Eligibility threads are the most deserving of detracting comments.
And the silliest.
And what are your feelings on something as silly as this?
Posted on 06/09/2010 12:40:42 PM PDT by rxsid
Eligibility threads are the most deserving of detracting comments.
And the silliest.
And what are your feelings on something as silly as this?
That it’s silly.
|
The order to Lakin came from Colonel Roberts. It is that order that Lakin is charged with disobeying, not that of Gates or Obama or anyone else in the chain of command. It is that order that Lakin has to show is unlawful. Not true. The Chain of Command, from TOP to bottom, is the SINGLE MOST important part of military discipline. If it's in doubt, the system breaks down. IF Col Robert's or HIS commander's “Eligibility” to hold his position was in doubt, Lakin would have a similar conundrum. The difference is that Obama’s Eligibility is unique in ALL of the Chain of Command — Obama MUST be a natural-born citizen. NO OTHER OFFICE IN GOVERNMENT HAS THIS UNIQUE REQUIREMENT. The originating individual is irrelevant. If it were that irrelevant, there would NOT be a trial, would there? The facts are self-evident, but there ARE extenuating circumstances, are there not? As I have said on many occasions, Obama could be exposed and removed from office tomorrow, and Lakin would still be guilty of missing movement and of disobeying the order of his brigade commander. Any satisfaction Lakin may get from seeing Obama exposed and removed from office may not outweigh the cost of the court martial conviction, the cashiering, and the possible prison time. Lakin is “guilty” now, but again, there ARE extenuating circumstances. But you bring up an important point. Do you agree with the following hierarchy for Lakin (and all Army officers) to follow?
US Constitution Oath of Office Code of Conduct UCMJ - US Code Army Regulations International Law Foreign Laws of Host Nations Why or why not? Why? Where is his position any different from Lakin’s According to him the war was illegal. According to you he is within his rights to question the legitimacy of his orders on those grounds and to have his questions answered before having to obey the orders he believed were unlawful. It is hypocritical of you to take any position other than full blown support of Watada and complete approval of Obama’s actions at quashing the appeal. I do NOT agree with Watada’s rationale. But I DO agree with his OBLIGATION to question orders he may feel are Illegitimate. The atrocities of the Vietnam War gives us many examples of why we DON'T want our Officers to BLINDLY follow orders. However, Watada was more concerned about saving his own miserable ass if HE would be guilty of War Crimes under Bush. His public words lead to the additional Conduct Unbecoming an Officer charges brought by the US Army, which is why the Left CHEERED him on. Lakin specifically questions Obama’s Eligibility under Art II, § 1, Clause 5. Furthermore, Lakin questions the CinC's qualifications in a respectful tone. I'm not aware of ANY other case that has been brought to full Court Martial in US history for such a reason that has gone this far. That's what makes Lakin's case UNIQUE, too ... that is, until OTHER Officers join him in questioning the CinC's Eligibility. |
Yes there would, because Lakin still refused to obey orders and still refused to deploy with his unit.
The facts are self-evident, but there ARE extenuating circumstances, are there not?
Your opinions are self evident. Facts are kind of thin.
|
> If it were that irrelevant, there would NOT be a trial, would there? >> Yes there would, because Lakin still refused to obey orders and still refused to >> deploy with his unit. But if it's OBVIOUS that Lakin is GUILTY of the UCMJ violations brought against him, why offer him Due Process? Unless the Judge needs to hear the “evidence” and decide if he/she has the Jurisdiction to help uncover the Truth. A MJ does NOT, which is why this case is destined to either end in Mistrial (as Watada's case was the first time), be dismissed (as Watada's case was by the 9th Circus) or proceed on to Appeal in Federal court. > The facts are self-evident, but there ARE extenuating circumstances, are there not? Hmmm, I've seen YOUR FactCheck.org “facts”. Those are TRULY thin and all but a handful of nutjobs like yourself on FR agree. You have to look REALLY hard to find a recent Article 92 violation such as this that brought prison time. In essence, this IS a Conscientious Objector case — with a twist. If the Army DOESN'T prosecute, it gives a green light to others like Lakin. And if the Army DOES prosecute like it is, Lakin has Injury and Standing in Federal court. If anyone need to be concerned here, it's B. Hussein Obama. And we haven't even gotten to the part of the argument that says a British Subject (except those alive at the time of the writing of the Constitution) such as B. Hussein Obama was NEVER meant to command the US Military or hold the office of POTUS.
 |
Because the same as any other accused criminal, Lakin has rights which need to be protected.
But how can Lakin’s rights “be protected” when there’s a presumption of guilt?
There is a presumption of innocence. My opinion on the matter doesn't count.
I am starting to think that maybe the military is better off without this fellow attempting to practice medicine on soldiers.
Yawn.
Do you also want to be my Facebook friend?
Sorry, I don’t belong to Facebook.
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.