|
> If it were that irrelevant, there would NOT be a trial, would there? >> Yes there would, because Lakin still refused to obey orders and still refused to >> deploy with his unit. But if it's OBVIOUS that Lakin is GUILTY of the UCMJ violations brought against him, why offer him Due Process? Unless the Judge needs to hear the “evidence” and decide if he/she has the Jurisdiction to help uncover the Truth. A MJ does NOT, which is why this case is destined to either end in Mistrial (as Watada's case was the first time), be dismissed (as Watada's case was by the 9th Circus) or proceed on to Appeal in Federal court. > The facts are self-evident, but there ARE extenuating circumstances, are there not? Hmmm, I've seen YOUR FactCheck.org “facts”. Those are TRULY thin and all but a handful of nutjobs like yourself on FR agree. You have to look REALLY hard to find a recent Article 92 violation such as this that brought prison time. In essence, this IS a Conscientious Objector case — with a twist. If the Army DOESN'T prosecute, it gives a green light to others like Lakin. And if the Army DOES prosecute like it is, Lakin has Injury and Standing in Federal court. If anyone need to be concerned here, it's B. Hussein Obama. And we haven't even gotten to the part of the argument that says a British Subject (except those alive at the time of the writing of the Constitution) such as B. Hussein Obama was NEVER meant to command the US Military or hold the office of POTUS.
 |