

[bigbird 60,926]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

[autigeremt 7,131]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Thank you, bird! My question? Does the president, being elected to office, fall underneath this provision?

[augolf1716 21,939]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Thank you, bird! My question? Does the president, being elected to office, fall underneath this provision?

good question

[alexava 6,974]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

he's black

[bigbird 60,926]

As a practical matter the president is not under UCMJ jurisdiction. In theory he (or she) might appear to qualify in certain circumstances, but if ever put to the legal test (i.e. litigation) the courts would almost certainly say "No Way." There has never been specific case law that I'm aware of, and I doubt the U.S. military is going to try it.

[bigbird 60,926]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

he's black

[autigeremt 7,131]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

he's black

..................

[WarEagle10 77]

Now I remember why I never debate politics. Wow!

[autigeremt 7,131]

As a practical matter the president is not under UCMJ jurisdiction. In theory he (or she) might appear to qualify in certain circumstances, but if ever put to the legal test (i.e. litigation) the courts would almost certainly say "No Way." There has never been specific case law that I'm aware of, and I doubt the U.S. military is going to try it.

Very true. Plus it appears to me to be new ground from a historical standpoint. I could be wrong.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Quite a reach.

[augolf1716 21,939]

Now I remember why I never debate politics. Wow!

ain't that the truth

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Quite a reach.

why?

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Now I remember why I never debate politics. Wow!

ain't that the truth

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Quite a reach.

why?

B/C none apply to this incident.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Texas. Do you have a problem with how this went down?

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Texas. Do you have a problem with how this went down?

What "this" are you referring to?

Clearly there were problems with inadequate security:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

[DKW 86 7,866]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

Ask Richard Milhouse Nixon...

So you don't know.

Tex, you know i dont play this game with you. .

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

Ask Richard Milhouse Nixon...

So you don't know.

Tex, you know i dont play this game with you. .

Sounds like you're long on games, short on substance...

[bigbird 60,926]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Quite a reach.

92-Failure to obey order or regulation

Any person subject to this chapter who

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The commander in chief is charged with making specific strategic decisions regarding the U.S. armed forces and directing the overall course of military action.

107-False official statements

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(1) That the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement;

(2) That the document or statement was false in certain particulars;

(3) That the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it; and

(4) That the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive.

http://www.americant...hazi_cover.html

133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman

(1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

(3) Examples of offenses Instances of violation of this article include knowingly making a false official statement; dishonorable failure to pay a debt; cheating on an exam; opening and reading a letter of another without authority; using insulting or defamatory language to another officer in that officer’s presence or about that officer to other military persons; being drunk and disorderly in a public place; public association with known prostitutes; committing or attempting to commit a crime involving moral turpitude; and failing without good cause to support the officer’s family.

[MDM4AU 337]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

he's black

Some one's parents were late getting them in bed it appears.

[DKW 86 7,866]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

Ask Richard Milhouse Nixon...

So you don't know.

Tex, you know i dont play this game with you. .

Sounds like you're long on games, short on substance...

No, i dont play your "I'll plead bogus ignorance and therefore keep asking inane questions until i wear you down and then i will declare victory while never actually having made any relevant point" game.

Love you man, but your schtick is long since gone stale.

Have a nice day.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Just curious-- Will all those that think this is an impeachable offense please concisely and dispassionately state the high crime and/or misdemeanor that you believe warrants impeachment?

Ask Richard Milhouse Nixon...

So you don't know.

Tex, you know i dont play this game with you. .

Sounds like you're long on games, short on substance...

No, i dont play your "I'll plead bogus ignorance and therefore keep asking inane questions until i wear you down and then i will declare victory while never actually having made any relevant point" game.

Love you man, but your schtick is long since gone stale.

Have a nice day.

Same for you. You guys are like a ranting mob with pitchforks demanding justice but can't be bothered to specify the crime. You've never wanted rational discussion, and this issue is no different.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Actus reus, by definition, means that there must be an action or physical movement. However, an act doesn't necessarily have to be a physical action, but can also be an omission or the act of possessing something. An omission, or failure to act, may constitute a criminal act if there is a duty to act.

Our consulates are sovereign US soil, just as if they were in your own backyard. If Americans are being attacked, it is his duty to act!

Can you cite the legal duty you're asserting was violated?

That said, to be found guilty of a crime, both mens rea(intent) and actus rea(action) are normally required. In this case, I believe you can prove actus rea, but not mens rea.

Article 92, 107, and 133 of the UCMJ

Quite a reach.

92-Failure to obey order or regulation

Any person subject to this chapter who

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The commander in chief is charged with making specific strategic decisions regarding the U.S. armed forces and directing the overall course of military action.

107-False official statements

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(1) That the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement;

(2) That the document or statement was false in certain particulars;

(3) That the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it; and

(4) That the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive.

http://www.americant...hazi_cover.html

133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman

(1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

(3) Examples of offenses Instances of violation of this article include knowingly making a false official statement; dishonorable failure to pay a debt; cheating on an exam; opening and reading a letter of another without authority; using insulting or defamatory language to another officer in that officer’s presence or about that officer to other military persons; being drunk and disorderly in a public place; public association with known prostitutes; committing or attempting to commit a crime involving moral turpitude; and failing without good cause to support the officer’s family.

Like I said, quite a reach.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Knowingly making a false statement is a crime. It's not a ' reach '.

What next.. debating what the definition of 'IS' is ?

Good grief.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Knowingly making a false statement is a crime. It's not a ' reach '.

What next.. debating what the definition of 'IS' is ?

Good grief.

Got a link to the official false statement Obama made that you believe violates this statute?

[cptau 169]

Keep in mind the entire impeachment process is one of the check and balance controls of the constitution. If the House wants him gone for any reason and the Senate agrees, the President is removed. There is no other control.

[Tigermike 3,657]

FTR - The Most Transparent President in History will not be impeached for trying to cover up his administrations actions in Benghazi.