Posted on 06/14/2010 1:18:36 PM PDT by STARWISE
Out, damned not!
Here's his problem, he's going to be tried at GCM. It depends on the state, but most states look at conviction at GCM as a felony conviction. As such, there is a possibility, and not a remote possibility, that Lakin could lose his license to practice medicine for some period of time. It's a little complicated, and some states don't recognize all GCM convictions as felonies, so it really is going to depend on where he's licensed.
But, the fedgov does treat all GCM convictions as felony convictions and the DEA will not issue a Schedule III number (AKA DEA Number) to convicted felons. That's a disqualifying characteristics. So, even if he maintains his license somehow, his ability to prescribe and administer at least some drugs will be limited or entirely foreclosed.
I'm not entirely convinced his civilian counsel advised him of all his risks prior to him preceding down this course of events.
If he respected the office, the citizenry and the military he would prove his qualifications and end the speculation forever.
Were I in the military today I would do the same thing and take the same action even if I had to go to jail. The fact that you don't challenge Obama on the same grounds, but argue with those who do, is a source of puzzlement for me, but hey, have at it.
That’s why admin discharge. They get nothing.
And, yes, there was a small opportunity of getting discovery if they’d gone to court over missing movement.
His was a conscientious objection announced ahead of time. Conscientious objectors do get hearings and interviews when dealing with objection to war in total. His was a specific, new type of objection: perhaps someone could have crafted a new approach to this specific objection.
FWIW, when a local doctor refused to deploy with her Guard unit during Gulf War I she was tried for desertion, convicted, sentenced to 30 months, and served 8 of them in Leavenworth before having her sentence commuted. The Kansas medical board gave her a slap on the wrists and fined her but she kept her license and practices in a neighboring suburb today. I’ve no doubt that Lakin will be able to get licensed as a physician in almost any state in the Union regardless of conviction and/or time served.
I don’t think they’ll go to GCM. I think it will be administrative.
There are several million active duty, reserve, and retired service men and women in this country. Only a dozen or so have pursued Obama's eligibility in the courts and only one that I'm aware of has courted a court martial over it. Whatever concerns the rest of the military personnel may have over Obama's eligibility, it isn't affecting their ability to perform their duties.
Were I in the military today I would do the same thing and take the same action even if I had to go to jail.
And if I were still in the military today I would recommend the same course of action for you that the military has taken with Lakin.
The fact that you don't challenge Obama on the same grounds, but argue with those who do, is a source of puzzlement for me, but hey, have at it.
What I may think about Obama's eligibility or lack there-of is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. We're talking about military officers who take it upon themselves to decide what orders are legal and what are not. I did not agree with Huet-Vaughan or Watada or New when they did it, I do not agree with Lakin either. Good order and discipline require that servicemen obey the orders of their superior officer. Lakin didn't do that and Obama's eligibility doesn't change the facts of the case. Obama could be found ineligible and removed from office tomorrow, and Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying his brigade commander and of missing movement. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because I don't foresee him accepting any kind of plea, I think the chances of him avoiding court-martial and being administratively separated instead, are almost non-existent.
You can't have officers (especially an 0-6), publicly defying command and the CIC, and not prosecute fully, especially when there is a history of prosecuting junior officers and enlisted for the exact same offense.
Under the Constitution, Congress alone determines who was elected President, and removes the President from office. That is why all Birther litigation about the results of the 2008 election is doomed. Even if they did find evidence BO isn't a natural born citizen, the Courts can't do anything with it.
But, Courts can remove a candidate from the ballot. If Birthers want discovery, they need to form a political party, and get their candidate for President on the ballot in a few states in 2012. That candidate and party will have standing to sue to get BO off the ballot, and BO's place of birth will be relevant to an issue before the Court.
Don't get me wrong -- I think the Birther Party will lose on the merits. But at least they would have a shot at a suit on the merits, rather than always losing on procedural grounds.
That's certainly a possibility here, save for his problems with the DEA. I suspect that your Kansas doctor can no longer prescribe schedule III drugs - those are the druges covered under the Controlled Substances Act.
When I said that "it's complicated", I was alluding to the fact that some states don't recognize the GCM conviction as a felony conviction unless there is a corresponding civilian crime. IOW, there is no civilian equivalent to "desertion", so Kansas may not recognize a conviction on that charge, unlike murder or rape perhaps.
Because Lakin is only charged with 87 & 92, two specs with absolutely no civilian equivalents, this may give him some safe harbor, depending entirely on his licensing state.
The fact that a few have been willing to step up may not be indicative of the actual number who question the CIC's qualifications. And the impact on morale is unknown to both you and me.
I continue to question your motivation and your willingness to accept the CIC's guilty behavior in light of the number of challenges raised and the obvious questions which are unanswered. It is indicative of his lack of respect for us and his willingness to waste time and resources to protect information the electorate is entitled to have. At worst, it is a transparent attempt to continue the biggest fraud in the history of the country.
The consequences of me being wrong are insignificant and easily overcome. The consequences of you being wrong are beyond tragic.
Why are you not joining the call for him to open his records and end all of this?
And Huet-Vaughan was convicted of desertion, which also has no civilian equivalent, and I think that's the key. All that happened to her was a censure and a fine. She's in family practice and I doubt her ability to prescribe medications, including narcotics, was restricted in any way.
And he might have done a lot better if his core voters weren't incarcerated.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2002/putting-the-con-back-in-congress
And where is that relevant to what Lakin is charged with? What article of the UCMJ or what federal law or what court precedent shows that the legitimacy of Lakin's brigade commander's orders rested with Obama?
I continue to question your motivation and your willingness to accept the CIC's guilty behavior in light of the number of challenges raised and the obvious questions which are unanswered. It is indicative of his lack of respect for us and his willingness to waste time and resources to protect information the electorate is entitled to have. At worst, it is a transparent attempt to continue the biggest fraud in the history of the country.
And you're entitled to do so. But again, Obama or his eligibility or his lack of respect for the military or any of his other traits and characteristics you care to mention are still irrelevant to Lakin's guilt or innocence. Obama may be Lakin's motivation, but what motivated him does not excuse multiple violations of the UCMJ. The bank robber may plead poverty and dire circumstances, but that doesn't excuse sticking up the bank.
The consequences of me being wrong are insignificant and easily overcome. The consequences of you being wrong are beyond tragic.
Hyperbole aside, how does that make Lakin innocent of the charges against him?
Why are you not joining the call for him to open his records and end all of this?
Because Obama isn't listening to me.
If you don't know the relevancy of legitimate military authority in a representative democracy, I will not continue to waste my time.
And what exactly about the military not being the arbiter of Presidential qualifications in a representative democracy do you not understand?
It is for the relevant civilian authorities to make that determination. They have. Obama was allowed on the ballot, he won the majority of the votes, the elected representatives of both parties certified his Electoral College victory, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice swore him in. If the military is allowed to independently dispute that, you can forget defending the Constitution because it has already be shredded.
“The Vietnam War was considered by many to be unconstitutional because there was never a formal declaration of war by Congress as required in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which passed 88-2 in the Senate and 416-0 in the House of Representatives in August 1964, was relied upon heavily by the Department of Justice and the State Department as “the functional equivalent of a declaration of war.”
Constitutionally, that's a valid question. And it's certainly arguable the President isn't legitimately exercising his CIC role in an unconstitutional war. But the military didn't countenance that question then and the orders I received were still perfectly valid. The military isn't going to second guess Congress on the President's eligibility, either, and the Orders LTC Lakin received were perfectly valid.
I am amazed at how many defenders of the Constitution seem to yearn for military vetting of political decisions.
The military is not the basic arbiter, since the government officials and responsible parties were grossly negligent in carrying out their cosntitutional duties and since we may have a terrible fraud going on, a soldier with honor can do no less than ask the question and the superior officers with honor would respond by getting an answer to the challenge. If you think Obama is acting honorably and without guilty behavior, then there is nothing else to discuss.
honorably
It still boggles the mind how folks can imagine that wanting the military to take extra-Constitutional action because they don’t agree with the decisions the civilian government made is somehow a patriotic defense of the Constitution.
Has it occurred to you that no matter what the civilian government does, there will be some group somewhere that doesn’t like it and doesn’t think it is right, proper, or Constitutional?
Do want the military to step in for them too?
What about those who think the military taking those actions are unconstitutional? What redress to you propose for them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.