Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg
BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube
Using your rationale, there has been no valid law passed since Obama took office, since no law was ever submitted to a qualified President. So why don’t you disobey those laws?
When convicted, you’ll have ‘standing’ and can challenge Obama in Court. You can be everything you want Lakin to be...although you’ll be in a different prison.
Of course Onama was NOT vetted.
He has NEVER been vetted — by anyone or anything — at any time.
The judge has just ruled that the military chain of command STOPS in the Pentagon.
That means that legally Pentagon high command can issue a lawful order to arrest the president...
I don’t think you get it. If we elected a 2 year old pet parakeet born in Africa and if congress approved, the military would call the parakeet Mr. President.
So long as congress did not impeach, the parakeet would be the president and everything he signed would be valid even if later removed by congress.
My concern is that he was vetted at a very young age by a bunch of radical communist types that want to fundamentally change the US.
The officer that gave the order was promoted to his current rank and authority by a board of officers under Obama’s predicessor and confirmed by congress.
Almost all of the current senior officers directly nominated to their positions by the SecDef on behalf of President Bush. and confirmed by that congress.
Unless you are saying that all officers require reconfirmation [they do not] or that Gates was not eligible, then your argument is incorrect.
Try reading the oath and UCMJ.
Even if Obama is ineligable, it is inmaterial to his failure to obey a lawful order.
Obama did not give him his order, A uniformed officer gave that order.
Presidents rarely give orders and when they do it is to the SecDef or JCS. They give orders in their own rights as to the details.
What you are arguing is called Solicitation to Mutney under military law and can carry the death penelty. Part of the Treason Laws...
I think it's clear that Lakin has the right to discovery. It seems quite unconsitutional and un-American that any soldier, who are American citizens, would have to put their lives on the line for someone who is posssibly a usurper.
Huh? “I was just following orders” is a perfectly valid and successful defense for accusations of any atrocity or for any act of war.
How in the dickens to you derive any “right” to question authority in the face of that???
Also, in the US, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
President Obama has not been charged or found guilty of the fraud claimed.
That poor excuse for an officer has broken the law no matter how you read it.
He has declared himself judge and jury over the eligibility of the President, found him guilty, and refused lawfull orders by other senior commisioned officers over an order that Obama never even saw...
You are arguing for anarchy rules.
That is not a precident you want, unless you wish for a military dictatorship...
I think you may have responded to the wrong FReeper.
No, he's actually invited a judge and jury to determine said eligibility for himself and numerous others.
Nahh, Lakin has no right to question The Won on such flimsy grounds.
He is fully protected from legal consequences of any action he takes under his orders.
What nonsense.
Perhaps, but I'd say that the party that championed the right for black citizenship and freedom within this nation and within our Constitutional system should have the right to remove a black man from the presidency pretending to be a citizen.
If he is a citizen, he may not be eligible if he's not "natural born", but I'd like to see if he can even pass the first hurdle.
Let's see of Obama pulls out of the 2012 election.
You're right, there is no Lakin court-martial and Lakin's attorneys have not demanded the right to discovery.
He is the defendent. He disobayed the lawful order of a senior commisioned officer. Commisioned Officers and NCOs have the authority to give orders in their own right. That is why Commisioned officers’ promotions are confirmed by congress. They have their own legal authority over those under their command. Including punative authority...
Obama did not give him his orders.
And Obama has never been legally charged.
Plenty of claims but, nobody has ever filed legal charges.
He is not the defendent here...
You do not have to like your orders, you do have to follow them unless you KNOW they are unlawfull. And Obama did not give him his orders. A senior officer with authority to issue orders in his own right gave him his orders.
Even if Obama’s office is fraudulent, that does not make what this idiot did legal or right. He was not ordered to commit a crime. That is what Unlawful Orders referes to.
>>”Question: From whence does an officer gain his authority to issue a command to a soldier?”
>
>Every order doesn’t depend on the President. Larkin disobeyed an order to report to a commanding officer’s office. Is it your contention that nobody in the military can issue even the most trivial order until they see Obama’s birth certificate? Because that’s obvious nonsense.
Nope, it’s NOT. It’s the logical result of a completely invalidated chain-of-command; though there is technically a higher [legal & authoritative] entity than ‘President’: The Constitution of the United States of America. Any order contrary to it is, by definition of “supreme law of the land,” contrary to the law (and therefore illegal). Conversely, no order affirming it can be held to be illegal (i.e. legally speaking if a “Captain” issued an order to his men [say during Katrina] that they were under no circumstance, except as a response to violence, disarm a citizen it would be legal... EVEN IF the standard ‘operating procedure’ *ordered* by the Officer in Charge of the mission stated that they were to disarm citizens).
Let me present a scenario to you: a small unit of soldiers are out on patrol while their parent-unit is attacked and utterly destroyed, then a counterattack happens [by the parent-unit’s parent unit] and the enemy is expelled from that position, at this time the patrol returns. It is entirely possible the commander [of the ‘grandparent’ unit] could have, in the absence of its child unit, filled those positions including that of the commander for that small unit’s parent unit... perhaps with soldiers unknown to the original small-unit.
Now, what assurance do the returning soldiers have that this new commander is legitimate?
Now, what if that grand-parent unit left but kept the replacement of the parent unit in place to secure the point? What assurance would the patrol have that this entirely new replacement unit was legitimate?
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.