Posted on 03/05/2009 5:10:18 AM PST by AJMCQ
Edited on 03/05/2009 5:11:40 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
An servicemember who was participating in the ongoing Barack Obama-birth certfificate saga has been told to shut up. Seeing how soldiers routinely talk with the media, especially the embeds, this smells like the "[excrement] rolling downhill".
A member of the U.S. military whose suspicions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president prompted him to sign onto a legal demand being sent to Attorney General Eric Holder has now been silenced.
Attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist who through her DefendOurFreedoms.us foundation is assembling the case, told WND today she's been informed one of the members of the military has been ordered by commanding officers not to speak with media.
The officer's identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.
Now, before you get all outraged, it's not like we didn't see this coming.
I get it, 0 is not a NBC and is not President.
Either shut up or die in a “training accident”.......
I’m not fond of military officers talking to the media on their own, either.
Silence those with standing, by any means possible. Eventually, there are no voices in opposition.
It’s critical that we push this issue.
It’s time to take back the country.
Prayers for our men and women in the armed forces.
Can you imagine how AWFUL it must be for those (who are not obamatrons) to have him as a commander in chief?
It is like working for a company with a boss for whom you have absolutely NO RESPECT and you cannot leave.
If this servicemember is so absolutely sure he is right and within his rights to speak, then he should keep talking.
However, as I said from the outset of this stunt, he was being used and he was obviously too clueless to know it.
Besides, legally, I don’t think he has “standing.”
Slowly burning like damp powder.
You don’t stop being a citizen or give up your opinions when you enter the military.
Right. But you also don’t partake in frivolous lawsuits where you have no standing.
What nonsense!
A soldier who may have to put his life on the line on the orders of an ineligible CIC has standing.
Name someone, anyone, anywhere who has better standing, who has more skin in the game than their own life.
I have to say that I’ve got mixed feelings about this...
First off, I’m glad to know that there are people serving who protect this country and take their oath seriously, to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic.
HOWEVER.
One thing that sets most Western nations apart from the rest of the world, in particular the USA, is the civilian control of the military. The fact that only congress can declare war, and the president is the military commander in chief. The military has remained, for the most part, apolitical, and isn’t involved in politics. Overall, this is a good thing. I always get worried when someone in active duty gets involved in politics.
This is also why I get so angry when military absentee ballots are haggled over by dirty politicians. Because the military IS a tool of the politicians, and their vote is really the only time they are able to make their feelings known.
Mark
I would say that this Officer is placing his sworn Oath first. The Officers Oath is only to the Constitution, not the Prez. I also think he is doing the right thing by following his superiors’ orders by discontinuing public discourse for the time being.
“Can you imagine how AWFUL it must be for those (who are not obamatrons) to have him as a commander in chief?...”
Think that’s bad? I feel for those Secret Service guys.
Can you imagine having to put yourself in the potential line of fire every day to protect this guy? Ain’t no way I could do it. I’d definitely have to find another line of work....
Pray for our country.
The old rule was that an officer has the option of resigning and then going public. I am not sure today, with the country being under a state of emergency.
Retired officers by all means should make their opinions known.
He’s taking “legal” action. “Standing” is a legal term.
From the “’Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon”
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
Correct, though, you do lose the right to voice them when-ever and how-ever you wish, w/o strict and detailed repercussions. There are when's and how's that as a military member must be followed.
Big question in my mind is when does this become a debilitating moral issue for members of the military in general? As a 10 year veteran, some years removed, there seems to be an under current in all this that I don't remember seeing before (maybe in Vietnam?) People I speak to, and things I hear make me think that this president, and the assorted issues are going to cause many military members to question the morality of following orders, to the point of crisis.
Maybe I am just being pessimistic, because I see barry as such a train wreck for the country. Time will tell.
What makes you think he has legal standing to sue?
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.