Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
Seq, I suspect that what bothers you most is that Lakin has put you in a position where you have to side with commanding officers issuing orders that are coming from a fraud in the Oval Office. And you don't have the stones to admit it. And thats what grinds you. Lakin exposes you. You dont have the stones to call a fraud a fraud. Lakin does.
Your a “go along”, “get along”, “Yes Sir” - man.
Admit it , you want him in pain for for having the stones you lack.
Something that I don’t understand, looking closely at Lakin’s charge sheet, is why they charged him with Article 92(2) violations and dereliction of duty when his orders were from Lt Col William Judd, Col Gordon Roberts, and Col Peter McHugh - given that those are all commissioned superior officers (as per http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rank4.shtml ; Lt Col Judd has the same rank as Lakin but is presumably superior if he is able to issue orders, right?) and thus disobeying their orders would be chargeable under Article 90 (see p 196 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf ) .
Article 92(2) is only supposed to be for things that can’t be charged under Article 90, 91, and 92(1). (See p 301 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf )
Seems to me that these charges are not in the scope of Article 92(2). What am I missing here? Have the charges been revised in any way since the initial charge sheet was issued?
1 John 3:16: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”
Interesting that you think God should be “blamed” for creating people who will choose to lay down their own lives for the sake of others.
“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one that this, that he lay down his life for his friends... Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me... In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” (John 15:12-13, 20-21; 16:2-3)
Lakin’s order: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf01-lakinorders12mar2010.pdf
Lakin’s charge sheet: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf-14-chargesheet.pdf
Another question. On page 160 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf
the next-last paragraph says,
“Ordinarily the lawfulness of an order is finally decided by the military judge. See R.C.M. 801(e). An exception might exist when the sole issue is whether the person who gave the order in fact occupied a certain position at the time.”
When you look at RCM 801(e) it covers when there is a judge and when there isn’t a judge, but at the end of all of it, on p 126 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf , it says this:
“Questions of the applicability of a rule of law to an undisputed set of facts are normally questions of law. Similarly, the legality of an act is normally a question of law. For example, the legality of an order when disobedience of an order is charged, the legality of restraint when there is a prosecution for breach of arrest, or the sufficiency of warnings before interrogation are
normally questions of law. It is possible, however, for such questions to be decided solely upon some factual issue, in which case they would be questions of fact. For example, the question of what warnings, if any, were given by an interrogator to a suspect would be a factual question.
A question is interlocutory unless the ruling on it would
finally decide whether the accused is guilty. Questions which may determine the ultimate issue of guilt are not interlocutory. An issue may arise as both an interlocutory question and a question which may determine the ultimate issue of guilt. An issued is not purely interlocutory if an accused raises a defense or objection and the disputed facts involved determine the ultimate question of guilt.”
Maybe I’m not understanding the meaning of “interlocutory”, but it seems to me that the judge can determine lawfulness of orders if the basic facts are not in dispute. That is not the case for Lakin; he contends that those who issued the orders were not authorized to issue them because they lacked authorization by a valid CINC.
Maybe this really comes down to the military charging him under Article 92(2) when this is outside the scope of 92(2) and should be under the scope of Article 90, in which case Lakin would contend point b under “lawfulness” - Lakin claiming the fact that the person issuing the order did not have the authority to issue THAT PARTICULAR order because it was not authorized by a valid CINC (the same way that an order to deploy to Iran would be contested if someone was court-martialed for disobeying the order).
Merely responding in kind.
Seq, I suspect that what bothers you most is that Lakin has put you in a position where you have to side with commanding officers issuing orders that are coming from a fraud in the Oval Office.
Your suspicions are no more accurate than anything else you posted. I disapprove of officers like Lakin or Watada or Huet-Vaughn who take it upon themselves to decide which lawful orders they want to obey and which they do not. I do not understand how you can support them. It's no more complicated than that.
Your a “go along”, “get along”, “Yes Sir” - man.
And apparently you're a "give me an order...I might obey it...I might not...depends on how I feel" kind of guy. The military has no need of people like you.
Admit it , you want him in pain for for having the stones you lack.
I expect Lakin to pay a penalty for his foolish decisions.
What? That's like saying armed robbery is only supposed to be for things that can't be charged as murder or arson. The three articles aren't mutually exclusive, they are distinct infractions and each covers different circumstances.
Seems to me that these charges are not in the scope of Article 92(2). What am I missing here? Have the charges been revised in any way since the initial charge sheet was issued?
What are you missing? Understanding of the law to begin with. Lakin could easily been charged under either Article 90 or 92. If he was charged under Article 90 the prosecution would have to prove willfull intent on his part. Under Article 92 all they have to show is that Lakin knew of his lawful order and refused to obey it.
NS, it’s right in the MCM. Page 300:
(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful
orders which may be issued by a member of the
armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable
under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation
of written regulations which are not general
regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as
applicable.
They didn’t choose to avoid Article 90 because they’d have difficulty proving his willful intent; he’s warned them all along of his intent.
They chose to avoid Article 90 because they didn’t want to have to address all 4 items that determine lawfulness of the order - specifically item b, the one which says the issuing officer has to be authorized by law, regulation, or custom of the military to give that specific order.
They know that law (SJ Res 23), regulations, and customs ALL say that a brigade commander cannot deploy combat forces without the authorization of a valid CINC.
The trouble with their plan is that Article 92(2) can’t be used in a case where violations are chargeable under Article 90 - according to the actual Scope of Article 92(2), which I’ve posted from page 300 of http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf .
What’s interesting is that Lind referred to only ONE of the 4 criteria for lawfulness under Article 90. She knows that all 4 of those criteria have to be met in order for the order to be lawful.
She also knows that Article 90 is the real charge that should be made against Lakin - that Article 92(2) is not allowable for these charges against Lakin.
So even though the cases are still pending in the courts, this guy is justified in short-circuiting that process, and refusing to obey orders based on how he believes those cases should be decided? Has an Article III court issued an injunction, or taken other legal actions saying that the President should not be obeyed?
The Constitution prescribes a process for choosing electors, electing a President, and having him sworn in by the Chief Justice, all of which happened. Unless and until a court rules otherwise, he's the lawful President whose orders must be obeyed.
But he is charged with violating a LAWFUL order. For Lind to claim that deployment orders for combat operations are lawful whether or not the only person who can lawfully authorize combat operations ever actually did.... is just crazy.
Lawful as determined by whom? Lind himself? Apparently so, because his superior officers have given him his orders, and he refuses to obey them because Obama's right to be President has not yet been resolved by the courts to his satisfaction. As I said above, the President was chosen by electors in accordance with teh mandates of the Constitution. By your logic, any military unit in the country could properly refuse to follow orders to engage in combat, repel foreign invasions, or whatever, simply because that case is still being heard. In fact, because this President has appointed the civilian heads of service and many general officers, the entire chain of command is invalid.
It’s like saying that if a brigade commander, independently of the chain of command, decides to invade Iran it’s irrelevant whether he acted outside his authority in deciding and ordering that.
No, it's not. Because one involves an action that indisputably violates orders by exceeding lawful authority, and the other -- Lind -- involves a disputed political question. I despite the President. But the officer corps of this country simply cannot take sides in political disputes of this nature, especially given that the underlying question was/is being processed in the court system.
Finally, if Lind believes his own arguments, then Biden is President. Does Lind have any basis for believing that Joe Biden disapproves of Obama's orders? I suspect not. And fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the officers still in the military apparently agree that Lind's actions are b.s., because he's kind of hanging out there by his lonesome on this.
Eh, substitute Lakin for Lind above. My bad — posting while on the phone is a bad idea.
Terry Lakin is the person accused. Denise Lind is the military judge who says that Obama being or not being a valid POTUS is irrelevant.
Did you hear that? She says that it is IRRELEVANT whether Obama is or isn’t a valid POTUS.
Do you agree with that? Do you believe that every order - even orders to deploy for combat operations to God-only- knows where - is legally valid regardless of whether we have a valid President deciding to use force?
She’s saying that even if the electoral vote was not certified (as it has never been lawfully done), even if the President elect “failed to qualify” according to the 20th Amendment, even if the oath of office was never lawfully taken.... even if the entire political process was bypassed, Lakin’s orders would be lawful. Every order that wasn’t for rape or theft would be lawful. Brigade commanders could send their troops to attack Britain and it would be lawful. Because the CINC is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of orders down the chain of command.
Do you really agree with that?
The rest of your points can be dealt with in due time, but the first, all-encompassing issue is whether brigade commanders can lawfully issue combat orders without an order for the use of force by a valid CINC. That’s what Lind is claiming. Do you agree with her?
Just a quick note. Biden absolutely disagreed with Obama’s decision to increase the troop level in Afghanistan - the decision which directly caused Lakin’s deployment orders. There was an article which detailed the deliberations, and Biden absolutely disagreed.
It should also be noted that after swearing in Biden for VP, Justice Stevens shook his hand and said, “Congratulations, Mr President.” Accidental, or not? Only God and Stevens know for sure.
The point I think your missing is, from Lakin's point of view, he asked (in writing and in person) for his chain of command and his elected representatives to provide answers to his questions on this issue. When they couldn't answer him, or passed the buck, he then decided to take the (in) action that he took.
Because the state run media refuses to discuss the issue, other than to employ Alinski tactics, doesn't mean a significant portion of the country is on to the fraud.
After-all, how can someone who was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, possibly be a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. as intended by the framers for the position of Commander in Chief?
Do you believe the framers (post grandfather clause) wanted someone born with foreign citizenship to be Commander in Chief eligible?
I'm not a yes man. Never was, never will be.
And the last thing I will do is get shot going into battle on the Orders of an Indonesian/Kenyan citizen pretending to be an American, who thinks America sucks and needs to be knocked down a few notches.
Why in the world haven't those charges been addressed? When was the last time military (either active or retired) openly accused a sitting (alleged) "POTUS" of treason? Yet no action on the serious charge of treason. Crickets.
And my Son will not join an Army that salutes that Communist POS.
Okay, let's look at that. First, is it your contention that unless all court challenges are resolved prior to Inauguration, the President isn't holding office lawfully, and his orders can be disobeyed?
Because I'd say that if a President is inaugurated lawfully, in accordance with Constitutional requirements, he remains the lawful President unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise on a dispute regarding the election, citizenship, etc.
Second, at least some of the cases brought challenging Obama's citizenship have already been dismissed, including one that went up to the Supreme Court and which the Court declined to review. At what point do officers have an obligation to obey their orders without playing sea lawyer?
After-all, how can someone who was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England, possibly be a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. as intended by the framers for the position of Commander in Chief?
Okay, I'll play, even though it's irrelevant to the issue. Suppose your dad is serving with the U.S. Air Force in Diego Garcia, where you are born in a U.S. military hospital. Under U.S. law, you're an American citizen. But Diego Garcia is a British territory, so under British law, you were "born a subject to the crown of her Majesty the Queen of England. So despite the fact that your family moved back to the U.S. when you are 3 months old, and you spent the rest of your life in the U.S., the Founders apparently intended that you can't be President.
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.