Posted on 08/06/2010 1:17:40 PM PDT by cycle of discernment
He’s done much in his career to prove he is not a weasel.
That article describes Joe Biden’s oppostition to the surge. Regarding the final plan it says:
“The president went around the room asking for opinions. Mr. Biden again expressed skepticism, even at this late hour when the tide had turned against him in terms of the troop number. But he had succeeded in narrowing the scope of the mission to protect population centers and setting the date to begin withdrawal. Others around the table concurred with the plan. Mr. Obama spoke last, but still somewhat elliptically. Some advisers said they walked out into the night after 10 p.m., uncertain whether the president had actually endorsed the Max Leverage option or was just testing for reaction.”
And regarding Obama’s announcement of the final decision to go with that plan, the article says this:
On the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He would send 30,000 troops as quickly as possible, then begin the withdrawal in July 2011. In deference to Mr. Gates’s concerns, the pace and endpoint of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time.
“I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was a pause and no one said anything.
“Tell me now,” he repeated.
Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr. Gates and others signaled agreement.
“Fully support, sir,” Admiral Mullen said.
“Ditto,” General Petraeus said.
Mr. Obama then went to the Situation Room to call General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. The president made it clear that in the next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops. “It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we draw down,” he said.
Two days later, Mr. Obama flew to West Point to give his speech. After three months of agonizing review, he seemed surprisingly serene. “He was,” said one adviser, “totally at peace.”
I’d believe him, but I don’t see any laws which say that Twitter is a sufficient substitute for due process. He didn’t exactly cite precedent on that.”
How certain are you that this is what he was trying to say?
“And I do take it on advisement when Clarence Thomas admits that they are deliberately avoiding the issue.”
What did you make of Thomas' hearty chuckle after saying that?
“The others have said that the plaintiff lacked standing. Which means they have not addressed the issue of whether Obama “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th.”
Once again, you are taking your own opinions and imposing them on the process.
“When has anybody told me what would happen if Lakin’s brigade commanders had ordered him to Iran to fight the mullahs (something that has not been authorized by the civilian command - Congress, CIC and SecDef - and formulated into an operational plan by the military)?”
I believe I gave a try at answering that one.
Colonel Roberts did not order Lakin to go to Afghanistan, he ordered him to report to him in his office at a specified date and time. Lakin refused to obey that order. Colonel McHugh did not order Lakin to Afghanistan, he ordered him to temporary duty with the 101st. Neither of those orders originated with Obama, and you insist that neither officer had the authority to issue such orders because somehow Obama's eligibility or lack there of invalidats them. So if you want to twist it and say that these orders were invalid because of Obama then every order must be invalid because of Obama. Every order issued by every officer in every branch of service. And that's flat ridiculous, IMHO of course.
Lakin disobeyed an order from a direct superior, not from BHO.
Thus far we’ve had a few folks, who claim relevant experience with the military justice system, weigh in on this matter and they’ve so far been quite accurate in their assessments of how this would proceed.
B, you need to ask yourself if maybe things are happening as you’ve been told they would happen because that really is how the system is set up to work and has worked for quite some time.
So you are saying that every single order issued by every officer and NCO in every branch of the service is illegal.
Obama's alleged ineligibility is something that will never be heard in any court of law, let alone a military court of law, with respect to the current term. There is a chance that some Secretary of State could deny Obama ballot access for 2012, then we'd have this case heard on the merits, should the SoS not blink.
In the eyes of the court this is a political question, not a legal question. Why is that? Because to have access on the merits in a court, the court must be able to provide relief to plaintiffs. If there's no relief possible, then there's no trial. It's that simple.
With respect to this particular case, since Obama's eligibility to hold office has absolutely no relevance on Lakin's commanding general's ability to issue orders, it's not a question for the court to entertain. Again, it's that simple.
Let me guess, that's not the way you see it. That's fine. We'll have our answer sometime in October.
He, smart ass - point out for me a single Birther case where they've prevailed on a SINGLE motion - just one - otherwise, I suggest you take a big gulp of STFU, sweetie.
What you don't seem to understand is that the military justice system recognizes two kinds of order - lawful and unlawful. There's nothing facially unlawful about an order to deploy. There is something plainly and facially illegal about "murdering civilians", for instance. I'm sorry you don't have the intellect to discern the difference.
Lakin's unit commander gave him a lawful order - an order that he was well-within his statutory authority to issue. Lakin disobeyed that, and three other orders. That is why he's being tried. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Are you asking me if the government won't stipulate to Barack Obama's birth to a foreign-national, if any of these cases actually got that far? No, I can't think of any reason why the government wouldn't stipulate to that well-known and public fact - Barack Obama was clearly born to one citizen-parent, and one non-citizen parent. That would be stipulated as surely as the sun sets in the West.
I think it’s been laid out clearly what we each don’t understand. Thank you very much.
Don’t put words into my head and I won’t into yours, deal?
I think Lakin is screwed. He refused a direct order from his Commanding Officer to deploy to a war zone. That alone is enough to get him thrown into prison for years and be dishonorably discharged with resulting loss of his military retirement/rank etc.
That all orders in theory originate with the CIC does not give Lakin or anyone else leave to refuse a direct order from a superior officer and in the end that is what this will all boil down to.
Lakin and every other person in our military that is questioning Obama’s eligibility is between a rock and a hard place. They can either decide to follow orders they believe may be illegal or take the route Lakin is choosing.
While my personal opinion is that our military men and women are being harmed every single second Obama is in office, that all orders from Obama are illegal and that we as a nation have failed our military, and that pains me greatly; reality is what it is.
Once Lakin is found guilty and sentenced, he may be able to prove harm in a civilian court and gain standing on appeal. I however doubt that will happen. Lakin is following his conscience and placing honor above self. I pray for him and that one day his decision will have meaning outside of an officer that refused a direct order.
I do disagree, vehemently, with our court systems continual rulings that nobody has standing to question Obama’s eligibility. The argument that there can be no relief and/or that everyone is equally harmed so no harm/no foul is, for lack of a better word, garbage.
We have a Constitutional right to question our leaders, to Petition for Redress of Grievances, a right that is being denied to every single American.
The same courts that have denied standing arguing that every person is equally harmed, has in other cases allowed standing when every person is equally harmed. Courts have found that that while no harm had happened yet, that at a future time a hypothetical harm may take place was justification enough to get past the issue of standing.
There is no set standard for determination of standing, aside from political expediency or the whims of a judge on any given day. Justice isn’t blind, she’s confused, arbitrary and indecisive; not what should be demanded in a free society.
Suits filed to keep Obama off the ballot in numerous states were denied for standing.
Suits filed to force the Secretary’s’ of State, of at least two States, to address Obama’s eligibility, prior to the election, denied on standing.
Suits filed to keep the electoral votes of a State from being given to Obama because he did not qualify, denied on standing.
Suits filed after he won the election but prior to his swearing in, denied on standing, one judge basically saying “well, it’s too late to do anything about it now”.
Candidates who appeared on the ballot along with Obama were denied standing.
How is it that this one person, even before being sworn into an office that affords additional legal protections is so above the law?
No citizen, during any part of the election process, had standing when it came to Obama. Why have a Constitution or election laws?
I and every single Floridian who entered a voting station November 2007, to vote for or against Obama, had to prove their identity through a valid, government issued identification of some sort. If I upload a piece of paper that says I was born in Virginia on such and such a date onto my website this November and and demand that image be accepted as proof of my identity, do you think I’ll be allowed to vote? If I’m refused my rights, will I have standing?
As to the relief issue, there is relief that the courts can offer, within their jurisdiction, but have refused act at every stage.
A full hearing on the merits of the case and a decision if the President committed acts of deception and fraud in obtaining office, would be a start.
The Courts can also finally define exactly what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen as well as define exactly how a President-Elect and VP-Elect qualifies under the Constitution.
The Courts are well within their jurisdiction to make a Finding of Fact on the numerous issues raised with Obama’s eligibility.
The Courts can decide if Obama committed felonies prior to and after taking the office of Senator and the office of President. They can determine if those felonies rise above the Constitutional protections a President has.
A Court can also make a determination to bind Obama over for a criminal trial if enough evidence exists to indicate he knowingly committed criminal acts in obtaining office.
If the Courts determines Obama currently has Constitutional protections from prosecution they can defer the case until after he is out of office. If he does not have protection, the case can be refereed to the Senate for disposition and/or to a hearing in Criminal Court.
I’ve yet to find a compelling argument that any Court, up to and including the USSC has the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting president from office. That power resides solely with the jurisdiction of the Senate.
To say there can be no relief is literally saying a President is above the law, in every single matter, untouchable and beyond approach. The United States is not a dictatorship and no President is above the law, at least until Obama.
Lakin may not even be found guilty of the “missing movement” counts, but I’m sure he’s going to be found guilty of the two counts of “disobeying lawful orders” when he didn’t report to his C.O.’s office days BEFORE his missed movement. Those were specific, deliberate written orders.
Guilty.
My apologies. Yours was the 4th or 5th question I had responded to, and most were rather combative. I'm sorry that spilled over to you.
"That all orders in theory originate with the CIC does not give Lakin or anyone else leave to refuse a direct order from a superior officer and in the end that is what this will all boil down to."
That used to be the theory, but not any more. In the 1940s, and especially in the aftermath of WWII, legislation was written to codify military authority. Now, with some exceptions, the authority to issue orders to subordinate officers is a statutory authority, specifically 10 USC.
"Once Lakin is found guilty and sentenced, he may be able to prove harm in a civilian court and gain standing on appeal. "
Again, this is a tree that will bear no fruit. Any civilian court review of Lakin's predicament will review how the military trial court applied current US law. Did the military trial and appellate courts inappropriately apply law, or did they not. If they didn't, then Lakin was not injured. But, they aren't going to hold trial de novo. Obama's eligibility in that court won't be any more material or relevant as it is (or isn't) in a military court.
"I do disagree, vehemently, with our court systems continual rulings that nobody has standing to question Obama’s eligibility."
That hasn't been the opinion of the court - that nobody has standing. In fact, there are dozens of people who would have had standing to sue over Obama's eligibility - McCain, perhaps Palin, the GOP and 50 state Secretaries of State all could have sued - and if a temporary injunction would have been granted forbidding Obama from taking office, then those cases would have been fully litigated and heard on the merits. But, none of those people sued.
"To say there can be no relief is literally saying a President is above the law, in every single matter, untouchable and beyond approach. "
You're right, no President is above the law. BUT, there's a very specific legal remedy prescribed in the Constitution to remedy such injustices - Impeachment in the House, and conviction in the Senate. The Judiciary is not saying that there's no remedy, they're just saying that there is no remedy that the judiciary may provide, just the Congress. This is the point that is lost on so many.
If Congress wanted to hold hearings on this, they could. If they subpoenaed Obama's original birth records, such a subpoena would not be quashed, in my estimation. If Congress believes that Obama committed fraud to obtain his office, they can impeach him.
No problem, I know these threads can get contentious and confusing at times.
That used to be the theory, but not any more. In the 1940s, and especially in the aftermath of WWII, legislation was written to codify military authority. Now, with some exceptions, the authority to issue orders to subordinate officers is a statutory authority, specifically 10 USC.
Which, I believe is why when Lakin, using Article 138, was denied the right to have a judicial trial against Obama the investigator ruled the CIC was not part of his Chain of Command under said Article. I can see how that would be the case but; how do they go from the CIC not being part of the Chain of Command to the Major General of the Army not being part of Lakin's COC?
That hasn't been the opinion of the court - that nobody has standing. In fact, there are dozens of people who would have had standing to sue over Obama's eligibility - McCain, perhaps Palin, the GOP and 50 state Secretaries of State all could have sued - and if a temporary injunction would have been granted forbidding Obama from taking office, then those cases would have been fully litigated and heard on the merits. But, none of those people sued.
I should have stipulated "no citizen" has standing, making the courts decisions even more distasteful and egregious. The Courts are to equally apply rights for all, not just the few in the ruling class.
Allen Keyes appeared on the ballot in all 50 States. He was denied standing. While you can argue Palin and/or McCain would have standing, you can not substantiate that belief given the courts rulings on Keyes. On top of that, look at the reasoning behind denying Keyes standing. Keyes was forced into a position where he would have to prove a hypothetical situation that the courts laid out, to have standing. He had to prove, without Obama committing fraud and appearing on the ballot, Keyes would have received an arbitrary percentage of votes, at which point the Judge would believe adequate harm took place. That is no different than saying if you're robbed at gunpoint for $10, charges will not be pressed - you have to be robbed, at gunpoint, for a certain dollar amount before the judiciary will intervene.
Btw, one person who was given standing and currently has standing is Christopher Strunk (Shrunk?) who requested and fought the Gov. to release Stanley Ann Dunham's Passport Records. He has now caught the Gov. not only in a lie but can prove the Gov. deliberately destroyed and redacted records the court ruled must be released in their entirety. Obama is named on the suit and appeal briefs. How Strunk was able to get around the standing issue is beyond me, but he did and it's held up through the federal level.
You're right, no President is above the law. BUT, there's a very specific legal remedy prescribed in the Constitution to remedy such injustices - Impeachment in the House, and conviction in the Senate. The Judiciary is not saying that there's no remedy, they're just saying that there is no remedy that the judiciary may provide, just the Congress. This is the point that is lost on so many.
I disagree. Most people DO get that point and they are bothered all the more by it. Our Courts, the judiciary, is charged with keeping the legislature and executive branch in check. When one of those branches of Government oversteps their bounds or refuses to act on their Constitutional responsibilities, the Courts are the only legal remedy for the citizens to use. These cases are a nightmare for people who are paying attention. We may very well have an illegal, fraudulent and without a doubt, out of control Executive Branch. We have a Legislative Branch that has refused, at every step, to even inquire into this issue as it works in lockstep with the Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch, all we have left, says go back and have the Legislative and Executive Branch uphold your rights and oh, if they don't do it just vote them out. Since everyone lost their rights, it's all good. American's are left with no recourse, anger and fear is building - this is not going to end well.
If Congress wanted to hold hearings on this, they could. If they subpoenaed Obama's original birth records, such a subpoena would not be quashed, in my estimation. If Congress believes that Obama committed fraud to obtain his office, they can impeach him.
Yes, Congress should do their job. They won't. We know this. The judiciary can force their hand but won't. The Executive branch will not police itself. When all three branches of government work in lockstep against the citizens of a nation, what recourse is then left?
That's not exactly what the JA ruled. He (or perhaps it was a she) correctly stated that the Army Chief of Staff (the person to whom Lakin directed his complaint) was not in Lakin's direct chain of command. As a technical matter, that is correct. Since the enactment of the Goldwater/Nichols Act, service chiefs of staff (the Joint Chiefs) are no longer in the chain of command for combatant forces, and the units that support them. Lakin had been assigned to a supporting unit, so his chain of command would have been his Unified Combatant Commander to the SecDef, to the President.
I'm not entirely familiar with how 138 works in the Army, as there are some nuanced differences from service branch to service branch, but if Lakin had addressed his 138 request to the proper person, perhaps it may have been answered differently.
Having said that, I still don't believe that any military court would have entertained such a question, primarily because of the principle of the Political Question Doctrine.
"Allen Keyes appeared on the ballot in all 50 States."
I don't believe he was. In fact, I'm not sure if he was on the ballot in enough states to actually secure enough Electoral Votes to win, and may have only been on the ballot in CA, FL and and one or two other states.
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.