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 ...
What was it that Ronald Reagan said.....
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Ronald Reagan
When the US Army starts blindly following orders without questioning their legality it is just a short step before mass murder.
“When the US Army starts blindly following orders without questioning their legality it is just a short step before mass murder. “
What you seem to want is for the military to disobey ALL orders until a court approves each one. Ain’t going to happen.
Name one state DA or SecState, one state government, one court, or one member of Congress who says Obama is not the President of the USA. Just one is all I ask...
You cannot, but you want the military to go on strike until Internet wackos are happy.
Now that’s funny.
The defense has rested without presenting evidence.
Actually I want them to obey the oath they swore to, you know to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Oddly enough this is the very much the same oath Congress swears to and I believe that so does the electoral college as well.
It is the duty of all members of our military to support the Constitution above all else, and if Obama is not eligible their obedience to his unlawful orders is unconstitutional.
Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?
The Armed Forces are the first and last defense of our Constitution always, and they have been used before to enforce it’s laws against those that attempted to shred the Constitution for their own benefit.
Where I have said such a thing? In fact, I have said EXACTLY the OPPOSITE.
Second, you do realize that you have to read a bit more than Art. 66 alone to fully understand the appellate rights of the convicted, right? There is the Manuel for Courts-Martial and decades of relevant case law to understand.
R.C.M. 910 might be instructive here, especially the part that says "which results in a finding of guilty waives any objection, whether or not previously raised, insofar as the objection relates to the factual issue of guilt". By entering a plea of guilty, the accused waives virtually all rights to appeal pretrial motions.
There are two ways to preserve such ruling for appeal. First, you may either plead "not-guilty", or you may enter what is known as as "conditional plea". Neither was done here.
You do realize that article 66 calls for an automatic appeal and review of all cases described within it’s parameters?
There is no need for conditional pleas.
“Like others here, danamco has a perfect record of offering inaccurate legal advice to Lakin. Like others, danamco continues to obey the laws passed since 20 Jan 2009, because it is easier to blow off steam on the Internet than actually put himself in the same position as LTC Lakin.
When danamco puts himself in the same legal jeopardy as Lakin, we’ll see what he would REALLY do. Until then, you can trust this: danamco has been wrong on every prediction made about this case. And now Lakin has abandoned danamco’s advice, and is trying to minimize his sentence.”
As usual ms. “WKA” your are farting your lies as a true FINO. Where and when have I made any predictions about Lt.Col. Lakin?
Where and when have I been counseling or advising Lt.Col. Lakin who’s main beef with your protegee, the usurper and illegal alien in the W.H. your are working your poor ass off to protect and keeping taking this country down the down the Marxism rat hole, is/was the CONSTITUTION??
Contrary to Lt.Col. Lakin your feminism and cowardliness prevent you from taking his position to defend the CONSTITUTION, which you have been pissing on all the time as a true “Fifth Column” that you really are. When was the last time you consulted with another “Fifth Column” John Kerry???
Just an eye-opening observation for people with blind-folders on, and still having their knee-pads strapped on!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2642379/posts?page=12#12
And I don't necessarily disageee with your characterization of Obama. But that's neither here nor there where Lakin is concerned.
I guess this kind of stuff happens in every prison. Cuba, Kansas.... Whatever.
And your equating the U.S. Army with the Cuban military under Castro is duly noted. But not something I would agree with.
I would pay real money to watch that. Somehow I don't think it would be much of a contest, wimp that he is.
Honestly, are you a freakin' moron, or are you being intentionally obtuse?
I've cited for you the specific rule in the Manuel for Courts-Martial that addresses the waiver(s) inherint in ANY guilty plea, and you continue to regurgitate gibberish.
What part of...
RCM 910(j) Waiver . Except as provided in subsection (a)(2) of this rule, a plea of guilty which results in a finding of guilty waives any objection, whether or not previously raised, insofar as the objection relates to the factual issue of guilt of the offense(s) to which the plea was made..
Yep, if you plead guilty, you get an automatic appeal. And, what is reviewable under such an appeal? With some specific exceptions, only things that happened after the entry of the guilty plea - things like sentencing and the like.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you are actually Lakin's first lawyer. Your inabilities to understand pretty elementary legal principles seem remarkably similar.
So every soldier and sailor should question every order from their officer or their NCO for any reason they care to name? That isn't an army, that's a mob. Perhaps that's what you want?
Says to guy who has never spent a SECOND in uniform, to the guy who's a career officer, and combat veteran.
Yep, that's a whole lot of hubris right there.
Its Human to yearn for freedom, and also Human to jail people who challenge your power. It happens in every country, and now we see it in America.
By the way, do you remember how desperately CBS news tried to prove that George W. Bush was ineligible to serve as president and how the media supported that claim.
If memory serves me, George W. Bush had to produce all his military records, from his initial enlistment contract, up to his final discharge including all of his dental, medical and pay records along with this original birth certificate.
CBS claimed he was not eligible according to a reason that isn’t even in the Constitution under the eligibility requirements for the office of president, that because he had been AWOL he was not eligible to serve in the federal government.
And yet you are willing to allow Obama to avoid any test of his eligibility because The Media ignores it, the Congress won’t touch it, our court system refuses to allow it to be challenged in a court of law, and now the Armed Forces won’t even ask for his original birth certificate like any other citizen would have to produce to serve in our military, much less be its commander in chief.
All we have really been asking for is that his birth certificate be examined in a court of law so that the question of his eligibility can be laid to rest one way or the other legally.
Lucy it’s too sad but butter is actually on the mark here.
While most are okay some of the top leadership will do what ever they are told to do.
Butter,
I’m copying a few people to this who have more knowledge of the military and the law than I. They’ll correct me if I get too far out into the weeds. (I copied JimRob in case he’s interested in the discussion.)
Congress authorized Operation Enduring Freedom (combat ops in Afghanistan) through the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), Pub.L. 107-40, 115 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001. The specific resolutions were House Joint Resolution 64 and Senate Joint Resolution 23, both passed on September 14, 2001.
In the AUMF, the Congress stipulates that the AUMF itself is consistent with sections 8(a)(1) and 5(b) of the War Powers Act (War Powers Resolution of 1973). The WPA stipulates that the POTUS can commit our forces to combat only with authorization of Congress or if the U.S. is already under attack. It requires that he notify the Congress within 48 hours of sending forces into action and limits such actions to a total of 90 days, including troop withdrawal, without Congressional authorization.
Now as to your specific questions/comments:
- Yes, the destination matters. A brigade commander cannot order combat in Iran. Doing so would get him court martialed. But if he did, a soldier would be legally justified to disobey such an order because he knows it to be contrary to the Constitution and because he knows his superior doesn’t have the authority to make the order.
- Congress certified the votes of the Electoral College without objection and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS swore Obama into the office of POTUS. Therefore, Obama is POTUS. Any legal challenges to his ability to perform the duties of the office must be adjudicated. Unless and until such challenges are adjudicated, Obama is the POTUS. The office cannot, by law, be empty. So unless and until someone else is sworn into the office, Obama has duties to perform as CIC and the military has a duty to obey his orders.
- Yes, Obama can order combat ops in Pakistan, Iran, or elsewhere under the AUMF. And the military would have a duty to obey such orders.
- Biden can’t order anything. He’s not POTUS. The AUMF authorized combat ops in Afghanistan, which President Bush ordered. No further authorization from Congress is necessary for additional forces. The POTUS can send however many troops he believes are appropriate. Obama is executing the office at present. The military is not in a position to question the legitimacy of Obama. We the People installed him. Until We the People remove him, the military must obey his orders. And frankly, that’s the way it should be.
I did it for eleven years, it really isn't that hard to do.
I'll start out with the basics, in boot camp a drill instructor gave an order that would have marched my platoon into a wall, were we supposed to march into the wall?
Of course not, it was a lesson in questioning orders, there are always orders that MUST be questioned as well as those that CANNOT be, what makes The American armed forces different from all other nations is that we are trained to think and act on our own even if that means disobeying orders especially illegal ones.
Quite honestly it is why we are feared around the world, there is a certain unpredictability to Americans that no other country has.
What is pretty sad is that you would strip that away from anyone that serves for the sake of Obama.
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.