BORN IN THE USA? Officer's brother: 'Obama could have made this all go away'

WND ^ | 11/10/10 | Bob Unruh

[FTJM]

An attorney-doctor from Kansas whose brother is scheduled for a court-martial says President Obama could, if he chose, resolve the dispute virtually without effort.

Greg Lakin, whose brother is Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, told talk radio show host Peter Boyles on KHOW radio in Denver that it would be "easy."

"It could have been an easy fix. Obama could have stepped up and done the honorable thing and made this all go away," Greg Lakin said in the interview this week. "Just some type of showing, 'Hey, I was born here … here's some proof.'"

WND reported a new trial date has been announced by the military for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the career Army doctor who decided to refuse an assignment to Afghanistan because of his concern that the orders he was issued in a chain of command headed by Barack Obama were not legal.

According to attorney Neal Puckett, who has represented Lakin since a military judge ordered Lakin could not have access to any information about President Obama's eligibility, the trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14 and run for three days.

He confirmed to WND that there will be new directions for the defense but could not elaborate.

"All I can really say is the case is going to be handled differently from here on out," he said.

Greg Lakin said he fears the military, which he said never has had to confront the possibility that a president may not be eligible and his orders then may be illegitimate, may take the easy way out and simply lock up his brother.

[longjack]

Wikipedia has trouble with credibility.

How about the reference wikipedia used?

That would be the link that was listed at the bottom of the wikipedia page. I figured the link would be there, since that's where they usually are.

"Expulsion and Censure" Official website of the United States Senate. Retrieved 2006-09-29.

Does that work?

[Non-Sequitur]

It is the duty of the officer to not obey unlawful orders. Nazi officers tried to follow your logic. At the end of WWII they claimed they were also following orders.

According to the Manual for Courts Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime." Please tell me what is unlawful or criminal about being ordered to report to your brigade commander's office or reporting for duty with another unit?

This officer does not believe the President is Constitutionally eligible, therefore his orders for deployment are unlawful.

As the MCM also points out, "...the lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge" and not by Lakin himself. But I would also point out that Lakin is not being charged with disobeying the orders of Obama or order to deploy overseas. He disobeyed orders to report to his commanding officer and to report for duty for to a unit still in the United States. There is no constitutional question over either of those.

They swears to uphold and protect the Constitution of the USA, and all lawful orders of officers appointed above him. Since he believe Obama is not lawfully the President his orders are not lawful.

And why were the orders of Colonal Roberts, Colonel McHugh, and Lieutenant Colonel Judd unlawful?

[Non-Sequitur]

In this way, I reconcile Lt. Col. Lakin's actions and personally find that they "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" to which he was appointed.

Would you also consider officers like Ehren Watada or Yolanda Huet-Vaughan to have done the same for refusing to obey orders on constitutional grounds?

Now, your turn : why do we have two Oaths, and what keeps the CiC from leading a military coup if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution?

We have two oaths because there is one for officers and one for enlisted. And what keeps the CinC from leading a military coup are Congress, the Constitution, the Courts, and the military itself.

[StonyBurk]

I stand corrected on the first point. I erred in reflecting what I had read elsewhere. Point is he went to Pakistan at a time when they appear not to welcome Americans,Jews, or
Christians. On a passport that has not been published.
And to the second point? My guess is none of the above.

[Hoodat]

And what keeps the CinC from leading a military coup are Congress, the Constitution, the Courts, and the military itself.

Actually, it's Amendment II.

[mojitojoe]

I wish someone would ask about that photo and the dates at a press conference.

[null and void]

It's a very common error, one I've been guilty of m'self. Unfortunately it weakens our argument as it can be readily disproved, that's why I try to correct it every time I see it.

My guess is none of the above.

Ding! Ding! Ding! we have a winnah, give that man a Kewpie doll!

[mojitojoe]

Ping to #29. Any ideas as to an explanation for this?

[StonyBurk]

You ask good questions—ons I have no answers for. I’d wear myself out trying to find these answers. It is enough to know he is here—now—and I cannot follow where he would lead us.

[mojitojoe]

Why would he or she do that? I suggest the name Non-Sequitur was chosen for a reason.

Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.” However, there is no direct relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

[danamco]

Oh it’s much too complicated to get a Long Form Birth Certificate, for $12, from Hawaii.

OH YES, it really is far more complicated than that!

Because the former Chief Election Officer in Hawaii, Tim Adams, say there is NO b.c., never been, NONE, nada, zilch!!

Then there is the even more complicated NBC issue, see link posted on post # 4!!!

[mojitojoe]

Wikipedia has trouble with credibility.

__________________
Ya think? LOL

[mojitojoe]

Indeed.

[mojitojoe]

Now that is an understatement....HUGE understatement!

[danamco]

I believe the Constitution means what it says. It is not a living document, nor does it contain any penumbras or emanations.

I hope that this of your own belief is true and genuine, see above!

You see, our fellow Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has the exact same belief as millions of other true Americans have!!

Your comment after your tag-name is totally misleading and belongs rather on a site as DU, NOT on F.R., because it's NOT a political question, it's ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL question that you yourself says you believe(?) in!!!

[danamco]

Then you have a Governor removed from office after disclosed he was NOT eligible for that office!!!

[danamco]

How can you reconcile such conduct with the oath he took as an officer?

Translation: The oath you took many years ago, NOW means NOTHING!!!

Did Lt. Col. Lakin take the oath to the Constitution or to the conduct???

[danamco]

And where exactly does the Constitution give the military that duty?

That's a good question. Recently Honduras solved that problem with help of military. Seems they grew larger cojones than the US career brass!!!

[danamco]

Last two words should be capitalized. bolded print, italicized, and underlined!!!

[so_real]

I ask why two Oaths are necessary (one for officers and one for enlisted personnel) if not for the rationale I provided, and your answer is "because there is one for officers and one for enlisted". Seriously? Does a "because there is" argument ever win a debate, or even make a point?

I ask what prevents a military coup if the chain of command trumps the dictates of Constitution, and your answer is "Congress, the Constitution, the Courts, and the military itself". Really? Each of these is either part of the chain of command, or is rendered irrelevant by the chain of command if the chain of command trumps the Constitution. That's the sum total of the depth of your analysis?

Are you genuinely trying to discuss your views, or are you intentionally tossing out non-sequiturs for your own personal amusement?