Posted on 12/15/2010 12:54:18 PM PST by OldDeckHand
A military jury has convicted an Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions President Obama's eligibility for office.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
1335: The members have sent for lunch to be brought in and will resume their deliberations shortly.
One update on courtroom personnel: Mr. Puckett has another case he has to attend to, in Italy, and has — with the consent of the excused — been excused from the remainder of the trial. The military counsel assigned to the defense team, MAJ Kemkes, will handle any further matters at trial and post-trial. Depending on the sentence, LTC Lakin may also be assigned military appellate counsel.
374 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:05:06 PM by Cardhu
So now like Pidgeon in Commander Fitzpatrick’s case, Puckett has now abandoned Lt. Col. Lakin as he faces sentencing.
Yes, we’re all Nazis. Everyone who believes in our system of government and the rule of law is a Nazi, didn’t you know? Washington was a Nazi, Jefferson was a Nazi, Reagan was a Nazi, etc., etc.
It is interesting how foolishness and self-righteousness tend to correlate.
What moral principles, what convictions? By pleading guilty to charge number one he threw away all the 'birther' baggage.
One day he is bragging on TV that he will never deploy to Afghanistan and the next time, in court, he is saying he is willing to deploy yesterday if they would let him.
Did Obama resign? Who is the new, (im) approved President?
Anyone so easily swayed to reverse his principled convictions could just as easily be converted to believe and do almost anything. Al Qaeda could spin him around three times and point him in any direction.
Bad things can happen with such people under stressful conditions.
Even his wife is not supporting him in this Don Quixote madness.
That means their orders are lawful regardless of Obama's eligibility. An ineligible POTUS does not make Title 10 null and void."
Oh, now I get it. Lt. Fuzz wakes up one day and orders his platoon to invade Lichtenstein. However, Sgt. Snorkel says, "I won't go." Therefore, Sgt. Snorkel is guilty of missing a movement and now sits in Leavenworth.
What a fine legal mind you have.
Precisely. It's also interesting to note how many people who post on a conservative political forum are so quick to advocate judicial activism, so long as it meets their desired ends.
Because of well-established legal precedents and principles of military jurisprudence, she had no alternative to rule in any way other than she did. To find for the defendant, she would have had to ignore all that precedential law, and made it up as she went along. THAT is exactly what liberal jurists do, not conservatives.
Lakin, having gone this far and then pleading guilty makes no sense. He still goes to Leavenworth for three years. Maybe he got a reduced sentence but why pull the tigers tail in the first place.
And I see see by your home page you excel in nothing. Much like your comment.
“I think even Mr. Robinson made clear the other day that following orders is the foundation of military discipline. The statutory authority by which orders must be obeyed is well-established and derives directly from the Constitution. It’s not new, and Judge Lind articulated it correctly. It’s willful ignorance to deny the clear letter of the law obvious to anyone versed in it.”
Of course following orders is the foundation of military discipline. You state the obvious. Where Lind is wrong is circumventing the truth that the ultimate authority for all military orders are derived from the POTUS via the constitution. A tainted POTUS taints all. This has been discussed over and over. The plain truth is that when I was reappointed a commissioned officer in the reserve several years ago, under President Bush, my appointment orders were in the name and authority of the POTUS. When I was subsequently promoted, the orders were in the name and authority of the POTUS. The person sitting in that chair cannot be excluded from accountability of legitimate status anymore than I can.
Godwin Rule. Sola Veritas loses.
Seriously, SV, there is a place for the JAG Corps in the military. Can they abuse their power? Sure. Anyone can.
I wish Lakin hadn't made this mistake in judgment. He did, so there is the need for a trial.
That, by the way, is a result of the US Constitution which requires the US Congress to establish regulations for the governing of the military. One result is the UCMJ.
All commissioned officers of the United States obtain their commissions under the authority of Congress, not the President. This is stated in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 16. Therefore their authority is legitimate even if the president isn't.
I figure only the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs could disobey an order from an illegitimate president. But when he in turn orders his subordinates, everybody is following the orders of a superior commissioned officer under legitimate congressional authority.
WOW! The grand pooba of FR.
I don't know if I should be honored or quake in my boots while standing in the corner, Bohnering.
Bohnering = weeping like a girl
This is the political corollary of the Donatist Heresy, and is non-viable for the same reasons. By this "reasoning", soldiers serving under GWB could refuse to obey orders because "he stole the election", soldiers serving under Bill Clinton could refuse to obey orders because "he fixed the impeachment vote", . . . , soldiers serving under George Washington could refuse to obey orders because "the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion was illegal".
“she had no alternative to rule in any way other than she did.”
Sir, that just isn’t so. She could have ruled differently just like any judge does. She is a cowardly functionary that should not be in uniform. Others like her should be removed from military service. Her type WILL be used to remove moral people with objections to the homosexualation of the military from military service. Destroying the military and its discipline. The issues are linked. To blindly follow orders is not always correct.
Of course, any judge is physically capable of uttering a ruling without regard for what the law says, and a judicial activist is willing to do so.
However, a principled officer such as Colonel Lind obeys the law.
Chaplain...you are making a serious mistake to side with these purveyors of legalese.
Then all the defendants in the WWII show trials demand a new hearing with you as their lawyer!
Yes, that's EXACTLY how a liberal thinks. Trial judges don't get to make up law, they have to follow it. The relevant case law applied to the facts of this case is CRYSTAL CLEAR. That's why every JAG officer who offered an on the record opinion said unequivocally that Lakin would lose at trial. They weren't clairvoyant, but they did understand military law, just like Lind does.
The fact that you don't understand the statutory authority by which you legally give orders and require others to obey them doesn't change what that authority is. Lind stated it correctly. You can choose to believe she is wrong, that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of green cheese. What you can't expect is for any of those positions to be respected by serious people.
The fact that people who don't know what they are talking about, who have a fetish-like emotional fixation on the President as the golden calf from which all meaning flows, discuss that over and over doesn't make it mean anything. You are allowing your emotional sensibilities to define "truth" for you. Outside of the basic question of who do you personally love and value, those sensibilities are generally a poor guide.
“However, a principled officer such as Colonel Lind obeys the law.”
She is NOT principled, she is a kiss ass functionary. She should have allowed LTC Lakin to proceed with the defense he chose.
Like I have repeatedly said. She will be the first to jump right in there to prosecute anyone in uniform that questions the homosexualization of the military. Will you call her “principled” then?
Of course, she will “just be doing her job.”
Nope. The questions of the legal authority of an officer to give an order and the legality of an action the officer is ordering are completely different. He was ordered to deploy, a completely legal action. He was not ordered to machine-gun Jewish civilians, an illegal action.
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.