Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

The New American ^ | May 20, 2010 | Raven Clabough

[TigersEye]

"I suppose you were all for those uniformed service members who sued George Bush and Don Rumsfeld for conducting an illegal war, right?"

Are you saying they didn't have a right to do that?

[OldDeckHand]

"So you can't prove whether they were or not. And yet you've already tried and convicted this man. "

The prosecution doesn't need to prove anything. The orders are presumptively legal. Lakin can only plead guilty or not guilty. If he chooses to assert a defense that the orders were not lawful, then he must plead guilty as an affirmative defense. The burden of proof then falls to him, not the government. It's trial law 101.

"There you go presuming again. I did serve, in the Navy."

Then you must have missed your classes at OCS on the UCMJ. Just saying.

"You've sure got a lot of supposition and assumptions in your argument."

No sweetheart, I just have an iron-clad understanding of military law.

[OldDeckHand]

"Are you saying they didn't have a right to do that? "

I am absolutely saying that they didn't have a right to do that, and the Supreme Court agreed, multiple times.

It is not the prerogative of a uniformed service member to question the authority of civilian command authority. Orders may be refused if they're are facially illegal. There is nothing facially illegal about a deployment order.

[TigersEye]

It is the right and duty of every American to challenge the law if they feel it is unjust and/or un-Constitutional.

[philman_36]

BTW, I see you didn't answer this question...
I assumed it was rhetorical. You don't really want an answer, you want an illusion.

Perhaps you could fill me in on where and when those suits were filed. I can't seem to find anything.

[edge919]

The only problem with this is that the civilian command authority has the power to initiate a court martial, which recognizes the civilian link in the chain of command. It would stand to reason that this should be able to go both ways, with no limitation on the ability of service member to question all levels of his or her chain of command. Plus, doing so aligns with the oath to support and defend the Constitution.

[verity]

A more perfect example of an illogical conclusion couldn't have been presented! If Larkin is proven right and his orders were illegally given he would never end up in a cell.

You are absolutely wrong in your assumption.

You have no experience in military law. Thus further discussion with you is a waste of time.

[Non-Sequitur]

Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

No it won't.

[OldDeckHand]

"It is the right and duty of every American to challenge the law if they feel it is unjust and/or un-Constitutional."

It's not the right of a member of the US military. You don't have a right to question order if you feel that they are unjust or unconstitutional. Something's constitutionality is a political or legal question, not a military question. This only seems to be complicated to people who were never military officers.

Orders are presumptively legal and service members question the legality of order at their own legal peril.

[philman_36]

No sweetheart...
I'm not gay so quit hitting on me.
...I just have an iron-clad understanding of military law.
Well good for you! Blow that horn really loud.
Was it from the practice thereof or did the weight of it fall upon you?

[OldDeckHand]

":Perhaps you could fill me in on where and when those suits were filed. I can't seem to find anything. "

Then you're not looking very hard.

[philman_36]

You have no experience in military law.
I never claimed I did.
Do you have experience in military law yourself or do you just take someone else's word for it?

[philman_36]

Then you're not looking very hard.
Then help a hand out. Pony a couple of links up!

[TigersEye]

You know a lot about military law but you don’t know squat about being an American. Were you raised in Indonesia?

[OldDeckHand]

"It would stand to reason that this should be able to go both ways, with no limitation on the ability of service member to question all levels of his or her chain of command. Plus, doing so aligns with the oath to support and defend the Constitution."

Don't ever conflate reason with law. They are entirely separate.

There are ways to legally seek redress through the rising levels of command with respect to issues or policies you believe to be incorrect. Refusing orders isn't one of those way.

[Mr. Wright]

Oh come on now . . . you know Helen Thomas or one of the Whitey House correspondence are going to ask either Gibbs or Obama about this issue. Wait until the next news conference.

[verity]

“Thus further discussion with you is a waste of time.”

[OldDeckHand]

You can look up Matthis Chiroux and Ehren Watada. They are but two of the more than a dozen service men who sued Rumsfeld/Bush.

There are also dozens, perhaps hundreds of cases from Vietnam, and even a few from the original Gulf War.

[OldDeckHand]

"You know a lot about military law but you don’t know squat about being an American."

I knew enough to serve my country for close to 25 years. How about you?

[philman_36]

It's not the right of a member of the US military. You don't have a right to question order if you feel that they are unjust or unconstitutional. Something's constitutionality is a political or legal question, not a military question.
Really?! Hmmmm...While I know that they're not you, what with your purported wealth of knowledge and/or experience...

illegal military order
A military order must have a military connection and must not contravene existing law, such as the Constitution, treaties, and statutes.
An illegal order is just that - illegal, and does not require that it be obeyed.
As the law either has no valid military purpose or contravenes existing law, obeying the order may expose the person to prosecution.