[BP2]

> However, I'm happy to see that Learning has occurred — you FINALLY admit that
> Lakin’s Deployment Orders did NOT come from Lakin’s commander, Col. Gordon Roberts.

>> But Lakin’s orders did. And those are the ones he's charged with disobeying.

I'm sure Col. Gordon Roberts is a fine man, but nobody in Congress knows who the hell he is. How could THEY approve a Deployment ordered by a “lowly” O-6? An O-6 does not have the authority to Command the Armed Forces.

> And yet ... B. Hussein Obama himself SET PRECEDENCE by interfering with the 9th Circuit
> to get Watada’s case for REFUSING to abide by Deployment Orders DISMISSED.

>> And I will state for the record that Watada was wrong. That like Lakin he was guilty of refusing to
>> obey the orders of his commanding officer, and like Lakin deserved to be court martialed. And that like
>> Lakin he deserved to be stripped of his rank and dismissed from the Army as unfit to server. Are you willing
>> to state for the record that Watada was right to refuse to obey his commanding officer if he felt they were
>> illegal and that he shouldn't have been tried? Or are you saying that you agree with Obama that the case shouldn't
>> have been tried in the first place and that the appeal should be dismissed? Is that what you are telling us?

My personal feelings are that Watada should be in Ft Leavenworth doing hard time, making big rocks into little rocks.

But neither you nor I have the power of the Justice Department to influence a panel of judges, SETTING PRECEDENCE along the way for other military officers who Refuse Movement, REGARDLESS of the reason.

However, B. Hussein Obama, as the acting-CinC, does have the power to influence a panel of judges. Obama (ab)used his authority already in May 2009 with Lt Watada's case, and NOT as an Executive "pardon", but by working THROUGH the Justice Department's attorneys.

Although Congress did not write the UCMJ until 1950, the Court Martial is older than the Constitution itself! However, JUST as with Lt Watada, Lakin’s “constitutional question” CANNOT be resolved within the military justice system.

And JUST as with Lt Watada’s case, where the military judge ruled that Watada’s argument was reduced to an admission of guilt, Lt Col Lakin is — by design — ALREADY Guilty under the UCMJ. He will NOT have a “fair” trial, at least as “fair” might be defined in a Civilian court.

As the 9th Circuit discussed in CHAPPELL V. WALLACE, 462 U. S. 296 (1983):

Many of the Framers of the Constitution had recently experienced the rigors of military life, and were well aware of the differences between it and civilian life. In drafting the Constitution, they anticipated the kinds of issues raised in this case. Their response was an explicit grant of plenary authority to Congress “To raise and support Armies”; “To provide and maintain a Navy”; and “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Art. I, § 8, cls. 12-14. It is clear that the Constitution contemplated that the Legislative Branch have plenary control over rights, duties, and responsibilities in the framework of the Military Establishment, including regulations, procedures, and remedies related to military discipline; and Congress and the courts have acted in conformity with that view.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm sure Col. Gordon Roberts is a fine man, but nobody in Congress knows who the hell he is.

The order to Lakin came from Colonel Roberts. It is that order that Lakin is charged with disobeying, not that of Gates or Obama or anyone else in the chain of command. It is that order that Lakin has to show is unlawful. The originating individual is irrelevant. As I have said on many occasions, Obama could be exposed and removed from office tomorrow, and Lakin would still be guilty of missing movement and of disobeying the order of his brigade commander. Any satisfaction Lakin may get from seeing Obama exposed and removed from office may not outweigh the cost of the court martial conviction, the cashiering, and the possible prison time.

My personal feelings are that Watada should be in Ft Leavenworth doing hard time, making big rocks into little rocks.

Why? Where is his position any different from Lakin's According to him the war was illegal. According to you he is within his rights to question the legitimacy of his orders on those grounds and to have his questions answered before having to obey the orders he believed were unlawful. It is hypocritical of you to take any position other than full blown support of Watada and complete approval of Obama's actions at quashing the appeal.