[STARWISE]

God bless and protect all warriors and defenders of truth.

[STARWISE]

.. Ping!

[kbennkc]

Paul Rolf Jensen

So it is time for the old "blame the previous lawyer" defense. Certainly would not be fair to consider LTC Lakin was considering any part this crazy "birther" stuff just because that was his whole defense./sarc

[FTJM]

Now that the Lakin case has moved away from the guano crazy birther defense devised by Paul Rolf Jensen

Huh?

[cvq3842]

My understanding was that Lakin did not believe the orders were validly given, because Obama did not demonstrate his eligibility as commander in chief. If the defense drops the eligibility question, what was the point?

I can understand someone preferring to go to jail than to follow an order he considers illegal, on principal. But now I'm confused.

Thanks for any answers and/or flames in advance.

[so_real]

Nothing to see here but a sissy loophole argument. Lt. Col. Lakin had every intention of following lawful orders; and equally, he had every intention of disobeying unlawful orders. Such is required of him by his Oath of Office as it pertains to the Constitution. Through no fault of his own, his superiors failed to vet the Constitutional legality of the orders he received as they were delegated. The onus, therefore, was upon him to do so in their stead as an Officer himself. His efforts to vet these orders were stymied at every turn in the chain of command up to and including the individual currently occupying the seat of Commander in Chief. As he was denied the ability to ascertain the legality of his orders, he willfully refused them at his own peril. That took a pair of brass balls the author of this article simply cannot comprehend. By trying to find a loop hole argument that takes Lakin out of the hot seat, he also attempts to discredit what Lakin has honorably stood for. I'll take a "guano crazy birther defense" over a "sissy-boy legal defense" any day.

[centurion316]

In my experience, the missing movement charge was the most misunderstood, and most frequently misused of any of the offenses in the UCMJ.

I can’t remember how many times some eager beaver junior officer or very annoyed NCO tried to write this up on a charge because PFC Sad Sack had failed to do as told. Some of them were comical:

“Failed to get on the PX truck and missed movement.”

“Failed to join the convoy that was enroute to the firing range”

“Failed to be on the bus by departure time and failed to return from Ocktoberfest at the designated time.”

Most of these were not missing movement because the key element was missing. The key element is the the movement of a unit undergoing a change of station or deployment overseas. Even a deployment overseas for a training event is frequently not viewed as missing movement. Failure to Repair, or Failure to obey a lawful order are usually more appropriate charges.

In this case, his movement was associated with the deployment of a specific unit, the 1st Squadron, 32d Cavalry, to a combat zone. There is no question that he missed the flight, so what was his intention and was some other factor involved. The Court will have to sort that out, but I think that if found guilty the verdict will be upheld on review.

[cpdiii]

For arguments sake, let us assume that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. If this is correct, why in the hell does he let this controversy continue. Why would he let a decorated military officer go to trial instead of releasing the long form BC?

Oscams Razor says the most logical explanation is normally correct. I do not know if he is legally entitled to be President. I most certainly am sure, that something devastating to Obama is in the long form BC.

[stuartcr]

The only real problem I see, is that the LTC deprived our troops from having an experienced combat surgeon where he should have been.