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 ...
Ah the unintentional irony....
The Caine Mutiny...
where a crew of Americans defied the orders of their Commanding Officer and removed him from command.
Oh my goodness. You really believe that? Seriously?
Good luck with your totally "OLD" naivity of thinking and seeing everything with rosy eyes and your head well stuck into the sand!!!
You ever heard about YOUR dear puppet master george Soros and his NWO. BTW, seems like the "big kahuna" here agrees with me???
Your #426 to Butterdezillion was well done. The energy and venom in the attack on her, based on a few obviously uncharacteristic and apparently incomplete words, was surprising.
Also surprising is the fact that so many seem unable to appreciate that LTC Lakin has likely always understood he has little chance of defending against the charges he faces.
It appears Lakin is quite prepared to go to Leavenworth in return for providing some impetus to a new Congress to correct the breach of statutory procedure that occurred when the 2009 Congress certified the votes for Obama.
At the least, he may calculate that 2 years in detention will resolve the turmoil in his conscience.
Some do not appear to understand the enormous leverage, both direct and indirect, that a WH has over military policy (perhaps made worse in this case by use of the “Chicago” style).
Nor do they appear to recognize forces working against our armed services. Efforts to repeal DADT, implementing ROE’s that increase the level of hazard in a combat zone; advocating the use of civilian courts rather than military courts, desiring a civilian security force better funded than the military, are some known to the public that immediately come to mind.
For your information, Jim Robinson, owner of this here site, can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants. But aside from that, he’s allowed us to take off the gloves on eligibility threads.
Well, I’m definitely not in favor of a mutiny. Not now, not ever. Those who mutiny on constitutional grounds had better be 100% correct and lawyered up to the hilt and have an iron-clad obvious and provable case before trying it, otherwise they’re very likely to have a close encounter the brig if not the yardarm.
I believe Lind herself is just doing what she was told to do by those at the top. As were the people involved in the trumped-up Haditha charges. And the gagging of Able Danger to cover up SecDef Perry’s sale of forbidden satellite technology to China’s military.
We have people like Marcus Luttrell and so many others who have sacrificed life, limb, reputation, their own freedom, marriages, seeing their kids born and learn to walk, and so much more.... whose photos should be put in the dictionary entry for “honor” or “integrity”. For them I have nothing but respect, honor, appreciation, and support.
And then we’ve got some in the leadership who will sell out the whole band of brothers for a pat on the head by the top dog.
It’s more than I can stomach. The rank and file who are putting so much on the line deserve so much better.
Somebody mentioned “To Kill a Mockingbird”. When I made that comment I felt just like Jem Finch felt when the jury convicted Tom, right after Atticus had basically revealed that the “rape” was all a made-up story to cover that Bob Ewell beat up his own daughter because she kissed a Black man.
I should have distinguished between the two groups. Thanks for understanding what I meant.
And what you ignore is the fact that discovery is not a fishing expedition. Lakin was entitled to all the evidence necessary to defend against the charges he was facing. Obama's eligibility had nothing to do with that since the authority that Lakin's superior officers had was not dependent on who was president, and their orders did not rely on the eligibility of the commander-in-chief in order to be lawful.
The only option left to him was to have the case reviewed in appeal as required by article 66 of the UCMJ.
Which may or may not be true. Appeal is automatic depending on the sentence imposed. However, since Lakin pleaded guilty to most of the charges then even if he's convicted on the missing movement charge it may not rise to the level of an automatic appellate review. He can request it, of course. But I believe that it could be denied.
There were two ways to do that, one would be go through the complete court martial process which could take several years (By The way the Haditha Marines still have not completed their court Martials)and the other was to plead guilty and speed up automatic appeal process.
And that may wind up being as ill-conceived as his original actions were.
Judge Lind’s actions in preventing the eligibility argument from being heard denied Lakin the very core of his argument and the sum of his defense.
And her actions were on solid legal grounds, based on her written decision and by Lakin's on plea of guilty. I don't see that as grounds to overturn.
It was not her job to do so.
Yes, it was.
No One can legally question Obama’s eligibility or access his original birth certificate even if as in this case the questioning Obama’s eligibility means a prison sentence.
That's not entirely true either. McCain most likely could have. But he didn't.
If that doesn’t bother you in the least then your American soul is dead.
A lot of things bother me. Obama bothers me. So do people who commit offenses against good order and discipline like Lakin did.
:0) I was scared to click the link out of fear that it was Zot.
"The prosecution played in its entirety LTC Lakin’s YouTube video announcing his plans to refuse to deploy. At the conclusion of the tape, the birthers in the audience stood and gave sustained applause. The military judge did not gavel the court to order; she simply let them finish. I am reasonably certain that their outburst will not count against the accused; but in no way could it have helped.
"The prosecution called Colonel Roberts, the brigade commander and MOH recipient, to the stand as their first live witness. He testified that the accused’s behavior was unprofessional and had a negative impact on the unit. Cross examination was limited and, according to Colonel Sullivan, “didn’t really go anywhere.”
"MAJ Dobson, the doctor who had to replace LTC Lakin on short notice, testified next. He recounted how two days after arriving in theatre, the unit suffered a mass-casualty attack, with sixteen wounded. He said that he was not, in his opinion, as well-prepared to deal with the attack as he would have been had he had longer to prepare for operations at the FOB. The defense suggested on cross that the deployment was probably a good career opportunity for the major personally. Another point which will likely not go over well.
"The next witness was MAJ Dobson’s wife, herself a combat veteran, who testified that she and her husband had to forego some coursework they had planned to take together, and that as a result of his short-notice deployment, he missed the award ceremony in which she was awarded the Bronze Star. She also testified about how hard it was to prepare their young son for his dad’s sudden and unexpected departure."
“I believe Lind herself is just doing what she was told to do by those at the top.”
Any chance, any chance at all that she was just correctly applying military law?
The cases that need to be adjudicated for this issue - have been on the books since before Jan 20th.
If Obama and Biden were lawfully certified as the electoral winners (which is questionable, given that Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by law), then Obama became the POTUS at noon on Jan 20th. But if he “failed to qualify” by then he cannot assume the powers and duties of the presidency; only the VP elect can do that.
The AUMF that you reference gives the authority to use force specifically to “the President” and doesn’t mention the countries by name. We used force in Iraq because a valid Constitutional POTUS ordered it. We used force in Afghanistan because a valid Constitutional POTUS ordered it. Since then, Obama has ordered MORE FORCE in Afghanistan through a specific order, which resulted in Lakin being ordered to deploy.
If Biden is the one the Constitution requires to “act as President” since Jan 20, 2009, and preside over the decision regarding what force, if any, should be used in Afghanistan (in accordance with the AUMF), then additional deployments since Jan 20, 2009 that were not authorized by Joe Biden are unlawful. They were not properly authorized by Joe Biden, who alone can “act as President”, with the President alone being able to decide what force to use.
If the orders had been to Iran Lakin would have been right to disobey because the orders were contrary to the Constitution and because his superior didn’t have the authority to make the order. That’s what you said, and that sure seems accurate to me, because no valid President has ordered combat operations in Iran. A valid POTUS is AUTHORIZED to order combat operations in whatever country the POTUS believes necessary, including Iran. So a valid POTUS COULD order deployments to Iran.
The question is whether a valid POTUS ever DID. That is the central issue in deciding whether a deployment order to Iran is lawful or not.
Lakin is asking a question of fact: DID a valid POTUS order additional troops to Afghanistan? If a valid POTUS didn’t, then the deployment orders to Afghanistan are just as unconstitutional and the superior officer was just as un-authorized to give the orders as would be the case if orders were to Iran. What would make the orders to Iran unlawful is the absence of a valid POTUS order, which would be exactly the same thing as a troop surge to Afghanistan without the order of Joe Biden, who alone is able to “act as President”.
And if Lakin is allowed the latitude to disobey a deployment order to Iran because he knows as a matter of fact that a valid POTUS has not made an order for use of force there, then he also has the latitude to disobey a deployment order to Afghanistan based on the same fact.
The whole thing hinges on a factual matter: Did a valid, Constitutionally-acting POTUS give an order for additional troops in Afghanistan?
We can argue about the answer to that factual question. That is actually what Lakin wanted, regardless of what the ultimate finding of fact would be. But Lind is saying that the fact of the matter - whether a valid, Constitution-compliant POTUS had ever given the order for additional troops - is IRRELEVANT.
The same authorization that applied to Afghanistan would apply to Iran. If the fact of a Constitutionally-valid POTUS authorizing the use of force is irrelevant for Afghanistan, it is also irrelevant for Iran.
IOW, the logical conclusion to what Lind is claiming is that any brigade commander anywhere can deploy combat troops to Iran or anywhere else, and Presidential orders would be IRRELEVANT.
Is that really where we want to go with this?
BTW, if a brigade commander issued combat deployment orders to Iran right now, what Article would they be charged under in a court-martial?
I hope that those who have attempted to label LTC Lakin as a hero read this. Lakin should have been the surgeon on the ground dealing with those mass casualties. Instead of answering the call of duty, he was staging a political stunt that was a forlorn hope from the very beginning.
I cannot say what effect this testimony might have on the panel, but I know what my reaction would have been were I sitting on that panel. In my numerous times on a Court Martial panel, I always looked for something in the sentencing phase to give me reason to reduce sentence as I tended to see redeeming virtues in the eyes of a soldier standing in the dock. I'm afraid that this would have the opposite effect.
A link for self-zotting would be kinda funny.
You’d be surprised how many of the birthers actually do believe that.
“IOW, the logical conclusion to what Lind is claiming is that any brigade commander anywhere can deploy combat troops to Iran or anywhere else, and Presidential orders would be IRRELEVANT.”
__
Not at all, and we went through this yesterday.
What Judge Lind said is that the legality of an order given by a superior to a subordinate does not depend upon the eligibility of the President.
That doesn’t mean that all orders are lawful.
It means that orders are judged on the basis of the law, as they always have been. Some are lawful and some are not.
COL Roberts’s order to LTC Lakin to report to his office was a lawful order, regardless of the President’s eligibility.
An order by a brigade commander to invade Iran would be an unlawful order, regardless of the President’s eligibility.
Isn’t that clear to you? You are attacking straw men of your own invention. The actual facts are not nearly so confusing as you are portraying them to be.
What you say makes so much sense. When I look at what we accomplished in Iraq, for instance, the word that comes to mind in regards to our troops is “competent”. They are trained well, so they can function well. They have to be able to sort out conflicting signals, different levels of orders, laws, regulations, etc. They can’t be stupid. And they can’t have unworkable requirements such as to be unthinking robots.
Distinguishing between lawful and unlawful orders is a must. Standard operating procedure, like a mental firewall that is always running in the background so it will observe when something is wrong. If that firewall is only supposed to be turned on part of the time, then who could be faulted for doing something criminal when ordered to do so, since maybe their firewall just happened to be off then?
Know what I mean? Is this the way people are trained - to constantly have that mental firewall, constantly evaluating the orders they receive and obeying the ones they should obey?
Just out of curiosity, how is a person supposed to respond when a drill sergeant orders them to march into a wall?
No. It's a conspiracy. A massive conspiracy that, if you continue reading the thread, also includes all eight members of the Supreme Court who participated in a "secret" meeting with Barack Obama, on or about Jan 14, 2009.
I'm going to go prepare my bomb shelter, because I've seen this movie and I know how it ends. RUN!
I can’t buy that happening without the covert influence of space aliens.
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.