Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LTC Lakin Formally Charged (Violation of UCMJ Articles 87 & 92)
American Patriot Foundation ^ | 04/22/2010

Posted on 04/22/2010 2:54:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.

(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: army; bhodod; birthcertificate; certifigate; courtmartial; lakin; military; naturalborncitizen; obama; terrylakin; ucmj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-490 next last
To: tired_old_conservative

Complete and utter rubbish. Give me a direct link to this manual.


51 posted on 04/22/2010 6:07:01 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; JoSixChip
"It doesn't work that way. They have to prove he disobeyed an order, he has to prove it was an unlawful one. It's an affirmative defense. "

Yep, that's right. Although the MCM wouldn't characterize it as "an affirmative defense", as a practical matter, that's what it is. Orders are presumed legal on their face. If a defendant believes an order to be illegal, he bears the burden of proof to demonstrate such a claim. It's then up to the trial judge to make a determination if that's factually correct.

There has been some case law developed along the lines of service members questioning the legality of certain orders with respect to either UN or Presidential authority (or lack thereof). Those cases - with Michael New v. US as the most recent - have not been well-received by SCOTUS. The trial judge(s) has ruled those kinds of questions nonjusticiable on the basis that it's a political question. I HIGHLY suspect that a challenge to this President's (or any President's) eligibility will meet the same fate, quickly.

A military judge isn't going to entertain this, and discovery won't be granted.

I feel bad for this guy. He's doing what I'm sure he believes to be the noble act, but it's futile and will probably result in his dishonorable discharge and subsequent loss of his license to practice medicine. It's tragic. Moreover, people shouldn't lose site of the fact that this officer's orders weren't signed by the President, they were probably signed by a two-star, or perhaps Gates if they're deployment orders. Not Obama.

52 posted on 04/22/2010 6:15:54 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“It will be assumed to be a legal order unless the defense can show Lakin had ample reason to think otherwise. As a rule of thumb, if the 4-star on down to the O-6 thinks it is a legal order, the LTC is expected to trust their judgment.”

If he cannot question the legality of his orders then how were all those guards convicted at Nuremburg? The prosecution specifically held that they should have disobeyed their orders and thus risked joining the Jews in the ‘showers.’ Those guards were caught between a rock and a hard spot - damnned if the did and damned if they didn’t. LTC Lakin is in an arguably similar position.

I doubt we’ll decide his fate here... except through prayer.


53 posted on 04/22/2010 6:19:50 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

“I’d love to see a source for that little nugget.”

25 years in the USAF, son of a USAF officer with 27 years in when he died, father of two kids who enlisted (Marines and Army) with a son-in-law who was in the Marines.

Is it a just war? If you are in the military, you are expected to trust the national leadership - the President and Congress - not to get involved in an unjust war. They have access to more info than you do.

Is it a legal target for attack? If it comes down in the ATO, you assume it is. It isn’t your job to vet every target.

Is it legal to obey orders with Obama as President? If it isn’t, the entire military would cease to exist immediately...so you need to trust the states, voters, Congress and courts. Let someone else fight that fight, or resign your commission. But it isn’t his place to determine if the President is the President. It is outside his jurisdiction.

Just IMHO...but I’ll be the Board will take the same approach.


54 posted on 04/22/2010 6:21:49 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

“Complete and utter rubbish. Give me a direct link to this manual.”

I quoted the manual. It’s not hard to look up.


55 posted on 04/22/2010 6:22:05 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
There is no question that one is liable for following an order that results in an illegal act that a reasonable person would understand as illegal. Putting captive civilians in gas chambers in death camps certainly qualifies.

Here, Lakin was ordered to do something perfectly legal, deploy with his command, by an officer with lawful authority over that activity. The reasons for disobedience do not, therefore, involve avoidance of participation in an obviously illegal act. Consequently, the unlawful order defense is not going to be seriously entertained.

56 posted on 04/22/2010 6:28:24 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I don’t know I’m wasting my time with you, you pull crap out of the air and state it as fact. You take things completely out of context to bolster your case. Michael New v. US is about a former US soldier who refused to wear the United Nations uniform. The question in that case was can American soldiers be forced to serve a foreign power? Not whether the CIC was eligible to serve as CIC.

You are a noob to FR and a single issue poster, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You are a fraud just like your obumber.


57 posted on 04/22/2010 6:30:15 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip; OldDeckHand

Actually I thought tired_old_conservative posted this, but if the shoe fits wear it.


58 posted on 04/22/2010 6:32:02 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Post a link. this is the last time I respond to you unless you back up the things you state as fact or written without at least a link. You have no honor or credibility with me.


59 posted on 04/22/2010 6:34:38 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“He will get a fair trial and receive whatever verdict the evidence supports.”

By “evidence” do you mean all evidence available to the court by normal standards, or do you mean only that which the Obama regime will allow the courts to access?


60 posted on 04/22/2010 6:34:47 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Show me one example where the results of Democrat policy are not the opposite of what they promise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

“Post a link. this is the last time I respond to you unless you back up the things you state as fact or written without at least a link. You have no honor or credibility with me.”

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2008.pdf

There’s one for a man as astonishingly lazy as he is certain of things he doesn’t understand.


61 posted on 04/22/2010 6:38:29 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
"If he cannot question the legality of his orders then how were all those guards convicted at Nuremburg? The prosecution specifically held that they should have disobeyed their orders and thus risked joining the Jews in the ‘showers.’ Those guards were caught between a rock and a hard spot - damnned if the did and damned if they didn’t. LTC Lakin is in an arguably similar position."

This is a bit complicated to explain, but there's nothing unlawful about a deployment order. An unlawful order is one that is "contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it". It is quite lawful and well within his authority for a President or a Secretary of Defense, to issue a deployment order. Compare that with an order to "kill all the civilians". That order would be plainly against the Constitution and the laws of the US.

Now, perhaps an argument could be made that the person who issued that order was not authorized to issue it. That's certainly something that can be examined for a military authority. But, that examination for a President will not be entertained by a military trial judge because it's a political question, or so the Supreme Court has held when affirming such a decision by a trial judge in Michael New v. US.

I know that's probably not the answer you want, but that's the way the UCMJ, the MCM and the applicable precedent works.

62 posted on 04/22/2010 6:39:28 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip; OldDeckHand

It’s obvious to anyone who actually reads Deck Hand’s stuff over time that he knows a bit about military law.


63 posted on 04/22/2010 6:40:15 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

We can’t forget that shoving Jews into gas chambers wasn’t an illegal act at the time. The Chancellor (Hitler) had decreed it to be perfectly legal. Once his regime had ended though, new laws were cited.

If LTC Lakin were to deploy and commit ant sort of violation of Iraqi law, even unintentionally, even under orders, he could be prosecuted as a war criminal... especially if the orders are later found to have originated from an illegal President.

Far-fetched? Yeah, but those guards didn’t think they’d ever be held accountable either. As I mentioned earlier, he’s between a rock and a hard spot. Michael New didn’t serve prison time but he didn’t “diss” Obama either.


64 posted on 04/22/2010 6:41:12 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative; JoSixChip
"There’s one for a man as astonishingly lazy as he is certain of things he doesn’t understand."

Worth repeating.

65 posted on 04/22/2010 6:41:48 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; tired_old_conservative

Get a room! Between your slobbering kisses to each other and obumber, I think I may hurl.


66 posted on 04/22/2010 6:52:43 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
This is a quote from your link directly under where you selectively pulled your quote from:

"Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge."

This is all we are asking for, thanks for making my case.
67 posted on 04/22/2010 6:58:00 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
If this guy goes to jail because obumber refuses to show his BC, well I just don’t think that is going to fly in middle America.

He won't go to jail because Obama refused to show his birth certificate. If he goes to jail, it'll be for disobeying orders.

68 posted on 04/22/2010 6:58:36 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Me, too. By all appearances this guy has a long, honorable record of service that’s about to be flushed to no constructive purpose. It’s even sadder to see all these people carrying on about discovery when some of us know quite well there’s not a snowball’s chance in the hot place.

I'm sad too.

69 posted on 04/22/2010 7:04:36 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

He didn’t disobey an order, he refused an illegal order. There’ a difference. The difference is defined by the BC, so if obumber refuses to show it and the good LTC goes to jail. It will be because obumber refused to show it.


70 posted on 04/22/2010 7:08:15 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

He didn’t disobey an order, he refused an illegal order. There’ a difference.


[Theres’ a difference] is what the court martial will try to determine and rule on don’t you reckon?


71 posted on 04/22/2010 7:19:07 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
“This is a quote from your link directly under where you selectively pulled your quote from:

“Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.”

This is all we are asking for, thanks for making my case.”

Actually that doesn't make your case, but if it makes you happy to believe a military judge is going to be dancing this far afield to discern an unlawful order, enjoy your delusion at poor Mr. Lakin’s expense.

72 posted on 04/22/2010 7:24:14 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
If this guy goes to jail because obumber refuses to show his BC, well I just don’t think that is going to fly in middle America.

If he goes to jail, it won't be because Obama refused to produce his birth certificate.

BTW, what if Obama did produce his birth certificate and it confirmed he was born in Hawaii?

73 posted on 04/22/2010 7:25:04 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: deport

I do reckon so. And I also reckon the judge is going to allow the good LTC to make his case and explore relevant evidence. If obumber is found to be legit then the LTC will accept the consequences. But I suspect that if this makes it to court he will be found innocent. It’s not mentioned here, but he did go up the chain of command before he refused the order.


74 posted on 04/22/2010 7:26:21 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
'The question in that case was can American soldiers be forced to serve a foreign power?"

New was about (amongst several things) a soldier disobeying an order, and the trial judge's authority to render a decision on the lawfulness of that order. He did, the trial judge ruled the order lawful, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling when it was challenged by New.

Moreover, New tried to argue that the deployment itself was illegal. Again, the trial judge, affirmed by the appellate court, said, "no thanks, that's a political question, not something to be decided by a military court."

The DC Circuit addresses in great detail the presumption of legality of military orders. Their decision includes this paragraph, citing Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting United States v. Calley, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 528, 543, 48 C.M.R. 19, 28 (1973) (quoting Winthrop, at 296-297)),.

"The success of any combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian mission, as well as the personal safety of fellow service members, would be endangered if individual soldiers were permitted to act upon their own interpretation" of constitutional, presidential, congressional or military authority, and orders issued pursuant to such authority."

I'm sorry you're either too obtuse, or intentionally argumentative to acknowledge this fairly elementary legal similarity to Lakin. Anyone with an even remedial understanding of the law and the UCMJ gets it. Rest easy though, you're in good company. Whomever is representing Lakin is giving him HORRIBLE legal advice, if they have indeed recommended that he disobey and challenge his deployment orders. At least Lakin might have some foundation upon which to build his ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.

75 posted on 04/22/2010 7:29:41 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"BTW, what if Obama did produce his birth certificate and it confirmed he was born in Hawaii?"

Then the question becomes is he a NBC. If he produces the BC and is found to be a NBC, then the good LTC will suffer the consequences. My belief is that this will never make it to court, but if it does obumber will be found to be a fraud.
76 posted on 04/22/2010 7:30:35 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
“I do reckon so. And I also reckon the judge is going to allow the good LTC to make his case and explore relevant evidence. If obumber is found to be legit then the LTC will accept the consequences. But I suspect that if this makes it to court he will be found innocent. It’s not mentioned here, but he did go up the chain of command before he refused the order.”

I'll bet you a hundred dollars right now that no military judge authorizes discovery relating to Obama’s birth certificate. That idea is laughable on its face to anyone who understands what is happening. A pity it has to ruin someone’s career.

77 posted on 04/22/2010 7:31:48 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
"I'm sorry you're either too obtuse, or intentionally argumentative to acknowledge this fairly elementary legal similarity to Lakin."

If it is so elementary, why are you screaming like a stuck pig? Afraid your beloved obumber will be exposed for the fraud he is? And these two cases are not the same, two completely different circumstances. If the good LTC gets his day in court I suspect obumber will be exposed.
78 posted on 04/22/2010 7:36:33 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Anyway this goes it’s bad for the usurper.


79 posted on 04/22/2010 7:43:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"Anyway this goes it’s bad for the usurper."

Agreed, my only hope is that the truth comes out no mater what it is.
80 posted on 04/22/2010 7:51:38 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

And then they’ll pretend to cry crocodile tears of sorrow for the poor “fool” who’s throwing his future away.

Nauseating.


81 posted on 04/22/2010 7:57:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
The problem with that logic is that the Army issued a "counseling form" warning Lakin his deployment orders were valid before they charged him.

This counseling is to inform you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority ...

82 posted on 04/22/2010 8:05:02 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yup.


83 posted on 04/22/2010 8:07:12 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
This brave man has sacrificed himself and is not going to get what he wanted - proof that POTUS Obama is legitimately POTUS under the USC.

People tried to tell him this would happen as soon as he made his intentions public! That's why his friends told him to get his head examined! Shame he didn't listen to them. He chose to listen to different people instead, people who don't have a clue of what they're talking about.

84 posted on 04/22/2010 8:07:56 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Evidently he presumed they were not valid because the CIC has demonstrated that he is most likely not eligible to be CIC. You have to admit that any man that would risk his life and carer to stand for what he believes is a man of honor. To bad we don’t have more of them in government.


85 posted on 04/22/2010 8:11:36 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
"If it is so elementary, why are you screaming like a stuck pig?"

Citing an appellate case is commensurate with "screaming"? Oh brother.

86 posted on 04/22/2010 8:14:20 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
It doesn't work that way. They have to prove he disobeyed an order, he has to prove it was an unlawful one. It's an affirmative defense.

No; the prosecution has to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, the government has to prove the order was lawful. If the defendant claims that the order is unlawful because Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, then the government must produce the evidence that he is constitutionally qualified. The real fear should be that the judge just might take judicial notice that Obama is the legitimate President.

All in all, charges being filed is simply te next step in the process and what the defendant and his lawyers wanted to happen. FRankly, I'm a bit surprised the government acted so quickly unless those in the chain of command either want to discourage others from taking similar action or they want Obama exposed as soon as reasonably possible.

87 posted on 04/22/2010 8:16:05 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Men of honor in government are on the endangered species list.


88 posted on 04/22/2010 8:16:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Too bad there aren’t more on this thread.


89 posted on 04/22/2010 8:21:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: edge919

A charge of conduct unbecoming an officer would be very difficult to prove since Lakin has pretty much said he is very willing to deploy if the government can prove Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President.

If I was a defense attorney, I would make a very big issue of the fact that the government needs to prove Obama is the legitimate President in order to convict Lakin.


90 posted on 04/22/2010 8:23:44 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Ditto. So unnecessary.

I'm holding out hope that Lt. Col. Lakin will reverse course somehow if it isn't already too late. It's very sad to see someone who has clearly given so much to our nation be so mistaken and misinformed.

At the same time, we should never forget that when Lt. Col. Lakin refused to deploy, another soldier stood in his place. There is a very good chance that soldier either deployed early or is having to stay longer to make up for Lt. Col. Lakin's refusal to serve. That soldier, whomever he is, and his family, are in our prayers tonight. He is an American hero and we honor his sacrifice.

91 posted on 04/22/2010 8:26:15 PM PDT by mountainbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
"The real fear should be that the judge just might take judicial notice that Obama is the legitimate President."

I agree that is possible, but I also think that would be grounds for appeal.
92 posted on 04/22/2010 8:26:57 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; All

“People tried to tell him this would happen as soon as he made his intentions public! That’s why his friends told him to get his head examined! Shame he didn’t listen to them. He chose to listen to different people instead, people who don’t have a clue of what they’re talking about.”

I would never impugn his intelligence or sanity. Foolish or not, I believe he acted with pure motives. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has impure motives or another agenda. The rest of us don’t deserve his sacrifice.


93 posted on 04/22/2010 8:27:33 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Too bad there aren’t more on this thread."

I hear that!
94 posted on 04/22/2010 8:28:09 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

When I was an officer in the U.S. Army it was made very clear that while authority may be delegated, the responsibility still rests with the person doing the delegating.


95 posted on 04/22/2010 8:28:53 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
“No; the prosecution has to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, the government has to prove the order was lawful. If the defendant claims that the order is unlawful because Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, then the government must produce the evidence that he is constitutionally qualified. The real fear should be that the judge just might take judicial notice that Obama is the legitimate President.”

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true at all.

The Manual of Courts Martial clearly states: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.” A defendant claiming an order is unlawful doesn't in and of itself require the prosecution to prove anything, particularly when the order in question requires no specific action on the part of the defendant that can reasonably be construed as illegal. The orders in question are simply going to be accepted by the judge as legal, yielding an inevitable conclusion.

96 posted on 04/22/2010 8:33:03 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
“If I was a defense attorney, I would make a very big issue of the fact that the government needs to prove Obama is the legitimate President in order to convict Lakin.”

But they don't. If you were an attorney, you would understand that.

97 posted on 04/22/2010 8:34:42 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: mountainbunny
“I'm holding out hope that Lt. Col. Lakin will reverse course somehow if it isn't already too late. It's very sad to see someone who has clearly given so much to our nation be so mistaken and misinformed.

At the same time, we should never forget that when Lt. Col. Lakin refused to deploy, another soldier stood in his place. There is a very good chance that soldier either deployed early or is having to stay longer to make up for Lt. Col. Lakin’s refusal to serve. That soldier, whomever he is, and his family, are in our prayers tonight. He is an American hero and we honor his sacrifice.”

I agree with every word of that.

98 posted on 04/22/2010 8:35:54 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
Basically, if you can't point to a specific illegal outcome intended by the specific order you received, you are presumed to have violated a lawful order.

Presumptions can be overcome. If the defense makes offers a defense that the order is unlawful because Obama is not a legitimate President, the burden would then shift to the government since it has access or can get access to the appropriate documents.

That said, I am not going to be surprised if the judge or government refuses to turn over those documents. On the other hand, the members of the court martial board can choose to acquit if those documents are not provided to the defense no matter what the judge tells them.

99 posted on 04/22/2010 8:38:21 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

I can’t speak for an actual legal strategy, but it seems to me that we’re looking at a form of civil disobedience aimed at defending the Constitution from a domestic threat (an illegal CinC). Is this deployment not part of Obama’s Afghanistan surge ... to me, there would be ways to connect these dots and justify civil disobedience.


100 posted on 04/22/2010 8:41:27 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-490 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson