Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 9/26/2004 7:10:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 7:12:37 AM EST by FiveO]


Every definition of the word civilian I can find excludes military and LEOs, some even exclude fire fighters so I would like to know why so many here love to argue the point?

I could care less but the literal definition of civilian does exclude my profession. Is it the basic resentment of LEOs that is so prevalent here and therefore the thought that something (even something so trivial) could separate LEOs from the general populace that leads to these arguments or are those who debate the point using their own dictionary? Is it "title envy" akin to penis envy?

Websters
ci•vil•ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force

Dictionary.com
ci•vil•ian
A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.

Cambridge
civilian
noun [C]
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces

Houghton Mifflin
ci•vil•ian
NOUN:
A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.

I could go on but you get the point.

Please note that it is others who cry over this topic. I am merely asking for their justification for the distinction they toss out so often.

Seriously, (LarryG for example) PLEASE give me your rationale. What source of accepted word meanings and useage are you using?


Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:22:00 AM EST
Because the declaration of independence declared all men created equal, and the constitution was supposed to be equal protection under the law but the SCOTUShas ruled officer safety above all else and left to the whim of the officer to decide what warrant leathal force, so the officer become judge jury and executioner and innocent people are shot and killed, no one feels safe in thier homes, in short the civilians feel that the government and its agents is out to get them and they are correct.

Tyranny always wears a uniform, it is always the state that takes away the freedom, rights and security.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:28:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 7:30:21 AM EST by tcsd1236]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Because the declaration of independence declared all men created equal, and the constitution was supposed to be equal protection under the law but the SCOTUS has ruled officer safety above all else and left to the whim of the officer to decide what warrant leathal force, so the officer become judge jury and executioner and innocent people are shot and killed, no one feels safe in thier homes, in short the civilians feel that the government and its agents is out to get them and they are correct.

Tyranny always wears a uniform, it is always the state that takes away the freedom, rights and security.



Society recognizes that soemone who assaults/ kills officers is doing something more than simply commiting murder or assulat; there are factors at play in such incidents, such as someone assaulting an officer to avoid lawful aprehension that makes the crime more serious than it being simply another assault. I have no problem with the law recognizing those types of factors and making the penalties harsher for such actions. It ahs nothing to do with the officer personally being better than anyone else.

Your comment about the officer being judge jury and executioner is preposterous. Officers make the same use of force decisions as anyone else faced with a use of force against them. That decision making process does not make them some sort of executioner.
As for this thread, the whol "civilian/ LEO" thing has been beat to death. Maybe AR15 needs a "best of " topics area to stick frequent topics so such threads don't keep repeating themselves over and over.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:32:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:33:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
That decision making process does not make them some sort of executioner.
As for this thread, the whol "civilian/ LEO" thing has been beat to death. Maybe AR15 needs a "best of " topics area to stick frequent topics so such threads don't keep repeating themselves over and over.



A day doesn't go by without cops shooting an unarmed man, the police have superior numbers and the law on thier side they should not be able to shoot and kill with the only excuse "I was in fear for my life".

A young following the order of the FBI was shot in the face for obeying the officers command.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:37:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 7:52:56 AM EST by Pangea]

Originally Posted By brasspile:
I beleive there is a difference between military duty and being a police officer.

They have similarities in aspects, but many differences.

The "distance" between the 'general populace' and Law Enforcement is much smaller than the distance between same group and the US Military.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but best I can word my view on it.

I am not anti-LEO, but I also don't like LEO who think they are military and entitled to all of the same benefits of being in active duty. Mostly because the UCMJ applies 24/7 for active duty, and the department rules mostly apply only while "on duty" for LEO.



Excelent. You wrote what I thought.


Edited to add that seperating Law Enforcement from non Law Enforcement with civilian/ non-civilian perpetuates the "Them versus Us" attitude.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:39:30 AM EST
i see no problem with the distinction that LEOs are not civilians.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:42:11 AM EST
We could REALLY use the actor Tommy Lee Jones on this thread...

...hey! He's got a degree in English from Harvard
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:47:40 AM EST
I work for a police department. In the wording of the department I am a civilian, they are merits. That's why I never wind up referring to them as civilians. The gun, the badge, the training, they are merit officers. I have no gun, no badge, no training - I am a civilian. It's a force of habit.

When one dedicates their life to the protection of the rights of the non-law enforcement/military personnel or the country as a whole, I believe should they be slain, more severe action is appropriate. Just like you can bet the guy who shoots the president's gonna be caught and he's gonna die. He's just an elected civilian... Why's he so special? No no don't read into it that I feel that police and military rank up with the president.

They are not judge, jury and executioner. They protect their own lives just as you are empowered to protect your own life. You can't ask them not to do that.
Every day an officer kills an unarmed civilian???

Please, I'd like the links for the last 14 days proving your case. Must be one unarmed person killed by a police officer to qualify.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:47:52 AM EST
I think context counts for something in these discussions.

When I'm in uniform everyone else (Cops included) are "Civilians".

When I'm in uniform and getting pulled-OVER by a cop? I'M the civilian

In the end, does the difference really matter? Sure, I know guys who seem to 'thrive" on their "status" as "Not-A-Civilian" but they're few and far between and most of us (IMHO) could care less about the "distinction" and I'm bettin' (From the tone of this thread) that most of you feel the same.

Look at it (The civilian moniker) the same as a "Not one of us" label with about as much 'weight'.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:02:53 AM EST
IMHO the police arent in the protection biz., they catch criminals. Its a sh*tty and sometimes dangerous job and they should be honored if they fall in the line of duty but everytime someone gets teary eyed about how they protect us it gets my dander up. In the vast majority of assaults murders rapes and what have you the police dont stop the crime, they just catch the guy who did it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:10:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By ShortyForty: In the vast majority of assaults murders rapes and what have you the police dont stop the crime, they just catch the guy who did it.


You don't think that by catching that person that we are preventing future crimes that person would have committed had they remained free? Most criminals are serial offenders; they don't do ONE crime and then stop.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:17:30 AM EST
The meaning of civilian has changed to exclude peace officers.

The meaning and role of peace officer has changed dramatically as well.

I do not view militarized swat members as peace officers, and if they do not think of themselves as civilians it is no surprise to me. We both know they are The Man, and occupy a different rung on the ladder of society than mine.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:18:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
A day doesn't go by without cops shooting an unarmed man, the police have superior numbers and the law on thier side they should not be able to shoot and kill with the only excuse "I was in fear for my life".


A day doesn't go by , eh? Maybe on a national scale you might be able to even come close to such a comment, even though it would be in error. At a national scale, you are dealing with thousands upon thousands of officers working 8-12 hour shifts. Statistically, SOME of those officers will encounter situations where they have to use deadly physical force. The same could be said of any function of any career out there; SOME members of that profession will have to so something fairly unusual that isn't normally dealt with every day.It just so happens that our career involves the use of physical force/ deadly physical force. Whether that adds up to one a day, so? Is that significant given the numbers of officers we are talking about on a NATIONAL scale? Even if it is true, which I doubt?

As for the fear of life justification, that is an entirely justifiable, legal defense that is not limited to officers only. Just yesterday we had a woman near-by who shot her other half while being beaten because she feared for her life. Would you deprive her of that defense? I certainly would not. Or are you suggesting that only officers should not have that justification of use of deadly physical force available to them?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:24:01 AM EST
In my eyes,...

If you can walk into work and say "I quit" and then go home without being incarcerated - then you're a civilian.

But that's just me.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:28:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 8:32:01 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:29:50 AM EST
I love the police, except when they tell me what to do
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:33:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
In my eyes,...

If you can walk into work and say "I quit" and then go home without being incarcerated - then you're a civilian.

But that's just me.



That is the way I see it too. Citizen is a better word than Civilian. This them/us crap has got to stop. Most cops know they are one fuck-up away from flipping burgers. It is easy to get fired in LEO jobs, and non-hackers can quit, as well. Much different from military/civilian.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:42:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:44:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
I personaly don't have a problem with the use of the term civilian by police. Call a rose by any other name..............

I do find the militarization of our LEOs and the "Us against Them" widening valley very disturbing. Don't get me wrong, I think our cops need the best weapons available but camo, black suits, and face masks, you kind of leave the realm of peace officers and enter the realm of government thug or secret police. IMHO this feeds "The Us against Them" the most. The "Us against Them" valley is a two way street that seems to continue to widen on both sides. More and more cops treat every citizen as a criminal and more and more citizens treat cops as JBTs. Like a plague they perpetuate themselves by the rats who carry it.

I guess we all have a choice in life no matter what your job, you can be part of the solution or part of the problem.

Of course, both LEOs and citizens would be alot better off if we didn't have the politicians digging a damn ditch in our road.

Tj




In the words of Colonel Jeff Cooper: "Criminals wear masks".
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:50:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By wildearp:
In the words of Colonel Jeff Cooper: "Criminals wear masks".



Lock up the children on halloween!!

Seriously now. SWAT does it to keep from being seen. Just like hunters wear sometimes masks..which reminds me...

Lock up the hunters!
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:50:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:53:01 AM EST
Oh heck, I usually stay out of these - but since this one was actually started by a cop, I must ask:

1) What do you cop types think about refering to actrive duty military officers - or even enlisted members - as "civilians?" Surely you understand that some of us find that quite amusing.

2) What term to you use to differentiate military law from the law you enforce?


Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:55:44 AM EST
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:55:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:


I am not anti-LEO, but I also don't like LEO who think they are military and entitled to all of the same benefits of being in active duty. Mostly because the UCMJ applies 24/7 for active duty, and the department rules mostly apply only while "on duty" for LEO.



Sorry to disagree with a mod, but you are flat wrong. LEOs are held to the line 24/7 in most departments. More cops are fired and/or prosecuted for off-duty misconduct than on-duty.

Military: Do the wrong thing and get court martialed and dishonorably discharged.

Police: Do the wrong thing and get criminally charged and fired.

Please explain the difference.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:57:35 AM EST
We are all citizens.
IMO, the only non civilians are the military.
As was pointed out, if you can quit and walk away, you're a civilian. LEOs can walk away whenever they like, its just a job.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:57:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?


Where did you hear that he is the top LEO? He is Commander of the Armed Forces, but I have never heard of him being called the top LEO. If anything, the AG is considered for that role.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:01:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 9:03:32 AM EST by WackyG]

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?


Where did you hear that he is the top LEO? He is Commander of the Armed Forces, but I have never heard of him being called the top LEO. If anything, the AG is considered for that role.



Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch interprets the laws, Executive branch enforces the laws. Civics 101. And the AG's boss is who?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:01:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
We are all citizens.
IMO, the only non civilians are the military.
As was pointed out, if you can quit and walk away, you're a civilian. LEOs can walk away whenever they like, its just a job.



And so is the military. There may be ramifications, but people can and do walk away all the time.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:01:32 AM EST


The members of the military are subject to the UCMJ. LEO's are not. Big difference in my small mind.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:05:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By WackyG:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?


Where did you hear that he is the top LEO? He is Commander of the Armed Forces, but I have never heard of him being called the top LEO. If anything, the AG is considered for that role.



Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch interprets the laws, Executive branch enforces the laws. Civics 101. And the AG's boss is who?



The AG is the seventh in the line of succession to the president and is a cabinet-level post. As such, he answers both to Congress and the president.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:06:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By WackyG:
Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch interprets the laws, Executive branch enforces the laws. Civics 101 And the AG's boss is who?


He is NOT an LEO. He has no arrest powers. That is the definition to me of who is an LEO, civics lessons aside. Aside from that, we act as LEOs as officers of the court.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:06:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
We are all citizens.
IMO, the only non civilians are the military.
As was pointed out, if you can quit and walk away, you're a civilian. LEOs can walk away whenever they like, its just a job.



And so is the military. There may be ramifications, but people can and do walk away all the time.



You quit the force nothing happens other than you need another job.
You quit the military you are court martialed, dishonorably discharged and possibly jailed.
Thats a huge difference in my book.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:10:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch interprets the laws, Executive branch enforces the laws. Civics 101 And the AG's boss is who?


He is NOT an LEO. He has no arrest powers. That is the definition to me of who is an LEO, civics lessons aside. Aside from that, we act as LEOs as officers of the court.



Make up whatever defination you want....as the head of the branch of govt that enforces the laws, he is the chief law enforcement officer.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:11:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
We are all citizens.
IMO, the only non civilians are the military.
As was pointed out, if you can quit and walk away, you're a civilian. LEOs can walk away whenever they like, its just a job.



And so is the military. There may be ramifications, but people can and do walk away all the time.



You quit the force nothing happens other than you need another job.
You quit the military you are court martialed, dishonorably discharged and possibly jailed.
Thats a huge difference in my book.



The only reason you'd face that kind of penalty for quitting the military is because you sign a contract knowing the stipulations of said contract. Therefore it makes sense it would have stricter ramifications being a legally binding document. You don't have to sign a contract to be an LEO. Not to mention, even as a non-LEO employee of a police department, you are held responsible as a member of the department even when you are not on the clock. Everything you say and do apparently can be used against you at work. That doesn't happen at most jobs, with the exception of a criminal conviction.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:12:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By WackyG:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?


Where did you hear that he is the top LEO? He is Commander of the Armed Forces, but I have never heard of him being called the top LEO. If anything, the AG is considered for that role.



Legislative branch makes the laws, Judicial branch interprets the laws, Executive branch enforces the laws. Civics 101. And the AG's boss is who?



The AG is the seventh in the line of succession to the president and is a cabinet-level post. As such, he answers both to Congress and the president.



He is appointed by the President and may be fired at will by the President..Congress only has "advice and consent"
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:12:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 9:14:12 AM EST by brasspile]
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:14:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?



Uhhh, no. POTUS is the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces (military)



Are you attempting to say that POTUS is military....back to Civics class
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:14:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 9:16:49 AM EST by Garand_Shooter]
Two points:

#1-The definition of the word has changed............... look at some older dictionaries and you will see in most cases they say non-military only. However LE and others have misused the term for so long it has come to be accepted as such.

#-2 Federal law says that anyone not subject to the UCMJ is a civilian, and refers in many cases to "civilian law enforcement". So according to Federal law if your not subject to the UCMJ you are a civilian, period. I have challenged people here in the past to show me one example of Federal or state law that refers to officers as non-civilians. I was told it existed, but then they failed to show me examples. You would think that LEO's would strive to be somewhat legally accurate in the terminoligy they use.

And I too would be interested in how you refer to someone who is in the military? Are they still "civilians"?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:15:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:


You quit the force nothing happens other than you need another job.
You quit the military you are court martialed, dishonorably discharged and possibly jailed.
Thats a huge difference in my book.



As to that one offense, I agree with you. Police officers are charged with anything and everything you could imagine and suffer the penelties. As a rule, once fired as a cop, you are hosed in that line of work for life.

Sorry to perpetuate this, but anyone who simplifies the job of a police officer by saying it's just a job, has no idea what they are talking about.

Let's take a cop and a soldier and put them in my little scenario:

They are together at a restaurant "off-duty." The establishment is robbed, and an employee is killed. The dynamic duo simply leave and offer no help to responding police. The penalty for the soldier (correct me if I'm wrong UCMJ-wise) is nothing. The cop is fired.

Why is there such a leaning on this board toward minimizing the role of police in America? Take them out of the equation and there is total anarchy - meaning no country possible. The same is true for soldiers.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:15:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 9:18:36 AM EST by brasspile]
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:15:47 AM EST
look up the definition of the word in older dictionaries. It;s only as of the last probably 50years or so that the definition has changed to exclude the military, and police. it used to be that the definition of civilian was as simple as, anyone who is not subject to the UCMJ. That has obviously changed, ALL police are civilians in my view..
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:17:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By HeldHostage:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
We are all citizens.
IMO, the only non civilians are the military.
As was pointed out, if you can quit and walk away, you're a civilian. LEOs can walk away whenever they like, its just a job.



And so is the military. There may be ramifications, but people can and do walk away all the time.



You quit the force nothing happens other than you need another job.
You quit the military you are court martialed, dishonorably discharged and possibly jailed.
Thats a huge difference in my book.



The only reason you'd face that kind of penalty for quitting the military is because you sign a contract knowing the stipulations of said contract. Therefore it makes sense it would have stricter ramifications being a legally binding document. You don't have to sign a contract to be an LEO. Not to mention, even as a non-LEO employee of a police department, you are held responsible as a member of the department even when you are not on the clock. Everything you say and do apparently can be used against you at work. That doesn't happen at most jobs, with the exception of a criminal conviction.



But the point is there ARE penalties involved.
There are NO penalties if a LEO wishes to walk away.
Why does it bother some LEOs that they are civilians ?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:17:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By WackyG:


He is appointed by the President and may be fired at will by the President..Congress only has "advice and consent"



Negative, the AG is subject to confirmation.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:18:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 9:24:29 AM EST by WackyG]

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By WackyG:

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?



Uhhh, no. POTUS is the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces (military)



Are you attempting to say that POTUS is military....back to Civics class



He can singlehandedly order the military to fight another country.

Are you saying he isn't?



POTUS is not military....He would have one hell of a uniform if he was though. That is the whole concept of civilian control of the military.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:19:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By WackyG:


He is appointed by the President and may be fired at will by the President..Congress only has "advice and consent"



Negative, the AG is subject to confirmation.



You just agreed with me...advice and consent is confirmation...he can be fired without any Congressional action...that means he serves at the whim of the POTUS
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:19:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:


You quit the force nothing happens other than you need another job.
You quit the military you are court martialed, dishonorably discharged and possibly jailed.
Thats a huge difference in my book.



As to that one offense, I agree with you. Police officers are charged with anything and everything you could imagine and suffer the penelties. As a rule, once fired as a cop, you are hosed in that line of work for life.

Sorry to perpetuate this, but anyone who simplifies the job of a police officer by saying it's just a job, has no idea what they are talking about.

Let's take a cop and a soldier and put them in my little scenario:

They are together at a restaurant "off-duty." The establishment is robbed, and an employee is killed. The dynamic duo simply leave and offer no help to responding police. The penalty for the soldier (correct me if I'm wrong UCMJ-wise) is nothing. The cop is fired.

Why is there such a leaning on this board toward minimizing the role of police in America? Take them out of the equation and there is total anarchy - meaning no country possible. The same is true for soldiers.



Assuming that restraunt is in that cops jurisdiction. Here in NC outside of the juridiction you work in you have no duty to act and no power of arrest.

If you really want to compare the "soldier vs cop" scenario game I will, just let me know.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:21:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:22:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:


You quit the force nothing happens other than you need another job.
You quit the military you are court martialed, dishonorably discharged and possibly jailed.
Thats a huge difference in my book.



As to that one offense, I agree with you. Police officers are charged with anything and everything you could imagine and suffer the penelties. As a rule, once fired as a cop, you are hosed in that line of work for life.

Sorry to perpetuate this, but anyone who simplifies the job of a police officer by saying it's just a job, has no idea what they are talking about.

Let's take a cop and a soldier and put them in my little scenario:

They are together at a restaurant "off-duty." The establishment is robbed, and an employee is killed. The dynamic duo simply leave and offer no help to responding police. The penalty for the soldier (correct me if I'm wrong UCMJ-wise) is nothing. The cop is fired.

Why is there such a leaning on this board toward minimizing the role of police in America? Take them out of the equation and there is total anarchy - meaning no country possible. The same is true for soldiers.



I take nothing away from LEOs. It's a thankless job full of risk and danger and I'm glad we have those willing to do it. The LEOs I know are some of the best folks I have ever met.
To your last question, why does it "minimize" LEOs to be considered civilians ?
After all, this is the point of this thread, is it not ?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:23:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By WackyG:

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By WackyG:

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By WackyG:
The POTUS is a civilian....he is also the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Does it take a genious to make the connection?



Uhhh, no. POTUS is the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces (military)



Are you attempting to say that POTUS is military....back to Civics class



He can singlehandedly order the military to fight another country.

Are you saying he isn't?



POTUS is not military....He would have one hell of a uniform if he was though. That is the whole concept of civilian control of the military?



You are diverging here, badly. Sounds like you are saying everybody EXCEPT LEO is a civilian..



Your are misunderstanding badly....the President is a civilian.....he is the chief LEO....LEO is civilian
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:25:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By WackyG:

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By WackyG:


He is appointed by the President and may be fired at will by the President..Congress only has "advice and consent"



Negative, the AG is subject to confirmation.



You just agreed with me...advice and consent is confirmation...he can be fired without any Congressional action...that means he serves at the whim of the POTUS



I guess I am partially agreeing with you. The term we should be using though is "nominated," not "appointed." The president nominates and the Senate confirms. And yes, POTUS does the firing.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top