Posted on 12/14/2010 9:25:59 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkrn.com ...
United States v. Lakin liveblog II
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/12/14/united-states-v-lakin-liveblog-ii/
More information here.
LTC Lakin elected to be tried by a panel of officers. The defense asked the judge to advise the members that LTC Lakin had pled guilty to violating lawful orders, and that his pleas were accepted. Neither side attempted to use voir dire to explore their theory of the case. Of the ten officers named to the court by the convening authority, nine had heard about the case; one expressed an opinion negative to the accused, and the judge granted a challenge for cause for that member. The prosecution did not exercise any peremptory challenges; the defense challenged one member, leaving eight. All are O-6s.
pretty good.........out of the millions (yes, millions) of enlisted and commissioned people serving now, or have previously served, you managed to find 3......
Lakin probably takes the witness stand to lucidly speak to the military panel articulating his motives and actions, since most other defense actions have been taken away by the court.
I’ve done my homework. I asked everybody on these threads and everybody on Dwight Sullivan’s site regarding what in the MCM would make it unlawful for brigade commanders to deploy combat troops to Iran. Nobody would do a darn thing. The “experts” would not give me the answer that they said was so stinkin’ obvious to everybody. So I researched it on my own.
Article 92, under a) Lawfulness, ii. That’s where it is. The superior commissioned officer must be authorized to give “such an order” - by law, by regulations, or by the custom of the military.
There is no law, regulation, or military custom that allows a brigade commander to decide to invade Iran. That authority belongs to Congress, who alone has the authority to declare war. IF Congress had declared war on Iran, then the military structure under the leadership of the CINC could conduct combat operations there. The Declaration of War and the general orders of the CINC down the chain of command would be the authorization for brigade commanders to deploy troops to Iran.
But Congress has not declared war on Iran. They have, however, delegated to “the President” alone the authority to “use force” in the war on terrorism. If “the President” would authorize the use of force in Iran, brigade commanders would be authorized to give “such orders” deploying combat forces to Iran.
Congress has never declared war on Afghanistan. The same authorization needed for the use of force in Iran is also needed for the use of force in Afghanistan. Both would be fronts in the “war on terrorism”, and combat operations are LEGALLY totally dependent on the decision of “the President”.
If “the President” is truly IRRELEVANT to the combat orders given by brigade commanders, as Lind asserts, then brigade commanders don’t need to follow the stinkin’ law that gives only “the President” authority to “use force”.
If the POTUS is irrelevant to the lawfulness of orders to deploy combat forces to Afghanistan, then the POTUS is also irrlevant to the lawfulness of orders to deploy combat forces to Iran, or anywhere.
Lind’s claim is revolutionary. It takes the rule of law out of the equation and makes every brigade commander an entity unaccountable to either the command structure or to Congress’ own resolutions.
Unfortunately, looking more and more like that's the case.
And before anyone says anything about a habeas petition to the Court, it should be pointed out that Lakin won't be confined for nearly enough time for a habeas petition to be filed. And, clearly a habeas petition can't be filed once the prisoner is released.
For all practical legal purposes, his appellate options are foreclosed, at least with respect to failure to obey. The missing movement charge is a bit more complicated, if for no other reason than he's accused of missing civilian transportation. There's some wiggle room for the defense here - not a lot, but a tiny bit.
I was a teenager when the Vietnam war was happening and SAW our military being “spit upon”...literally. It left me with such a feeling of contempt towards those who would say or do such a thing. You actually had the gall to say that on this forum???
I feel for your family members that while you are spouting those words THEY and countless others are upholding your right to say it. YOU as an American can say whatever you want but remember this...words do have meanings and you should choose your words with a sense of responsibility. You’re the one who is ACCOUNTABLE for what you say.
I’m done.
Your reasoning is overly simplistic. You obviously have no legal experience in the plea bargaining process. I understand why you can not follow this very complex plea bargain with your limited knowledge of the process.
“Army Birther” was used in the title?
FUAP
To: butterdezillion
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin could have simply pleaded not guilty, trusted a military panel of his fellow officers to side with him and kept his judicial options open to appeal if convicted.
You can try to deflect the blame onto others if you want but a Lieutenant Colonel who is a physician is capable of simply saying the two words: “NOT GUILTY.”
102 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:36:22 PM by jamese777
Could be. Time will tell.
“There is no law, regulation, or military custom that allows a brigade commander to decide to invade Iran.”
__
That’s right. And any brigade commander who initiated orders to invade Iran would be severely punished for it.
Your point?
Spit on our military? Have you lost your f***ing mind?!!
Just because you don’t understand the UCMJ, which you clearly don’t, doesn’t make our military bad guys worthy of being spit upon.
I hereby invite you to join your buddy MissTickly in leaving Free Republic.
FREEPERS DON’T SPIT ON THE. U.S. MILITARY!
Darn your overly simplistic reasoning...
My reasoning is based entirely on the Manuel for Court-Martial. After you've cured your possibly terminal case of cranial rectosis, you should find a copy of MCM, and look up Rule 705. It spells it out in great detail the steps that must be taken when entering a guilty plea, to especially include guilty plea as part of a plea agreement.
Did I mention you're an idiot?
and my “limited knowledge”.
I’ve done my homework. I asked everybody on these threads and everybody on Dwight Sullivan’s site regarding what in the MCM would make it unlawful for brigade commanders to deploy combat troops to Iran. Nobody would do a darn thing. The “experts” would not give me the answer that they said was so stinkin’ obvious to everybody. So I researched it on my own.
Article 92, under a) Lawfulness, ii. That’s where it is. The superior commissioned officer must be authorized to give “such an order” - by law, by regulations, or by the custom of the military.
There is no law, regulation, or military custom that allows a brigade commander to decide to invade Iran. That authority belongs to Congress, who alone has the authority to declare war. IF Congress had declared war on Iran, then the military structure under the leadership of the CINC could conduct combat operations there. The Declaration of War and the general orders of the CINC down the chain of command would be the authorization for brigade commanders to deploy troops to Iran.
But Congress has not declared war on Iran. They have, however, delegated to “the President” alone the authority to “use force” in the war on terrorism. If “the President” would authorize the use of force in Iran, brigade commanders would be authorized to give “such orders” deploying combat forces to Iran.
Congress has never declared war on Afghanistan. The same authorization needed for the use of force in Iran is also needed for the use of force in Afghanistan. Both would be fronts in the “war on terrorism”, and combat operations are LEGALLY totally dependent on the decision of “the President”.
If “the President” is truly IRRELEVANT to the combat orders given by brigade commanders, as Lind asserts, then brigade commanders don’t need to follow the stinkin’ law that gives only “the President” authority to “use force”.
If the POTUS is irrelevant to the lawfulness of orders to deploy combat forces to Afghanistan, then the POTUS is also irrlevant to the lawfulness of orders to deploy combat forces to Iran, or anywhere.
Lind’s claim is revolutionary. It takes the rule of law out of the equation and makes every brigade commander an entity unaccountable to either the command structure or to Congress’ own resolutions.
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin isn’t charged with violating “combat orders.” He is charged with violating “get on a plane and fly to Charlotte, North Carolina and then fly to Fort Campbell, Kentucky” orders and with “report to your commanding officer” orders.
We don’t spit on the United States military on FR. Suggest you clean up your act NOW or go somewhere else to spit. DU would welcome you.
Are your uck keys broken?
Hold up... he pled guilty to “...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.”
This seems to me to have a LOT of wiggle room in it.
I think this pleading was very carefully worded for appeal.
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.