Posted on 09/02/2010 2:24:49 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the court-martial process for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's eligibility to be president to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence that will be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial for Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to those records.
SNIP
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the courtroom, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president and anyway, it should be Congress that would call for impeachment of a sitting president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You say there were no challenges to the certification process. I personally challenged it in Cal and resigned my poll worker position when I was blown off by the secretary of state. The past secretaries of state in Cal removed people from the ballot because their birth certificates revealed they were too young to run. This secretary of state did nothing accept take the word of the democrat party. I provided our e-mail exchange to Alan Keyes and offered to give a deposition. I am not able to afford an attorney.
There were court cases filed BEFORE the election IIRC and the electoral college vote.
Winning an election does not equal being qualified.
Don’t know who they are and what the case was about. I have stated my position on the morality of taking orders from an illigitimate source. Maybe you can extrapolate an answer to your question.
Yep, a sorry state of affairs to be sure. The Secretary of State blew you off because the law made it possible to do so. I suspect that California is not a likely place to adopt a strict vetting requirement, but others states might and I hope that they do. Unfortunately, politicians on both sides are not too keen to do this.
No, actually I come from a family with numerous members in the military. I knew exactly what you were referring to and I have acknowledged several times that his pension could be in jeopardy. But you are wrong again on the link that I sent you to. It is not just for disabled veterans; it is also for veterans who are over 65 and on a limited income.
“If you are a wartime veteran with a limited income and you are no longer able to work, you may qualify for a Veterans Disability Pension or the Veterans Pension for Veterans 65 or older. The following is a summary of Veteran's Pensions”
You made an all encompassing statement that was false. You said “ If you are released from active duty without 18 and 1/2 years of active federal service, you get zero, nada, zip.” This was a false statement and I provided a link that demonstrated that this was so. You are the one who apparently is not aware of all the benefits available to veterans.
I apologize for my negative comments on lawyers and being nasty to you. Without differing perspectives there would be no interesting discussions here. I do appreciate you sharing your point of view. Sometimes it is a little too easy for me to forget that I am conversing with a real person and hit the send button before I really consider the feelings of others. I hope you will accept my sincere apology. And thank you for the work you are doing trying to get out the vote!
What is your position on the morality of obeying orders sending you to an illegal war? That's the gist of Watada's and Huet-Vaughn's justification for refusing to obey their orders. Don't they have the right to have the government prove the war is legal and that they won't be facing war crimes trials? If not, why not?
Depends on the details. Y9u are specifically declaring the war is illegal. In your question, why would a moral person participate? I will not be analyzing the detail of those cases. Suit yourself.
This is a military court of law, not a civilian court of law. Per the Manuel for Courts-Martial (MCM), the elements of this crime (Article 87 Missing Movement) that the government needs to prove are as follows...
(1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;It doesn't matter why Lakin did what he did, just that he did it - as far as a military court is concerned.
( 2 ) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;
(3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and
( 4 ) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.
At sentencing, Lakin will have an opportunity to allocute - which means to make a statement - a very broad statement where the MJ will give him wide latitude - and make his case about why he did what he did. Perhaps the panel will find that statement compelling, and will sentence accordingly, and perhaps they won't. But, with respect to Lakin's guilt or innocence, his motivation or intent is plainly irrelevant to the charges he's facing, or so demands the Manuel for Courts-Martial.
I think he'll get more than 90-days, and well less than 365. I've gone back and looked at all the trials that have been held since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom for service members missing movement to the theater of operation(s). They have all resulted in at least some confinement - most for a period of 180 days (and a few longer). I find it VERY difficult to believe that the jury panel will be anymore forgiving to an 0-6, than they have been generally to an E-3. It's my personal experience that jury panels are typically less forgiving to officers when the charge included Failure tho Obey.
The good news for Lakin is that should he be confined for a year or longer, his avenues of appeal to the Supremes increases because he'd be eligible (perhaps) for a habeas appeal with a confinement exceeding a year.
I think dismissal and complete forfeiture are as close to a sure-thing as you can get.
You’ve done a very good analysis and may well be right. If officers are ordered into confinement, they go to Leavenworth to serve it, even if its just one day. I’ve seen several of them in that condition and they aren’t happy campers.
The closest analogy is CPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughan from the 1st Gulf War who ended up exactly as you predict in this case if my memory serves. It remains possible, however, that LTC Lakin will be allowed to resign.
As part of a pretrial plea agreement, perhaps. But, once convicted, he's toast as there is NO WAY they're going to offer some kind of suspended sentence in this case, especially considering how public Lakin has been in his contempt. He didn't just disobey command, he made a spectacle of it. Commands don't like spectacles.
For what it's worth, I think the chances of a plea agreement in this case are precisely 0.00%. I don't think it would accepted if offered, and I don't think there is ANY chance of one being offered.
Once again, I have to agree with your analysis. I certainly won’t be crying any crocodile tears if he comes by in the little white van on his was to the Disciplinary Barracks.
For example, there will be other requirements for the gmvt to prove, requirements that are applicable to ALL articles. For example, that Def was a member of the armed forces at the time of the incident (or certain other qualifiers,) etc.
Will post when I can.
PS, who is paying my $650 an hour for this? :)
While "mens rea" is not part of the MCM lexicon, there is existing case law where such a principle is explored on appeal on other charges. However, on this charge, intent is not elemental to conviction.
There are many other UCMJ Articles where intent does need to be proven, but this just isn't one of them.
This is one of the difference between the civilian criminal court, and military court.
Again, he'll still (probably) get to "make his case" about why he did it, but just not at trial, only at sentencing.
In Huet-Vaughn's case she said that the fact that Congress did not declare war meant that the U.S. was waging an illegal conflict, constituting crimes against humanity. Watada argued much the same. Was it the responsibility of the government to satisfy these officer's doubts and prove that the war was indeed legal before requiring them to follow the orders given them in the same manner that Lakin expects Obama to show proof of eligibility before following his orders?
Don’t want to get into the case, as I said before.
Of course not.
The government found in Huet-Vaughan’s case that they did not have to have her permission to wage war against Iraq and further that they were not required to ask her permission before requiring her to participate. They will follow a similar line of reasoning in this case. The charges were about the same I think.
The transition from Officer to Prisoner was a bit of a shock, I am told. Some say that she can still be heard yelping down where the old disciplinary barracks stood.
But aren’t you asking us to consider your “mens rea” before considering whether you’re really an Obama supporter? Is not your position objectively supportive of him regardless of your personal motivations? And is that not inconsistent with the judgment you ask us to apply to Lakin, that the court ought *not* consider his mental state? And so you vigorously protest our presumptuous conclusion, yet you will pay a far smaller price for our adjudication than he will for Lind’s.
Remember, this is a criminal trial, and whether mens rea should be considered depends exclusively, not on the discretionary judgment of the court, but on the elements of the crime the prosecution must prove up. Under US jurisprudence, the “strict liability” standard you are suggesting is simply not used for any crime more serious that a speeding ticket, and for an act so serious as disobeying a military order there must be not only a guilty act but a guilty mental state. Neither you nor the judge can arbitrarily rewrite the criminal law. The prosecution must prove that Lakin had no reasonable basis for questioning the legality of the order to deploy, or they lose. And they are not allowed to win by denying Lakin his exculpatory evidence.
As to the question of Lakin’s judgment, there is case law to suggest that a commissioned officer has a unique responsibility to use independent judgment in deciding whether to obey presidential orders. For example, an officer will be held civilly responsible for obeying the illegal order of even a *legal* President. See Little v. Barreme, 6 U. S. 170 (1804). Please note that officer Little, who offended the Constitution by *obeying* the order of a sitting President, was not able to hide behind a political question or separation of powers defense, even though the judge who rendered the opinion was none other than Mr. Marbury v. Madison himself, Justice Marshall.
That’s a powerful indicator that the “blind obedience” paradigm being offered up by you and your kindred spirits is neither good law nor good morals nor good discipline. You are effectively advocating the “just following orders” rationalization that proved so unsuccessful at Nuremburg. The operation of an officer’s conscience and reason in the execution of orders is, at least in theory, one of the principle functional differences between our military and that of the totalitarian horror shows of the past. The oath an officer takes is principally to uphold the Constitution, not those individuals charged with its keeping.
Therefore, each such officer is duty-bound to use both conscience and reason to evaluate each order he or she receives as to whether it conforms to constitutional requirements and basic human morality. Lakin has done so, and is to be commended. Whether his heroism will be rewarded with justice or venality remains to be seen. I am hoping for justice.
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.