Replies

These two people, their cases, and the current political atmosphere are so vastly different that I am just not sure that there are many meaningful conclusions that can be drawn by comparing them. Trying to compare the political situation today to what was happening twenty years ago is the first opposite that I would mention. 1990 was a very different time and atmosphere than today. I would be interested in any specific parallels you would like to draw.

I do not have the greatest understanding of Dr. Huet-Vaughn circumstances but the following is my attempt at a condensed summary. More complete information would be welcome. She was seeking conscientious objector status for herself after her reserve unit was activated and about to be sent to Southwest Asia. She believed that war crimes would be committed during the combat that seemed immanent in the Persian Gulf. She had no objection to violence in general, but in the actions which she anticipated in the possible upcoming military operation in which she felt she might be taking part in. She didn't believe that she personally was going to be forced to engage in any crimes.

I would summarize that basically she did not want to participate and that her reasons were sincere but diffuse and rather complicated. I believe she felt that she would be able to raise the public's awareness by filing for conscientious objector status. If you can provide a more coherent summary I would be grateful.

Col. Lakin has a specific objection to his orders. They originate from a Commander in Chief who has not provided enough information to verify his constitutional eligibility. He has a very specific remedy that he wants. I believe he has stated that when Obama produces the long form birth certificate with verifiable information that shows that he was born in Hawaii... that he will deploy. This is a much easier message for people to grasp than what Dr. Huet-Vaughn vague attempt to raise awareness of the evils of war. For a message to be effective with the public it needs to be kept simple.

So to summarize: there are huge differences in the political climate now and twenty years ago, hugely different backgrounds and political orientations of these two different doctors. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Col. Lakin’s message is much easier for people to grasp than Dr. Huet-Vaughn effort to raise awareness of why she felt the upcoming conflict was bad. I think Col. Lakin's efforts are worthwhile and will be notable regardless of the findings of the court.