Posted on 06/03/2010 11:55:59 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
An Army "investigating officer" has banished evidence about the controversy over President Obama's eligibility – or lack thereof – to be commander-in-chief from a pending hearing for a career military doctor who announced he is refusing orders until Obama documents his constitutional status.
"In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president's credentials on trial," wrote Daniel J. Driscoll in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin will be allowed to explore at next week's hearing.
"It is my opinion the discovery items pertaining to the president's credentials are not relevant to the proof of any element of the charges and specifications set forth in the charge sheet," he continued. "Consequently I will not examine the documents or witnesses pertinent to the president or his credentials to hold office."
The ruling came prior to a scheduled Article 32 hearing for Lakin, who posted a video inviting his own court hearing because of the status of the president and questions over whether his eligibility means orders given under his control would be invalid.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Must be otherwise occupied with Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Other Assorted Deviates Month.”
Just out of curiosity, what is this strange obsession around here with using homosexualty as the generic epithet of choice? You folks do know that obsessive fixation on the possibility of homosexuality in others has been noted as a potential indicator of oneself having, shall we say, closet issues?
“Let’s follow Driscoll’s reasoning to its conclusion: what constitutes an illegal order should never be discussed, because the only way to discuss it in court is to disobey an order. If you disobey an order to challenge its validity in court, then the court can not allow you to defend yourself, because the court doesn’t know what constitutes a legal order. This effectively makes all illegal orders unchallengable and consequently, all illegal orders must be presumed valid and can never be challenged in court because the court will never take a stand on what constitutes an illegal order. Under this reasoning, there is de facto no such thing as an illegal order. I guess that the powers that be want to make sure that no one ever gets a chance to define in court what constitutes an illegal order or people may actually be inclined to keep their oath by disobeying unlawful orders.”
Exactly!
to me is equivalent to
"The med-school drop-out who made a good-enough forgery of a diploma, having been hired at St. Phillippa's Hospital, has no obligation to provide qualifications."
Bullsquat.
Fraud in professional-- or legal-- qualifications may go undetected for years, but once suspected, must be investigated; and any person who could suffer damage through such fraud is entitled to an answer.
You do know that the Regime hath declared this month “Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Other Assorted Deviates Month”, or words to that effect? Referring to such as a possible refuge for otherwise regular contributors should rather be noted as a natural consequence, rather than any sort of “obsessive fixation”.
But once sworn in, we have a problem. Its like getting on a plane and realizing you are going to the wrong town. It's not getting corrected until the next airport. That next airport for the Kenyan is the election in 2012.
Too many are afraid of riots if the Kenyan is removed, and that's the sad truth.
If this goes to court and a judge declares him qualified in order to keep peace, its even worse. That means he can run again. That means virtually any dual citizen can run for president.
“Driscoll then says that there is no discussion of what constitutes an illegal order and so all orders should be presumed lawful.”
Nuremberg proved that idea to be FALSE...
Sometimes we have to dare the consequences of a forced landing, and prefer them to a soft landing in the wrong town.
Personally I prefer the idea of landing on an open stretch of freeway, kicking off the offending pilot, and taking off in the other direction, rather than a deliberate terminal impact in a field...
And when given a chance to outline that position and provide documentation to support it, the defense apparently punted. Hence the ruling.
No, it's more along the lines of "the information you request is not relevant to the charges against you" response.
What LCOL Driscoll is asking is why that fact, if true, would make any order given by Lakin's brigade commander illegal. A reasonable question and one which the defense was apparently unable to answer.
No, he is denying the defense's request for information relating to Obama's eligibility on the grounds that they are irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing.
He did that, which is why he's being court martialed. Not he has to show why the orders of his brigade commander are illegal.
last i checked, there is this little issue with orders being lawful and not following them if they are not.
that use to matter
then again, the president or his staff didn’t use to commit treason on a weekly basis either. this week was outing the invasion plans to iran. last week i believe it was leaking TS nuclear missile test plans... and the week before that more top secret nuclear information... that time was the number of warheads (and by extension, the number of missiles the enemy would have to worry about)
of course, if we can’t even check the id of someone that has 28 fake social security numbers... thereby upholding article 2 of the Constitution... then i shouldn’t be surprised no one is getting upset about leaking national security secrets to the enemy
of course... if you dare try to deport an illegal... OMG!?! LOOK OUT
Thanks JazzLite. I agree with your comments.
Sten, I think you’re right, at least in part. No doubt about it.
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.