LTC Lakin Formally Charged (Violation of UCMJ Articles 87 & 92)

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.

"A judge who knows of a felony has no responsibility to report it?"

I can't believe I'm even going to answer this....Do you understand that Misprision of felony requires you to have first-hand knowledge of the felony, or a felonious conspiracy. Whatever Lakin alleges Obama to have done, and whatever evidence he would provide - it would still be an allegation of crime. Could the judge refer such allegations to the appropriate authority - sure. Is he under any kind of legal obligation, probably not. Can he be prosecuted if he is, but still doesn't? No.

"And regarding the chain of command, why was anybody looking up the chain of command to see if the Abu Ghraib behaviors were either condoned or commanded higher up the chain of command - if the only link in the chain that matters is the one directly above the behavior in question? Wouldn’t the judge say - as you say any judge would say in Lakin’s case - that the higher links in the chain are absolutely and totally irrelevant and nobody can be allowed to go on a fishing expedition"

Because the defendants were claiming that they were following orders. No, that doesn't necessarily shield them from criminal liability for their actions, because even if they were ordered to do what they did, they should have known that what they were doing was plainly illegal.

But, if they did receive those orders, then whomever issued those orders was violating the UCMJ and international law, as well. That's why you had an investigation.

The military has no legal authority to investigate the civilian command of the military. The civilians oversee the military, not the other way around.

I thought jagusafr said there is a way that people in the military are supposed to be able to report the illegal activities of their superiors. Are you saying that the military doesn’t do anything with those reports?

See, the answers that you folks are giving me make me believe that our military is made up of thugs who can play whatever criminal, political games they want to. It presents a picture where there is NO accountability for the people who have absolute power - which is absolutely a recipe for corruption of the worst kind.

I’ve heard so many good things about the military, and I’ve known so many heroic men and women in the military.

And then I hear the lawyers talking.

If we were going to have real, live, domestic enemies (and not just your run-of-the-mill criminal) - where do you think they would go besides the military, law enforcement, and politics? That’s where the power is. If they want the ability to defeat this nation that is PRECISELY where you’d expect to find them. So why do we have this idea that it could never happen here?

We’ve already seen it happen with Nidal Hasan - and we saw that the military did NOT have the gumption to clean its own ranks of someone who was pretty easy to identify as a “domestic enemy” of the US and our freedoms. Political correctness was a higher priority than defending the US or her Constitution in that case; how many other times - especially when political appointees and military appropriations are involved (like with Murtha and the Haditha Marines) - has political expedience screwed honest men trying to keep their oaths?

I hate to hit on the military. I’m sure their morale is already low since the nation elected a CIC that would piss on them just as easily as look at them, and who would rather tie their hands and send them in against terrorists than allow them to do what they’re trained to do. But when I hear you talking about the way the military “justice” system works it really makes me wonder how we’re any different than Iran.

"I hate to tell you this, but they may well be reality. You only say they are far-fetched because you don’t really believe that we have domestic enemies.

Lakin could have unimpeachable video evidence that Obama, while wearing a Nazi uniform, was killing Jews with one hand, and eating babies with the other. That would be of no material relevance to the crimes that Lakin is alleged to have committed.

Not only that, it is not the prerogative of the military justice system to investigate civilian command. That is why we have civilian law enforcement.

"I thought jagusafr said there is a way that people in the military are supposed to be able to report the illegal activities of their superiors. Are you saying that the military doesn’t do anything with those reports?"

Sure there is. Service members are obligated to report to appropriate authorities any information that they uncover with respect to illegal activities. For activities involving civilians, that should be reported to civilian authorities - like NCIS, CID etc.

So unless a person was right there watching the Factcheck people C&P the seal on the forged COLB they don’t have to do a darn thing?

Wow. Just wow.

I asked why they went looking up the chain of command regarding Abu Ghraib. Clearly the only link in that chain that mattered was the one directly above the people who took those photos.

But ya know what? According to what you’ve just said, the only people who had any responsibility to do anything about Abu Ghraib were the people who did the actions, since they were the only people who had first-hand knowledge. And the only orders that mattered were the immediate superiors of the people who did the actions.

So - again - why did anybody look up the chain of command?

Why was Wuterich’s immediate superior put in trouble because he didn’t investigate the Haditha allegations (in the way Time Magazine thought he should have)? He didn’t have direct knowledge so he had no legal responsibility for anything. And he wasn’t the immediate superior of the guys who did the shooting so anything he did was irrelevant. Right? That’s what I hear you saying.

Sure. Anyone who KNOWS (i.e., has proof) a felony has been committed has an obligation to report it. In fact, one of the viable defenses that an order was unlawful is to demonstrate it was intended to create specific illegal outcomes. To be facetious, if your commanding officer orders you to knock off a 7-11 because he wants to remodel his bathroom, any military judge in existence would find that an unlawful order. Of course, in that extreme case, your commanding officer would probably just knock you off rather than refer it to a court martial after you refused. LOL.

And yes, once illegal activity has been demonstrated, an investigation can and should look up and down the chain of command for culpability. The problem here is that no illegal behavior has been demonstrated. There is no actual proof Obama has done anything illegal; some people feeling certain he has doesn't mean squat legally. And as OldDeckHand has pointed out, Lakin has chosen the wrong vehicle to try and raise the issue. The only issue of interest to his court martial will be his illegal behavior, which he can't defend by claiming someone else might have done something illegal.

'Why was Wuterich’s immediate superior put in trouble because he didn’t investigate the Haditha allegations (in the way Time Magazine thought he should have)? He didn’t have direct knowledge so he had no legal responsibility for anything. And he wasn’t the immediate superior of the guys who did the shooting so anything he did was irrelevant. Right? That’s what I hear you saying."

Look, I don't have the time to give you a law school education, or explain the peculiarities of military law. I'll put this as plainly as I can...

Barack Obama's alleged crimes, fraud or ineligibility have no material relevance to Lakin's guilt or innocence with respect to the crimes he's alleged to have committed. So, while someone might be keenly interested to hear what Lakin has to say, or what evidence he may offer about Barack Obama, that someone isn't the military judge presiding over Lakin's court-martial.

I think I've already explained the distinction between Haditha & Abu Grahib and Lakin. The government isn't alleging a conspiracy in Lakin's case, the same isn't true for the first two examples.

As a matter of military law, Lakin's motivation for missing movement is plainly and wholly irrelevant to his guilt or innocence, this is why whatever Lakin believes about Obama, won't matter to the military judge.

And if he he had videotape of that nobody in the military would have to do a thing about it either. That’s what I hear you saying. Is that correct?

Whether Lakin disobeyed a lawful order doesn’t depend on whether Obama committed crimes. The reason I bring up that issue is to see how the military has to respond to known crimes. Sounds like you’re saying they don’t have to do anything. If a lower officer knows a higher officer is committing crimes they don’t have to do a thing about it. They don’t have to report it to military justice and they don’t have to report it to civilian law enforcement.

But whether Lakin disobeyed a lawful order depends on whether he was ever GIVEN a lawful order. From what you’re saying, it doesn’t matter who gave the order or their qualifications to give the order, nor does the lawfulness of their order matter whether it is in obedience to an order from a lawful president - such as an order for our military to be in Afghanistan being given by an eligible commander-in-chief.

From what you’re saying I could go tell my nearest troops to waltz across Texas and if they didn’t do it they would be disobeying lawful orders. Doesn’t matter who gave it to them, by what authority they gave it, or whether the command is in line with any higher authority.

I’m sorry, Old Deck Hand, but I just cannot believe that that can be real. If I believe that, I would have to think that the military is a zoo, and that doesn’t fit what I see from the people I’ve known. The people I’ve known have said that EVERYTHING depends of the legitimacy of position that a person has, which is directly related to where they fit in the chain of command. Otherwise why do we HAVE a chain of command?

“I asked why they went looking up the chain of command regarding Abu Ghraib. Clearly the only link in that chain that mattered was the one directly above the people who took those photos.

So - again - why did anybody look up the chain of command?

Once a credible charge of actual illegal behavior has been made, the investigation is supposed to determine who is culpable. In the simplest example, if an unlawful order can be documented to have been transmitted down the line, culpability extends to the top. I think the confusion you are having may be that you earnestly believe Obama is an illegitimate CIC and that he has knowingly perpetrated fraud on a grand scale. But what you must recognize is believing something and turning that into a credible charge for investigation are two separate things. The latter has not happened, so the former is not legally relevant.

"And if he he had videotape of that nobody in the military would have to do a thing about it either. That’s what I hear you saying. Is that correct?"

What I'm saying is that the videotape would have no relevance to Lakin's court-martial. Would anyone in the military have to do something about it? I suppose they'd be obligated to report information of criminal activity to the appropriate civilian authorities, as the president is a civilian. But, the military - to include military investigators and the military justice system - have no statutory authority to investigate civilians. This is why the DoD has established civilian investigative agencies - to do just that.

"From what you’re saying I could go tell my nearest troops to waltz across Texas and if they didn’t do it they would be disobeying lawful orders. Doesn’t matter who gave it to them, by what authority they gave it, or whether the command is in line with any higher authority."

If you think this is the import of what I have said, there is no hope.

So a person only has to report a crime if a jury has already determined that the crime is proven?

That sounds like what you’re saying but that makes no sense.

There is no such thing as absolute proof of anything.

There is certain evidence that SOMEBODY has done something criminal because there is a forged document being cited as evidence to Judge Carter by Obama’s lawyers. We know a crime has been committed; the only issue is who all is guilty. But Hawaii has a law saying that if someone invites a government official in the course of fulfilling their duties(such as a secretary of state putting a name on the ballot, or Congressmen deciding whether to contest an electoral vote, etc) to rely on a document they know is forged that is a felony. Obama has done that at the very least.

Now that you know this, will you report it? Why or why not?

“So every military person that I show the HDOH e-mails to has to report potential forgery, perjury, and misprision of felony by Obama, the HDOH, and Nancy Pelosi to civilian law enforcement?”

No. Again, I understand you believe those emails constitute proof of various felonies, but legally they do not.

And in general, military personnel deal only with military crimes, or crimes committed by people in the military for which civilian law enforcement agencies want to arrest them. Police, local or Federal, are the appropriate venue for reporting civilian crimes.

> Too bad we don’t recognize the muzzie army here on FR.

>> And your military experience is?

And YOUR military experience is what, Non-Sequitur?!

Any yahoo on the internet can claim 27 years of military service, but unless you wish to scan and upload a copy of your DD214 like John "who served in Vietnam" Kerry (below), your word is as WEAK as Obama’s.

Go ahead ... go look around for your DD214. We'll wait.

You should have it stored in a safe place, right along with your MBE test results
and of course ... your original Birth Certificate.

"Regardless of the judicial immunity, can it be explained how this would be compatible with a military oath to the Constitution??"

She asked about alleged crimes of civilians, and how those alleged crimes would be investigated by military authorities. My answer is, they wouldn't

This is one reason the US Congress, working with the DOD established civilian investigative agencies like NCIS. These agencies have the statutory authority to investigate and arrest civilians, and working with the appropriate US Attorney's office, prosecute those civilians. But, those prosecutions have NOTHING to do with JAGS, military courts-martial or other military investors and law enforcement personnel.

Lastly, it is NOT the role of the US military to investigate its civilian commanders. That is the role for the federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice and the Congress.

What charge would Obama be guilty of if he committed perjury, forgery, and extortion (for example) in order to become president against the US Constitution? Who would have the ability to file that charge against him?

And how would the military actually obey their oaths to fight against such a domestic enemy? Through what means would the military allow them to keep their oath?

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.