Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury Convicts Army 'Birther' Who Refused Deployment to Afghanistan
FoxNews.com ^ | 12/15/2010 | Staff

Posted on 12/15/2010 12:54:18 PM PST by OldDeckHand

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-480 next last
To: Red Steel; OldDeckHand; jamese777; tired_old_conservative; Jim Robinson; antiRepublicrat; ...

LTC Lakin, convicted on all counts by a general court-martial, has been sentenced.

The sentence is a dismissal, confinement for six months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The dismissal — the only form of punitive discharge authorized for an officer — is generally regarded as equivalent to a dishonorable discharge and cuts off substantially all benefits incident to military service. If approved by the convening authority, it will entitle LTC Lakin to automatic review of his case by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He can waive that review, but such waivers are relatively rare. Unless the convening authority grants a deferment of confinement, LTC Lakin will start his sentence today.

Colonel Sullivan reports that there was no reaction from LTC Lakin or from the half-dozen or so birthers remaining in the spectators’ gallery. The military judge thanked the members for their service, and excused them. The courtroom was then cleared to allow LTC Lakin privacy.

See new thread in Breaking News


421 posted on 12/16/2010 1:32:37 PM PST by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu

Wow. Less than I expected. I’m sorry for his family. I hope he has a successful career outside of the militay.


422 posted on 12/16/2010 1:33:24 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I remember seeing this before. Thanks for the post. More people should see it.


423 posted on 12/16/2010 1:35:04 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

About what I expected.


424 posted on 12/16/2010 1:38:51 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative; Jim Robinson

“So do you respect the Constitution or not? If you do and can’t abide gays in the military, resign. If not, good luck with that rebellion. I suspect you’ll need it.”

Now you are promoting the homosexual agenda in the name of respecting the constitution. I told Mr. Robinson this would occur. Congratulations for being the first to continue to sell out.

Mr. Robinson....Sir is this what you want FR to become?


425 posted on 12/16/2010 1:42:19 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Judge Lind was correct in the law. Yes, military officers represent the POTUS, but the legality of their orders comes from statutory law written by Congress, specifically Title 10. Their commissions are granted by Congress and signed by the POTUS.

Remember basic Goverment 101 from elementary school? The Legislative branch makes law. The Executive enforces law. The Judicial interprets law.

Congress makes officers' orders legal. The CIC enforces their orders through the chain of command.

426 posted on 12/16/2010 1:44:15 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu

Thanks for the update. This is good news for Lakin. He only got 6 months. Evidently, the Army didn’t want to make a martyr of him. They got what they wanted guilty pleas and an admission that the orders were lawful.


427 posted on 12/16/2010 1:46:42 PM PST by FS11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All

“Judge Lind was not being truthful.”

And a cowardly/souless functionary as well. Thanks for posting that. However, the attorney’s here, and former JAGs, like OldDeckHand don’t respect anything but their own opinions.


428 posted on 12/16/2010 1:47:37 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Yes! And the statutory law they passed for that was part of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.


429 posted on 12/16/2010 1:47:51 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Yes! And the statutory law they passed for that was part of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.


430 posted on 12/16/2010 1:48:07 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

There are already too many of the toc ilk ensconced at FR. They are now capable of giving FR a different face when called to. Media are already dragging FR comment into their sick propaganda service for the progressive agenda, is there a way to stop it at this late date? ... Have you seen what happened to American Expat in SE Asia when he posted a remark here regarding what was bubbling up regarding terrorists ‘holiday plans’? He was subjected to inhuman arrest and holding, with threats and such. That happened just recently!


431 posted on 12/16/2010 1:48:41 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
"We lost when Obama was elected."

No fighter spirit there.

Nonsense. I'm simply pointing out the result of the election, which is over.

"Today was meaningless. All this birther nonsense is just that. Nonsense."

Only to those who don't take The Law of the Land seriously. And, then, on another thread, the same will be crying about 'their rights'.

Wrong. The law of the land is what birthers attack, because they don't like the result. Others of us don't like it either, but we don't try to undermine our own system because we don't want to accept who won the election.

432 posted on 12/16/2010 1:52:21 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu

Wow! Wow! I thought he would get this ruling, but when you read it....Wow! I feel bad for the guy but he did so many wrong things not only with regards to UCMJ but the entire process of getting to the Courts Martial. It is a shame that it happened right before Christmas. I don’t necessarily think of him as a hero at all but I for some reason feel bad for the guy. His lawyer should be ashamed!!!!!


433 posted on 12/16/2010 1:57:39 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; Jim Robinson
Now you are promoting the homosexual agenda in the name of respecting the constitution. I told Mr. Robinson this would occur. Congratulations for being the first to continue to sell out.

Mr. Robinson....Sir is this what you want FR to become?

Can you read? Can you think?

Do you have logical faculties at all?

What About "I'm not wild about homosexuals in the military" constitutes promoting the homosexual agenda? The ones promoting the homosexual agenda are Congress. But the military is stuck with it if it becomes law.

I noticed you didn't bother to answer the question? If Congress repeals DADT, what is the army supposed to do--overthrow the government? Are you too cowardly to answer that? Too strung out on the high of your own unfounded sense of self-righteousness to deal with the ramifications of answering?

If you have the capability to think, you know I never said I wanted DADT repealed. But if it is, your two-bit blowhard routine isn't going to be of any value to the people actually having to deal with the fall out.

434 posted on 12/16/2010 2:05:24 PM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

You have to remember that this is a “new” military filled with Generation X’ers,

Oh boy. I am a generation X’er in senior leadership and NOTHING that our generation could do could even come close to the disaster that is known as Baby Boomers. SERIOUSLY!!!!!


435 posted on 12/16/2010 2:08:20 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
If you're wondering, it was Oct 6, 2010:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2602348/posts?page=43#43

What followed that posting at FR would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck!

436 posted on 12/16/2010 2:13:53 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu

He got off light. The prosecution wanted 24 months.


437 posted on 12/16/2010 2:14:55 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Whatever Title 10 says doesn't trump the US Constitution stating who is the commander in chief of the US military. The President is original source of authority of the military under the US Constitution.

And that particular argument under cuts the hypothetical of there being mass military disobedience and chaos if Obama was found to be ineligible to give lawful orders; as that would be highly doubtful in any case.

Furthermore, there would be a political solution for an unconstitutional president, as the politicos of this country, would find a quick solution to the problem.

438 posted on 12/16/2010 2:22:38 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: FS11
Thanks for the update. This is good news for Lakin. He only got 6 months.

And by June 2011 he can sue Obama as he will have standing.

439 posted on 12/16/2010 2:25:11 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
"And a cowardly/souless functionary as well. Thanks for posting that. However, the attorney’s here, and former JAGs, like OldDeckHand don’t respect anything but their own opinions."

Hey, douche-bag. If you're going to disparage someone, why don't you show a little courtesy to ping them. SFB.

440 posted on 12/16/2010 2:25:49 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461-480 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson