Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

WND ^ | February 23, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[Joiseydude]

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.

[M Kehoe]

A msg to SCOTUS. Whether it be Mr. Keyes, an American Army officer, Berg, etc., somebody HAS to have standing. Ya'all better figure this out, and quick.

5.56mm

[El Gato]

Boy, I agree with what you're trying to say, but you're violating your oath

Which part, specifically?

FYI, this is the oath in question:

I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

It's been that same oath since 11 July 1868.

[El Gato]

It won't make it to the Supreme Court. It'll be handled by the Army judicial process.

The military judicial process leads to the Supreme Court just the same as that which starts in civilian courts.

[little jeremiah]

Nuremberg trials.

[El Gato]

Mr. Easterling

That would be Lieutenant Easterling. If you read the article, you'll see that he's not the usual fresh faced butter bar. He joined the army at 40, and had previously worked as a contractor in Iraq.

[Think free or die]

May God bless and protect this courageous man . . . and may God bless and protect our nation.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Sarajevo]

I'm neither a politico nor a sycophant, and I am most certainly not among Obama's supporters.

The comment was made to the young Lt, not anyone on this thread. He has done nothing more than shaft himself and any semblance of a career in the military.

But I am, stoutly opposed to "soldiers" who would arrogate to themselves the right to decide who is, and is not, qualified to be their commander in chief.

We agree. The Lt's comments are seditious.

[Joe Marine 76]

< His oath is to the Constitution.>

Absolutely correct. Commissioned Officers swear no allegiance to the President or Commander-In-Chief.

Here’s how this could play out:

The Lieutenant may be charged with disrespect and go to Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment which is an ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.

When the Regiment or Battalion Commander asks if he will accept NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT, the Lieutenant says “No Sir, I request a Trial By Court-Martial.” Charges will be “preferred” by the Regt/Bn CO for a Special Court-Martial. If the Lt’s Commanding General is involved in the Article 15, again the Lt will be very wise to request a Trial by Court-Martial. Then the General would “prefer” the charges for a General Court-Martial.

During the trial, the Defense Attorney, JAG and/or a private attorney at the Lieutenant’s cost, will, in the defense of his client REQUEST ALL VITAL AND PERTINENT RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIS CLIENT.

If I were the Lt, I would have a military counsel, a private counsel AND A PERSONAL PUBLICIST to keep all information about the case “in the light of day” and to get ready for a good book deal, because it’s going to happen, in my opinion.

This will get interesting. What say you, former JAGs?

[Buddy B]

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq ..... is what I read .....

[goodnesswins]

Thanks for educating me....I had a little bit of doubt in my mind when I posted that....

[r9etb]

That would be Lieutenant Easterling.

If Mr. Easterling can empower himself to decide whether or not Obama's really the president, I can do the same and decide whether or not he's worthy being referred to by his military rank.

[Joe Marine 76]

Did ANYONE read in the article that he “defied the President’s order?”

I didn’t read anything.

[Joe Marine 76]

No place in the military... there’s no better place for him with his conviction and MORAL COURAGE.

And by the way he HAS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE UCMJ.

[azishot]

Bump.

Thanks, LucyT.

[Kakaze]

But I am, stoutly opposed to "soldiers" who would arrogate to themselves the right to decide who is, and is not, qualified to be their commander in chief.

Sometimes, you have to take your oath seriously..Lt. Easterling, is doing just that.

[Sarajevo]

Which part, specifically?

This part-

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath of Enlistment

[LucyT]

No. It isn’t in there.

Here’s the jist of the article: “ he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief.”

[r9etb]

And by the way he HAS THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE UCMJ.

Mr. Easterling has made that a rather straightforward process, by saying the following: "Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor."

This might easily be considered an Article 94 violation (mutiny or sedition); is probably an Article 92 violation (he is at least threatening to fail to obey orders); and it is quite clearly an Article 88 violation:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

His likely punishments for the latter may include "dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year." Not to mention the possibility of punishments for the more severe violations.

I think Mr. Easterling is in for a rather unpleasant lesson in what "civilian control of the military" is all about. He brought it on himself.

[frog in a pot]

“...I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,...”

Wrong.

Just so you will have a better idea of what you are talking about, the oath of U.S. Army officers is set out below. Notice the oath is not to defend the President or the United States, but is for a single purpose - to defend the Constitution:

“I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”