You don't build a house like our military on shifting sand. You build it on solid rock. That rock is supposed to be the Constitutional and civil authority of the duly elected President.
Larkin's question is germane in that it would validate that authority as well as the process.
This kangaroo court is doing the exact opposite.
When a soldier, silor, airman or marine is LAWFULLY ordered to deploy, you deploy. Isn’t that what you meant? Or do you want to cast aside the rule of law, throw out Article 92?
It’s crazy that Lakin would even stand a chance of being found guilty of an Article 92 violation, because Article 92 is exactly what protects military personnel from being charged when they refuse to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Article 92 is a standard that cuts both ways. It cannot be used to punish somebody for disobeying UNLAWFUL orders.
It’s an if-then. If the order is lawful, it must be obeyed. If it’s not lawful, it must be disobeyed. If it’s not known whether it is lawful or not, what I’ve been told is supposed to happen is the order is obeyed and a request is made to clarify the lawfulness of the orders.
Lakin did that. The military refused to investigate the lawfulness of the orders. Lakin has done what he was supposed to do in this context. To find him guilty would be unconscionable.
If “the President” isn’t the one using force, then it’s somebody who is not authorized to use force, because Congress only gave that authorization to “the President”. The lawfulness of all those orders by lower officers depends on whether force was authorized by a valid President.
Even if, say, I were to pull on some BDUs after getting a little line of stars for the rank patch and a haircut, then eith my forged orders giving me command of some unit order that unit to go to AZ and enforce border-security with extreme prejudice? The content of the orders would be justified by the Constitution itself:
ART 4, SECTION. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL
PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application
of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So then, the only thing that could invalidate those orders is their origin:
someone taking a command position who is unauthorized to do so.
Would those orders be legitimate?
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Lakin timeline of concern of CinC’s Constitutional eligibility:
OCT/NOV/DEC 2008
• October was looking at volunteering to deploy with my old unit that was deploying to Iraq. Started to learn more about the issues and concerns. Stopped my efforts to volunteer to deploy.
JAN/FEB/MAR 2009
• Sought out opinions from supervisors, friends and family.
• Called Legal Assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. They returned my call. I discussed with some staff member. He stated he needed to research a little and would call me back. I called at least 1-2x/per week for about 3 weeks with leaving messages on voice mail or not getting an answer.
• Proceeded to submit an Article 138 through my Company Commander against BHO. This was submitted at the end of March 2009.
• Received official reply 11 June 2009 from Company Commander. In conversing with him, he said I had the right to submit Congressional complaints.
APR
• 24 April submitted question to Sens Alexander and Corker, and Congressman Wamp.
MAY/JUNE/JUL 2009
• Sought further advice from friends.
• June Received email response from Senator Alexander’s staffer. Conversed with Congressman Wamp’s staffer (Steele) several times. Steele submitted complaint to Office of Military Legislative Affairs.
JUL 2009
• Change of jobs to work at the Pentagon
AUG/SEP/OCT/NOV
• Continued to dialogue with friends, leaders, supervisors regarding my concerns and seeking advice.
NOV 20, 2009
• Submitted Art. 138 against GEN Casey, Army Chief of Staff.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf03-lakintimelineofconcern.pdf