Martin Lewis has written a piece at HuffPo, calling for General Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to arrest President Bush and relieve him of his duties of Commander in Chief.

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Article 133 reads:

“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

Never before have we ever had anyone call upon our military to overthrow our elected president, and regardless of Lewis’ play on words this is exactly the outcome that such an action would be.

Their link will be removed from our blogroll forthwith.

This is sedition and I will not condone it on our blog.

Update: Guss and I have discussed this and are in agreement we no longer want to link to HuffPo.

Hat Tip: Captain’s Quarters.

You can find the cowardly liberals Here
this is a story that J. referenced in her comment on Democrats see Clinton as strongest, most experienced leader.
I wonder if these are the same Democratic leaders that keep giving in to President Bush. They need to be replaced anyway.

WASHINGTON: Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarising for much of the country. She could jeopardise the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavourable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag” on many candidates, said Democratic state Reprenstative Dave Crooks.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton’s political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator’s campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination - despite privately held fears. The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

It’s time to call a spade a spade in a headline and I’m doing it the best way I can.

I’m going to give you a partial quote from this article, which I haven’t read yet and probably will not:

While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador,

Classified plan. How stupid is the Times to not realize a classified plan is not for public consumption? How traitorous is it for the unnamed sources to leak this information to that rag of a paper?

When is the justice department going to investigate who made the leak, find two witnesses (the writer of the Times and the editor should be two) and prosecute the leaker for treason? Since everyone is reading the Times article, finding two witnesses to that shouldn’t be a problem and they should be brought up on treason charges too.

Sure, all the liberals and all the newspapers will cry foul, but when our national secrets are at stake let them cry all they want. The truth of the matter is they have broken laws and betrayed the secrets of the United States so they can sell newspapers and some scumbag is feeding them the information.

A couple of sentences for treason might stop this from happening.