Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
Once again, what you are saying is nonsense, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I am also entitled to mine which is based on my knowledge and experience:
25 years as an active duty commissioned officer
Prosecutor in Courts Martial
Member Courts Martial Panels
President of Boards and Courts Martial, the result of one of these reached the Supreme Court where the decision was affirmed.
Commander multiple times exercising UCMJ authority.
The complete silliness of your argument has already been demonstrated by the decisions of the Military Judge, the events of 14 Dec will confirm it. Even LTC Lakin’s civilian defense attorney agrees with the Military Judge, so I’m not exactly going out on a limb here.
The Hollister case asking the court to decide between Obama and Biden, as to which has the Constitutional authority to “act as President” makes it especially interesting that Justice Stevens, after administering the oath of office for JOE BIDEN, shook Biden’s hand and said, “Congratulations, Mr President”.
An innocent slip? Maybe. But especially given all the “innocent slips” by judges and justices involved in Obama’s eligibility cases....maybe not.
That hinges on the de facto officer doctrine, which is not the issue in Lakin’s case. De facto officer comes in when there are UNLAWFUL orders given. Lakin has not been charged with disobeying an unlawful order, so that is irrelevant to the charges he is facing.
My understanding is that the courts have said that orders given by a de facto officer are to be honored as if the officer was legitimate. But that doesn’t make the order “lawful” according to the Article 92 definition of “lawful”.
If somebody disobeyed the orders given by a de facto officer they could be charged with disobeying an order they were required to follow - which is a different charge than disobeying a LAWFUL order. If I’m understanding it correctly that is dereliction of duty, which is different than an Article 92 violation. I’m going just on memory here so I welcome any correction if I have remembered that incorrectly.
If I’m remembering that correctly, then Lind is basically saying that dereliction of duty is the same thing as an Article 92 violation, but IIRC there are different penalties for the two crimes.
To do like Lind and say they are the same thing is like saying that if a person is charged with murder and it turns out that they committed manslaughter they are still guilty of murder. AND by Lind’s logic, the defendant couldn’t defend himself of murder charges by securing evidence that it was not premeditated and deliberate and thus not murder. That would be “irrelevant”, using her warped logic.
Perhaps ?
Weak, Joe. It’s very easy to find the posting history
by folks here. It’s at the top right of the front page,
the choices being:
keyword, title, user and yahoo.
Please at least educate yourself and read Butter’s posts
so you’re informed before you make false statements and
offend folks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:butterdezillion/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
Then, perhaps you’ll be a standup guy, admit your
error and apologize. Hope you will.
>>As long as there are unresolved cases regarding whether Obama was ever even lawfully declared to be the electoral winner, it doesn’t matter what is accepted in the minds of people. What matters is that the legal issue is still unresolved.<<
What the emplacement of Zero into the chair of President has done is remarkable when you think of the results.
1. It has caused tremendous social unrest across America by dividing the people into two groups.
2. It has further lowered our respect for our own legislators and Courts.
3. It has rekindled racist division amongst the Black and White citizens in the US and the world.
4. It has increased the outspoken desire for socialism amongst the lower class of people in the US.
5. Obamacare has made more people think they are entitled to more and better medical care that should be paid for by the wealthier citizens.
6. It has entrenched islamic culture anchors deep into American society.
7. Taught Americans that if they want to travel expect to be molested by their government.
I don’t want to take up too much space so I’ll leave it at that.
Enlistees would have the argument that their contract was finished; though there is no such argument for officers...
Lakin did NOT disobey because he disagreed with Obama’s politics. He disobeyed because the orders were not lawful.
The same reason that you disobeyed the order you disobeyed. You were allowed to explain yourself, it was seen that the order was not lawful, and you were vindicated.
Why should Lakin not also at least have that chance to be vindicated? Judge Lind said that if an order has to be obeyed it is “lawful”. Using that standard you could well have had a very different outcome.
I don’t know the specifics of your case but if you got an order from a higher-up and then a conflicting order from an officer of lower rank than the higher-up, you could be required to follow the order of the lower officer because you had no way of knowing whether or not the higher officer had conferred with the lower one and modified the order. If Lind’s standard was used, it wouldn’t matter whether the order you received was in conflict with some higher authority. It was not criminal so you were required to obey it; it was lawful, and you’re in the brig.
There, but for the grace of God and a military with some semblance of integrity, would you have gone.
Would you deny Lakin the same grace of God and a military with some semblance of integrity? Remember the parable of the unforgiving servant, who was forgiven millions and then went and put somebody else in debtor’s prison for owing him hundreds. It’s not exactly the same, but to deny somebody else the same protections that you yourself benefited from just doesn’t seem right.
AS you say, that and much, much more. Like the loss of the rule of law.
Can you believe that Robertson denied Hollister’s case because the stakes aren’t high enough?
And we have people saying we know Obama is eligible because whatever the courts come up with is obviously what’s right. I can’t fathom anybody looking at a ruling like that and saying, “Well, it must be right because it’s what a judge said.”
Rule by men rather than rule by law is a huge, huge loss.
I should also add this: In that scenario where you may not have been able to know whether the higher officer had revised the orders, one would hope that you could always ask and see if the orders were conflicting, or whether the lower order was indeed lawful.
Lakin tried that. The military structure ignored his requests for clarification. They chose to keep him in the dark, unable to know whether the order was lawful or not.
That is unconscionable. Put a guy in a darned if you do and darned if you don’t scenario and leave him there indefinitely? What kind of jerks are these military people anyway? Why would they not give him an answer? Why would Obama himself not give him an answer?
Because they knew the real answer would “embarrass Congress”... and the military leadership... and the HDOH... and the courts.... and the media... and Soros... and the Islamists... and.... (you get the picture). They CHOSE to keep their officers in the dark, putting them in a no-win situation where there is no good answer - like a terrorist who shoots at a soldier while hiding behind his own child.
You a Zero-lover, troll?
|
The complete silliness of your argument has already been demonstrated by the decisions of the Military Judge, the events of 14 Dec will confirm it. Even LTC Lakin’s civilian defense attorney agrees with the Military Judge, so I’m not exactly going out on a limb here.
Really. They've rendered verdict on a situation as I've proffered? What was their verdict?
Also, how is it silly for me to claim that the authority of an officer to command something comes from his commander, which comes from his commander, and so forth, until it reaches the President who gets his authority as Commander-in-Chief from the Constitution? I should love to see a cited military source that says otherwise, it would utterly obliterate my arguments as presented... if, on the other hand, what I have described is the chain of command then, should the president be unqualified, we have a situation in which no military order* is valid.
My logic here is correct which means that only a flawed assumption, such as that of how authority works in the military, would cause my conclusion to be incorrect; the above is an invitation for you to do so.
*Excepting the [explicit] order to follow the Constitution which, in the above case, is the only valid portion of the chain-of-command, no?
Resoundingly. Kudos...
Sorry, but its absurd on its face which is why I chose not to comment.
Obama was elected by a majority of the voters in the 2008 election. That win secured for him a majority in the Electoral College and they cast their votes as pledged to elect Obama President. The Congress confirmed the vote of the Electoral College and he was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the United States. Every Constitutional Officer of the United States, every member of Congress, and both major political parties have endorsed this outcome. You can’t get more legitimate than that.
Some clown in a uniform does not hold a Commission in the Armed Forces unless he really holds such a commission. Your argument is just silly.
If the speculation about Obama’s eligibility is to go anywhere, then someone needs to produce some evidence. None have. Now, I fully understand that the man has gone to great lengths to conceal parts of his early life and I have no doubt that if that information had been known to the American public he would not have been elected. But, I also doubt that he would have been eliminated on Constitutional grounds. He would have been eliminated by the voters who wanted nothing to do with his Marxist upbringing.
Lakin was talked into pulling a political stunt, and a hopeless political stunt at that. He’ll have to pay a price, but its of his own doing. Meanwhile, his friends, family, and publicity seeking advisors will walk away free and clear. He should be doing his duty treating wounded soldiers in Afghanistan, they are doing theirs’.
I'm under 30, if I were to run for president and win the majority vote, etc, and all of congress and all of the supreme court and EVERY member of the executive branch certified that I was president I would *STILL* be unqualified -- The Constitution itself requires that I be at least 35 -- nothing except a Constitutional Amendment can alter that requirement; that so many people believe and swear otherwise is irrelevant.
If the speculation about Obama’s eligibility is to go anywhere, then someone needs to produce some evidence.
People have evidence that doesn't match The Official Story, yet they keep getting dismissed with 'that's just silly' when they ask that the inconsistencies be resolved. (See the responses to Butterdzillion on this very thread.)
Some clown in a uniform does not hold a Commission in the Armed Forces unless he really holds such a commission. Your argument is just silly.
So are the orders issued by the clown legitimate or not? Everyone who has been of the opposite opinion of myself on the legitimacy of the LTC's orders will not answer the question with a straight 'yes' or 'no,' even as you have; this keeps them from having to justify their decision.
So, instead of entering into an actual debate where you can prove me wrong the response is SHUT UP. {Or the more polite "Your argument is just silly."}
Finally:
Lakin was talked into pulling a political stunt, and a hopeless political stunt at that. [..] He should be doing his duty treating wounded soldiers in Afghanistan, they are doing theirs.
I thought that officers swore an oath to the Constitution. Was that all bunk? You, as a commissioned officer, tell me.
I've given cited, legal reasons why this "political stunt" is valid. I've given a thought experiment which none of my opposition dares to answer honestly. I've given moral reasoning. I've tried to keep my responses reasoned. Hell, I've shown that the lack of investigation into the validity of orders in an Article 92 hearing is itself an Article 92 violation!
If all that you officers have is an appeal to authority, whether military or judicial, [and not one grain of reasoning or integrity] then I am deeply saddened and disgusted by the officer corps. In fact I should say that if that is the quality of the officers in the military then the treatment of soldiers returning from Vietnam was merely a generation too early and a pay-scale [or two] too indiscriminate; such a moral-less, courage-less, honor-less creature deserves such revilement.
And that, that breaks my heart.
How sweet.
Welllllllllllllll,
I have news for them . . . the key folks of evil hearts involved in his case.
will not have one creature speak up in their behalf before the Judgment bar of God. They will go to their eternal damnation with the blessed PRAISES TO GOD of the righteous.
They will loathe the day they thought one ill word toward Lakin.
I don’t think I have words sufficiently powerful to articulate what it begins to be.
And those evil hearted authorities trashing him will be trashed to the nth degree without remedy.
They really have no clue what they are not just setting themselves up for—but begging for many times over.
The ruling elites know that the critters lie to them yet they believe the fallen angels that lie about God Almighty being merely one of many like them.
They are deceived black hearted idiots.
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.