>>No, Mr. Larkin made himself expendable. The trial will consist of 2 questions: #1: Were you ordered to deploy with your unit? Answer is Yes #2: Did you deploy as ordered? Answer is No Then he is guilty of missing movement and failure to obey orders. Period. Find someone who is really being wronged to put up on a pedestal.<<
How can you post such BS and yet post this tagline? The House has oversight of the Judiciary...why are the rogue judges not being impeached?)
You, a puny civilian, a voter, a taxpayer, a citizen, are questioning authority yet you demand Lt. Col. Lakin, an honorable soldier, a voter, a taxpayer, a citizen, shall not have that right.
You don't like hate anything that doesn't walk in step with the majority or steps out of line to make his own path. Those are usually the characteristic of a coward or an institutionalist who is afraid to question authority himself.
You obviously do agree with Dr. Kissinger, who said, "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy".
I think you need to do some deep thinking and some soul searching in these times of uncertainty.
More appropriate question:
“Did you receive a lawful order to deploy with your unit?”
Ans: No, The order I received reasonably appeared to lack authority and as an officer sworn to defend the Constitution it was my duty to seek higher confirmation. Despite repeated requests, no officer in my chain of command was able to confirm the lawfulness of the order.
Find someone who is really being wronged to put up on a pedestal.
The issue fundamentally involves whether individuals are capable of effectively governing themselves.
The entire population of the nation has been wronged by the failure of Congress to properly certify the president-elect during its January 2009 Joint Session, a point lost in the “standing” decisions.
The damage has nothing to do with Obama’s political views and the victims include Obama supporters.
LTC Lakin may or may not be the perfect plaintiff, but he has displayed far more courage than those who had, or to date, have the authority to do something about the issue.
Many on FR respect him as a leader and support him; that is quite different than, as you charge, putting him on a pedestal.
>>”Mr.Lakin has been chosen as expendable sacrifice by his superiors.”
>No, Mr. Larkin made himself expendable. The trial will consist of 2 questions: #1: Were you ordered to deploy with your unit? Answer is Yes #2: Did you deploy as ordered? Answer is No. Then he is guilty of missing movement and failure to obey orders. Period.
Do you even understand the nature of authority? If all military authority for orders originate with the commander-in-chief, and the person claiming to be commander-in-chief is not legitimate, then all subordinate orders are invalid.
>Find someone who is really being wronged to put up on a pedestal.
ANYONE who owned GM bonds.
Bonus recipients of the bailout-funds.
Anyone who PAID for the bailout funds.
Quilty, bang.
Wrong is wrong. Larkin is a hero.
You really do need to go correct the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has all sorts of procedural and due process provisions, privileges and even rights that you will find incredibly annoying. In fact, most of the UCMJ actually dares to get in the way of your gestapo shiny boot polish, and delays all sorts of satisfaction you would otherwise get marching around ordering executions while thrashing your riding crop in front of a mirror.
Jackass.
Was that first order legal though? Can an ineligible CiC give a legal order? The answer to that is No, which makes your first question moot.
Reminds me of trials during the days of Joe Stalin in Russia. I would never in my days in the USA(since the 1920s) have thought such a justice system would be used in the USA.
Reminds me of trials during the days of Joe Stalin in Russia. I would never in my days in the USA(since the 1920s) have thought such a justice system would be used in the USA.