“Do you believe that a court-martial panel would have been justified in preventing you from presenting evidence of the unlawfulness of the orders?”
They wouldn’t have needed any. The orders were illegal, and obviously so. I didn’t need to see my Commander’s commissioning papers, or ‘discover’ squat. For example, the logbook sheets had a note on them that filling in false information was a crime, punishable by fines of up to $10,000. I didn’t have a legal theory, I had facts.
Now, if Lakin has proof that Obama was born in Kenya, he’ll do fine. But for ‘discovery’, at most he will be allowed to see a copy of the previously posted Birth Certificate. He won’t be allowed to challenge its veracity unless he had PROOF!
My daughter’s birth certificate from New Mexico issued by the Bureau of Vital Records is proof she was born in New Mexico. I don’t even know if New Mexico has any other records!
Likewise, the military court will find that Obama has a birth certificate from Hawaii...and that will be enough UNLESS Lakin has some evidence of tampering. And if he does, then he could present it now.
I’d LOVE to see evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere outside of the USA. But there is none, and birthers just claim the lack of evidence is PROOF of the conspiracy.
It doesn’t work that way.
I'd be very surprised if Obama let the alleged COLB anywhere near a court of law. A jpg isn't going to be sufficient.
I though that you said the orders to you were illegal because there were established military procedures which were being violated. What makes you think that a court-martial panel has the burden to search all military procedures to make your case? You would have expected to have a defense counsel, wouldn't you? What would his job be if not to introduce evidence of your innocence?
My recollection is that there is very little that is "obvious" in a court of law, even a court-martial. Things like what day of the week a certain date fell on and other such easily agreed upon items, perhaps.
Your stance seems to be that nobody would ever court-martial a soldier for failing to obey an unlawful order and therefor such a soldier deserves no mechanisms for proving such a thing unless the proof is "obvious".
In the New case, the Military Court of Appeals seems to have decided that every order is "lawful" unless it is an order to commit an obvious crime. Are you absolutely certain that obeying the orders you were given constituted a crime?
How will the court-martial establish that Obama has a birth certificate? Will the prosecution introduce it? Will the court-martial panel accept a newly generated certificate as proof when photocopies of the original document may be available. Does the defense have to accept that?
Is having a birth certificate issued by Hawaii sufficient? Is the nationality of Obama's mother or father relevant? Is the age at birth of Obama's mother relevant? Is dual citizenship at birth relevant?
If you don't think Obama should have to be eligible or you don't think that Obama should have to prove eligibility, does that change the court-martial panels obligation to determine such a fact with the best information available?
Did Obama ever attend a university in the U.S. as a foreign student? Does Lakin's defense have the benefit of being able to search out someone who can testify to that fact and use a subpoena to compel testimony?
Did Obama travel to a foreign country at a time when U.S. visas to such country were not granted? Does Lakin's defense have the benefit of being able to search out someone who can testify to that fact and use a subpoena to compel testimony?
Either Obama is eligible or he is not. Either an order from Obama as Commander-in-Chief is lawful or it is not. Either Lakin deserves imprisonment or he doesn't.
It sounds like you would imprison him now. I would not.