Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin Formally Charged (Violation of UCMJ Articles 87 & 92)
American Patriot Foundation ^ | 04/22/2010

Posted on 04/22/2010 2:54:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 481-490 next last
To: JoSixChip

“Post a link. this is the last time I respond to you unless you back up the things you state as fact or written without at least a link. You have no honor or credibility with me.”

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2008.pdf

There’s one for a man as astonishingly lazy as he is certain of things he doesn’t understand.


61 posted on 04/22/2010 6:38:29 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
"If he cannot question the legality of his orders then how were all those guards convicted at Nuremburg? The prosecution specifically held that they should have disobeyed their orders and thus risked joining the Jews in the ‘showers.’ Those guards were caught between a rock and a hard spot - damnned if the did and damned if they didn’t. LTC Lakin is in an arguably similar position."

This is a bit complicated to explain, but there's nothing unlawful about a deployment order. An unlawful order is one that is "contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it". It is quite lawful and well within his authority for a President or a Secretary of Defense, to issue a deployment order. Compare that with an order to "kill all the civilians". That order would be plainly against the Constitution and the laws of the US.

Now, perhaps an argument could be made that the person who issued that order was not authorized to issue it. That's certainly something that can be examined for a military authority. But, that examination for a President will not be entertained by a military trial judge because it's a political question, or so the Supreme Court has held when affirming such a decision by a trial judge in Michael New v. US.

I know that's probably not the answer you want, but that's the way the UCMJ, the MCM and the applicable precedent works.

62 posted on 04/22/2010 6:39:28 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip; OldDeckHand

It’s obvious to anyone who actually reads Deck Hand’s stuff over time that he knows a bit about military law.


63 posted on 04/22/2010 6:40:15 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

We can’t forget that shoving Jews into gas chambers wasn’t an illegal act at the time. The Chancellor (Hitler) had decreed it to be perfectly legal. Once his regime had ended though, new laws were cited.

If LTC Lakin were to deploy and commit ant sort of violation of Iraqi law, even unintentionally, even under orders, he could be prosecuted as a war criminal... especially if the orders are later found to have originated from an illegal President.

Far-fetched? Yeah, but those guards didn’t think they’d ever be held accountable either. As I mentioned earlier, he’s between a rock and a hard spot. Michael New didn’t serve prison time but he didn’t “diss” Obama either.


64 posted on 04/22/2010 6:41:12 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative; JoSixChip
"There’s one for a man as astonishingly lazy as he is certain of things he doesn’t understand."

Worth repeating.

65 posted on 04/22/2010 6:41:48 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; tired_old_conservative

Get a room! Between your slobbering kisses to each other and obumber, I think I may hurl.


66 posted on 04/22/2010 6:52:43 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
This is a quote from your link directly under where you selectively pulled your quote from:

"Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge."

This is all we are asking for, thanks for making my case.
67 posted on 04/22/2010 6:58:00 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
If this guy goes to jail because obumber refuses to show his BC, well I just don’t think that is going to fly in middle America.

He won't go to jail because Obama refused to show his birth certificate. If he goes to jail, it'll be for disobeying orders.

68 posted on 04/22/2010 6:58:36 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Me, too. By all appearances this guy has a long, honorable record of service that’s about to be flushed to no constructive purpose. It’s even sadder to see all these people carrying on about discovery when some of us know quite well there’s not a snowball’s chance in the hot place.

I'm sad too.

69 posted on 04/22/2010 7:04:36 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

He didn’t disobey an order, he refused an illegal order. There’ a difference. The difference is defined by the BC, so if obumber refuses to show it and the good LTC goes to jail. It will be because obumber refused to show it.


70 posted on 04/22/2010 7:08:15 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

He didn’t disobey an order, he refused an illegal order. There’ a difference.


[Theres’ a difference] is what the court martial will try to determine and rule on don’t you reckon?


71 posted on 04/22/2010 7:19:07 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
“This is a quote from your link directly under where you selectively pulled your quote from:

“Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.”

This is all we are asking for, thanks for making my case.”

Actually that doesn't make your case, but if it makes you happy to believe a military judge is going to be dancing this far afield to discern an unlawful order, enjoy your delusion at poor Mr. Lakin’s expense.

72 posted on 04/22/2010 7:24:14 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
If this guy goes to jail because obumber refuses to show his BC, well I just don’t think that is going to fly in middle America.

If he goes to jail, it won't be because Obama refused to produce his birth certificate.

BTW, what if Obama did produce his birth certificate and it confirmed he was born in Hawaii?

73 posted on 04/22/2010 7:25:04 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: deport

I do reckon so. And I also reckon the judge is going to allow the good LTC to make his case and explore relevant evidence. If obumber is found to be legit then the LTC will accept the consequences. But I suspect that if this makes it to court he will be found innocent. It’s not mentioned here, but he did go up the chain of command before he refused the order.


74 posted on 04/22/2010 7:26:21 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
'The question in that case was can American soldiers be forced to serve a foreign power?"

New was about (amongst several things) a soldier disobeying an order, and the trial judge's authority to render a decision on the lawfulness of that order. He did, the trial judge ruled the order lawful, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling when it was challenged by New.

Moreover, New tried to argue that the deployment itself was illegal. Again, the trial judge, affirmed by the appellate court, said, "no thanks, that's a political question, not something to be decided by a military court."

The DC Circuit addresses in great detail the presumption of legality of military orders. Their decision includes this paragraph, citing Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting United States v. Calley, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 528, 543, 48 C.M.R. 19, 28 (1973) (quoting Winthrop, at 296-297)),.

"The success of any combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian mission, as well as the personal safety of fellow service members, would be endangered if individual soldiers were permitted to act upon their own interpretation" of constitutional, presidential, congressional or military authority, and orders issued pursuant to such authority."

I'm sorry you're either too obtuse, or intentionally argumentative to acknowledge this fairly elementary legal similarity to Lakin. Anyone with an even remedial understanding of the law and the UCMJ gets it. Rest easy though, you're in good company. Whomever is representing Lakin is giving him HORRIBLE legal advice, if they have indeed recommended that he disobey and challenge his deployment orders. At least Lakin might have some foundation upon which to build his ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.

75 posted on 04/22/2010 7:29:41 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"BTW, what if Obama did produce his birth certificate and it confirmed he was born in Hawaii?"

Then the question becomes is he a NBC. If he produces the BC and is found to be a NBC, then the good LTC will suffer the consequences. My belief is that this will never make it to court, but if it does obumber will be found to be a fraud.
76 posted on 04/22/2010 7:30:35 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
“I do reckon so. And I also reckon the judge is going to allow the good LTC to make his case and explore relevant evidence. If obumber is found to be legit then the LTC will accept the consequences. But I suspect that if this makes it to court he will be found innocent. It’s not mentioned here, but he did go up the chain of command before he refused the order.”

I'll bet you a hundred dollars right now that no military judge authorizes discovery relating to Obama’s birth certificate. That idea is laughable on its face to anyone who understands what is happening. A pity it has to ruin someone’s career.

77 posted on 04/22/2010 7:31:48 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
"I'm sorry you're either too obtuse, or intentionally argumentative to acknowledge this fairly elementary legal similarity to Lakin."

If it is so elementary, why are you screaming like a stuck pig? Afraid your beloved obumber will be exposed for the fraud he is? And these two cases are not the same, two completely different circumstances. If the good LTC gets his day in court I suspect obumber will be exposed.
78 posted on 04/22/2010 7:36:33 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Anyway this goes it’s bad for the usurper.


79 posted on 04/22/2010 7:43:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"Anyway this goes it’s bad for the usurper."

Agreed, my only hope is that the truth comes out no mater what it is.
80 posted on 04/22/2010 7:51:38 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 481-490 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson