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 ...
“Lind won’t let him even bring up the Constitutional grounds.”
__
If you’re talking about the eligibility question, that’s right. As has been pointed out to you many times, the law says that Lakin’s orders were lawful completely independent of the eligibility of the President. Since that’s the case, nothing concerning his eligibility is relevant to the determination of Lakin’s guilt or innocence.
He can accept that and plead guilty, or he can reject it and plead not guilty. His choice. But the law on this subject seems very clear — I have yet to hear a knowledgeable military lawyer express a contrary view.
Danae,
Lakin may have had honorable motives when he refused to deploy alledgedly because he did not believe that BO’s orders were lawful, but after his guilty plea, his original motive is questionable.
Here is an excellent article regarding the legitimacy of BO’s presidency:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html
I don’t care if his superiors were commissioned by George Washington himself, the orders to deploy to Afghanistan come from the president’s authority, and no one else.
By the way, only the Congress can commission Military Officers, Presidents do not have that authority.
I would not spit on anyone who has served honorably in the US military. I actually wouldn’t spit on anybody.
What I’m saying is that I am very angry at the people in the US military who have enabled and cheered on as Lakin has been deprived of his due process and Sixth Amendment rights.
Nah, I’ve got the Charm of Making direct from Merlin and Morgana.
You’ve been doing outstanding work. I understand your passion, and I am certain you didn’t mean to insult our great military. Just a few hasty words can unravel all of a person’s hard work. It’s really amazing. God bless our military, and God bless you and all the other hard working researchers.
Oh, good grief. Tremendous lawyers LOSE every day in court rooms all across the country. Why? Because their clients are usually GUILTY.
Puckett's ethical obligation to Lakin is to give him sound, legal advice - nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, sound legal advice includes pleading guilty to charges, especially when your client is actually guilty. Here, Lakin's guilt was plainly self-evident. Lind's rulings were plainly within the parameters of existing law making them the ONLY rulings she could have made in the case. There was no reversible error there.
The best thing Puckett, or any attorney could have done was to make Lakin's landing as soft as possible. To this end, Puckett has only done things that further that very goal; Mitigate as best as possible Lakin's exposure, especially with respect to time of confinement and forfeiture.
As for the Article 138 Complaint, what you assert is ridiculous. Art. 138 would not have been helpful or probative in any way here. Why? Because it is not the role of the US military to inspect the constitutional credentials of the president. The military follows civilian orders, they don't give civilians (leadership) orders, ever.
Lakin asked for clarification about the legality of his orders. He was advised, in writing, that his orders were lawful. He should have stopped there, or at worst, filed in federal court for a TRO, and fought it out there, while keeping mindful to follow all orders while that case proceeded. Of course, we all know how that would have ended.
A question is not an answer.
“I question Lakin’s motives based on his guilty plea.”
You can also question whether the chair I am sitting on is real, however you cannot ever prove it is real. You can’t prove it exists.
A court and and will answer the questions Lakin poses. However, I don’t believe your assumptions on the matter: 1) I don’t know you. 2) You are very new to FR. 3) I prefer to wait and see what comes out of the courtroom next rather than lend any weight to your opinions.
Please forgive my caution. You may well be right. Wel will soon see.
“I don’t care if his superiors were commissioned by George Washington himself...”
If they had been, they’d be well past retirement age by now...
“The big mistake this Lt. Col. made was to think he would actually get a fair trial.”
Let’s never forget — Lakin knew this was going to turn out badly for him walking in. If anything, he was probably surprised it lasted as long as it did.
The 20th Amendment says that if the President elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th the VP elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
Lakin and everybody else in this country deserves to have an answer to whether Obama “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009.
Since the Hawaii DOH has made a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended, and since Hawaii law says that an amended BC has no inate probative value, even Obama’s age is legally undetermined at this point. How could he have qualified by Jan 20th if nobody even to this day can legally say how old he is?
Btw, the word DUmbie is deliberate, perhaps you are a DUmmy, as well. As JimRob asked, “were you born stupid?”
Apparently, you are unable to be embarrassed, you just keep posting, and posting, and ....
Anyone who wants to spit on the United States Military is evil, imo. Mature, civilized adults don’t want to spit on other people.
. . . .’Course, deranged people are another story.
Ummm hum.
That sitting next to the Easter Bunny or Santa?
I don’t care if his superiors were commissioned by George Washington himself, the orders to deploy to Afghanistan come from the president’s authority, and no one else.
By the way, only the Congress can commission Military Officers, Presidents do not have that authority.
The POTUS signs commissions granted by Congress.
I'm sure you wouldn't, your statement just pissed me off.
Lakin has been deprived of his due process and Sixth Amendment rights.
Refusing orders is serious business. Doing so for the reasons stated is practically foolish.
Tilting at windmills is one thing, blowing bubbles at them is another.
I'm sorry for what's happened to him, but what did he expect?
Obama's presidency is half over.
How about we work on voting him into obscurity instead of praying
for some magic solution to make him gone? It doesn't seem to be accomplishing much.
I humbly submit that you are right.
We will not find justice while that cretin is in the White House.
We will hopefully get the chance to, in the history books, record him for what he is: The first Usurper of the United States. Assuming the Nation survives that is.
It makes me sick at heart, and I sincerely do not want to let got the hope that he can be removed from that office in the robes of disgrace I believe he so soundly deserves.
You got your answer the day he was sworn in. Everything else is conspiracy theory.
Lakin decided to martyr himself for the cause and now the he’s getting what he asked for. He knew the odds, he gambled, he lost.
The reasoning is very similar: just following orders.
Soldier A is ordered: Move the prisoners to the shower area.
Soldier B is ordered: Turn on the shower.
Soldier C is ordered: Remove the bodies in the shower and throw them in the pit.
Which of those soldiers has been given an unlawful order? The argument in Lakin’s case is that as long as the overall picture is accomplished through small steps - none of which is, in and of itself, criminal - all a person CAN do is obey orders.
We wonder our whole lives long how those people were able to swallow this. Well, now we have our teachable moment. Those people in GErmany were not monsters. They were honorable people trying to do the right thing. And they thought obeying their orders was the right thing. If they had challenged the lawfulness of the orders - even here in the US right now - they would have been charged with crimes for not doing as they were told.
I apologize for saying I felt like spitting on the US military. I am deeply bothered by what has happened to violate Lakin’s due process and Sixth Amendment rights, and in expressing the depth of my anger I chose words that were offensive. I would never spit on anyone, least of all anyone who has served honorably in the US military.
Ridicule does not serve you well.
The Military is quite scared of this issue and because it is easier to prove than “Bush was selected, not elected” because all it takes is one $12 piece of paper that if he was eligible Obama could have produced at any time, you know like John McCain did during the campaign when he showed his Panamanian Birth certificate.
The United States Military throughout it’s history is unique in the fact that as citizens, soldiers have on occasion refused orders they believed to be illegal or in some cases foolhardy even in the face of summary execution on the field of battle.
I have never suggested that anyone disobey direct orders from their superiors only that it is the right and duty of a commissioned officer to do so, so that the US constitution is protected. Indeed an officer’s enlistment oath does not require him to obey the president’s orders as an enlisted man’s does. An Officer’s oath places the duty to defend the Constitution as the Officer’s primary duty to our nation.
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.