Is Lakin’s court-martial an American ‘Dreyfus affair’? - ALAN KEYES

Loyal to Liberty ^ | September 4, 2010 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

I doubt that most people would be shocked to learn that sometimes the influence of power can interfere with and even derail the course of justice in our legal system.  Behind the scenes, a phone call from a powerful politician, or a corporate mogul often affects the actions or judgments of people whose personal ambitions they are in a position to help or hinder.  Usually though, people giving heed to such considerations have enough sense to cloak what they do with words or actions that give their corruption at least the appearance of probity.  Maybe its the tribute that vice renders to virtue.  Maybe its nothing more than self-serving prudence (the mask of honesty that facilitates corruption.)

However, when court officers conclude that such hypocrisy is no longer worth the effort, things are pretty far gone.  The video featured with this post  focuses on the recent decision by Col. Denise R. Lind, the military judge charged with presiding over the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.  People who still care about American justice will recognize the facts as confirmation that America has passed ‘far gone’ and is approaching the point of no return.

[Non-Sequitur]

The cases you cited concerned the legality of the war.....NOT the legality or legitimacy of the cic.

The Watada case, the Huet-Vaughn case, the New case, and the Lakin case are all very similar, as anyone with any familiarity with them can see. In all four cases the defendant refused to obey an order from a superior on the grounds that order was illegal. In all four cases they demanded that the president provide evidence that the orders were legal. In all four cases, the defendant tried to make their motivation for refusing an order part of their defense. In all four cases the Army has refused on the grounds that their reasons for refusing were immaterial. In the first three cases, the defendant was found guilty. Lakin will make the fourth. And if any future officer decides to try the same action, the Army will have yet another precedent to fall back on.

Try to stick to the relevant facts...

The relevant facts are there for everyone to see. Four nearly identical cases. Three, soon to be four, nearly identical outcomes.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

When did I make an 'illegal war' comparison? In all the cases I listed, the officer in question refused to obey the order of a superior officer. Lakin refused to obey the order of superior officer. In the cases I listed, the officer said the the order was illegal. Lakin claims the order is illegal. In all the cases I listed the officer demanded the president provide proof that the order was valid. Lakin is demanding Obama provide proof. In all the cases the defendant tried to make their motivation for refusing to obey the order a central part of the case, as did Lakin. In all the cases the Army refused. If you honestly believe Lakin is right then you have to agree that Watada and Huet-Vaughn is right. If you believe the actions of Watada and Huet-Vaughn were wrong then you also have to believe Lakin is in the wrong. Anything else is the height of hypocrisy.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

And the relevance to Lakin's charges is?

[Non-Sequitur]

There is a world of difference between questioning the “legality” of a war and the legitimacy of the the POTUS.

And what would that difference be?

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.

Again, that difference is?

[Sola Veritas]

“And what would that difference be?”

Are you always this obtuse, or do you just enjoy being obnoxious? IF you cannot see the difference...you aren’t worth my time.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Whether Berg and Taitz are kooks is irrelevant to the question of whether Obama is eligible to be president.

Not at all. It goes to the very heart of the credibility of the accusations.

There is a good reason the Heritage Foundation and the Landmark Legal Foundation and all the other "serious people" will not get anywhere near birtherism. Despite 2 years of relentless effort, there is no smoking gun.

...the only reason that Taitz and Berg are the "face" of the "birther" efforts is because the MSM will only show those that are on the fringe.

It was birthers, not the MSM, who chose to embrace Orly, Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Joseph Farah, Tim Adams, Rev. Manning, The American Grand Jury, Post & Email, Lucas Smith, Ron Polland and all the others who peddle the false hope of an easy solution for the mess the ill-informed voters have created.

[deport]

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.

---

It maybe worthwhile to post the actual charges to which LTC Lakin is having to defend against. They can be viewed at the following two locations.

SCRIBD

or

The-Peoples-Forum

CHARGE I, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 87

The Specification:
In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, did. at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 12 April 2010, through design, miss the movement of US Airways Flight Number 1123, departing from Baltimore/Washington International Airport arriving in Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.

CHARGE II, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ . ARTICLE 92

Specification 1:
In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Lieutenant Colonel William Judd, to report to the office of his Brigade Commander, Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, at 1345 hours, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 31 March 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

Specification 2:
In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, to wit: a memorandum signed by the said Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, dated 31 March 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 31 March 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

Specification 3:
In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Colonel Peter M. McHugh, to wit: Temporary Change of Station orders 099-17, dated 9 April 2010, issued by Colonel Peter McHugh, requiring the said Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin to report to Fort Campbell, Kentucky not later than 1500 hours on 12 April 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey, did at or near Washington, District of Columbia, on or about 12 April 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to report to 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Specification 4:
In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, who knew or should have known of his duties at or near Washington, District of Columbia, on or about 12 April 2010, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to report to Fort Campbell, Kentucky in accordance with Temporary Change of Station orders 099-17, dated 9 April 2010, issued by Colonel Peter McHugh, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, as it was his duty to do."

[fr_freak]

Not at all. It goes to the very heart of the credibility of the accusations.

No, it doesn't. At all. There are nutbag kooks who sing "God Bless America" every morning. Does that mean that America really sucks? No. It means that a legitimately good country can have nutbags who love it as well as good people. In the same way, a legitimate issue can have nutbags as proponents as well as serious people. If it is an issue that the lefty MSM doesn't like, which do you think they'll hold up as the standard bearers? If only one person among hundreds of thousands at a Tea Party rally were holding up a sign that said "I hate black people", who do you think the MSM would focus on as the spokesperson? This is simple logic that should be easily understood.

It was birthers, not the MSM, who chose to embrace Orly, Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Joseph Farah, Tim Adams, Rev. Manning, The American Grand Jury, Post & Email, Lucas Smith, Ron Polland and all the others who peddle the false hope of an easy solution for the mess the ill-informed voters have created.

You are operating under a couple of false premises. The first is that "birthers" are some monolithic consciousness. Those who are concerned about Obama's eligibility are like the Tea Party - there is no formal organization, no head, nothing to join, and no single voice. They are many people from all walks of life who share concern on a particular issue. You cannot attribute a single action or motivation to all of them. Your second false premise is that people are looking for an easy solution. You are, apparently, under the impression that the only motivation for questioning Obama's eligibility is to get rid of him. That is silly. There are quite a number of people whose main motivation is simply to uphold the Constitution. That should be every loyal American's primary concern regarding government. In fact, the idea that we should simply ignore such questions out of fear of appearing uncool or extremist is both cowardly and unprincipled. Remember, many men have died for the principles in our Constitution, and all we have to do is ask questions and demand answers.

I can understand having doubts about the validity of the eligibility questions, but calling for inaction and apathy regarding an important Constitutional issue is about as unAmerican as one can get.

[Tex-Con-Man]

I hope your straw man factory is at least providing jobs for Americans.

[Exmil_UK]

You legal definitions say the order exists in isolation.

I, and a 3 Star Retired US Air-force general say it is a product of the unified chain of command, with Obama at the pinnacle of the NCA its true origin.

Yours is a narrow oversimplification based on applying previous precedents to an unprecedented situation. When appling the legal precedents produces nonsense results, the judge is supposed to actually use their judgement to make a new precedent. If a foreigner can order the "surge" in Afghanistan, and as a direct cause the deployment of a Brigade of the 101st Airborne to War in Afghanistan, I say THAT is unprecendented and requires the judge to allow exculpatory evidence. If Obama is a foreigner, it breaks the Defacto officier doctrine to the point it just crumbles into dust.

[Jacquerie]

For most people, our constitutional concept of separation of powers is not that difficult to understand. There are always exceptions and you may be one. Here is more regarding my contention that separation of powers prevents judges from doing what you would like them to do.

“The phrase “embarass”… is a term of art by legal entities where they acknowledge the separation between co-equal jurisdictions.”

“Specifically it means, in this case, a re-iteration that the judicial branch has no right or authority to delve into another entities business, specifically political questions on the Presidents legitimacy which are reserved exclusively to Congress.”

http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakins-defense-crushed-in-detail/

[Jacquerie]

Thanx professor.

You are welcome!

[fr_freak]

I hope your straw man factory is at least providing jobs for Americans.

Well, hey, thanks for your well-thought-out reply.

[Exmil_UK]

Phil Cave sounds like an echo of Old Deck Hand.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you always this obtuse, or do you just enjoy being obnoxious? IF you cannot see the difference...you aren’t worth my time.

I'm saying you can't define the difference you claim exists. I think you just proved that.

[Non-Sequitur]

You legal definitions say the order exists in isolation.

And your definition says each and every order flows back to Obama, which means every single order given since January 20, 2009 by every single officer and NCO in every branch of the military has been illegal. That is ridiculous.

I, and a 3 Star Retired US Air-force general say it is a product of the unified chain of command, with Obama at the pinnacle of the NCA its true origin.

I and at least one two-star and at least two senior Army JAG officers say that it doesn't.

[Jude in WV]

AMEN

[Jude in WV]

An honorable president would not allow this man and his family to suffer these costs.

[Jacquerie]

A virtuous electorate would not make a dishonorable man President.

[Jude in WV]

You are right...and it didn’t. It appears to me the virtuous are in the minority in America these days.

From Dictionary.com

Virtuous, Adjective

1. Having or showing high moral standards.