Posted on 12/09/2010 8:42:45 PM PST by wintertime
Indeed! Especially the one's that made it a point to mock and "Alinsky" those of us seeking the answers and clarification.
How can Lakin be charged with an Article 92(2) violation, when violations that are chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 91(1) are outside the scope of Article 92(2)? (See p 301 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf )
Lakin disobeyed orders by superior commissioned officers (Lt Col William Judd, Col Gordon Roberts, and Col Peter McHugh) and is thus chargeable under Article 90. (See p 295 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf ) How then, can he be lawfully charged under Article 92(2)?
This is a critical issue because if Lakin was charged with an Article 90 violation it would be clear that the order has FOUR different criteria to be “lawful”. Lind referenced only the first of the FOUR criteria, purposely leaving out the 2nd:
“(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned
officer issuing the order must have authority
to give such an order. Authorization may be based
on law, regulation, or custom of the service.”
“Such an order” in this case is an order to deploy for combat operations. A brigade commander does not have the authority to decide on his own to send combat troops anywhere. If a brigade commander ordered Lakin to deploy for combat in Britain, everybody on this forum would know it was an unlawful order. Why? Because lt col’s and col’s can’t just decide to invade another country.
Congress has the power to declare war. In this case they have not declared war but they have authorized “THE PRESIDENT” to use force in the war on terror. So the DELEGATED AUTHORITY that Judge Lind claims to be referring to is actually from Congress to THE PRESIDENT ALONE. Congress did not authorize the military to decide to when, how, or how much force to use. They authorized only “the President”.
So the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders absolutely depend on whether Barack Obama is Constitutionally authorized to “act as President”, or whether Joe Biden is Constitutionally authorized to “act as President”.
If Barack Obama is not authorized to “act as President” then only Joe Biden could order the troop surge in Afghanistan, and since he didn’t, Lakin’s commanders would be as out of line on these orders as if they had out of the blue decided to invade Britain.
We can argue about whether or not Lakin is guilty. But Judge Lind is claiming that brigade commanders can decide to invade another country in the war on terror without the President being involved at all. The President is IRRELEVANT, she said.
What kind of precedent is that? Are you prepared to live with that? Are you prepared to let every brigade commander act independently of the CINC in matters of combat?
The requirement of the law for the procedures to count and certify the electoral vote was never met. The Vice President is required to ask if there are any objections to each state’s electoral votes. Dick Cheney did not do that.
There was no LAWFUL certification of Obama as the electoral winner.
And even after being certified as the electoral winner, the President elect can still “fail to qualify” before Jan 20th, according to the 20th Amendment. If that happens the VP elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
So it is a very real question as to whether Obama and Biden were even lawfully certified as the electoral winners; if not they never even WERE the President elect and VP elect.
And it is also a very real question as to which of the two (if it is granted that they were lawfully certified as the electoral winners) as to “act as President”, given that we have no way of knowing even Obama’s legal age, since the BC he claims to have is actually not legally valid, since it’s been amended. HOw can Obama have legally “qualified” if there has never been a legal determination of even his age - much less his natural born citizenship?
Nobody was ordered to “mass murder”. They were ordered to turn on a switch.
Geez, where’s your sense of proportion? What’s the big deal about turning on a switch?
They HAVE to decide which orders to obey and which to not. That is standard operating procedure. Every order they are given is either lawful or not. They have to decide which it is so they will obey the lawful order and disobey the unlawful order. This is SOP.
What the court-martial decides is whether the soldier was RIGHT. And according to Article 90 - which is the proper Article for Lakin to be charged under - there are 4 criteria for lawfulness, all of which have to be met in order for the order to be lawful. The 2nd criterion is whether the superior commissioned officer was authorized to give “such an order”. According to SJ Res 23, orders for the use of force in the war on terror are only lawfully authorized for THE PRESIDENT to give.
That makes the issue of who the Constitution authorizes to “act as President” absolutely critical. If Joe Biden is the one the Constitution requires to “act as President” then the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders is dependent on whether Joe Biden ordered a troop surge for the operations in Afghanistan.
Lind knows that, and so does the military system. That’s why they charged him with an Article 92(2) violation even though this situation is outside the scope of Article 92(2). They had to keep the proper Article from being noticed because that 2nd element of lawfulness would have sunk the only claim they wanted to make: that Obama’s Constitutional authority to “act as President” is irrelevant.
That second criterion for lawfulness in Article 90 is the only thing that would keep brigade commanders from being able to order troops to invade whoever they wanted. Some brigade commander doesn’t like China? He can just order troops into combat in China.
The only thing that would make such an order unlawful in terms of the Manual for Courts-Martial is that 2nd criterion for lawfulness in Article 90. The very one that Lind is willfully ignoring.
That is serious, serious doo-doo. You talk about Lt Col Lakin not being allowed to decide which orders to follow - but you seem ready to accept that someone of his same rank be allowed to decide which country to invade, independently of what the CINC says about it.
Wow. Just wow. This is NOT where we want to go. No way, no how.
He broke the forgery laws (since his own campaign website put up a forgery) and perjury laws (since he signed a paper in AZ saying he is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, when in fact he told Race Bannon in 1980 that he was born in Mombasa so he KNOWS he is not eligible by ANY standard of measure), and he violated the Federal General False Statement Act by failing to clarify that the Factcheck COLB is in fact a forgery.
The other crimes were probably committed by Soros’ hit-men. Stuff like threatening the media heads, etc.
Your ever learned about the Nuremberg trial, huh???
WHO ordered 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan???
This typically “Fifth Columner” uses the papers from the constitution in his bathroom!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636130/posts?page=28#28
Last paragraph also includes the “Fifth Columner” Non-Squat!!!
And a handful of other FINOs as well!!!
I guess it's like a defacto certification. Everyone in D.C. accepts the certification and really that's all that seems to matter.
It's the single biggest transfer of power from the electorate to the political class, IMO.
The Founders wrote the Constitution to protect The People and yet it has been twisted into something more akin to a weapon against us, ie. the misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Zero is an appropriate name for him because we might as well have zero information about him. This is a terrible way to run a country and really a sad reflection on modern civilization itself.
You are truly delusional.
Geez, where’s your sense of proportion? What’s the big deal about turning on a switch?
What's the big deal about following the lawful order of your brigade commander?
What does that have to do with the charges Lakin is facing?
That is idiotic.
What the court-martial decides is whether the soldier was RIGHT.
And I predict that in Lakin's case the court martial will find, quite rightly, that this particular soldier was WRONG.
If Watada & Huet-Vaughn were shown one simple piece of paper that proved the constitutionality of their orders, they would not have relented. But Lakin would have. Where is YOUR sense of proportion? This is a constitutionalist website and you continue to troll for a non-constitutionalist cause.
How do you know? But regardless, wasn't it the responsibility of them to refuse to obey orders they thought were illegal? And would you agree that they were honorable officers in the same vein as Lakin for doing so? And wasn't it the responsibility of the President to present to them evidence that the war was legal and their orders lawful, as Lakin is demanding?
:Where is YOUR sense of proportion? This is a constitutionalist website and you continue to troll for a non-constitutionalist cause.
I'm merely pointing out that Lakin is doing absolutely nothing to solve the Constitutional question of Obama's eligibility. He has thrown away his career and most likely will wind up in Leavenworth for misusing his office and trampling Army law. If Lakin is truly convinced that Obama is ineligible and if he honestly feels that he cannot serve under him then the honorable course would have been to resign and carry on his cause outside of the Army. Not to refuse to obey lawful orders.
So you just want to side-step and tap-dancing the QUESTION!!!
How do you know?
***Because both of them acknowledged their passivist tendencies.
But regardless, wasn’t it the responsibility of them to refuse to obey orders they thought were illegal?
***Yes.
And would you agree that they were honorable officers in the same vein as Lakin for doing so?
***No. Their actions derived from cowardice; Lakin’s actions derive from courage.
And wasn’t it the responsibility of the President to present to them evidence that the war was legal
***Yes
and their orders lawful,
***Yes
as Lakin is demanding?
***No. Lakin isn’t protesting on the legality of the war, he’s protesting on the legality of the holder of the office who is giving the order.
I’m merely pointing out
***bullstuff. You’ve been trolling on these Certifigate threads for 2 years.
that Lakin is doing absolutely nothing to solve the Constitutional question of Obama’s eligibility.
***”absolutely nothing”? Allowing for some hyperbole on your part, he is doing plenty and he brings the issue to the forefront, where it belongs as a constitutional issue.
He has thrown away his career and most likely will wind up in Leavenworth for misusing his office and trampling Army law.
***That is his choice. You obviously don’t see the value of what he is doing because you do not value the constitution, which brings us around, yet again, to what your purpose is here on this constitutionalist website, at least as far as Certifigate is concerned: your purpose is to troll
If Lakin is truly convinced that Obama is ineligible
***What color is the sky on your planet? Is there one shred of evidence to present that suggests Lakin is not truly convinced?
and if he honestly feels that he cannot serve under him
***Duhh
then the honorable course would have been to resign and carry on his cause outside of the Army.
***Ya see, this is where your true colors come out. The honorable course is to do EXACTLY what he’s doing because he is upholding the constitution in the face of severe consequences. But since you do not value constitutionalism, you cannot see the honor in it. That maes YOU A TROLL.
Not to refuse to obey lawful orders.
***unlawful orders, issued by a usurper.
***Yes it was the responsibility of the pres to present
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.