Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case of the Missing 2010 Changes to Manual for Courts-Martial (Mmmmmm, mmmmmm, mmmmm)
National Institute of Military Justice ^ | 9/1/2010 | Eugene R. Fidell

Posted on 09/04/2010 9:44:45 AM PDT by Velveeta

President Obama signed an Executive Order promulgating the 2010 changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial on August 31, 2010. The covering document is on the White House website, but the text of the changes is still neither there nor on the Federal Register and DoD websites as of 10:45 a.m., Sept. 2, 2010. The amendments take effect on September 30, 2010.


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; courtmartial; dod; enemydomestic; executiveorder; fascism; imamobama; ltcterrylakin; nobc; nobirthcertificate; obama; politics
Thanks to FReeper GunnyG for the find:

Devvy’s Alerts: New Obama/Soetoro EO – Court Martials…

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/devvys-alerts-new-obamasoetoro-eo-court-martials/

1 posted on 09/04/2010 9:44:50 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hennie pennie

*bookmark*


2 posted on 09/04/2010 9:48:15 AM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg; LucyT; STARWISE; pissant; null and void; Fred Nerks; BP2

Devvy’s Alerts: New ObamaSoetoro EO – Court Martials…

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/devvys-alerts-new-obamasoetoro-eo-court-martials

Ltc. Terry Lakin is under going court martial proceedings for challenging Obama/Soetoro’s eligibility.

The judge ruled a couple of days ago that he will not be allowed discovery regarding any documents regarding the criminal in the White House and his citizenship status.

I went over to the WH web site and yes, how timely, a new executive order dealing with court martial.

Sent to me:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/ltc-terry-lakin-denied-discovery-to.html

“President Obama signed an Executive Order promulgating the 2010 changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial on August 31, 2010.

“The covering document is on the White House website, but the text of the changes is still neither there nor on the Federal Register and DoD websites as of 10:45 a.m., Sept. 2, 2010. The amendments take effect on September 30, 2010

SOURCE: http://www.nimjblog.org/2010/09/2010-changes-to-manual-for-courts.html

Here’s the link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/31/executive-order-2010-amendments-manual-courts-martial

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 31, 2010

Executive Order– 2010 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 801-946), and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 1984, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Parts II and IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, are amended as described in the Annex attached and made a part of this order.

Sec. 2. These amendments shall take effect 30 days from the date of this order.

(a) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to the effective date of this order that was not punishable when done or omitted.

(b) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to the effective date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial, or other action may proceed in the same manner and with the same effect as if these amendments had not been prescribed.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 31, 2010


3 posted on 09/04/2010 9:49:25 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

We have to pass it before we can see what’s in it. I sense this is attributable to the Larkin case to cover his ass.


4 posted on 09/04/2010 9:49:40 AM PDT by mazda77 (Rubio for US Senate - West FL22nd - Scott for FL Gov. - Miller AK US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Probably Obama is removing the provisions making sodomy a crime.


5 posted on 09/04/2010 9:50:48 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

If sodomy is removed...there’s no charges of any significance that you can put on any gay GI. The entire discussion disappears overnight. My guess is that they’d like to reveal this after the election.


6 posted on 09/04/2010 9:54:47 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

What’ interesting to note is that by sec 2 the change would be irrelevant to Larkin’s case as both the action leading to it AND the initiation of the judicial process was prior to the passage of this order — Or am I missing something? {Like people actually following the law when it comes to the judicial system?}


7 posted on 09/04/2010 9:55:19 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

We all know these XXXXXXXs are evil; but we sometimes fergit they’re also f’uped as they come too—takes ‘em a while to get their sh!t together, if ever...

;)
Gunny G
aka: Dick Gaines
*****


8 posted on 09/04/2010 9:59:09 AM PDT by gunnyg (WE ARE BEHIND "ENEMY WITHIN" LINES, SURROUNDED, Our 'Novembers' Are Gone,,,So Few Can "grok" It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
I was looking for the referenced "Annex" (that contains the changes) earlier today. I could only find this 2010-MCM-Amendments. (I don't know anything about the site that is hosting this PDF file or the poster, Mr. Dwight Sullivan, I can only assume that it is legitimate content.)
9 posted on 09/04/2010 9:59:30 AM PDT by zzeeman (Existence exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I have forward this to my attorney friend for further dissemination. Now I know why I decided on a carrer in engineering.


10 posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:20 AM PDT by mazda77 (Rubio for US Senate - West FL22nd - Scott for FL Gov. - Miller AK US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Larkin is one man. They want the changes to affect the entire military.


11 posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:59 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America..”

and given what Larkin’s lawsuit (and others) are trying to determine... isn’t this phrase “rich”?

For those who say move on, nothing to see here ...


12 posted on 09/04/2010 10:04:08 AM PDT by silverleaf (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

The timing certainly makes one wonder.


13 posted on 09/04/2010 10:04:24 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I’m sorry his name is Lakin.


14 posted on 09/04/2010 10:06:44 AM PDT by mazda77 (Rubio for US Senate - West FL22nd - Scott for FL Gov. - Miller AK US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Do you think that’s what the E/O is about?


15 posted on 09/04/2010 10:06:49 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

I think I know what you mean; I’m a computer scientist myself and it drive me mad that the law can be [ab]used to the opposite effect of what it says, even in the face of a contrary law/assertion of superior ‘scope.’

I like to use the following state constitution / state law conflict to illustrate my point:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2582530/posts?page=179#179


16 posted on 09/04/2010 10:08:38 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Who is going to keep a list of all this crap to put it in one executive order and one bill reversing it all and making this era of the impostor president marginalized if not go away?


17 posted on 09/04/2010 10:10:02 AM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half of the population is below average)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zzeeman

Thanks for posting the Annex.


18 posted on 09/04/2010 10:11:37 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
Ltc. Terry Lakin is under going court martial proceedings for challenging Obama/Soetoro’s eligibility.

But if you read paragraphs b it's clear that whatever these changes are, the will not impact the case currently proceeding against Lakin because that began before the EO was published.

"Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to the effective date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial, or other action may proceed in the same manner and with the same effect as if these amendments had not been prescribed."

19 posted on 09/04/2010 10:13:08 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Quite “rich”, indeed.


20 posted on 09/04/2010 10:13:18 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Larkin is one man. They want the changes to affect infect the entire military.

There. Fixed.

21 posted on 09/04/2010 10:13:41 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 588 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

I don’t know.


22 posted on 09/04/2010 10:15:28 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

If the changes are moot, then why make the changes?


23 posted on 09/04/2010 10:18:05 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Satin Doll, although I don’t thoroughly understand this, nonetheless, I want to alert you to this thread over here.


24 posted on 09/04/2010 10:22:15 AM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
If the changes are moot, then why make the changes?

The military is a bureaucracy like any other, and they make decisions on their own schedule and nobody else's. Have you read the changes? I have, they're linked to off a blog that deals with military legal matters. They're fairly innocuous and I don't see anything in them that might impact Lakin. Click on the link below and scroll to the entry titled "2010 MCM Amendments."

Link

25 posted on 09/04/2010 10:24:37 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Ah ha!
I smell conspiracy! There are black helicopters circling over my house even as we speak!
AMERICA IS LOSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....

Arggghghhhhh (sound of gunfire mixed with splattering noises)


26 posted on 09/04/2010 10:27:46 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (Barbour 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

If one reads your post #25 and compares it to my post #26 they will find that you are the reasoned and logical troll. Whereas I am the sarcastic smartass troll.


27 posted on 09/04/2010 10:31:41 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (Barbour 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

According to the National Institute of Military Justice linked with this thread, the text of the changes have not been posted. The changes to which you’re referring are a part of the covering document.

I understood that to mean that the covering document is like a summary - but nobody in the public yet knows the text of the changes.


28 posted on 09/04/2010 10:34:43 AM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

But at least we are trolls together. We should get tee shirts made up.


29 posted on 09/04/2010 10:48:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta
I understood that to mean that the covering document is like a summary - but nobody in the public yet knows the text of the changes.

The link I provided clearly identify them as the changes approved by Obama earlier in the week. I believe those are the changes under discussion, and I'm sure that will become clear in the very near future.

30 posted on 09/04/2010 10:51:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Artemis Webb

Ah ha!
I smell conspiracy! There are black helicopters circling over my house even as we speak!
AMERICA IS LOSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....

Arggghghhhhh (sound of gunfire mixed with splattering noises)


New regs require saluting indoors when wearing tin foil hat.


32 posted on 09/04/2010 12:50:54 PM PDT by maine yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

There are no links from the White House website that describe what the changes are.

That’s odd!


33 posted on 09/04/2010 1:13:35 PM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I don't see anything in them that might impact Lakin.

If the EO specifically targeted Lakin by using his name, rank and horsepower, you would still say, "I don't see anything in them that might impact Lakin."

You are predictable.

34 posted on 09/04/2010 1:18:29 PM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I don’t know and have no inside knowledge. I do know this, however. Sodomy is prohibited by the UCMJ and homosexuals, unlike heterosexuals, have very few options for sexual activity except sodomy.

So, for homosexuals to serve in the military AND not violate the UCMJ, they must essentially remain celibate during their tour.

Since it’s unlikely they do that (one of the arguments against letting them serve in the first place), for Obama to lift DADT, he probably is trying to combine it with also changing the law that prohibits homosexual sex in the military.

IOW, the first issue that lifting DADT raises is, okay, now what is the military policy on homosexual sodomy? Will it be allowed even though sodomy is prohibited by the UCMJ for everyone else? Will the Administration look stupid, and tick off the gay lobby, if it tries to say homosexuals can serve openly in the military, but they still can’t commit sodomy because that’s prohibited by the UCMJ?

Of course, the White House has no clue of all the legal issues it will get tangled up with if it goes ahead with its pandering plan to lift DADT. Besides UCMJ issues, the President and his DOJ will quickly be involved in lawsuits to extend military benefits (housing, joint travel orders, adoption assistance, medical insurance, commissary privileges, etc.) to homosexual partners — the list goes on.

And each and every issue will be one upon which, I can guarandamntee, our President will “act stupidly.” He’ll come out and say, “Yes, male homosexual partners should be able to join the Officers’ Wives Club” or whatever and it will be Cambridge/Ground Zero Mosque all over again.


35 posted on 09/04/2010 1:19:36 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

P.S. I’m pretty sure one constituency Obama is trying very hard to reenergize before the mid-terms is homosexuals.


36 posted on 09/04/2010 1:21:01 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yes. This has nothing to do with Lakin.

There is a process for amending the UCMJ and then the President signs off on them.

I posted that to the extent the White House seems to be managing the content of the amendments a little more closely than usual, the amendments may be about changing the UCMJ to make it more sodomy-friendly for homosexuals. ‘Cuz the President really needs to get going on that DADT if he’s going to get homosexuals out to vote in the midterms.

That said, many people were involved in the amendment process and one could have spilled the beans on any politically sensitive changes by now.

Unless the White House is not playing nice.


37 posted on 09/04/2010 1:27:22 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
If the EO specifically targeted Lakin by using his name, rank and horsepower, you would still say, "I don't see anything in them that might impact Lakin."

OK, tell me what part of the MCM changes target Lakin and make is defense even more impossible than it currently is. Can you do that for us?

38 posted on 09/04/2010 1:28:37 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Grasping at tiny straws would also be an appropriate title.


39 posted on 09/04/2010 1:30:53 PM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hennie pennie

Thanks, hennie pennie. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.


40 posted on 09/04/2010 1:50:39 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

“Unless the White House is not playing nice.”

This White House NEVER plays nice.


41 posted on 09/04/2010 1:51:58 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

I didn’t want to OVER *ping* you, but I was sure some of stuff I ran across this morning was directly up your alley.

2011 will be an interesting time, lets hope that ALL appeals get accepted & heard in full by higher courts.


42 posted on 09/04/2010 2:35:15 PM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson