_______________

Feres Doctrine vs. Oath of Allegiance

To read the posts on the other issues please use the links named after the different page-subtitles.
For additional information see also the sections "War on Terror -- Terrorism of War" , "Patriotism vs. Humanity" and "War Crimes -- Committed 'In All Our Names'" in the Main Navigation
__________________

News & Comments

__________________

Recruiting at Schools - Lies and Practices

__________________

The New Draft

_______________
Feres Doctrine vs. Oath of Allegiance

The Feres Doctrine Horror Show

Feres vs. United States Decided 12/04/1950

_______________

Crude Facts about Combat

__________________

Health Issues & Redress

____________
Related Links:

Veteran's Corner

USDR Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees

__________________
Veterans Sites:

V.F.V.S. - Voice For Veterans Services

Portland Oregon POW/MIA'S

Veterans For Peace

Veterans For Common Sense

Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans -- And Blueprints For Change By John McCarthy

Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality

- Feres Doctrine vs Oath of Allegiance -

Home | John McCarthy | CIA | Treason in Wartime | 1941-2001 | Science vs Religion | Reality Or Hoax? | Israel & ME | 9/11 - 3/11 - 7/7 -- Cui Bono? | New World Order | Lies vs Facts | War on Terror - Terrorism of War | Patriotism vs Humanity | War Crimes - Committed 'In All Our Names' | Enviroment & Lobbyism | FOIA & Whistleblowers vs Cover-Ups | Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality | From Democracy to Dictatorship | Empire Agenda | Media Coverage | International (War)Crimes Tribunals | Take Action! - Take Back America! | Summaries & Previews | Index Part 1 | Index Part 2 | Multimedia Index
Important note: Images and videos posted on this website are very graphic. Viewers discretion is strongly advised!

The Feres Doctrine
Horror Show
 

 
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
 
- George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
 
United States Constitution Amendments
Article I of the Bill of Rights

It is well to remember the words of James Madison as we search for truth in government and understanding in this excerpt.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

In so many instances, fueled by greed, avarice, and self-aggrandizement, Our Elected Servants have subverted the Principles of the Constitution and Its strictures on the limitation of Government.

"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future.

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."

- The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866 -

"They saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."

- James Madison -

*******************************
ARTICLE I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*******************************


Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, (1908-1993) stated,

"Above all else, the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."

"or the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances."

This right already existed in customary law. In the colonial Declaration of Rights of October 19, 1765, it was said "that it is the right of British subjects in these Colonies to petition the King or either House of Parliament"; and in the Declaration of Rights of October 14, 1774, it was complained that "assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances." It was further said "that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations and communications for the same are illegal." It was declared also that "their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable petitions to the Crown for redress have been repeatedly treated with contempt by His Majesty's ministers of state."

In the Declaration of Rights submitted by Parliament to William III and Mary (1689) and accepted by them, it was said that the right to petition the King existed and that the prosecution of petitioners which had taken place was illegal. It was considered so valuable by our forefathers that it was protected by this express provision. Assemblies for the discussion of their rights and petitions for the correction of their wrongs had been repeatedly employed by the colonists.

"In every stage of these oppressions" says the Declaration of Independence, "we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury." When this Constitution was written the right of assembly and petition was preserved in the constitutions of the several States.

Van Buren's administration was marked by a struggle to prevent the receipt and consideration by Congress of petitions for the abolition of slavery. Senator Calhoun declared such petitions a violation of the Constitution.

The people must assemble "peaceably." Regulations for the preservation of order are not a denial of the right. Nor can the right to petition be employed for the purpose of visiting malice upon others. The petition must be for something within the authority of the body addressed, or the petitioners must in good faith believe it to be.

The petition in England was based on the fact that Parliament was a court as well as a legislative body. Indeed, at first it was more of a court than a legislature.

In 1839 the English Chartists (seeking an extension of suffrage, vote by ballot, pay for members of Parliament, and an abolition of property qualifications for suffrage) presented to the House of Commons a petition having 1,250,000 signatures.

While this First Amendment, and the nine following it are prohibitions against encroachments upon liberties by the Nation, it was held by the Supreme Court in 1937 that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, written against the States after the Civil War, protects from infringement by a State "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Holding the Syndicalism Act of Oregon of 1933 violate of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to a man who attended a meeting "under the auspices of the Communist Party" but said nothing toward "effecting industrial or political change or revolution." forbidden by the Act, the Court declared that "peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime".

excerpt from
The Constitution For The United States:
Its Sources and Its Application

*******************************

"But they don't use law - they use law for their interests. They don't go by law, international, federal, local - nothing!
They go by whatever is expedient to protect the interests that are at stake."

- Malcolm X, answer to question, Militant Labor Forum, January 7, 1965) -

______________________________________


The Feres Doctrine was adopted by Congress in 1950 and, with the approval of the Supreme Court, it became Law Of The Land the same year.

Lieutenant Feres was killed in a barracks fire on a military installation in New York State in 1946.  His wife filed suit under the Federal Tort Claim Act of 1946.

She lost in 1950 when the "Feres" Doctrine was adopted.

In 1946, President Truman appointed Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson to become the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg International War Crimes Tribunal.

After witnessing the presentation of the crimes against humanity of the defendants in the docket which resulted in the death penalty for most of the Nazi leadership found guilty of said crimes, Judge Jackson became the author of the Feres Doctrine.

Feres states that no service member or their families may take civil action against any government official for any crime "incident to service".  Crimes of murder, rape, torture, assault, perjury, negligence, experimentation, etc., can be prosecuted criminally, but not civilly.

The Right to petition the courts of this land to seek redress against the government, as guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States DOES NOT APPLY to those who have sworn to protect and defend the very same Constitution!

Is there not something very wrong with this picture?


Current members of the Supreme Court have opined that Feres is "bad law" and that Congress has the power to change it.

A current example of Feres:

In 1999 a civil suit was brought against the CIA, DIA, FBI, DOD, DOA, State Department and DOJ for Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice In A Capital Murder Case, which has no statute of limitations.

The Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. ruled in January, 2003 that the case would be dismissed with prejudice and without comment.

The judge had forbidden information to be presented re the Feres Doctrine as "incident to service".

The umbrella of Feres has shielded government officials for over 54 years.

Here is how it works.

When an inductee takes the oath of enlistment/commission, he or she swears to protect the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic......   At that very instant, the Feres Doctrine becomes effective WITHOUT the knowledge of those just sworn into the Armed Forces.

The fact of Feres existence becomes knowledgeable to an individual service member AFTER any crime is committed upon that individual.

Surgery to remove the wrong leg leaves the soldier without the ability to seek redress for negligence.

Leaving surgical tools inside a patient after surgery leaves the patient helpless to react.

Prescribing the wrong medication has no recourse.

All medical mishaps/negligence are covered by Feres.

Perjury, secreting exculpatory evidence, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, false imprisonment, and all court actions are covered by Feres.

Nuclear Experimentation is covered by Feres.

Wrongful Execution is covered by Feres.

Medical experimentation in the form of mind control through the use of LSD, electro-shock mind regression treatment (as in "One Flew Over The Kuckoo's Nest) and other drugs leaves a service member helpless and without recourse.

The real fact that doctors who fail to pass their medical boards in civilian life are commissioned as officers in the Armed Forces and allowed to "practice" on military personnel and their families without fear of civil suit is rampant and repugnant.  No recourse allowed for gross or criminal negligence on the part of an incompetent physician who would not be authorized to "practice" on any civilian in our country is a result of Feres.

Treason in wartime is covered by Feres. Those who conspire to take this country to war with fabricated "intelligence" resulting in wounds and death for those in uniform are immune because of Feres.

Ironically, members of the government who commit wrongful acts and crimes against members of the Armed Forces are not even subject to the same Uniform Code Of Military Justice as those victimized by the above crimes.

In summary, after seeing all the inhumane acts committed by the Nazi's before and during WWII, Justice Jackson placed our American Youth in the same no win position as the victims of the Third Reich; without recourse for grievances.

So, how should a combat veteran feel about the wounds suffered as a result of being put in harms way by those politicians who would send him off to war for what turns out to be fabricated evidence for the justification for the war in the first place?

Should the courage and pain suffered in combat, physically and mentally, be swept under the rug of the Constitution because some misguided law was adopted in violation of the Constitution itself?

The First Amendment to the Constitution is still intact.
Immediately after the Right to Free Speech is the sentence that says all citizens have the Right to seek redress for grievances against the government.

That has not changed.

Except for the members of the Armed Forces of The United States.

Congress has no power to amend the Constitution.  Neither does the President.  Thats why Feres was adopted.  But why then?

WWII had just ended.  CIA was established with the National Security Act of 1947.  Korea was looming.  Experimentation on POW's was a reality, for both sides as the war unfolded.  These instruments of war did not just happen overnight.  The records of the Nazi experiments were in the hands of the likes of Doctor Gottlieb of the CIA.  Mind altering drugs were the quiet talk of the day, the same kinds of drugs used on the victims of the Holocaust.  The same experimentation that Germans were hung for as crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.

Wait till those returning from Iraq with Depleted Uranium issues find that they have no recourse.

Wait till the Draft comes into reality again when all the boyz and girlz 18-34 are ordered to report for induction under penalty of incarceration for five years. That is when Feres will backfire upon the government.

The Selective Service System cannot force a proposed inductee to voluntarily forfeit their Rights under the First Amendment.

All that remains is to inform the draft age people of America of the existence of Feres.  The Internet is the most valuable tool for this purpose.  Student organizations will be notified across this country of the existence of the Feres Doctrine which would make them second class citizens should they take the oath of enlistment.

Hey Hey Ho Ho, the Feres Doctrine has got to go!

Because if it stays, the effectiveness of the upcoming Draft will fizzle.


NOTE:

For extensive information on Depleted Uranium and the disaster waiting to happen without recourse (Feres) or remedy (the half life for DU is 4.5 Billion years) please see the page:

A Death Sentence Here And Abroad

The page is part of the thread

War Crimes -- Committed "In All Our Names",

to be found by the link in the main navigation bar of this site.

For help regarding health issues due to military service please contact

USDR Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees

The USDR Mission is to support and assist Disabled Military Retirees, their spouses, widows and/or immediate family members.

Check for latest Site-Updates

Index of Posted Articles

or copy and paste the URL into Google Translate

Important note:

We neither promote nor condone hate speech in any way, shape or form. We have created this website to search for truthful facts that can shape unconventional conclusions and restore historical integrity. The work is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution as well as by Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

 
Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise

 
Ages ago, I taught my children "never to point with a naked finger towards dressed people" and I usually keep that for myself as well but for this website I have to quote:
"The Emporer Has NO Clothes On!"
Traude
 

 
Want to get in touch? You can send email at:
 

or

Disclaimer And Fair Use