>>If he has standing then what are the real damages he's suffering?
Potential to be accused of being a murderer, ordering others to murder, etc.
>>>>This officer could argue that absent proof that the order comes from legal authority, he places himself in jeopardy of being accused of murder, because if he kills someone offensively, and he did not have the standing of an armed combatant following legal orders, then he is simply a criminal.
>>There are hundreds of layers of authority between this officer and Obama. The orders come from his immediate superior. How do you show that they aren't a legal authority?
If Obama is not legally qualified to be Pres, it's all “fruits of the tainted tree” after that. If Obama is legally qualified to issue an order, then an order from Obama is not legal. It does not become legal passing through the COC, no matter how legally constructed the COC is.
>>>>From a legal standpoint, if Obama tries to simply discharge him, then that opens a huge door for everyone else to get out. It also creates problems for FBI, Secret Service, etc. to be in very questionable status in following orders. What then is status of all Presidential appointees, etc, and their orders to their staffs.
>>Obama won't “simply discharge” him, nor will the Army. They will charge him, try him, convict him, and punish him. Don't think so? Ask Lieutenant Watanada or Private New or any of the others who decided they could decide what orders were valid and what were not.
This is a very different situation. Of course they will try to punish him. But in his case, he will simply say, prove that you had the authority to issue the order. If they cannot or will not prove that, then what possible standing does the government have to punish him, or do anything to anybody. That's why this case is so far reaching.
If the Gmvt through it's Executive branch cannot or will not prove they have legal authority to issue legal orders to this officer, then how do they have authority to do ANYTHING?
>>>>From a PR standpoint, if Obama tries to argue standing, accept the copy, or forced discharge, they open door for huge PR campaign, which is exactly what this officer wants!
>>He's left himself open for being charged with any number of infractions. I guarantee you that he will have standing in his court martial.
Standing is not the ability do do absolutely anything you want to do. Obama could argue that somehow Obama is exempt, that demand is overreaching, but that will not fly... and will not fly is they simply to discharge him either!
Any person willing to challenge a law or authority must be willing to face the consequences of such willing conduct. I am proud of him for doing so, and will contribute to his defense if it becomes necessary.
Potential. Courts deal with real issues not theoretical one. They deal with real damages, not potential one. For the plaintiff to have legal standing the damages have to be real and concrete, not potential or theoretical. Otherwise I could sue airlines because one of their aircraft could potentially crash and I might potentially be on it. Real damages. Real issues. Real standing.
If Obama is not legally qualified to be Pres, it's all “fruits of the tainted tree” after that. If Obama is legally qualified to issue an order, then an order from Obama is not legal. It does not become legal passing through the COC, no matter how legally constructed the COC is.
Nonsense. If the chain of responsibility goes that far down then it should also go that far up, and President Bush should have stood trial for Abu Grahib and the killing of civilians. The officer in question will follow the orders of those appointed over him. If his captain gives him a lawful order then he is obligated to follow it, and his questions about Obama doesn't change that one bit. And if he thinks it does then he'll find out very quickly that the Army disagrees with him.
This is a very different situation. Of course they will try to punish him. But in his case, he will simply say, prove that you had the authority to issue the order. If they cannot or will not prove that, then what possible standing does the government have to punish him, or do anything to anybody. That's why this case is so far reaching.
Absolute nonsense. Both Watada and New tried to argue that the order they disobeyed was unconstitutional. Both found out that they were wrong. I don't see this being any different.
Any person willing to challenge a law or authority must be willing to face the consequences of such willing conduct. I am proud of him for doing so, and will contribute to his defense if it becomes necessary.
I imagine it will be, though it should be noted that do date he hasn't refused to obey any orders. He's merely part of a suit questioning Obama's qualifications. When that suit gets dismissed then he'll have to decide whether to put his convictions into action and start disobeying.
Our finances have taken a huge hit, but I'd also kick in something. I hope some patriot will offer to hire him if that becomes necessary.