Posted on 08/03/2010 4:35:39 PM PDT by cycle of discernment
Army Refers Charges Against Lakin To Court Martial
Arraignment Set for Hearing on August 6, 2010
The Army has now referred charges against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair.
On August 6, 2010 at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., the court will convene for the purpose of Judge Lind taking Lakin’s plea to the charges which consist of “missing movement” and of refusing to obey orders.
Today Lakin stated: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices. The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not, then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.” If convicted, Lakin faces up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
LTC Lakin is a doctor and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department’s outstanding flight surgeons.
In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on YouTube that he would refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the President’s eligibility. So far, more than 200,000 people have viewed that video.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
Today Lakin stated:
“I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices. The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not, then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.”
If convicted, Lakin faces up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
they still have to have "discovery"
A military court martial is not going to deny the guy the right to have Barry prove him wrong by producing the necessary documents...
Where's the Birth Certificate ???
Yes they will and he will be convicted.
A military court martial is not going to deny the guy the right to have Barry prove him wrong by producing the necessary documents...
Yes they will and he will be convicted.
__________________________________________
Which will be overturned for the withholding of evidence...
Yeah and “Bush stole the election and the war in Iraq is an illegal war.” http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516144757.0ds7otes
I agree, but I also note that he has a strong case.
But military justice is a contradiction in terms...
What color is the sky on your planet?
Chain of command issue, although I simply think he’ll be hung. Saw it when I was in with a few of us EM types.
If the chief commanding officer isn’t, then any and all commands issued under his authority are illegal.
Given a British father, I fail to see how he could possibly fill the qualifications for POTUS.
TOTUS, on the other hand, seems to be much desired and working well.
But the facts won’t make the case, and the resistance to the socialist government will be squashed. Thus, he’ll hang while those who should be in his place cause an even larger disaster.
For which you and your kids’ll pay.
If Obama were eligible he would have proved it long ago. The real crime is that all our politicians know that but do nothing. They willingly let an impostor serve.
>I think he has a very weak case. Obama didn’t give him any orders and it’s extremely unlikely he gave his unit any orders.
But doesn’t the authority of the dispatching officers come from the President who, in turn, gets his [military] authority as Commander in Chief from the Constitution? If, therefore, the President is not Constitutionally qualified to be the President {and therefore Commander in Chief} then he has no authority to give the officers to authorize Larkin’s orders.
Actually, no. The Constitution authorizes Congress, not the President, to raise armies. The U.S. Army and the Department of the Army, which actually runs the thing, are authorized by laws passed by Congress, long ago. We are a nation of laws, not of men, and the operation of the Army and the authority of its officers comes from the Constitution and the enacted laws, not any President or the Presidency.
Think about Lakin's argument. If the orders his commanders gave him are invalid because he thinks the President illegally occupies the office, then the orders of every officer, commissioned and non-commissioned are invalid. Every service member gets to choose which orders to obey and which not to obey. When an argument produces an absurd result, it is almost always based on a faulty premise.
It's a damn shame. From all I read this is a fine officer and he's throwing it all away for nothing.
Stupid question:
If you have never seen the birth certificate, how do you know that Obama Sr is his father?
This whole case is based on something that Lakin does not know.
>>But doesn’t the authority of the dispatching officers come from the President who, in turn, gets his [military] authority as Commander in Chief from the Constitution?
>
>Actually, no. The Constitution authorizes Congress, not the President, to raise armies.
Raising armies and commanding them are two different things. A commander of an army of none, because that army wasn’t raised is just as ineffective as an army raised with no commander.
>The U.S. Army and the Department of the Army, which actually runs the thing, are authorized by laws passed by Congress, long ago.
Mere implementation details... there is still the authority inherent in the chain-of-command.
>We are a nation of laws, not of men, and the operation of the Army and the authority of its officers comes from the Constitution and the enacted laws, not any President or the Presidency.
>
>Think about Lakin’s argument. If the orders his commanders gave him are invalid because he thinks the President illegally occupies the office, then the orders of every officer, commissioned and non-commissioned are invalid.
This is quite correct; it is why it truly *is* a crisis. Saying that this is an absurd conclusion is like claiming someone saying a chicken whose head you cut off [yet is still ‘flappin’ around] is dead* is absurd because the chicken is obviously moving about.
*because it doesn’t have a head
>Every service member gets to choose which orders to obey and which not to obey.
Incorrect; there is still a higher authority that is *not* compromised: The Constitution itself. Using the Constitution to restore the validity of the Commander in Chief is the *only* legitimate way to resolve the problem. {Other ‘solutions’ are merely “politically expedient”.}
>When an argument produces an absurd result, it is almost always based on a faulty premise.
Your “absurd result” is faulty, as shown.
>It’s a damn shame. From all I read this is a fine officer and he’s throwing it all away for nothing.
Yes, adherence to the Constitution is [obviously] nothing. [/sarc]
Please read the following post and tell me your answers to the questions posed in the “questions” section:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2560780/posts?page=93#93
Stop telling U.S. Army soldiers that all their orders are invalid, which undermines the good order and discipline of the Army. It's bullcrap.
The Army is not some Chavista institution that can decide to unseat a duly elected President based on speculation about his birth. It will never happen and should never happen. Leave the institution I am very proud to have served alone and out of your politics. The Constitution provides means of resolving this issue, but the Army is not one of them.
There are a whole bunch of laws in Title 10 of the United States Code that lay out how the Army works and who has authority to do what, and then there is a mountain of regulations under that. You ought to read that material before spouting off half baked theories that all military orders are invalid in the Obama administration.
>I don’t know what you thought you were posting, but it has nothing to do with Lakin.
But it does: either the Constitution is a legally binding document or it is not. If it *is* a legally binding document then it is, per its own words, the “supreme law of the land;” though, whether that ‘land’ is federal or state in scope is irrelevant at the moment. If the Constitution is the highest law and it presents qualifications which must be met in order to hold a certain position, then isn’t someone not meeting those qualifications invalid? Further, if the Constitution appoints a “Commander In Chief” to some position {President in the case of the federal Constitution; Governor in my State’s w.r.t the State’s National Guard} then how can someone who is unqualified to hold that position give any legitimate order?
Furthermore, any particular chain-of-command must necessarily stop at its highest authority-person: such as a CEO in a company or a CIC in a military organization... any person acting on the authority of their *position* is acting inappropriately & illegitimately if that position’s authority is derived from an invalid source of authority: for example, if you stole the identity of IBM’s CEO and created a Molecular Research Division and appointed some IBM employee to head that department using that stolen identity then that position is itself of no legitimate authority. Further, if you were to fire someone from an existing position, that dismissal would have no legitimacy when you were “found out.” OR consider the hypothetical that the CEO must approve a budget [for legal reasons or somesuch] and you, as an identity-thief, approve that budget then that budget itself could be called into question in court even if it was a decade in the making and had unanimous support in the company and the REAL CEO would have approved it anyway.
>Stop telling U.S. Army soldiers that all their orders are invalid, which undermines the good order and discipline of the Army. It’s bullcrap.
No sir! Either the Constitution is valid legally, or it is not; there is no middle-ground. Either the man-at-the-top, the commander in chief, is legally in that position or he is not. It is *FAR* more undermining to “the good order and discipline of the Army” to have this sort of legal question unanswered; either there is a [military] law and it should be applied to everyone uniformly (hence the ‘Uniform’ in UCMJ) or it is a bunch of selectively-enforced politically-influenced crap with the thin veneer of legal-terminology to support it. {And I say this having been in the Army for 9 years; I got out because of all the BS that was being fed to me: enough to make me doubt the former and assume the latter.}
>The Constitution provides means of resolving this issue, but the Army is not one of them.
Disagreed; either they are sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” (against all enemies, foreign and domestic) or they are not. I recall those very words in my oath of enlistment, and they come *before* any reference to person or position within the government (indicating more prominence/importance).
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATyjMtQJe7iWZHY2OTh0bV8yNWM3YjM1Y2M5&hl=en
All is explained.
Buh, bye.
Excuse me?
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.