|
> Really, the clown really comes through. Indeed he does.
|
Posted on 04/22/2010 2:54:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.
(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
If the chain of command gets their authority from somebody who may not even be a US citizen and is CERTAINLY ineligible to be the CIC, then I have just as much authority as they do. If any orders I gave would be unlawful because I’m not properly within the chain of command, then the same would hold true of anybody who hangs their authority on the Kenyan-born, criminal, current “de facto” commander in chief.
His bona fides are even less than mine. If it is laughable to think of me giving lawful orders, then it’s even MORE laughable for HIM to be able to initiate a directive that funnels down to the troops.
There is no such thing as absolute proof. If a person has legal documentation showing that a crime has been committed that is about as close as we come without being a direct eyewitness.
Are military personnel required to report civilian crimes to civilian authority when they have seen official documents showing that a crime has been committed?
Officers don't receive their authority from the President, they receive their authority from the Constitution and statutory law, to include DOD directives and the UCMJ.
So long as Obama is in that office, irrespective if he was installed in the office under fraudulent means, he still wields the authority of the office, to include the authority vest him by the USC as Commander-in-Chief. It is that simple. I can't make it any simpler.
So any soldier who has seen the documents I have on my blog should report the potential crimes of Obama, Fukino, Okubo, Nancy Pelosi, the Factcheck forgers, and Joe Sandler to the NCIS. Do I have that right now?
Official documents from the HDOH showing that forgery and perjury have been committed are not credible evidence that would compel someone to report a crime?
Then what the heck would be?
If you really believe that - and I'm dubious - get some help. I would suggest a house pet as well, a nice cat perhaps.
If he is not eligible the Constitution says he can’t be in that office.
The US Constitution doesn’t say that no person shall be eligible unless they’ve been sworn in. Being sworn in has nothing to do with whether a person is eligible for the office. You can argue that the person is a “de facto” president for purposes of stability, but a “de facto” president is not the same thing as a CONSTITUTIONAL president, and that is what officers swear to uphold - the Constitution.
If Obama is not the right age, is not a natural born US citizen, and has not lived in the US long enough, then he is not a Constitutional president - the only kind of president the officers’ oath will allow them to obey.
And how would the military actually obey their oaths to fight against such a domestic enemy? Through what means would the military allow them to keep their oath?”
If credible evidence is presented to a governing legal authority that Obama committed perjury, fraud and extortion, he would presumably be charged with perjury, fraud and extortion. If convicted, those acts could certainly be taken to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, at which point the ball would in Congress’ court. Theoretically, if it could be proven that Obama was not born in the US and actually was not a NBC, a court ruling could even build momentum. But the military would certainly not consider itself to have the primary responsibility of removing Obama.
I suspect that at some point, as with Nixon, public opinion would become sufficiently damning that Obama would resign or Congress would have no choice but to act. Speculation beyond that is best left to the realm of Hollywood thrillers.
Really, the clown really comes through.
What is wrong with what I said?
Crimes have been committed. Official documents from the HDOH show this. YOu said soldiers are supposed to report civilian crimes to the NCIS.
So why would soldiers not report the crimes of forgery and/or perjury and/or misprision of felony by those people to the NCIS?
I’m dead serious.
Who has the ability to present credible evidence and to what governing legal authority?
So far the courts have said it’s none of our damned business. The state attorneys, attorneys generals, FBI, secret service, governors, lieutenant governors, ombudsman, and Congress have all refused to do a thing.
Where is my ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances - which is supposed to be just as vital to the fabric of this nation as my freedom of religion or speech?
And I didn’t hear you say how the military provides for its officers to keep their oaths in such a situation. Seems to me you said there is no way for them to keep their oaths. Is that correct?
Interesting reading the back and forth.
I believe you have nailed the essence of the question with your above statement. But the bottom line as I read all the back and forth is that it isn't the job of the military [UCMJ] to make that determination but rather it belongs in the civilian domain [Congress or the Judiciary]. Just my take on the back and forth.
Have a nice evening.
The commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation rooms.
If you can get a soldier to report it, okay, but the NCIS isn’t going to do anything with it. And here’s why.
You believe the HDOH documents provide evidence of a crime. But that is ultimately your interpretation. And the governing legal authority in this case is the state of Hawaii. It’s their rules and their purported document in question. The fact that Hawaii is not pursuing this case will be taken by just about anyone as presumptive evidence that the information on the COLB in question is accurate and that no laws have been broken.
|
> Really, the clown really comes through. Indeed he does.
|
Pretty much. And the case Lakin brings presents no legal basis for questioning Obama’s legitimacy anyway.
So long as Obama is in that office, irrespective if he was installed in the office under fraudulent means, he still wields the authority of the office, to include the authority vest him by the USC as Commander-in-Chief. It is that simple.
I’m sick. The King Can Do No Wrong. The King Is Above The Law.
Etc.
OK - stipulated, all counts. What is the relevance of then BGEN Karpisnki's situation to one LCOL Lakin? None that I can see.
That's what I'm afraid of. If you believe - honestly believe - that service members, or anyone for that matter, have some legal obligation to report "crimes" that you allege on an internet blog, to authorities, I really don't know how to respond.
Of course they don't. What court of law is going to find that reasonable?
Anyone who thinks they have credible evidence can try. But, to be honest, I've had this conversation with lots of potential clients. They all think they have a compelling case, and sometimes you have to break it to them that the courts simply aren't going to agree, for a variety of reasons. Nobody likes to hear that, but it is what it is.
“Where is my ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances - which is supposed to be just as vital to the fabric of this nation as my freedom of religion or speech?”
You can petition them. But they don't have to do what you want. You're guaranteed avenues only to be heard.
“And I didn’t hear you say how the military provides for its officers to keep their oaths in such a situation. Seems to me you said there is no way for them to keep their oaths. Is that correct?”
I think the military does not endorse the proposition that each individual officer is empowered to be his own interpreter of Constitutional adherence, especially on issues that are inextricably political. For example, any officer can feel that a given war is unjust and an affront to the Constitution. Ulysses S. Grant was quite negative about the Mexican-American War in which he served. He could have made a case that it was against the intent of the Constitution. Others did, even going so far as to call President James Polk a tyrant. But they also understood that they had multiple obligations in that oath, and that for the military to attempt to determine political outcomes is a sufficiently grave infringement upon the Constitution itself that it is, shall we say, above their pay grade.
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.
