Army to court martial 'birther' officer

msnbc ^ | April 13, 2010 | Mark Murray

[Berlin_Freeper]

U.S. military officials tell NBC News that the U.S. Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from President Obama to be "illegal."

Army doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin believes Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president and commander-in-chief

[El Gato]

As far as following orders "to the death", the oath a commissioned officers takes when they enlist is

Officer's don't enlist. (Well they sometimes do, but are released from that enlistement as soon as they are commissioned.) What you showed is the enlisted oath. The military officers oath does not mention obeying orders, or the President, or the UCMJ. It has not been changed since 1868. It's the same oath the VP and other federal officers take.

Officer Oath: I, ___, 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. .

[Sola Veritas]

“I, _____, 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.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).”

I don’tknow how many times this has to be corrected......What you posted is for “enlisted” personnel taking an oath of office. The Officer oath of office reads like this:

“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.”

Notice it says nothing about the POTUS or Superior Officers. The oath is to protect the CONSTITUTION.

I wonder if they will redo the Oath for Officers now because of this??????

[Blood of Tyrants]

First of all, the Army only has to make the charge that the Lt Col refused a lawful order. It is up to the LT Col’s counsel to request the birth certificate.

Second, it is highly unusual for a judge to refuse documents that would exonerate an individual, especially if the documents in question are key to the defense of the accused. Defense simply requests the BC and the judge issues a court order to the state of Hawaii to release it.

[little jeremiah]

Look at BP2’s comments. He and others have dismantled that lame argument numerous times. The idiots are trotting out the same soundly defeated crap over and over and over again.

Courtesy ping to BP2.

Try this thread, I’m sure it’s been taken apart there, and many other places as well. It’s a long thread, don’t know if you were on it, try working backwards from the end, maybe.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2492116/posts

Or it might be on this other thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2492333/posts

[little jeremiah]

Duh - you’re on this thread!

(too mnay windows and tabs open..., sorry!)

[Blood of Tyrants]

But you forget that the CNP gets HIS orders from the president.

[El Gato]

Interesting, but still explainable as simply bureaucracies and stacks of paperwork on desks. Stack of papers from hospital comes into registrars office, Obama’s among them. They’re accepted with a stamp that says “Filed.” That stack goes off to someone’s desk for processing into birth certificates

They already are birth certificate forms. They just need to be stamped with a date filed, be assigned a file number, and the information entered into the birth register. That's now a computer file, but in '61 it probably was a series of bound books.

Remember the "source", usually a parent, the "witness", usually the doctor, and the local registrar (if any, usually a hospital official) all have to sign and date it.

The actual sequence is "source" fills out a worksheet, hospital staff types up the birth certificate form, source signs, witness signs, and then hospital registrar signs. Then it's sent off to the state or county registrar depending on local/state practice. Government registrar assigns file number and stamps that on the form, also stamps the "filed" or "accepted" date onto the form, and enters data into birth registry. Yes the file order doesn't indicate birth order within the "batch", but the filed on date will be the date the file number was assigned. No way can one that came in on Tuesday the 8th gets a higher file number than one that came in(or was processed on) the Friday 11th.

[rxsid]

"Maybe the runner really did miss 3rd base, and should be out, and the inning over. Too bad the ump missed it, and called him safe at home. But yelling, screaming, whining, litigating, crying, moaning and (expletive deleted)ing, won't change the call after the fact, and won't take the run off the score board. So you can either throw the next pitch, or take your glove and go home."

Or, in the case of the NFL, throw the red towel in to get the play reviewed, to see weather or not it was a legitimate catch. Or, assuming the officials were impartial, they might have a booth review.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What threats did Walpin claim to have received? He was just fired and is in the midst of suing to get his job back. And what happened to Thomas Lauria, the lawyer who claimed that the Obama administration threatened to ruin his clients if they didn’t accept the bankruptcy settlement they’d worked out? Nothing.

[El Gato]

The truth, which I know you don't want to hear, is that the Birther movement is the biggest gift to Obama out there right now, because it allows them to paint all their opponents as nuts.

[bushpilot1]

1) Ramsay was trying to get his opponent, Smith rejected as a Senator so that he could fill that position>

2) Ramsay’s arguments were heard in Congress and overwhelmingly rejected?

Know anything about the above?

[El Gato]

But I suspect we will never know the truth due to national security.

Actually I think we might, and due to national security. Or at least those who help provide it.

If nothing else, there are plenty of sneaky peaky type folks who will eventually get so PO'd they'll find the original BC, be it in Hawaii, Kenya or Canada.

[El Gato]

On April, 25, 2010,

Make that March 25, 2010. Unless someone has a future cam. ;0)

[bert]

.......It is up to the LT Col’s counsel to request the birth certificate......

I don’t pretend to be a military lawyer but......

The very concept of chain of command is at issue. The head of the chain of command must be proved valid. Every order by every officer goes to the very top. No valid top, no valid chain

[nolongerademocrat]

Good, thanks for the info.

[El Gato]

Therefore the orders come directly from his "senior officers" and not directly from the President.

There's nothing in there about Orders. I've taken that oath, although without the Army part.

I've also given the periodically required brief on obeying orders, lawful orders. In fact the brief contained an emphasis on obeying *only* lawful orders, and the duty to disobey unlawful ones.

[RummyChick]

Explain why the FBI file on Obama’s grandfather was destroyed.

[El Gato]

I recently got a U.S. passport with a certificate of live birth.

Yes you can get a passport, for which one only need prove citizenship. But they only prove citizenship, not natural born citizenship. And they can be forged, rather easily in fact. Even more easily if you don't have to forge an actual paper document, and can just get away with posting an electronic one.

[Gay State Conservative]

So the judge does,in fact,deny any motion made by the defense.He's found guilty,given a sentence and his lawyers appeal.Hussein's stooges at the DoD and the Department of Just Us see to it that these appeals take years.Hussein's out of office before the appeals are finally decided.

Although I'm not a lawyer that's the worst case scenario for Hussein and the best case scenario for the Colonel....IMO.

[El Gato]

I wonder if they will redo the Oath for Officers now because of this??????

You never know, they messed with it a lot before it took it's current form in 1868.From Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2002 (USAF War College publication):

The first oath officers oath under the Constitution was codified in 1789 by the first Congress.

Officer Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

It was revised and combined with the enlisted oath in 1790.

I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war.

then in 1862, in response to the unfortunate events of the era, it was changed again:

I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any officers whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, 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.

Finally, with the unpleasentness over they changed it to it's current form in 1868:

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.

The first enlisted oath was also created in 1789 with changes in 1790, 1950, and finally 1962.