Replies

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates signed the orders today.

So the actual orders for the Marine and Army bridgades' deployment were signed by Secretary Gates. The article you referenced doesn't say whether or not Obama signed the orders. (It says he "ordered" the deployments.) Do we know if Obama actually signed the orders? I ask because ...

On May 8, Larry Johnson of No Quarter (formerly with the CIA and U.S. State Department) reported that Pentagon officials are forcing Obama to sign off on Top Secret capture/kill operations because they don't trust him. Not being a military history buff, I wonder if that has ever happened before now.

Under George W. Bush a number of Top Secret orders were signed that gave the military permission to do a variety of things. I can’t go into the specifics because it would compromise classified info. During Barack’s first year in office most of those authorities remained in place and, as I noted in previous postings, the number of capture/kill operations actually increased under Obama.
That was then. Two things have happened over the last five months. First, many of those original authorities have been rescinded. So our military forces will not be acting against targets that they had permission to hit even one year ago. Second, and more troubling, the military commanders are forcing Obama to sign off on every operation. Why?
They don’t trust him.

I was never able to confirm this information outside of Larry Johnson's report at NQ and FR doesn't allow posts from NQ, so I never posted the article here.

Regardless, Lakin's orders were presumed lawful. They came from his superior not directly from Obama.

Well of course the orders were “presumed” lawful, they came from the direct order from the “presumed” CIC!

If any initial order did not come from the ultimate decision maker, who happens to be qualified under the Constitution, they are all total BS!

Regardless, Lakin's orders were presumed lawful. They came from his superior not directly from Obama.

The only problem is that there don't need to be any presumptions of lawfulness. It CAN be proven if Obama is indeed a constitutionally legal CinC. His place in the chain of command is clearly delineated under Art. 92, so there shouldn't be any problem with a simple, but full disclosure.

Regardless, Lakin's orders were presumed lawful. They came from his superior not directly from Obama.

Not by LTC Lakin. He never presumed Obama's orders to be lawful. I've shown you that the orders to Lakin from Obama where passed to him by his superiors.

Flag officers, from general after general are saying... with Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney being the latest, understand the chain-of-command. There is no denying it. We who are in the military, active or retired, understand this issue.

Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney -

"The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined. "

As I was saying above that LTC Lakin has not presumed that Obama is eligibility for Presidential office. LTC Lakin has tried to get his answers to his legal questions to no avail and satisfaction.

On May 8, Larry Johnson of No Quarter (formerly with the CIA and U.S. State Department) reported that Pentagon officials are forcing Obama to sign off on Top Secret capture/kill operations because they don't trust him. Not being a military history buff, I wonder if that has ever happened before now.

I wouldn't doubt it considering all that has happened. I wouldn't doubt it at all.

The article you referenced doesn't say whether or not Obama signed the orders. (It says he "ordered" the deployments.) Do we know if Obama actually signed the orders? I ask because ...

The article does say that the orders originally came from Obama and whether the orders was verbal or written, they carry the same weight. But according to your post about Larry Johnson's report, the military brass do not think so since they do not trust Obama.

On May 8, Larry Johnson of No Quarter (formerly with the CIA and U.S. State Department) reported that Pentagon officials are forcing Obama to sign off on Top Secret capture/kill operations because they don't trust him. Not being a military history buff, I wonder if that has ever happened before now.

This is VERY interesting!

Question: how can Pentagon officials "FORCE" Obama to sign off on Top Secret capture/kill operations?

What sort of "leverage" do they have to "FORCE" Obama to do anything he doesn't wish to do?

Why is the word "force" being used?

Perhaps more context would explain this.

I would be interested in your opinion, if any.

Do you have more on this story?

It just seems there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

Didn't president Eisenhower say "beware the military complex?"

Thanks ahead of time for your reply.

STE=Q