Replies

Would this be considered “AWOL?”

At the very minimum he's violated the following articles: AWOL (Article 86), missing movement (Article 87) and failure to obey order or regulation (Article 92). They can probably get him on contempt towards official (Article 88), conduct unbecoming (Article 133) and general articles (Article 134). This might just be the tip of the iceberg. Perusing the Punitive Articles of the UCMJ, there appear to be a few more he might get nailed on.

He won’t miss movement (Article 87) until his unit deploys...

They can probably get him on contempt towards official (Article 88) ... blah, blah, blah ...

Drew, where did you learn so much about the Law — Bull on Night Court ?!

Once again, you're talking out of your arse about issues of which you know nothing.

For example, let me address your assertions about Article 88, by reiterating its modern roots.

Following WWII, Congress created the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1950. Beforehand, Senators debated with particular fervor the meaning and use of Article 88 (Contempt towards officials). In the end, Congress agreed to use the 1949 Army Manual for Courts-Martial, which defined Contempt in this manner:

This article covers both (i) words which are contemptuous in themselves, such as abusive epithets, denunciatory or contemptuous expressions, or intemperate or malevolent comments upon official or personal acts, and (2) words which are contemptuous because of the connection in which they are used and the surrounding circumstances.

Therefore, based upon this Army and UCMJ definition, please attempt to make your ridiculous claim that Lt Col Lakin has made contemptuous statements, even violating Article 133... OR, perhaps you should just STFU!

As for the rest of your blatherings, yes, Lt Col Lakin would ULTIMATELY be in violation IF the order was Legitimate, from an Eligible President. That's the question his lawyer will address in Military and later, Federal Court.

Lt Col Lakin WILL LIKELY BE COURT MARTIALED; he's FULLY expecting it. Military men and women are accustom to making sacrifices. Taking the entire UCMJ into perspective, he's left with the ultimate irony:

Sometimes the ONLY way to challenge the validity of an order IS TO challenge the validity of an order.

Also ... Gen Casey's Command Authority trickles down from the SECDEF (yet another non-elected official) -and- the POTUS/CinC, comprising the NCA. Or as those in the military say, SH!T ROLLS DOWNHILL.

That's WHY in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama took the Oath of Office ON Inauguration Day (and the day after, too), Obama was signing DoD paperwork to officially assume the Nuclear Football (heaven help us) -and- the NCA's operational authority over from Bush ... transferred on Orders via TS communique for authentication to Command Posts all around the world that day.

The Chain of Command is like a pyramid, ALL parts below taking orders ULTIMATELY from the tippy top — the Commander in Chief (CinC).

The CinC answers to the ULTIMATE command authority of ALL civilians and military personnel of our nation — the U.S. Constitution.

And when the CinC doesn't answer to the Constitution, that's when the Command Structure breaks down ... regardless of who's commanding the Armed Forces of the United States.