Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
“Those who have encouraged LTC Lakin to pursue this fool’s errand are going to walk away scot free to tilt at the next windmill and Lakin’s career will be destroyed.”
Lakin will lose, but I cannot feel too much sympathy for him. It would take either an amazing ego or amazing stupidity to have expected any other outcome. If someone is leading an army of fools, he needs to ask himself why only fools follow him?
“He was ordered to go over with his men and kill/murder people.”
That speaks volumes about the mindset of some birthers...I’ve been to Afghanistan, and flew a lot of sorties over Iraq, and can’t recall getting orders to murder anyone.
Lakin wasn’t ordered to commit murder.
I bet it does. And there is more to it than being ordered to his commanders office.
Personally, what LT Calley did was deplorable. However, what is the difference if the US Govt made the decision on a much larger scale? If we got rid of the stupid rules of engagement, sure there would be lot’s of civilians killed, but we would have solved this issue years ago, thereby saving many more lives on both sides.
No, I’m not. Although that theory might enter the discussion later, presently I am merely asking whether it is appropriate to set forth the duty to obey one’s superior officer as universal and unconditional, when it is well-known that there are conditions that warrant disobedience. Nuremburg certainly represents one class of such conditions, but if there is one there might be others. It just seems illogical to state the proposition as an absolute, when we know it isn’t.
The Manual of Courts Martial 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. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime." Mass murder is a crime. Shooting unarmed civilians is a crime. Robbing a bank is a crime. All are violations of international law and being ordered to do any of those acts is not a legitimate order. Being ordered to report to your brigade commander is not a crime, it is a performance of one's military duty. The Nuremburg Defense does not apply.
You must have amnesia. Clearly “move out” equals “kill everyone in sight.”
/s
That’s because you were really flying tankers. And don’t call me a birther, shirley. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
No there isn't. Obama could be unmasked as a fraud and removed from office tomorrow and Lakin would still be guilty of disobeying orders, missing movement, and conduct unbecoming.
Personally, what LT Calley did was deplorable. However, what is the difference if the US Govt made the decision on a much larger scale? If we got rid of the stupid rules of engagement, sure there would be lot’s of civilians killed, but we would have solved this issue years ago, thereby saving many more lives on both sides.
I'm not sure quite how to answer that.
Although I am a lawyer, I am not a military lawyer, so someone with more expertise may correct me. Having said that, my understanding is that, under the UCMJ, it is a defense to a prosecution for disobeying orders that the order was illegal. In a court martial, the judge (not the jury) decides if the order was legal or illegal; if the judge decides it was legal, the jury decides if the defendant disobeyed it.
But can you cite me the criminal statute(s) violated by the Nuremburg defendants, in force and applicable to them, at the time they obeyed the orders in question?
I’m not sure quite how to answer that.
Of course not. It’s called common sense.
No, I crossed over into Iraq many times. And I, and those with me, were not murderers, nor were we ordered to commit murder. And I’ll call you what I think fits you - except I have to tone it down to avoid obscenity.
>>He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution; to leave the question of Obama’s eligibility unresolved would be dishonorable and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.
>
>What is honorable about refusing to obey the orders of your brigade commander and two other superior officer?
Um, if the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and military officers are legally obligated to enforce it, then what is honorable about these ‘superior’ officers refusing to act upon such concerns?
There is apparently a difference in murdering people and in murdering your country. The first is bad and the other is just oath breaking which accounts for nothing according to our genius attorneys here.
The guy occupying the White House has serious issues with regard to his citizenship. Were he to apply for any clearance, even as a civilian, he would spend years going through every detail of his citizenship trail, and would probably end up with a denial on that issue alone. He fits the profile of an 'illegal', in that sense of the term. I've seen similar cases.
Let's not even mention the concept of him attempting to get a commission.
But yet through the electoral process he got around all of this because the standard is simply lower: the press is supposed to out you. The paperwork submitted by the Democratic Party for qualification was simply a laughable fraud, nothing more then happy talk. Yet it goes through because they are who they are, and no one in the government bureaucracy would cross them after the Convention nominates him.
Lakin has every right to look up the chain of command and ask himself if the ultimate authority is legal. Undoubtedly he better be damn sure he's right before taking on such a risk, but an enormous number of people have the same reservations.
The fact that he hasn't prevailed so far doesn't negate that, merely points out the difficulty of it.
Mr. Rogers, first let me thank you for your service. I admire & respect you. I never implied that you were murders, my argument was with Non-Sequitor regarding a thin point he was making.
I have nothing but high regard for our military personnel. It just pisses me off that we have these idiots in government second guessing our military brass. They are designed to go in kill people and break things. Not fricken meals on wheels. If we let them do what they are designed to do this all would have been over long ago and saved many more lives and money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insert big ass graphic here <<<<<<<<<<<<
That’s a rationalization.
“...I am merely asking whether it is appropriate to set forth the duty to obey one’s superior officer as universal and unconditional, when it is well-known that there are conditions that warrant disobedience.”
As an example, in 1991 I was ordered to enter false information on a form. At the bottom of the form, there was a line explaining it was a legal document and false information could result in fines and imprisonment. I told the superior officer I wanted his order in writing so I could submit it to legal review. He called me obscenities and left.
In another case, I was ordered to write 10 OPR (performance reports) in 24 hours, and that my CO (giving the order) would sign whatever I wrote. I refused, since no one can write 10 OPRs from scratch and do a decent job in 24 hours. He said he would bring me up on charges, and that I’d lose. I agreed that I would lose, but pointed out ever officer above him would find out what an idiot and loser he was. After about 60 seconds, and knowing I meant what I said, he backed down. A legal order that I refused to obey because it was wrong, and I made it stick because I was right.
It can be done. But refusing to deploy because you claim the President is a space alien? Or in this case, simply an alien, but equally lacking proof? Lakin will get what he deserves. And World Nut Daily will go on making sales.
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.