From the pen of Lexington Northbridge Concord, born 19 April, 1975, forwarded to me via email this day with the comment: "More Americans, particularly military and police, must come to understand the significance of their oaths, and to accept their individual responsibilities when they violate their oaths."
A presumption unrebutted stands as true.
Lt. Col. Scott Wile's words:
And it was going to be a long, drawn out situation. ... we have mutual aid agreements with all of our local surrounding communities ... we called down to one of the local police departments and offered our assistance. ... they said, “Absolutely. We could use the military police." .... local law enforcement and the state law enforcement were establishing a cordon ... We took their posts for them.
... we realized that this was gonna be a major undertaking, ... All we provided was some security ... we provided relief forces for the guys that were working it.
We just relieved the guys that were blocking traffic and protecting the area.
What we did was we went down and just…we took our military police because we’re readily available. ... we just took up posts ....
We will provide assistance to our partner community.
All we were doing was enforcing the cordon.
I just had to respond with it. As the Provost Marshall, these are all my guys and this was a place that we needed to be ... We went down and took care of business.
I can just talk about the specific incident that we dealt with last night
My personal opinions have no bearing here whatsoever. I gotta run.
[emphasis added]
18 USC, § 1385
Whoever willfully uses any part of the Army to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
LTC Wile has by his willful initiative used the Army to, in his words, "call the local police and offer the assistance of the Army military police to stand at posts and enforce the cordon in a major undertaking ... he and his soldiers had to respond and deal with this incident; they took care of business."
Sounds like the transcript of a confession.
When any office-holder acts outside the authority of his office, he acts in his individual capacity. He has vacated his office, and his acts which abuse the powers of his former office are criminal acts and, in military cases, are treasonous acts.
When criminal acts are documented in pictures, and oral statements describing the acts are recorded and broadcast, is it not the charge of local, state and federal justice departments to investigate and bring charges against the criminal evildoers?
Remember: A presumption unrebutted stands as true.
Scott Wile acted outside of the authority of his office. He acted in his individual capacity. He vacated his office. He presumed that his individual abuse of the powers of his former office in the Army would would not be punished. His presumption must be rebutted.
In the event that it can be shown that Wile's office in the Army did not have the authority to order soldiers to "stand at posts" and "enforce the cordon", the actions of the soldiers doing so are the result of Wile's abuse of the Army. This is not only a matter for the Army to take up against Wile; it is for civil authorities to prosecute as well.
Wile made the declaratory statement that, "It was going to be a long, drawn out situation. This was gonna be a major undertaking." He can not pretend to defend his actions as insignificant or inconsequential.
Wile admitted that, "We have mutual aid agreements with our local surrounding communities. We will provide assistance to our partner community." Can that compromising condition be shown to be unlawful? Whom does he mean when he says "We"? Does he mean the Army? If so, where is the authorization for the Army to make agreements with the civil police? If he does not mean the Army when he says "We", then he means "I". That would be Wile acting in his individual capacity, and he would be abusing the powers of his former Army office. Who are those "communities"? Are they the civilian police departments? The warm and fuzzy words "surrounding" and "partner" when used to modify (pun intended) "community" can be intended to lower the vigilance of the real communities being controlled by the 'Only Ones'.
Wile initiated the unlawful action: "We called down to one of the local police departments."
Wile was in agreement with the civilian police to "use the military police in establishing a cordon ... We took their posts for them. We were enforcing the cordon." Wile, acting as an individual, used Army force upon the civilian population.
Wile, as an individual and not as an Army officer, unlawfully "provided some security ... we provided relief forces for the guys that were working it." 'Working it' is what one does as a job, as employment. Does Wile subconsciously or consciously imagine he is an independent contractor, "providing security, assistance, and relief" for the civilian "guys who are just workin' it"?!
Wile, as an individual and not as an Army officer, unlawfully "took our military police because we’re readily available. We were just directing traffic." An Army officer can not make the appraisal that soldiers are "available" for "enforcing" the behavior of civilians. Wile, the private individual, presumes that he can do that. Also, isn't "just directing traffic" the description of the 'workin' it' which was being done around the train stations in Germany in the late nineteen thirties?
Wile said, "I just had to respond. These are all my guys and this was a place that we needed to be. We went down and took care of business." Wile the private contractor was simply using his employees to take care of business, to "deal with the incident last night." No big thing - one hand washes the other. Besides, we've got agreements, ya know.
Last, and very much not least, Scott Wile was finally telling the truth when he said, "My personal opinions have no bearing here whatsoever. I gotta run." His personal opinions have no bearing in this sordid affair. His oath is everything in this horrific matter, although it evidently means very little to him. His presumption of innocence must be vigorously rebutted by both military and civilian authorities.
P.S.: just found this on DRS's blogspot:
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily DES MOINES, Iowa
Military spokesman Lt. Col. Greg Hapgood said, "In order to get that larger neighborhood feel or city feel, we have to be creative and partner with our communities."
Does this 'partnering with our communities' bode ill for American Citizens everywhere? ... Just asking ...
Lexington Northbridge Concord
2 comments:
If they wanted to help they could have contacted the Governor, you know, the only person in the state authorized to accept military assistance. Or the can just call up the local 5-0 and offer their services. Whats a few rules bent eh?
I recall the Brits in the colonies - and later the Germans wherever they felt like it - made it a habit of being so downright neighborly and communally interactive that they often moved in to share the homes of the subjects, I mean, neighbors, even sharing in their food and drink and occasionally opening themselves up very intimately to the ladies.
In fact... wasn't that practice addressed in some archaic old document?
Post a Comment