Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!

www.greeleygazette.com ^ | 11/30/2010 | Jack Minor

[noinfringers2]

You went by me too fast. What difference is there if a single man could refuse to invade by the order and if that man was one of several or many and refused to invade by the order?

[tired_old_conservative]

What gives Lakin’s brigade commanders the authority to lawfully send Lakin into combat operations in Iran right now, at 8:15AM on Sunday, Dec 5, 2010? Answer the question, or admit that you’re impotent and neither you, nor Lind, nor any of the anti-Lakin folks can keep up with the big girls.

I already answered this when you asked Non-Sequitur.

First, your presumption that any brigade commander has authority over the deployment of the multiple command resources needed to constitute and deliver an invasion force is incorrect. As Iran currently has no US Forces on the ground, other than possibly Special Forces and intelligence assets, an invasion force would be required. However, in the unlikely event that Lakin would be ordered to accompany a Special Forces unit on a clandestine mission into Iran, which also involves multiple assets in multiple commands, he would be obligated to obey that order. The fundamental problem with your analogy is that it presumes a level of freelancing by individual officers that is legally precluded.

Again, Article 1, Section 8 of the Unied States Constitution as enacted through Article 10 of the United States Code and Army Service Regulations provides an unbroken legal chain flowing down to give Lakin’s brigade commander the authority to issue orders to Lakin. That is a fact. Your refusal to acknowledge it means nothing, other than to keep you personally in a state of agitation. It is also a fact that the legal establishment of the Army and the other armed forces in Article 10 of the United States Code gives authority only within the context of how the overall military is defined. The authority to issue orders doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It means you are one cog in an intricate set of interlinked cogs who can issue orders to only a subset of other cogs. But the statutory authority for you to do so is inherent in the legislative statutes that establish the Deapartment of Defense.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Unied States Constitution as enacted through Article 10 of the United States Code and Army Service Regulations--it's all there. Honest. What Judge Lind says was true long before Obama was elected, is true today, will be true tomorrow, and will true in the future unless Congress amends current statutes.

Ala your NCO, you are completely full of bull$hit right now. Can you accept that?

I have accepted that at multiple times in my life. My wife is appreciative of that fact, as are my children. But where that typically comes into play is when you realize that other people who seem lucid aren't on board with you. It gets stronger if you realize that those people have more facts, experience or qualifications at their disposal than do you. The clincher is when you then ask yourself 'Why am I doing this?" If you can be honest, and the answer appears to involve some personal triggers with emotional ties, then the alarm bell should be going off? If you can finally look at your own thoughts and actions and kind of see why others see them as skewed, then you're there.

On this issue, I would say you evidence more need of that process than I. I mean that honestly:

(I) have no doubts that I am labeled an enemy of Obama’s US because of the research I’ve been conducting. My family is keenly aware that the crooks I’m exposing have the power to know everything about me and my family, because they have control over all information in this country basically.

My husband is assuming I will eventually be killed, although he tries not to think about it. I’ve told people what they are to do if I am killed, to continue the battle. I’ve done my best to get the information to lots of people so that the thugs can’t silence these issues simply by silencing me.

That's not rational, and it's not healthy. If you really can't step back and see why, then you're just doing damage to your own psyche at this point. As a Christian and a generally decent sort, I'd rather you didn't.

[Red Steel]

"Judge" Lind just out and out lied to the court when she falsely separated Obama from LTC Lakin's chain of command.

An excerpt below from the "Military Law and Precedents" in the book collection at Harvard University that I'm sure is still taught at the US military service academies:

And Lind even came to a false conclusion or was misleading the court when she said the original order came from the Pentagon for LTC Lakin to deploy to the war zone in Afghanistan. As you can see, in the above passage and in note 4 the Secretary of War (now the SECDEF) to wit, "His [President's] function as Executive empowers him, personally or through the Secretary of War to prescribe"

The Secretary of Defense is part of the Executive Branch of government in that any order from the Pentagon is as the same as coming from Obama . A false and misleading argument by Lind's court.

[butterdezillion]

I wish I could answer that. There’s something on my computer that keeps me from being able to download what I need in order to see Youtube. You’re a pretty smart guy, though, so I imagine you probably have it right. Which makes me wish I could see it all the more. lol

[butterdezillion]

So does that mean there is no law or regulation that would allow Lakin’s brigade commanders to lawfully deploy Lakin to Iran for combat operations as of this morning, since Congress has not declared war on Iran?

Congress has never declared war on Afghanistan either. So why would it be lawful for Lakin’s brigade commanders to order him to deploy to Afghanistan?

[OneWingedShark]

Hm... you could try this link... it should pop-up a "Save as" dialog, make sure you end the filename with ".FLV" and then you'll also need a media-player which can play FLV-files.

[butterdezillion]

Also, intelligence operations are different than combat operations.

When I look at the part of Article 10 of the US Code that pertains to the issuance of combat orders, at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=997849&SIZE=3701&TYPE=TEXT , it says:

“The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that such assignments are consistent with the force structure prescribed by the President for each combatant command.”

It also says:

“(b) Chain of Command.—Unless otherwise directed by the President,
the chain of command to a unified or specified combatant command runs—
(1) from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and
(2) from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the
combatant command.”

I see nothing that gives brigade commanders the authority to deploy soldiers for combat separately from the chain of command that begins with the President. What I see confirms in LAW what others have posted from military reference books - that orders (at least combat orders, as that’s the kind of orders I’ve looked up here) are dependent on the President.

And I have already cited SJ Res 23, which specifically said that “the President” is authorized to “use appropriate force” in the war on terror.

[El Sordo]

Godwin’s Law, B. Godwin’s Law.

Consider two thoughts.

1) When you have the general consensus on a subject from of a group of people who deal with that subject for a living, their consensus will tend to be much more correct in terms of what will actually happen and why than the general consensus of people who do not deal with that matter hardly at all, let alone for a living.

2) The rise of the Nazi party in Germany had more to do to with the NSDAP capitalizing on national mood via emotional appeals made to the German populace rather than rigid adherence to German law or respect for an American-style philosophy of separation of powers. There is very little comparison between then and our current situation. If you ever have a free three months, sit down with Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”.

[El Sordo]

Try asking Bushpilot1 if a colored fellow can be President.

[butterdezillion]

Article 10 clearly states that the chain of command begins with the President. And I’ve shown that SJ Res 23 specifically states that the authority to use force is given to THE PRESIDENT, not to anybody else in the chain of command. Without a valid President, the order for combat operations can never even get started down the chain.

That’s what we’ve been saying. The orders from the brigade commander cannot stand alone as if they didn’t depend on the chain of command.

If there was no valid President ordering the use of force in Afghanistan right now, then it would be just as unlawful for the chain of command - starting with the Sec Def and down to Lakin’s brigade commanders - to deploy combat and combat support forces to Afghanistan as it is to deploy them to Iran. SJ Res 23 authorized the use of force wherever needed as decided by “the President”. If “the President” told the chain of command to use force in Iran right now, the chain of command could lawfully issue orders to combat and combat support troops to deploy there.

The authorization for the use of force didn’t designate which countries force can be used against and it didn’t authorize the Sec Def or DOD to use force. It allowed combat forces to be used ANYWHERE and ANYTIME in the war agains tterror - at the sole discretion of “the President”, to whom they issued legal authorization.

What makes combat in Afghanistan lawful but not in Iran is the orders of “the President”, since he is authorized to use whatever force he wants. If there is not a valid President ordering force in Afghanistan right now, then Congress has no more authorized combat in Afghanistan than in Iran. They left it to the discretion of the President.

The lawfulness of Lakin’s orders are ABSOLUTELY dependent on there being a valid President. EVERYTHING that has been presented supports that. The only thing against it has been the weak protestations that the lawyers are smart and we are dumb, the lawyers are strong and we are weak, the lawyers are big and we are little (ala Harry Wormwood in “Matilda”).

[butterdezillion]

I’m out the door to play for a Christmas program so this is just quick, but regarding #1, using that same technology we should just let the lobby groups decide everything because they are the ones who know what they’re talking about.

Regarding #2, emotionalism as opposed to strict adherence to the law - would that be like, “But he posted an online image!” as opposed to actually requiring his eligibility to be verified by Nancy Pelosi before she signs a paper to allow him on the state ballots?

Off to church.

[OneWingedShark]

If that doesn’t work here’s a transcription.... transcription errors likely.

---

Hola senorita,
como te llamas?
Me llamo ‘Mike,’
me llamo ‘Mike.’

Donde Esta el bano?
Feliz compleanoz.
Que hora es? Que hora es?

Lalalalalala

Me gusta la biblioteca,
Vivo en la casa roja.

Yo tengo dos biciletas.
Muchas gracias.
Y de nada.

Cuntos anos tienes?
Un momento por favor.

It’s the one-semester of Spanish Spanish Love Song.

Mi mama es bonita.
Mi gato es muy blanco.
Perdonema, PERDONEME!

Lalalalalala

Uno, dos, tres y cuatro.
Cinco, siez, sieti y ocho.
Nueve, dies!
No remembro how to say ‘eleven.’

Antonio Banderas.
Nachos Grande,
y ‘cinnamon twists.’

Its the one semester of Spanish Spanish Love Song.

[whispered] Au revoir.

[Red Steel]

I see nothing that gives brigade commanders the authority to deploy soldiers for combat separately from the chain of command that begins with the President. What I see confirms in LAW what others have posted from military reference books - that orders (at least combat orders, as that’s the kind of orders I’ve looked up here) are dependent on the President.

Tired CON intentionally mislead.

[Red Steel]

mislead = misled

[El Sordo]

Sigh... No.

Ah well...

I still hold out hope that you’ll figure it out someday.

I hope the Christmas program went well and was enjoyable.

[Red Steel]

"Their Original Source and Authority.

The Authority for army regulations proper is to be sought--primarily--in the distinctive function of the President as Commander-in-chief authorizes him to issue, personally or through his military subordinates,³ orders and directions as are necessary and proper to ensure order and discipline in the army. His function as Executive empowers him personally or through the Secretary of War, ⁴ to prescribe...

³ That army regulations duly issued by the Secretary of War are in the acts and regulations of the President as Executive or Commander-in-chief,...."

[bushpilot1]

Note 888 "law of the land"..we know the Law of Nations as been called..by several Supreme Court justices..recently and some years ago.

[tired_old_conservative]

Actually, if the proposition you advance was valid, SJ Res 23 would be irrelevant to the discussion. If you go to Title 10, Section 113, here are the first two paragraphs:

(a) There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.

(b) The Secretary is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject to the direction of the President and to this title and section 2 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401), he has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.

So by the way you choose to read those words, the moment someone claims doubt about the President's eligibility, literally no one in the armed forces can give an order on anything and require it be obeyed. You don't need SJ Res 23 for your argument. Your position is that the military is, by design, a single point failure system that collapses the moment someone doubts where the President is born. All those guys in active combat operations are just going to have to fend for themselves as best they can.

Obviously, our military isn't designed like that. That's why it's not just subject to the direction of the President. It's subject to the direction of the President and to this title. You don't recognize the significance of that last phrase because you're thinking only of the operational aspects of command. Obviously the President gets to decide who attacks what when. That's what a commander-in-chief does, and why the Constitution establishes one. It was understood that direct combat by committee doesn't work. There is, however, another aspect of command in the military. It is a legal aspect. It is what gives officers the right to order people around like a slave labor force (within limits) without being subject to legal consequences. If you want to think of the President as the brain, this legal aspect is the skeleton. It keeps the body from collapsing into mush independent of whether the brain has just blacked out from a concussion.

In sum, even if the President hoodwinks the Secretary of Defense in some way, the requirement for individual officers to follow the resulting orders cascading down through the Defense Department exists independent of the Presdent's legitimacy, or whatever else. The machine continues to function while the civilian leadership in Congress and the Executive Branch deals with any larger issues.

What's bizarre about this is that you're raising this issue on something where no one with the actual authority or responsibility to do so has questioned Obama's legitimacy. From an individual officer's point of view, he has a duly elected President certified by Congress. You misread the intention of the officer's oath in a way dramatically at odds with what the Founders intended for this country. The oath of office is to the Constitution precisely in reaction to well-documented historical concerns about oaths to any man or office. It symbolizes the military's apolitical nature and submission to the civilian authority defined by the Constitution. The last thing it was ever intended to do was empower every individual officer in the armed forces to decide for him/herself whether the President or his actions are sufficiently Constitutional, in their own personal interpretation, to warrant loyalty and obedience. That's about as unconstitutional an outlook as you can have. And as I said, if that's what you want, move to Turkey. That's what the military there gets to do.

Further, Congress certified the President's election in accordance with the Constitution. You have no evidence that they did so in error. So Constitutionally or legally, your concerns mean nothing. Express them to your elected representatives who have the legitimate power to investigate if they so choose. That they have not done so rather speaks for itself.

Or work to get laws passed in your state that require presentation of birth documentation to get on the ballot. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I strongly suspect that if you get such a law passed, Obama will be easily able to satisfy it, but then you'll know.

Heck. Get someone to write a law that requires proof you were born to two citizen parents. That's a legitimate thing to try. I strongly suspect it will be sued and the courts will throw it out as adding an additional requirement to the Constitution without amendment. But then you'll know the answer to that question unequivocally.

If someone is honestly wanting to know, and not simply insisting on anything to arrive at the only answer they can personally accept, that should be good enough.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37116443/United-States-v-LTC-Terry-Lakin-Ruling-on-Motions-Discovery-%E2%80%93-September-2-2010

Read items 3-5 of Lind's conclusions. Try to understand that she's talking about the legal structure embodied in statute, not the President's operational authority. No one, least of all Judge Lind, has ever proposed that the SECDEF, the Secretary of the Army, or any individual brigade commander can just decide to attack anyone they want. To even pretend that's what she's saying reveals a complete lack of comprehension of the issue. What she's saying is that within the military, legal orders have to be obeyed by statute and what constitutes an illegal order is well defined and is not someone's hypothetical musings about a President whose election was duly certified by Congress.

Her reasoning and conclusions are neither novel nor forced twisting of statutes. They're utterly conventional. As in, noncontroversial to the JAG Corps and people who try court martial cases. Myself and others told you that was exactly what she would say months before she did. You didn't believe us then, and you obviously never will. But it is what it is. Cling to fantasies that make you bitter and unhappy or move on.

Like I said, if you want to do something constructive, work to get ballot eligibility laws passed in your state. If you do, and Obama actually is proven to be ineligible, I will personally congratulate each and every one of you while gladly admitting you were right and I was wrong. I respect extant reality and the facts thereof.

Hope the Christmas thing went well. Don't expect any replies from me anytime soon after this. I'm taking grandkids to see people dressed up like rodents with big ears, electric light parades, beaches and what not for the next week or so.

And for what it's worth, I do hope Lakin's sentence is light.

[tired_old_conservative]

And by the by, since you like odd hypotheticals so much, I am aware that all rule-based systems break down at a certain point. So, yes, if the President were to order the SECDEF to storm the halls of Congress and execute everyone, and SECDEF went along, then everyone in the military would have quite the dilemma on their hands.

But then, that would also be an obviously illegal act in fact, so it would be an unlawful order. Compare that to, say, giving orders while someone who has no idea and no proof says they doubt your birth certificate. That's neither a matter of fact nor illegal. It only becomes even a question when Congress decides it is.

[butterdezillion]

Why would I want to do that?