Replies

He’s faced with disobeying a lawful order. Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23. So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

Just to be clear. SJ Res. 23 is irrelevant to the orders given by Obama as commander in chief to be carried out. The joint resolution is only a backing - an authorization to use force - from Congress to the Executive to make war in Afghanistan. It is not a forced requirement, or is it an order that compels the Executive to carry out those orders. That decision solely rests with the president to make war and to give war deployment orders . You won't get any confirmation from that idiot NS.

What should not be relevant to this case to the extent which is Lind's main concern is to protect Obama. She has denied Lakin of due process by the rail-roading in her kangaroo court by disregarding Article 46 and rule 701 of the Manual for Court Martial:

We go to war for our Brothers. Its not going to end in December. Its just the beginning for them, and it looks like Soebarkahs about to get can of Brotherly Love opened up in his face for the next two years :

Greg said if his brother is not allowed to present evidence on his behalf and is convicted he would be forced to leave his practice to advocate for his brother saying, “My reluctant but determined response would be to forego my busy medical practice treating drug addicts and elderly patients to organize a public outcry for America’s new military political prisoner.”

I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying about SJ Res 23. It is a resolution giving support to the POTUS to initiate combat operations at HIS sole discretion. It is not Congress directing the President to go to war, which would make the authority of deployment orders dependent on Congress if that was the case. Combat operations are to be decided and ordered by the President.

Is that what you’re saying, to make sure nobody misunderstands when I say “whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23”? I meant that SJ Res 23 requires that if force is going to be used it HAS to be the President who orders it - not that SJ Res 23 requires the President to use force.

Do you have any idea what part of the MCM would apply to a situation where a brigade commander ordered subordinates to deploy for combat operations without the CINC ordering combat operations there?

I’m looking at the 3 parts of Article 92: #1 is about lawful general orders, #2 is about other lawful orders, and #3 is about dereliction of duty. The part about general orders talks about it having to be not contrary to the Constitution or laws and not being beyond the authority of the person who issues it. If a brigade commander ordered soldiers to Iran for combat (without a valid Presidential order for combat operations), would that have the same requirement for lawfulness as #1? Is there anything in the MCM which would justify a soldier refusing to deploy to Iran for combat if there was no valid presidential order for combat operations there? If so, what is the code that would justify disobedience to that order?

Again, for convenience the Article 92 stuff starts on p 300 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf .

I’ve tried to ask this stuff at Dwight Sullivan’s site but neither he nor anybody else there would respond any more informatively or earnestly than NS responded here. Mock the question rather than answer it.

I can understand if a person doesn’t have any answers, in which case I just hope they’d say so. It’s confusing stuff and I certainly understand why it’s a tough question. But if they claim that the question is so absurd because it’s obvious what the answer is - but still refuse to answer the question, that to me is the equivalent of a husband who refuses to satisfy even though he can. The more likely reality is he refuses to engage at all because he knows he can’t satisfy.

Not the most delicate way to describe the situation but I can’t think of a more delicate way to say it. lol

One other thing regarding disclosure. Hawaii law already requires that all of Obama’s birth records that Fukino relied upon to make her July 27, 2009 announcement be disclosed to anybody who asks for it.

Lakin should not even have to go through this big thing with discovery, for the actual birth records. The trouble is that to get the records he would have to find an honest judge in Hawaii. Given the way the rest of Hawaii government functions there’s probably slim hope of that.

Lind’s decision that the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders are independent of whether a valid President authorized combat operations is so critical to Obama’s hopes of anything, because that means she’s going to reject any evidence Lakin presents. As it is right now there is the evidence from the HDOH that they don’t have a legally valid BC for Obama. But even if Lakin had Obama’s BC and it clearly showed, for instance, that the BC was only completed in 2006 when a birth weight was added - which was necessary because Obama was not in Hawaii during the first 30 days of his life, to have a HI doctor examine him and complete the BC.... Lind could look at that, know that Obama and his SecDef are contrary to the Constitution and their issuance of orders is contrary to SJ Res 23, and STILL say it is irrelevant.

That’s the maddening part. That ruling she made literally cut the legs off of justice, even beyond refusing him his 6th Amendment right to compel witnesses, because it means that even if Lakin could prove that SJ Res 23 was violated through the issuance of his deployment orders, the judge had already ruled that lawfulness of the order is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the order.

Unbelievable.