Probably put up with people who like you who automatically assume that if someone isn't a birther then they have to be an Obama supporter.
Nobody would like to get to the bottom of Obama's eligibility more than I. But that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the band wagon of something I know to be wrong, or agree with people I know to be incorrect. Lakin is guilty. Obama's eligibility is irrelevant to his case, so I can see why the Army judge ruled as she did. It became a fools errand the moment the charge sheet was published, and Lakin was probably a fool for believing that Obama or the Army would walk into his trap in the first place.
As much as I would like to learn the truth about Obama I'm not willing to bend the law to do it. I'm not going to destroy military discipline or grant legal standing when it isn't due. I'm willing to take whatever steps - legally - to settle the matter once and for all. The fact that I put that qualifier in apparently makes me and those who believe as I do Obama supporters in your eyes. If that's the way it has to be then so be it. Your disapproval and your mistaken perception of what I believe doesn't bother me in the slightest.
It is immoral to kill people when the person who orders you to do so does not have the legitimate authority to do so. If there are fraud allegations against OB, then the allegations apply to his military command. All the more reason for him to disclose so that military can concentrate on executing wars. How many people you think in the military are asking the same question? I’d say 10s of thouands. It takes courage to stand up for a moral position. Something you either don’t understand or think is insignificant.
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.