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 ...
“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.
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.
It’s obvious to anyone who actually reads Deck Hand’s stuff over time that he knows a bit about military law.
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.
Worth repeating.
Get a room! Between your slobbering kisses to each other and obumber, I think I may hurl.
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.
I'm sad too.
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.
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?
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Anyway this goes it’s bad for the usurper.
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.