Army birther pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges

AP ^ | December 14, 2010 | AP

[Smokeyblue]

An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has pleaded guilty to 1 of 2 charges against him.

At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not showing up at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he was supposed to report.

[El Sordo]

But what if you keep arriving at results that do not agree with the answer key?

And virtually every teacher, tutor or practitioner of the subject that you speak with notes errors in your process or conclusions?

And the only people that seems to agree with your methodology and results are other laypersons who have virtually no real experience with the subject?

At what point in time do you step back and ask yourself if you made mistakes ranging from simple misunderstandings all the way up to major category errors?

[Lurking Libertarian]

As a lawyer, how much credibility would you give somebody on unverifiable facts, if she has already documentably perjured herself on something easily verifiable?

Having read numerous demonstrably false things on the Post & Email (my favorite was about the "missing 13th Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution), I give zero credibility to anything they say. I seriously doubt they can even count to 50, so I don't believe their claim that Fukino misstated the number of requests.

[OldDeckHand]

"Could they have chosen to give him no sentence at all?"

Yes.

[butterdezillion]

They have the copies of the requests. I’m sure if you wanted to see them to verify the information yourself they would send you the electronic records, if it could be transferred on a zip drive or something.

Supposing that you did check into the facts and there are far less than an average of 50 requests/month for Obama’s BC, what would that tell you about her credibility on facts that are not verifiable?

[El Sordo]

I figure that it would probably help people a great deal if instead of saying “The Post & Email...” they would exercise some clarity and realize that they should just say “Some person's blog...”

[El Sordo]

It would have been quite interesting to be a fly on the wall during the jury deliberations.

[El Sordo]

Day three wrap from: http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/16/united-states-v-lakin-liveblogging-day-three-wrap/

“LTC Lakin, convicted on all counts by a general court-martial, has been sentenced.

The sentence is a dismissal, confinement for six months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The dismissal — the only form of punitive discharge authorized for an officer — is generally regarded as equivalent to a dishonorable discharge and cuts off substantially all benefits incident to military service. If approved by the convening authority, it will entitle LTC Lakin to automatic review of his case by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He can waive that review, but such waivers are relatively rare. Unless the convening authority grants a deferment of confinement, LTC Lakin will start his sentence today.

Colonel Sullivan reports that there was no reaction from LTC Lakin or from the half-dozen or so birthers remaining in the spectators’ gallery. The military judge thanked the members for their service, and excused them. The courtroom was then cleared to allow LTC Lakin privacy.

Thanks to all who participated in the discussions here the past few days. With very few exceptions, the questions and comments were excellent.

Colonel Sullivan will likely be on later to post his observations first-hand; if there are any further radio interviews, we will link them here.”

[Lurking Libertarian]

they would exercise some clarity and realize that they should just say “Some person's blog...”

"Some paranoid schizophrenic person's blog..." would probably be a tad more accurate.

[butterdezillion]

I have shown my work and repeatedly asked the “experts” to correct my errors.

Instead they call me stupid. Refuse to show where the math is messed up. Just say the answer is wrong. Refuse to work through another story problem with me to show me how to do the math.

Real professional.

At this point it’s no longer just a math question. At this point it’s an issue of human nature. Why would a teacher refuse to work through another story problem to illustrate how the formula works? Why would a teacher dismiss the request as crazy and call the student stupid, or stomp off in a huff?

I’ve got kids so I’m an expert in human nature. lol. When people act that way it’s because they know they are wrong.

Also, just a point of fact. I don’t think that Generals McInerney and Vallely are “only laypersons who have virtually no real experience with the subject”. Nor is Fundamentally Fair, who in other threads has agreed that the authority for combat deployments comes from the President, and has TAUGHT CLASSES on precisely this subject matter.

There are a few liberal JAG folks on Sullivan’s blog (including Sullivan) and Judge Lind who agree with Lind’s ruling that approval from a valid POTUS is irrelevant to the lawfulness of combat deployment orders. I don’t buy the argument that the experts all agree on this - any more than I believe AGW is “settled science”.

And even if the whole world said I was wrong I would still say there was a problem if the math they say is supposed to work doesn’t match the answer they come up with for the Iran story problem. See, my earthly epistemology isn’t based on “the authority is always right”. My earthly epistemology is based on whether what is claimed matches reality and is internally consistent.

If you use the logic of Lind and the “experts”, any brigade commander can issue lawful orders to invade Iran, regardless of whether there is authorization from a valid POTUS. Yet the “experts” also say that’s not true if the orders are to Iran. There’s a discrepancy there, so something is not right.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Thanks for the kind words. You’re welcome. BTW, the monkey question was intended to be funny not insulting.

Your sincerity is clear, butter. It’s obvious that you want to know the truth. I just think you take your conclusions and/or questions to an extreme sometimes.

You’re spot on about why we disagree. Remember basic Government 101? Th Legislative branch makes the law. The Executive branch enforces the law. The Judicial branch interprets the law. So Congress makes the orders legal and the CIC enforces them through the chain of command. So for the sake of discussion, assume Obama is unable to enforce the chain of command (i.e. the order) becase he’s ineligible. Does that make the order illegal? No. Judge Lind’s role as a member of the Judicial branch was to interpret the law. Specifically she had to decide if Lakin’s orders were legal. She rightly concluded they were.

Yes, I cited statutory law, the authority for which was granted to Congress by the Constitution.

[Vendome]

He then testified about receiving his deployment orders. At the bottom of the orders, it said he had to bring a copy of his birth certificate. He said, “I thought, there’s an issue here.” That was followed first by laughter from the birthers in the audience, and then by applause, bring another sharp, “Members of the gallery!” from Judge Lind.

 

Oh the irony.

 

FUBO

[Vendome]

Kleon:

Why are birthers so quick to compare our military to Nazis?

 

 

 

[Natural Born 54]

“Rush had already speculated that democrats had prepared the way for Soros to make a run on the bank and that the dems had been surprised by how serious the situation was after it was all done.”

And no one was more helpful than that treasonous turd Barney Frank.

The leadership made a terrible error that day. Had they let Soros do whatever he threatened to do, my guess is we’d be better off today than we are. And the future would look much brighter. They should have remembered what Ben Franklin said about short term security.

[bushpilot1]

Lakin: ‘I chose the wrong path’”

1. Law of Nations, Chapter XIX

2. Obama and his supporters including Judge Lind are committing felonious offenses against the Law of Nations in the Constitution.

[truth_seeker]

“I think the conflict between our views regards what it means that the SecDef must have the approval of the President. What you cited was statute. When the words “shall” or “must” are used in statutes it is an imperative. So the SecDef is not legally allowed to do the things described in that section without first having the approval of the President. The authority for the SecDef to do those things is legally dependent on the approval of a valid President.

So the statute itself makes the authority for the chain of command to deploy troops totally dependent on the approval of the President. How, then, can Judge Lind say that the approval of a valid President is “irrelevant” to whether one particular link in the chain of command (brigade commanders) had the authority to issue combat force deployment orders?

She talks about Congress having authority over the military - but the authority Congress gave the SecDef is expressly dependent on a valid President’s approval, and the authority for the chain of command within the military structure is dependent on the approval of the SecDef. So Congress’ oversight of the military does not CONTRADICT or SUPERSEDE the President as the source for authority down the chain of command; it actually codifies it - at least in regard to combat authorization, which is what is at issue with Lakin’s deployment orders.”

1. Have you served in the US militry?
2. Do you know what a TO&E is?
3. Have you ever administered a chain of command, and/or delegation of authority system in an organization?
4. Have you studied or practiced military law? Civilian law?
5. In actual practice, do you believe the Sec. Def. calls the President, before signing every memo, document, order, etc.—to determine that the President, in micro-detail, approves that action?

Too bad this once fine soldier, got bad advice, acted upon his own mistakes, and blew his military career.

FYI I predict if a poll were conducted of active duty military personell, it would come down very hard on Lakin.

IMO playing games like this, in the military during war is NOT the appropriate venue to determine a constitutional and political question.

[butterdezillion]

Appeal to authority. A logical fallacy.

There are many decisions that can be made independent of the President signing off on it.

The use of force is not one of them. Buckeye Texan posted the law which allows the SecDef to send combat orders down the chain of command, and it requires the plan for deployments and the assignment of force to be approved by the President.

Presidential authorization for THESE SPECIFIC ORDERS are critial to the lawfulness of deployment orders, according to Article 90, Article 92, the Authorization for the Use of Force, and the law which gives general authorization to the SecDef to administer the Presidential use of force. Anything Lind could legitimately cite would have that stipulation right there. She can’t avoid it, except by blatant, willful neglect of what is actually in the legal documents to which she is supposed to be bound.

[danamco]

“Some birthers don’t care who they disparage if it means keeping birtherism alive. “

---

Lt.Col. Lakin was first of all referring to his oath to the CONSTITUTION, NOT “birtherism”!

OTOH it wouldn’t be expected that a Con-Man would understands the ramification of the Nurenberg trial some six decades ago, where Nazi officers was condemned by four nation judges for following un-lawful orders, which is what has been referred to regarding the military!!

You and others are very clever in splitting words in order to protect YOUR now present dear Fuehrer in the W.H.!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/1946-10-08_21_Nazi_Chiefs_Guilty.ogv

[danamco]

Go back and read post 931 and its link!!!