Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: joe fonebone

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.


329 posted on 12/04/2010 3:56:55 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]


To: joe fonebone

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.


331 posted on 12/04/2010 4:13:02 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion

>>Judge Lind said that if an order has to be obeyed it is “lawful”. <<

Maybe she’s leaving him a sensible reason to appeal. I’m thinking of the My Lai Massacre.


349 posted on 12/04/2010 7:39:15 PM PST by B4Ranch (I have never met one, not one Veteran who enlisted to fight for Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson