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.
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.