Posted on 09/04/2010 12:52:43 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Before ya’ll get your circle jerk up and running today, I just wanted to clear the air and remind you that the place of Hussein's birth is irrelevant to LTC Lakin’s case.
Ciao’
Jacquerie
Irrelevante? Are you saying that if he was born in Kenya that would not impact Obama’s eligibility? We know his father was not a citizen. If it could be proven that Obama himself was born in Kenya even the 14th amendment could not be used.
It seems to me that we should be using all avenues.
Obama’s eligibility to serve as POTUS is the issue isn’t it?
His birth place may not be the paramount issue but it doesn’t seem irrelevante.
How am I wrong? I was wrong once before so don’t be afraid to tell me. :-)
Not at all. All the Army has to do is show the orders from Colonel Roberts, Lieutenant Colonel McHugh and Lieutenant Colonel Judd were legal. They can do that easily without bringing Obama into it at all.
A test of what? A soldier's ability to decide what orders they will follow and what they will not? That question has been decided before in numerous court martials.
Unless he is allowed a complete defense, to include compeling the POTUS to release information to the court, then justice has not been served and doubt remains.
In 1991 Army reserve Captain Dr. Yolanda Huet-Vaughan refused to deploy to Desert Storm as ordered, contending that the war was illegal. At her court martial she was denied the opportunity to subpoena evidence and present a defense that put the legality of the war on trial and was convicted of desertion and sent to Leavenworth. In 2006 First Lieutenant Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iran with his unit, saying that the war was illegal and doing so would open him up to war crimes charges. At his court martial he was also denied the opportunity to put the war on trial and he too was convicted. Are you prepared to state that in both these cases since the defendant was not allowed to present a 'complete defense' that justice was not served and doubt about the legality of both wars remain?
IF he gets a trully fair and impartial trial with all evidence considered, and is convicted...the precident is set.
Sorry, the precedent for following orders had been set by the Huett-Vaughan case, the Watada case, and the Michael New court martial. There is nothing new here other than Lakin's motivation for refusing to obey the lawful orders of his superiors.
>> They can do that easily without bringing Obama into it at all.<<
So at what point does the command to send troops into, in this case, Afghanistan begin? It would seem that, under your scenario the command could be issued by any one in the chain of command. There has to be an ultimate authority and that is CIC.
Am I the only one here who has bothered to read Lakin's Charge Sheet? He is not being charged with disobeying Obama's orders. He is not being charged with refusing to get on a plane to Afghanistan. He is charged with refusing to obey orders to report to his commanding officer's office and with refusing to report for temporary duty with the 101st. How anyone can come to the conclusion that this means anyone can order an invasion of any country is absolutely insane.
Lakin has to show why the orders of his three superiors were illegal. Long established legal principle is that the authority to issue routine orders does not depend on the President, eligible or ineligible. Therefore in order to beat these charges Lakin needs to show why the orders of Colonel Roberts, Lieutenant Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel Judd were illegal, and not whether the Commander-in-Chief is a fraud. He can subpoena any information he needs to do that. But anything on Obama is irrelevant, and two JAG officers have already pointed that out to him.
>>Lakin needs to show why the orders of Colonel Roberts, Lieutenant Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel Judd were illegal<<
So, guilty untill proven innocent?
No. Lakin's based his defense that the orders were illegal. The Army will present their evidence showing why they were legal. Lakin has to show how they are wrong.
>>The Army will present their evidence showing why they were legal.<<
I don’t want to belabor the point. We could go on and on with this and would gain us nothing it seems. But.
It seems to me that, under the “innocent until proven guilty” system, if the State has to prove they were legal orders it would ultimately lead to the CIC. If the CIC is not the constitutional CIC then the original order was not legal.
No. Not all orders originate from the commander-in-chief. Long established military precedent has found that routine orders, such as those given Lakin by three superior officers, do not rely on the president for their authority. The authority to issue them comes with the position the officer giving the order is holding. Lakin himself could order a subordinate to report for duty at a certain time or perform a routine task regardless of Obama's eligibility. That order would be lawful.
Try to stick to the relevant facts...
Nice try but Lakin has already completed a tour of Afghanistan. http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/who-is-ltc-terry-lakin.html That makes it obvious your “illegal war” comparison is just not valid. I also think you me en Iraq not Iran for Watada proposed deployment.
Only the NCA can move a US Army Brigade from the US to Afghanistan. That meens Obama must be a US Citizen. if he is not, the order is illegal as is all the orders generated by it.
If Obama is a foreigner the NCA is invalid until Obama is removed and replaced by Biden.
Obama’s vital records at Hawaii DOH are exculpatory evidence.
“Sorry, the precedent for following orders had been set by the Huett-Vaughan case, the Watada case, and the Michael New court martial. There is nothing new here other than Lakin’s motivation for refusing to obey the lawful orders of his superiors.”
I disagree. There is a world of difference between questioning the “legality” of a war and the legitimacy of the the POTUS. BTW - Watada has walked...partly because the current POTUS won’t pursue a further trial.
Also, there is a world of difference between examining documents that support or cast doubt on the constitutional legitimacy of a POTUS and determining if a war is illegal.
Although, I do see you point in principle and do concede my personal bias may be affecting my judgement.
Well, there goes your facade of being so smart and all.
Troll.
My positions is simple. He must disclose his original form birth certificate, school registration and financial aid records, and passport file. The USSC must decide upon the issue of NBC.
Until these things occur, the issue remains open and we can listen to people like you try to explain why the truth is not important.
There were two separate attempts to post a forgery of a secondary document called a COLB [NOT a birth certificate] on the Internet. This is how the fact check version was done, start at 4:10, turn down your sound if you hate metal rock music,
If the other hand is Orly Taitz? Absolutely!
Do you think the Philip Berg birtherpalooza in DC a week before the upcoming elections is his attempt to help elect more conservatives to congress?
The (unfortunately misguided) Lt. Lakin aside, the face of this cause is kooks and frauds. It's one of the reasons candidates run away from the subject. (That and the complete lack of substance.) The only people that will be bringing it up during the campaign will be Democrats in an effort to embarrass Republicans.
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.