Daily Kos

No wonder Bush fought the AWOL/Deserter charge

by jakethomson

Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:54:24 PM PDT

I was poking around through U.S. Code, at U.S. Code Search looking for offenses that would automatically disqualify Bush from being President and found this gem. I searched on the phrases incapable of holding and office across the entire breadth of the code. Amazingly enough my search returned over 7,000 hits.

Of course there were the obvious ones like, Treason and Rebellion or Insurrection. But the one that caught my eye was this one: 8 USC Sec. 1425. Ineligibility to naturalization of deserters from the Armed Forces.

More below the fold.

This little gem reads as follows:


8 USC Sec. 1425. Ineligibility to naturalization of deserters from the Armed Forces

A person who, at any time during which the United States has been or shall be at war, deserted or shall desert the military, air, or naval forces of the United States, or who, having been duly enrolled, departed, or shall depart from the jurisdiction of the district in which enrolled, or who, whether or not having been duly enrolled, went or shall go beyond the limits of the United States, with intent to avoid any draft into the military, air, or naval service, lawfully ordered, shall, upon conviction thereof by a court martial or a court of competent jurisdiction, be permanently ineligible to become a citizen of the United States; and such deserters and evaders shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or of profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof.

It's pretty indisputable that Bush went AWOL for more than 30 days while "serving" in the Texas Air National Guard and therefore considered a deserter by the Air Force. Also, desertion has no stature of limitation.

Convicting Bush of deserting his TANG unit and presto! He has to be impeached and removed under 8 USC Sec. 1425.

A pipe dream I know, but even so....

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 75 comments

  •  Bwahaha! (3.60 / 10)

    That is fantastic!  Lovely catch.

    Back during the whole Ohio brouhaha, I advocted using the 14th Amendment to punish Ohio and Florida or any state that one could prove election fraud or tampering in.

    Now if we only had some branch of the government designed to enforce these laws, we'd be in business.

    Wait...that's the Executive Branch.

    Damn.

    "Raybin is not a lying maniac. I've found this person to be an extremely clever and devious lying conartist, but never a maniac."--RElland on Daily Kos

    by Raybin on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:53:20 PM PDT

    •  Raybin (3.60 / 10)

      This only applies to people who aren't citizens, and who are in the srvice to get naturalized. Jake didn't get what that meant.

      Charlie Brown for Congress

      by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:44:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bull. (2.00 / 3)

        It says two things:

        (1) A deserter who is not a citizen cannot become a citizen.

        (2) A desert cannot become President.

        This business will get out of control...

        by Omar on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:52:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bull? (none / 1)

          Since we are calling Bullshit, I'll do the same for you.  Read it closer.

          such deserters and evaders

          Meaning those deserters and evaders who are not already naturalized citizens

          Shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or of profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof.

          Like I said, read the whole thing before posting.  Are you really going to tell me that deserters don't get to exercise any of the rights of citizenship?  

          Next time read and make sure you are right before you start handing out 2 ratings to people's posts.  Better yet, learn how to use the ratings in a responsible manner before you use them at all.  Disagreement doesn't warrant a low rating.

          Matt

          In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

          by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:24:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  for clarification... (none / 0)

            By "deserters don't get to exercise any of the rights of citizenship", I meant deserters who are already US citizens, as opposed to "deserters and evaders" as used in the statute's definition.

            Matt

            In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

            by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:32:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aw, he wanted to believe (none / 1)

              It's cute.

              Charlie Brown for Congress

              by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:40:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uhhh, OK.... I guess. (none / 0)

                What exactly were you trying to say in this post?

                Matt

                In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

                by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:43:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Aww, they wanted to believe so much (none / 1)

                  that they latched on to something that wasn't what they thought it was (and didn't understand). Then they defended it with non sequiters and diversions. Just like on TV. This must be America.

                  Look! I found something using a simple method I understand, it must be true!

                  If I BELIEVE HARD ENOUGH it will be true! Just like supermarket magazines and Rightwing politics!

                  This is an interesting diary for the psychological devices of projection, rationalization, and denial, the very tissue <snark> of a whole segment of politics.

                  Charlie Brown for Congress

                  by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:55:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Like yourself quite a bit don't you. (none / 1)

                    You're pulling stuff out of your butt here.

                    You say

                    such deserters and evaders

                    Meaning those deserters and evaders who are not already naturalized citizens

                    Care to bless us with exactly where it says that?

                    This business will get out of control...

                    by Omar on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 09:43:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You have to read the whole statute (none / 0)

                      not just excerpts. The "four corners" of the statute have to be read as a whole. The statute that this diary is built on applies to those who seek naturalization as U.S. citizens by serving in the military. This isn't like scripture where you take a single line of one of the books of the bible and erect a whole edifice on it, you have to consider the entire law for applicability to the facts at hand. You don't get to apply parts selectively.

                      Charlie Brown for Congress

                      by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 09:50:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  even if (none / 1)

                      this section of code WAS intended to apply to citizens (which it wasn't), SCOTUS says unless a person voluntarily renounces US citizenship it can't be stripped for ANY reason (punitive or otherwise). See comment below.

                      Unfortunately, Bush is a US citizen, and as the song goes, they can't take that away from him ....

                      stay the corpse

                      by bopes on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 10:07:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Sigh.... (none / 0)

                      All right, you want to do it this way? Fine.

                      8 USC Secs. 1101 et seq. were originally passed in Congress as the "Immigration and Nationality Act".  Seems rather odd that Congress would hide a provision barring citizens from holding office or from exercizing any of the rights of citizenship in an act aimed at immigration and naturalization, doesn't it?  It deals with immigrants and foreign nationals, not US citizens.  Everything in this section deals with non-citizens.  In fact, Title 8 of the code is entitiled "Aliens and Nationality".  Want to know what Chapter 12 of this title is called?  "Immigration and Nationality Adjustment and Change of Status Nationality Through Naturalization."  Directed at immigrants, not citizens!

                      Want further proof?

                      Go read Sec. 1101, which is the definitional section for this part of the code.

                      Sec. 8 USC Sec. 1101(a)(19) states:

                      "The term "ineligible to citizenship," when used in reference to any individual, means, notwithstanding the provisions of any treaty relating to military service, an individual who is, or was at any time, permanently debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States under section 3(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended (54 Stat. 885; 55 Stat. 844), or under section 4(a) of the Selective Service Act of 1948, as amended (62 Stat. 605; 65 Stat. 76) [50 USCS Appx. § 454(a)], or under any section of this Act, or any other Act, or under any law amendatory of, supplementary to, or in substitution for, any of such sections or Acts.

                      Again... it deals with immigrants and aliens, not citizens.

                      Care to accuse me of pulling anything else out of my butt?

                      Matt

                      In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

                      by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:06:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  This should be deleted (3.00 / 6)

      Bush was a citizen and wasn't in the US military, he was in the TANG, which has it's own laws on desertion.

      Besides, who would prosecute?  The files were scrubbed.

      '05 (-5.13, -3.44) '06 (-4.75, -3.44) Obama '08

      by lordkelvin on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 03:21:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also.. (3.60 / 5)

        alos it only applies ot people that desert by runnning or dodging by going outside of the US:

        "who, having been duly enrolled, departed, or shall depart from the jurisdiction of the district in which enrolled, or who, whether or not having been duly enrolled, went or shall go beyond the limits of the United States, with intent to avoid any draft into the military, air, or naval service"

        Please read the whole statute before posting.  This didn't do much except take the spot of a another diary that could have been recommended.

        Matt

        In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

        by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 05:35:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nah... (4.00 / 2)

          In the mandate:
          shall depart from the jurisdiction of the district in which enrolled

          The district was Texas...he went to Alabama.

          That's leaving the district in which he was enrolled.

          As for the rest of the requirements, it's a little fuzzy...but there is a point well made here that Bush is a treasonous, lying, impeachable sunovabitch.

          "Only real reform will pry government from the grasp of the special interests who have made a mockery of reform and progress for far too long." Howard Dean

          by aureas on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:12:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree (4.00 / 2)

            Again, read the entire thing.

            "shall depart from the jurisdiction of the district in which enrolled . . . with intent to avoid any draft into the military, air, or naval service, lawfully ordered"

            You left the scienter requirement out of your analysis.  The government would absolutely have to prove that element as part of its case.  I fail to see how it could be proven that Bush left with the intent to evade.

            Every word in a statute means something.  You cannot simply take out one line or one sentence and read it standing alone.  Every phrase must be read in the overall context and attention must be paid to phrases modifying or defining terms.

            Matt

            In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

            by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:30:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, very interesting indeed. (none / 1)

    recommended.

    He so clearly did fit the definition of deserter.

    by Elizabeth D on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:55:50 PM PDT

  •  Nice and interesting. (none / 0)

    Seems this might finally be the straw...

    Who knows?  Legally, if he is proven AWOL, he should be stripped of his office.  

    Hello President Cheney!

    by sleipnir on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:00:36 PM PDT

  •  tips???? (4.00 / 39)

    hang out my begging bowl here.

    thanks!

    by jakethomson on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:01:29 PM PDT

  •  MY MIND (none / 1)

    is reeling from the fantasy.  
    How clever you are. This is
    what I call a glorious diary.  
    I adore it.  If only I could
    make it come true.  Bush
    would be out and.... oh, gee,
    but, then we'd have Cheney......
    Ho HUm.
    Maybe we could then use
    Halliburton to unseat Cheney.
    Who's next, is it Condi after
    that?  Were on a roll..let's keep
    'em coming.

    contribute to the Democrats!! http://www.actblue.com/page/you.blue

    by jdbrooklyn on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:07:14 PM PDT

  •  sigh.... dreaming... but there seems to be (3.87 / 8)

    a little problem within the code.

    it says that the person be permanently ineligible to become a citizen of the United States; and such deserters and evaders shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust ...

    the operative word being and - so it seems that this code is referring to those seeking to become naturalized citizens, not ones who were born such.

    keep trying though - you may be onto something!

    draftgore2008 and northington 08 DE-AL

    by edrie on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:29:59 PM PDT

  •  Is this section of code (none / 0)

    for non US nationals in the armed service?

    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:30:53 PM PDT

  •  And who is to prosecute him? (none / 0)

    The military? Hah.  

    Now, happily, a nameless civilian. (Actually, my name is Robby)

    by Nameless Soldier on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:53:01 PM PDT

  •  Niiiice (none / 1)

    Add it to the List of Impeachable Offenses.

    This is a really GOOD one though.  Rec0mm3nded

    by reef the dog on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:04:25 AM PDT

  •  the wrong tree (none / 0)

    but our wrong tree.

    damn jake, what an almost find.

    nevertheless, it did my heart some good for the brief moment that it seemed possible.  so what the hell.

    maybe everyone is right, there just might be more if you keep digging.

    _______________

    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

    by dadanation on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 02:43:53 AM PDT

  •  Let's go for it (none / 0)

    It's got to start somewhere, so we should start some sort of legal action.  Clinton dodged, would that count?

    But I think the more nuisances you add, it'll all just build up over time and finally something has GOT to give.

    what about the 14th amendment violation?

    by MFL on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 05:31:58 AM PDT

  •  Not quite. (none / 1)

    Nice try, but that law would probably be considered unconstitutional as applied to federal offices.  Congress can't simply make laws deeming who shall or shall not be eligible to the office of President.  Those eligibility requirements are set forth in the constitution itself.

    99% perspiration

    by DaveOinSF on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:20:31 AM PDT

    •  There are plenty of statutes which include (none / 0)

      the phrase "incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States." Such as Treason, but in my opinion, the phrase means what it says. Get convicted of an offense with that phrase in it and you have to be impeached and removed from any office, including President. Of course, my opinion and $5 will get you a cuppa joe at Starbucks.

      by jakethomson on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 01:34:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well yeah (none / 0)

        the congress, if they so decided, could impeach and remove a president based on just about anything they decided.  But if anyone tried to argue that Bush was automatically ineligible for office based on having been AWOL from TANG, well, that'd be wrong.  The constitution says someone is ineligible only if they are under 35, not a resident for the last 14 years, not a native-born US citizen (Article II, Section 1), if they had engaged in insurrection (Amendment 14) or if they had already served two terms (Amendment 22).

        99% perspiration

        by DaveOinSF on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 03:50:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fucking Brilliant! (none / 0)

    Give the man a prize!!

    Now what do we do?

    Tell your healthcare and insurance horror stories at Guaranteed Healthcare

    by nyceve on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:23:11 AM PDT

  •  Deserters during wartime ... (4.00 / 3)

    could be expatriated by law until the Supreme Court struck such laws down in 1958 in Trop v. Dulles. According to the court, "expatriation was barred by the Eighth Amendment as a cruel and unusual penal remedy".

    Damn those activist judges!

    John McCain is so (Ned) Divine!!

    by Glinda on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 06:51:16 AM PDT

  •  Retroactive impeachment (none / 0)

    While it is too late to bring him down from his lofty heights, the information is a very important historical fact.

    Historians won't question why there was a frantic effort to scrub Bush's TANG records.

    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

    by Agathena on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:03:06 AM PDT

  •  Bush Violates MANY Other Statutes too... (none / 1)

    The commenters above are correct that the statute (like Title 8, generally) really only applies to those seeking naturalization.  But while we're at it, here are some other Title 8 statutes that Bush & Co. violate:

    8 U.S.C. 1423:  Requirements as to understanding the English language, history, principles and form of the government of the United States -- Not only is Bush a well known mangler of the English language, he apparently believes that our system is based on absolute Executive authority and is essentially a parliamentary system where the majority party should control all branches of government.

    8 U.S.C. 1424:  Prohibition upon the naturalization of persons opposed to government or law, or who favor totalitarian forms of government.  Say it with me:  

    • If you believe that people can be held indefinitely without due process of law, you favor totalitarian forms of government.  
    • If you believe that people can be tortured at will, or can be "extraordinarily rendered" to other totalitarian governments who will torture them, you favor a totalitarian form of government.  
    • If you believe in One Party rule and the elimination of the Democratic party, you favor a totalitarian form of government.  
    • If you endorse terrorism against judges from the Senate floor, you favor a form of totalitarian government.  
    • If you believe in paying the press in order to control media coverage, you favor a totalitarian form of government.

    [This is, of course, satire.]  

    "Supposing truth is a woman -- what then?" -- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

    by phaedrus on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:03:20 AM PDT

  •  Sir, (none / 0)

    In my real life here in the world, Ihave always said that!

    If anyone who has served in the military certainly knows this.

    So it is very simple!  Plain and simple!

    This would have to be extended to many also.

    The chicken hawks of today are sitting in Washington with their masks on and they do not understand the laws of the land.  They make them up as they go along.

    What is wrong with this picture here???!!!

    Back to dubya.  It has been knowledgable for this statement for a very long time, except no one, I repeat, no one wanted to open that can of worms.  Just think of the loss of life if that would have happened.  Death all over the place with that one.

    by brenda stewart on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:08:08 AM PDT

  •  Good work (none / 0)

    I'm adding this to the list of impeachable offenses and reasons why he does not qualify.  Excellent and recommended

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:16:31 AM PDT

  •  Hold on just a minute (none / 0)

    That would give us President Chaney.  Who has a debilitating heart attack or three which gives us President HASTERT?

    I'd love to see Bush getting the Nixon/Clinto bum's rush but on balance I think I'd rather keep the lame duck we have.  At least this one, deep down, knows he's not so smart or capable.

    Just sayin'.

    by Disenfranshit on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:23:39 AM PDT

  •  Hey Everybody (4.00 / 4)

    With all due respect to the original poster, this is a non-issue as per comments near the top. THe statute doesn't apply to Bush because he didn't leave the country and because he was in the National Guard.

    Partly out of envy over the fact that this diary is on the recommended list, as much as community spirit wanting to stay topical and productive, maybe a whole heap of additional recommends are not in order?

    I mean, it's a lovely daydream, and thanks to jakethomson for that, but it's nothing more than a daydream. A distraction.

    If anyone has other info that the basis of the diary in fact is valid, please say so.

    by NewDirection on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:43:31 AM PDT

  •  I would love to see this President (none / 1)

    wave good-bye one last time as he boards a plane to Crawford.

    It would be the beginning of hope for our country. But the financial interests and idealogies that are the driving force behind him would still have to be dealt with.

      And who wants to say these words, "President Cheney"?

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:48:12 AM PDT

  •  Anyway, I think there's some SCOTUS opinions (none / 0)

    that say a citizen can't be stripped of citizenship as a penalty for desertion, even in war time.

    Let's see, what were those cases again? Oh yeah (thanks to Findlaw.com) here they are:
    Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)(struck down punitive expatriation visited on persons convicted by court-martial of desertion from the armed forces in wartime);Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)(struck down punitive expatriation visited on persons who, in time of war or emergency, leave or remain outside the country in order to evade military service);Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)(announced constitutional rule against all but purely voluntary renunciation of United States citizenship).

    stay the corpse

    by bopes on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:42:31 AM PDT

  •  Time of War (none / 0)

    Was there a Congressional Declaration of War for the "Vietnam Conflict"?

    W/o a CDoW, you'd have a hard time making this argument for Bush, notwithstanding all the other issues folks have pointed out.

    I'm not saying that CDoWs are the right way to do things, but they are the way we do things.

    John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

    by MRL on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:55:32 AM PDT

  •  terrific find! (none / 1)

    Unimpeachable evidence 8-)

    by Tulip on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 10:03:17 AM PDT

  •  Wet blanket (none / 0)

    It says, "at any time during which the United States has been or shall be at war ...." Vietnam was a "police action" and we were not technically in a state of war (in the legal definition sense). Therefore, the chimpster gets to dodge this one, yet again.

    Point to the weasel in chief.

    You many now return to your regularly scheduled chaos.
    http://blog.themadmanspeaks.com

    by becca00 on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:25 AM PDT

  •  Since desertion in a time of war (none / 0)

    can be grounds for the death sentence then desertion surely must be at least considered a felony . Can a person with a felon's record be President of the United States ?

    by bojangle on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:20:38 PM PDT

Permalink | 75 comments