To: Non-Sequitur
he has to show why the orders of his brigade commander are illegal
That is, I believe, the tack the prosecution would like to see the defense take. Without being able to bring in the appropriate evidence or witnesses, it's probably a non-starter. But if the defense does not lose its head, takes a step back, and remembers that Lakin is on trial and not Obama, the picture changes.
All the defense has to show is that Lakin was willing to deploy, but that his efforts to properly vet the lawful nature of the orders passed down to him were blocked or left unanswered right up to the point of deployment. He can certainly evidence this if he calls for the right witnesses and paperwork. I hope he does so as this will not be denied as the birth certificate evidence was.
As "LITTLE V. BARREME" clearly indicates, an officer is personally liable for obeying unlawful orders. As the officer's oath clearly indicates, an officer is responsible first and foremost to the Constitution. With this one-two punch, Lakin can show his actions were not only "just", but mandated, and not willful dereliction of duty. In this way, even if he does not prove Obama is not a natural born citizen, his actions are at least vindicated in the eyes of the court -- which, for the sake of Lt. Col. Lakin, should be first and foremost in the priorities of the defense counsel.
58 posted on
06/04/2010 3:58:49 PM PDT by
so_real
( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
To: so_real
All the defense has to show is that Lakin was willing to deploy, but that his efforts to properly vet the lawful nature of the orders passed down to him were blocked or left unanswered right up to the point of deployment. What the prosecution will show is that he refused to deploy and he refused to obey the orders of his brigade commander. If they do that then Lakin is toast.
As "LITTLE V. BARREME" clearly indicates, an officer is personally liable for obeying unlawful orders.
And what Lakin has to show is that the orders of his brigade commander were unlawful. It doesn't look like he's trying to do that.
To: so_real
Without being able to bring in the appropriate evidence or witnesses, it's probably a non-starter Witnesses like Dr Keyes and MG Vallely? Remember this is not for the trial, but only for the article 32 hearing do determine if there will *be* a trial.
Since the only defense is an affirmative one, that the orders were unlawful, and with the validity to be determined by the military judge at the court martial, not by the investigating officer, this hearing probably can't properly address the issue the lawfulness of the orders. Although that said, it's hard to explain allowing those two witnesses, plus a couple of others that the defense requested and will be allowed.
66 posted on
06/04/2010 5:35:44 PM PDT by
El Gato
("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson