Posted on 08/06/2010 4:16:57 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
FT. BELVOIR, Va. – A decorated military officer who is challenging – in military court – President Obama's eligibility to be president was taken into custody and escorted under guard back to Walter Reed Army Base today after a hearing, apparently so he could not talk to the press or his attorney about his case, according to his defense attorney.
The Army held a hearing today at Ft. Belvoir, Va., for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him after he refused to deploy to Afghanistan again this spring because of his concerns that Obama is ineligible to be president, and orders under his chain of command then would be suspect.
The hearing was on several charges of disobeying commands and "missing movement," and was held by Col. Denise Lind, who has been assigned to be the military judge in the case.
At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.
"This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me," Paul Rolf Jenson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
No, he would be court martialed and possibly jailed for disobeying the orders of his superior officers, Coloned Roberts, Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel Judd. And for missing movement.
In America, we have Justice.
We do. And in the military we have good order and discipline. And Lakin is about to have the full weight of military justice land on him for failing to maintain that good order and discipline expected of him.
If this prick, Obama or Soebarkah, is forced out because of Lakin, you better bet he will get a full pardon and reinstated.
I'd bet he won't.
Tell you what, here's a real situation for you. I'm a doctor in the Army Reserve. Saddam Huessein invades Kuwait and the President orders my reserve unit mobilized and I am assigned to deploy to the Middle East in support of Operation Desert Storm. I am convinced that the war is illegal since no declaration of war was approved by Congress, so I refuse to go in the grounds that any order sending me to an illegal war is an illegal order. Do I have the right to refuse to obey this order until the President proves to my satisfaction that the war is legal and I will not be open to war crimes charges if I participate? Or do I deserve a court martial?
Similar situation. I'm an Army officer on active duty. My unit is ordered to Iraq. I am convinced that the claims of WMDs was a phoney excuse to invade a sovereign nation and that the war is illegal and immoral. Therefore any orders sending me there are illegal and I refuse to deploy with my unit. Do I have the right to refuse to obey any orders on the grounds that they are illegal until such time as the President proves to my satisfaction that the war is indeed legal and legitimate and that my service in the theater will not leave me open to war crimes charges? Or do I deserve a court martial?
Two cases similar to Lakin's. In all three instances the officer in question had doubts about the legality of the orders. In all three instances the officer in question decided that they could decide which orders were valid and which were not. Are all three officers correct? Or do all three deserve court martial?
So if Mr. Lakin is proven correct, you believe the Army will do the honorable thing and keep Lakin in jail anyway for missing movement, and call it justice. Good. We know where you stand.
Obama's eligibility is irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing. He is not being charged with disobeying Obama's orders but the orders of three superior officers. He is also guilty of missing movement. Obama could be removed tomorrow and that wouldn't change a thing.
If I crash my car and run over an old man on a crosswalk, I would go to jail for man slaughter. But, If I can prove to the Judge that I was having a stroke at that very moment, I am not guilty of man slaughter or even reckless driving. Its called extenuating or mitigating circumstances. You would be right to say its Man Slaughter. But, I would walk, and it would be dismissed.
If they allow discovery and that SOB Soebarkah has no BC, a Kenyan BC, or a “Write in from Granny” , good luck to the people, yourself included, who insist on jailing Mr. Lakin.
So Lakin will claim diminished capacity at his trial?
If they allow discovery and that SOB Soebarkah has no BC, a Kenyan BC, or a “Write in from Granny” , good luck to the people, yourself included, who insist on jailing Mr. Lakin.
They will allow discovery, but Obama's eligibility won't be a part of it since it's irrelevant to the charges against him.
Let that last statement of yours stand here as an example to all others that you are not interested in debate.
I’m trying to figure out your point. What mitigating circumstances are there for Lakin’s failure to obey the lawful orders of three of his superior officers?
I’m trying to figure out your point. What mitigating circumstances are there for Lakin’s failure to obey the lawful orders of three of his superior officers?
Or, I should say, that you have lost the debate.
You win. OK?
Look. You have been real cute avoiding the issue with your “examples.” So let me be clear. *cough* *cough*
In NONE of your examples was there ever ANY QUESTION that George W Bush was NOT a legitmate president making him an ALTOGETHER LEGITIMATE Commander in Chief.
You are good with fashioning points to ponder, but your premise for all of your examples rises and falls on this ONE point.
Apples VS oranges. But you knew dat. Din’t ya? Huh? Huh? Huh?
In ALL my examples the officer in question refused to obey an order they believed was unlawful, for reasons they decided upon themselves. Likewise, Lakin is refusing to obey an order he believes is unlawful, for reasons he decided upon himself. The three cases are identical in this respect.
You are good with fashioning points to ponder, but your premise for all of your examples rises and falls on this ONE point.
They fall for one reason and one reason only - you agree with Lakin's logic and don't agree with Huet-Vaughn or Watada. As far as I'm concerned all three officers are wrong and all three deserve court martial.
But only THIS one is questioning the ORDER GIVER, not the order itself. If the order giver is legit, he would follow this order like the professional miltary man he has been all of his career.
If the ORDER GIVER is NOT legit, the orders themselves can not possibly be. Don’t continue to mask over the obvious. This affects every miliatry person from recruits to generals and admirals.
The motivation isn't the issue here. In all three cases the defendant refused to obey an order or orders. Lakin is saying that the order was unlawful because Obama is ineligible to be president. The other two officers said their orders were unlawful because the war was illegal. In all three cases the officer decided on their own that the order was unlawful and all three cited the Constitution as the basis for their decision. The question is the same in all three cases - was the order lawful? The answer in all three cases is 'Yes.'
If the ORDER GIVER is NOT legit, the orders themselves can not possibly be. Don’t continue to mask over the obvious. This affects every miliatry person from recruits to generals and admirals.
The obvious is that Lakin refused to obey an order from three of his superior officers, saying such orders were invalid. Huet-Vaughn and Watada refused to obey orders from their superiors, saying that such orders were invalid. If an officer can decide on their own what orders are valid and what are not then why did Huet-Vaughn and Watada deserve court martial?
I repeat There was no question that GW Bush was the LEGITIMATE Commander in Chief. Therefore, their charges of disobeying LAWFUL orders stands. But if the CiC is NOT a legitimate Commander in Chief, has offered NO proof that he is, has resisted all efforts to prove his eligibility to ISSUE orders to the military, the whole military is under the control of a DOMESTIC ENEMY. And NONE of the orders are lawful. Got it? You can't get there from where you are. You just can't.
You can repeat it all you want, it's irrelevant.
Therefore, their charges of disobeying LAWFUL orders stands.
If the war was illegal then how could orders to deploy to it be legal?
And NONE of the orders are lawful. Got it?
I hear you. But I don't think you're correct.
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.