Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied
U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 2,861-2,880 next last
To: 23 Everest

Nope. The law is clear. His orders were lawful regardless of Obama’s status.


21 posted on 10/13/2010 3:38:23 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
So an American officer is compelled to bow before a criminal usurper?

No, just obey the orders of his superior officers.

22 posted on 10/13/2010 3:38:57 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Those who have encouraged LTC Lakin to pursue this fool’s errand are going to walk away scot free to tilt at the next windmill and Lakin’s career will be destroyed.

LTC Lakin has move well beyond his career and he pursued this all by himself.

23 posted on 10/13/2010 3:40:09 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Exactly. It’s pathetic that a good man was convinced to pursue this.


24 posted on 10/13/2010 3:40:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
Larkin’s attorney should file a motion to delay any further proceedings until after the Nov. 2nd elections.

If memory serves the court martial is due to begin in mid-December.

I bet the mood of the courts will change dramatically!

I'll bet it doesn't.

25 posted on 10/13/2010 3:41:42 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
Hey Marxist, [mlo] shouldn’t you be over at DU or Kos and kids?

Yeah, it should be.

26 posted on 10/13/2010 3:42:01 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Nope. The law is clear. His orders were lawful regardless of Obama’s status.

Yes they were, however he has to serve the Constitution first!


27 posted on 10/13/2010 3:42:31 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
"Hey Marxist, shouldn’t you be over at DU or Kos and kids?"

Hey, I'm not the one disparaging our country. It's you birthers that post anti-American comments like the one I replied to.

And for the record, I'd be willing to bet you are more of a Marxist than I am.

28 posted on 10/13/2010 3:43:05 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Is the Court Martial still scheduled for November 4th then?

Mid-December, according to Lakin's website.

29 posted on 10/13/2010 3:43:50 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Just like the men who served under Lt. Calley?


30 posted on 10/13/2010 3:44:13 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest
Just like the men who served under Lt. Calley?

Believe it or not, there is a difference between being ordered to murder civilians and being ordered to report to your brigade commander's office.

31 posted on 10/13/2010 3:46:02 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest

Right, and the legal rational argued by the courts about the ‘de facto officer doctrine’ does not cover Obama in this case.


32 posted on 10/13/2010 3:46:10 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

>Nope. The law is clear. His orders were lawful regardless of Obama’s status.

He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution; to leave the question of Obama’s eligibility unresolved would be dishonorable and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.

...Or do you want to argue that a military officer has no interest or obligation to see the Constitution followed?


33 posted on 10/13/2010 3:49:04 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution; to leave the question of Obama’s eligibility unresolved would be dishonorable and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.

What is honorable about refusing to obey the orders of your brigade commander and two other superior officer?

34 posted on 10/13/2010 3:52:08 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mlo

What the hell are you talking about? I’m disparaging this country?

Wasn’t it your favorite, Hillary Clintoon that said it was patriotic to disagree with any administration. The sheep are not going to take this crap anymore. That’s why I’m a member of the TEA PARTY.


35 posted on 10/13/2010 3:52:44 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No. I wouldn’t argue that. But a military court martial can’t resolve that question. It’s irrelevant as far as they’re concerned.


36 posted on 10/13/2010 3:56:58 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You make my argument. He was ordered to go over with his men and kill/murder people.
37 posted on 10/13/2010 3:57:53 PM PDT by 23 Everest (A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So distinguish your proposition from the Nuremburg defense. I’m just trying to understand. Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders. If that’s the case, simply reciting the same canard they used for their defense as if it were a stand-alone universal truth seems highly suspect. There must be a better, more complete answer out there than some hypothetically unconditional obligation to always follow the orders of a superior officer.


38 posted on 10/13/2010 3:59:21 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders.

So are you claiming Lakin was being ordered to commit genocide?

39 posted on 10/13/2010 4:01:42 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 23 Everest

No. He wasn’t ordered to kill anyone.


40 posted on 10/13/2010 4:01:42 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 2,861-2,880 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson