Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
No kidding.
Oh...
I thought we were just in it for the money...
> “Perhap as Commander in Chief, he didn’t believe a soldier in his service should dictate to him what he should do?”
.
Of course you meant as POSING Commander in Chief...
.
Exactly
He got off light.
There we part company.
There were 72 different eligibility cases, pick any of the ones that happened before the election...
I got in it for the chicks...it's been very disappointing so far.
Obama’s birth records have no special seal. Hawaiian birth records are not public records.
I know you’re not a lawyer.
Lakin did something courageous under unimaginable circumstances for the good of the country. Had the court been composed of men of courage, the outcome would have been much different.
This case says much about just how deep we are in the “mud.”
Is there a reason why the MP’s couldn’t have just taken him into custody as AWOL and put him on a Military Plane to Afghanistan? That would have saved everyone in this matter a whole lot of grief.
A commissioned officer’s dismissal is equivalent to a dishonorable discharge.
I believe he will keep his right (license) to practice medicine.
>Good thinking ....
Thank you; though from some of the comments thereon you would think I was spouting gibberish.
>My answer to the question is that all orders received from a superior are legitimate until proven otherwise.
That’s almost what Judge Lind said; only she went a step further and declared that, basically, any order that can be presumed to be lawful is lawful.
If that is so, then no soldier can *EVER* question [or request clarification of] their orders [or the legitimacy thereof] w/o being insubordinate.
I cannot condone such an assertion as Judge Lind made: it is then far, far too easy to have the troops committing legally-questionable/grey-area actions and then entrap them by declaring that the shade was a bit too dark and it was actually an illegal action. {Martial law would be an extreme test of this; but, despite what people say martial-law CANNOT suspend the Constitution as the Constitution being the highest law of the land, makes no case wherein it may be suspended... in fact, to so order the suspension of the Constitution would, IMO, be authorization for the armed forces to kill* the issuer of such orders.}
*Being a former enlistee, my oath was to the Constitution first and foremost. [ https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATyjMtQJe7iWZHY2OTh0bV8yNWM3YjM1Y2M5&hl=en ]
Doesn’t change the point of my post. Foreign governments have the full scoop on it.
He obeyed orders while he waited for clarification regarding their lawfulness. That is what soldiers are trained to do, according to somebody who posted here. He waited about 2 years for clarification, using different routes, and was ignored at every turn.
Deployment orders in support of combat operations are legally a different story, I believe, because combat troop levels and deployment plans HAVE to be approved by the President, according to statute and according to the Authorization for the Use of Force. So there was no way to skirt the issue of Obama as the source of the authority for that specific order.
For other orders, the argument could be made, as Lind made, that the generic maintenance of the military was authorized by Congress. But when it comes to the use of force, the authorization always comes down to the President directly. And Lakin’s orders were to deploy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, so it was combat support and had to be authorized, along with all the other combat deployments, by the President directly in the overall plan.
That’s my understanding anyway.
Shhhhhhhhh! Axelrod is gonna dock you this week for that one.
Shhhhhhhhh! Axelrod is gonna dock you this week for that one.
I was only addressing that particular myth. But you should stop and think, if you accepted that myth without realizing it was, what other birther beliefs are you accepting that are also myths?
"Foreign governments have the full scoop on it."
Of course they do. As does everyone else, if they're just willing to accept facts. There's no mystery here.
Hold on there, chief, let's keep your goalposts in one place. No one said Lakin is part of the federal judiciary. He is a citizen who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against domestic enemies ... he has a Constitutional right and obligation to challenge an obvious domestic enemy. The military court is as legally appropriate to make this challenge as would be any other federal court.
Matt 10:26 “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known”.
Proverbs 10:9 “The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out”.
Only in your eyes....
95% of all civilians that have never served wouldn’t know what it means to say an Officer was dismissed
Hell I’ll go even a bit further than that 96% of civilians that have never served don’t know what a BCD is.
Try to remember that these are the same people that believe that every homeless guy in a field jacket is a Vietnam vet
Absolutely, however, one of the consequences should not be the denial of Constitutional rights, as was the case in this trial.
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.