Posted on 12/09/2010 8:42:45 PM PST by wintertime
Barack Obama loves to portray himself as a compassionate humanitarian.
Assuring justice and avoiding unnecessary punishment is such an obsession, he would have us believe, that he opposes detaining those participating in acts of war against the U.S. He even insisted on a civilian trial in New York for the man who confessed to masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks.
But Obama's compassion does have its limits.
There's one distinguished U.S. Army officer and physician who appears to be headed to prison soon.
He hasn't committed any crimes.
He has served his country honorably in foreign wars.
His reviews by superiors were all impeccable.
Yet, he is headed for a court-martial and a likely prison sentence and discharge because he wanted to ensure he was upholding the oath he took as a commissioned officer to support and defend the Constitution.
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin wanted to determine with certainty that the president who was ordering him deployed to another foreign war was actually constitutionally eligible to serve in office.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The fact that the Army ordered the troops there at Obama's direction is irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing. He's not charged with refusing to obey Obama's orders or refusing to go to Afghanistan. He's charged with disobeying the lawful order of his brigade commander and two other superior officers.
Quotes please?
No. Their actions derived from cowardice; Lakin’s actions derive from courage.
No, their actions were derived from the same motivation as Lakin's - refusing to obey what they believed was an illegal order. If that is cowardice than so is Lakin's.
And wasn’t it the responsibility of the President to present to them evidence that the war was legal
***Yes
and their orders lawful,
***Yes
And none of that happened. Would you describe the court martials that convicted them, and which sent Huet-Vaughn to prison, were kangaroo courts and a miscarriage of justice as well?
No. Lakin isn’t protesting on the legality of the war, he’s protesting on the legality of the holder of the office who is giving the order.
He is refusing to obey orders on the grounds that they were unlawful, just as Watada and Huet-Vaughn did. The only difference among the three is that two questioned the legality of the war as justification for refusing while Lakin questioned the legality of the commander-in-chief. All three are peas from the same pod.
***”absolutely nothing”? Allowing for some hyperbole on your part, he is doing plenty and he brings the issue to the forefront, where it belongs as a constitutional issue.
Something Birthers have been doing for over two years now. Lakin's antics have done nothing to further the cause.
***That is his choice. You obviously don’t see the value of what he is doing because you do not value the constitution, which brings us around, yet again, to what your purpose is here on this constitutionalist website, at least as far as Certifigate is concerned: your purpose is to troll
So he should stop whining through his defense attorney and stop shilling for donations to support him after he pays the penalty for his actions. And no, I don't see the value of his actions. He has done nothing to stop Obama or bring him any closer to being removed from office. All he's done is try to make money of his self-inflicted martyrdom.
Ya see, this is where your true colors come out. The honorable course is to do EXACTLY what he’s doing because he is upholding the constitution in the face of severe consequences.
How is refusing to obey lawful orders upholding the Constitution?
But since you do not value constitutionalism, you cannot see the honor in it. That maes YOU A TROLL.
The definition of a TROLL being anyone who dares disagree with you? You must come across a lot of trolls on these pages then.
***unlawful orders, issued by a usurper.
Lawful orders issued by three superior officers. None of which was Brarack Obama.
Sort of like if an Alaska judge says we don’t need no steenkin’ laws about what ballots count, that’s what the country is stuck with. One person can undo all of the law-making in a single stroke if they only have the audacity to do so and the people choose not to incite violence.
Sad. Sad. Sad. That’s exactly where we’re at. This is rule by whoever is crooked enough to grab whatever they want while the people take it in the gut.
Even in the middle of an election where the voters told the establishment what we think of this lawless crap, the Alaska cockroaches are still acting like they have the cover of night to hide what they’re doing, or that nobody who sees them can crush them underfoot. They’re not even scurrying to hide as cockroaches do. They’re just openly carrying out their business for all the world to see, laughing at us for not stepping on them. We tried stepping on them at the voting booth. It didn’t do the job. What more do they need us to do?
These are the slimy critters who determine what is “accepted” as good enough where laws and rules are concerned. I am disgusted beyond words.
The order very likely originated from an illegal source, thus making the order illegal.
That's a very big deal for the 30,000 ordered to put their lives in the middle of a war zone. It's a big deal,too, for their families, friends, and all of America.
In my opinion, this issue of Obama’s eligibility will be won or lost in the court of public opinion. When even the liberal/Marxist comedians are making fun of Obama and his birth certificate, it seems to me that the afterbirthers are losing this BIG TIME! :=)
Americans are not stupid. They **know** that producing a few key documents would require nothing more than a nod from Obama. The obvious question is why not produce the documents?
That is the critical question and both Lind and NS know it. If the orders had been for Lakin to deploy for combat operations to Iran every one of us would be asking “WHO ORDERED TROOPS TO IRAN?” Particularly we’d be asking if either Congress declared war, thereby authorizing the military itself to use force, or whether “the President” had - the only person that SJ Res 23 authorizes to decide when, where, and how to use force in the war on terrorism.
Because those are the only 2 entities which have Constitutional authority to use force against other countries.
Lind acknowledged that authority flows from the Constitution through Congress. But she conveniently ignores the fact that the use of force - such as ordering a surge that results in deploying additional forces - was delegated by Congress to “the President” alone. That means that “the President” is the critical, pivotal issue regarding whether brigade commanders are lawfully authorized to deploy combat forces.
If the orders were to deploy to Iran we would all IMMEDIATELY ask the same question that Lakin is asking now, and for the same reason: brigade commanders cannot lawfully give combat orders if combat has not been authorized by either Congress or the CINC.
I’ve asked the military “experts” and the anti-Lakin folks to tell me what would make it unlawful, according to the MCM, for brigade commanders right now to issue deployment orders for combat forces to Iran. NOBODY would even address my very earnest question. The discussion just died. I’ve asked it over on the UCMJ site and here. I got mockery and statements that the question was absurd but beyond that, no real answers.
So I - busy, uneducated, low-life housewife that I am - looked it up myself, and found that brigade commanders are commissioned officers and that Article 90 gives the criteria for what orders of theirs are “lawful”. I found that they can’t lawfully order somebody to do their dry-cleaning because that violates iv. And I found that they can’t lawfully order something they are not authorized to order.
Lakin was charged with an Article 92 violation. The orders specifically mentioned are not general orders or regulations; they are specific orders, addressed specifically to him. So Article 92(1) wouldn’t apply, as I had thought it did. Article 92(2) would apply - EXCEPT that orders from a superior commissioned officer are outside the scope of Article 92(2). Those orders are covered under Article 90, and that is the only Article that can be used to charge someone who disobeys those orders.
The military purposely used Article 92(2) to charge Lakin in order to try to skirt the criteria for lawfulness that applies to orders from superior commissioned officers. That tells me that they KNOW that ii of those criteria is the crux of this whole issue - as would be the case if the deployment orders had been to Iran.
The folks over at the UCMJ blog - Sullivan and the others - wouldn’t address my question about orders to Iran because they knew Lakin was charged under the wrong article and if they showed me what criteria apply to the Iran scenario it would show how Lakin SHOULD HAVE been charged - and that the issue of authorization by the President is the crux of the whole issue, not “irrelevant”.
This whole process is as crooked as they come. The military is deliberately violating everything that matters. And the precedents they are setting right now could be used to say that any “superior commissioned officer” can issue combat deployments wherever they will independently of “the President”.
The retired military folks were concerned that if presidential eligibility is ruled on by this corrupt court-martial it would set a dangerous precedent. I hate to say it, but it also sets a dangerous precedent if the court is allowed to say that the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of combat orders from a superior commissioned officer.
No matter how you look at it, there are dangerous precedents being set. The people who think they will save Obama by abandoning the whole philosophy of “chain of command” and SJ Res 23’s authorization to only “the President” to decide to use force in the war on terror are being INCREDIBLY short-sighted.
If Lind’s judgment is allowed to stand, then any commissioned officer can deploy combat troops to foreign countries at their own choosing. All because Lind chose to cut off the chain of command at the head - to make orders down the line totally independent of whether there IS a head (CINC) and whether the head authorized combat operations.
We REALLY don’t want to go this route.
B U M P
I've heard it said that at its core the Constitution relies on the honor of good men to work. Honoring The People was not a consideration when certifying Obama or when ruling against established laws in Alaska.
We're fighting the breakdown of ethics in our society, a colluding Leftist (or worse) Press, and the machinations of ultra-wealthy globalists.
Can anyone tell me the point where we know that the Republic is lost so that we know when to pull out all the stops, where every other consideration and responsibility our lives becomes totally moot, so that that desperate energy might save our Republic before Revolution is necessary or Tyranny is imminent?
That's your debased opinion!!!
Has Lakin denied other previous deployments. And from whom and where did his brigade commander vs. two other superior officers got their "unlawful" orders from???
Those are the facts drirectly from Lakin's charge sheet.
And from whom and where did his brigade commander vs. two other superior officers got their "unlawful" orders from???
What is unlawful about an order to report to your brigade commander's office? Or to report for duty with a unit in Kentucky?
And from whom and where did his brigade commander vs. two other superior officers got their "unlawful" orders from??? To order 30,000 extra troops into Afghanistan???
This is crap. “Failure to Repair” is the easiest damn charge in the miltary to prosecute. Hell,I could charge every NCO, every EM, and even every damn officer including myself in a year with being late.
PURE BS.
Please look at the oath that an EM and an officer take. DIFFERENT. I took both. I will catch flak for certain, but; I damn sure would not/could not order one EM into combat without that Birth Certificate.I kid you not.
we should promise every Republican Congressman and Senator INCREDIBLE donations to their re-election acocunts IF they will go to the SOTU with a copy of their BC on their foreheads. And then they just sit there and smirk....and say “whaaa?”
This is crap. “Failure to Repair” is the easiest damn charge in the miltary to prosecute. Hell,I could charge every NCO, every EM, and even every damn officer including myself in a year with being late.
PURE BS.
Quotes please?
***Normally I’m happy to do so. But for trolls like you I’ll say, go fetch yourself.
No, their actions were derived from the same motivation as Lakin’s - refusing to obey what they believed was an illegal order. If that is cowardice than so is Lakin’s.
***Round and round, the usual troll bullstuff. Your lack of honor is showing.
And none of that happened. Would you describe the court martials that convicted them, and which sent Huet-Vaughn to prison, were kangaroo courts and a miscarriage of justice as well?
***Like I said, if there was one piece of paper that those guys could have been shown that proved their point invalid, they would have continued to stick to their passifist convictions. So now I expect from you, NS Troll, to go more round & round the way you’ve been doing for 2 years. Troll.
He is refusing to obey orders on the grounds that they were unlawful, just as Watada and Huet-Vaughn did.
***There are no other grounds, dipwad. You did not answer my contention but attempted a sidestep here, because your argument is so trollishly weak. There are obvious differences between the legal arguments of your pacificst fellow travelers and Lakin, who has already shown that he would serve in wartime. But honestly, I don’t expect this to change the viewpoint of a ridiculous troll like you.
The only difference among the three is that two questioned the legality of the war as justification for refusing while Lakin questioned the legality of the commander-in-chief.
***You’re an idiot. That was what I said earlier. How stupid can a troll be, to use the same fact in the same way as a reverse argument against itself? By going down this path you acknowledge my whole point. That’s incredibly stupid. Amazingly stupid, stupidity on a level that defies the effort that is even worth debating. So I’m done with you, troll, at this point. It’s not worth going through the rest of your post. I’m taking an old freeper’s advice to never argue with a fool, since someone observing the exchanges may not be able to tell who the fool is. So go ahead and have the last word, troll. It’s all yours.
The entire question here is- Does the usurper have the authority to issue a direct order/does anyone below him in the chain of command have said authority when I would bet my career that Obama has no such legal status to be CIC and thus the order is illegal from top down. That is my contention. Now, zero need only spend $20 or so. He is too darn chicken——, too.
The entire question here is- Does the usurper have the authority to issue a direct order/does anyone below him in the chain of command have said authority when I would bet my career that Obama has no such legal status to be CIC and thus the order is illegal from top down. That is my contention. Now, zero need only spend $20 or so. He is too darn chicken——, too.
The entire question here is- Does the usurper have the authority to issue a direct order/does anyone below him in the chain of command have said authority when I would bet my career that Obama has no such legal status to be CIC and thus the order is illegal from top down. That is my contention. Now, zero need only spend $20 or so. He is too darn chicken——, too.
The entire question here is- Does the usurper have the authority to issue a direct order/does anyone below him in the chain of command have said authority when I would bet my career that Obama has no such legal status to be CIC and thus the order is illegal from top down. That is my contention. Now, zero need only spend $20 or so. He is too darn chicken——, too.
The entire question here is- Does the usurper have the authority to issue a direct order/does anyone below him in the chain of command have said authority when I would bet my career that Obama has no such legal status to be CIC and thus the order is illegal from top down. That is my contention. Now, zero need only spend $20 or so. He is too darn chicken——, too.
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.