Posted on 08/09/2010 4:45:05 PM PDT by STARWISE
This page will be limited to discussion of United States v. Lakin. (In the event charges are not referred to trial, then we’ll see where we go from there).
Please try to be polite and focus on the legal and procedural issues. I think it is pretty clearly said, and the reasoning, that a portion of the population does not think President Obama should have been sworn in as president — got it. Unfortunately life does not emulate the Snark. [n.1]
Updated as of 6 August 2010.
I had a chance to go to the Article 39(a), UCMJ, session today at which LTC Lakin was arraigned.
They began with the usual R.C.M. 802 conference in chambers with the military judge and counsel present. This is standard for most judges at the beginning of the court day.
Rule 802. Conferences ( a ) In general. After referral, the military judge may, upon request of any party or sua sponte, order one or more conferences with the parties to consider such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial.
The court then convened with Military Judge Denise Lind presiding.
They followed the Army trial guide/script/gouge.
Noteably LTC Brodsky appeared as Assistant Trial Counsel.
Judge Lind followed the script with advice as to counsel. LTC Lakin elected to keep his current counsel and did not ask for an individual military counsel (IMC). Judge Lind assured herself all counsel were qualified and swore Mr. Jensen in.
Next she advised LTC Lakin of his forum rights: a panel of at least five members or military judge alone. As with his counsel rights LTC Lakin affirmed that he understood his rights.
When asked about forum Mr. Jensen advised the military judge the defense desired to defer motions, forum selection, and entry of pleas. This is standard practice is courts-martial.
Military Judge Lind also addressed the prior Article 32, UCMJ, waiver. She obtained LTC Lakin’s agreement that he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of all of his rights at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing unconditionally.
The unconditional waiver is an oddity unless it’s a situation where there is a pending pretrial agreement or negotiations. The waiver means, as we have already commented, that there can be no issue raised now or later about the adequacy or fairness of the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.
Therefore LTC Driscoll’s actions and “rulings” are beyond any legal challenge.
The supposed request to the convening authority for a deposition and discovery was not addressed. However, the military judge now has jurisdiction and she will decide on those issues should they be raised (on or before 20 August 2010 according to the pending CMO).
Next the court discussed the schedule.
20 August 2010: Motions and witness requests and discovery due.
27 August 2010: Replies due.
2 September 2010: First Article 39(a), UCMJ, session to address issues.
14 September 2010: Second Article 39(a), UCMJ, session to address issues and final motions.
13 – 15 October 2010: Trial.
Finally MJ Lind gave the standard R.C.M. 804 warning to the non-confined accused. R.C.M. 804(c) states:
(c) Continued presence not required. The further progress of the trial to and including the return of the findings and, if necessary, determination of a sentence shall not be prevented and the accused shall be considered to have waived the right to be present whenever an accused, initially present:
( 1 ) Is voluntarily absent after arraignment (whether or not informed by the military judge of the obligation to remain during the trial); or
(2) After being warned by the military judge that disruptive conduct will cause the accused to be removed from the courtroom, persists in conduct which is such as to justify exclusion from the courtroom.
Safeguard our Constitution reports that:
The Army doctor who is facing a court martial for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.
What does this mean in military law practice.
Under Article 49, UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code §849:
(a) At any time after charges have been signed as provided in section 830 of this title (article 30), any party may take oral or written depositions unless the military judge or court-martial without a military judge hearing the case or, if the case is not being heard, an attorney competent to convene a court-martial for the trial of those charges forbids it for good cause.
If a deposition is to be taken before charges are referred for trial, such authority may designate commissioned officers to represent the prosecution and the defense and may authorize those officers to take the deposition of any witness.
(Note, Dwight Sullivan and I are of the view that the defense need not ask for permission to conduct a deposition based on a fair reading of the language of Article 49. However, I have litigated that in at least one case and didn’t get anywhere with the issue. )
Rest @ link
** Ping!
I wish him well and will say a prayer for him.
Good luck with that.
Continuation
~~~~~~~~
Under R.C.M. 702, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2008), the president using his Article 36, UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code §836, powers has set out the depositions procedure in more detail. There are a number of points that will be contentious.
a) In general. A deposition may be ordered whenever, after preferral of charges, due to exceptional circumstances of the case it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness be taken and preserved for use at an investigation under Article 32 or a court-martial (emphasis added).
Those of us practicing in the pits know that generally there is no exceptional circumstance if the witness is going to be available for trial. And the deposition request is often denied for this reason. Civilians can be subpoenaed to be a witness at a court-martial.
(We can talk more about R.C.M. 703 and witnesses when that becomes an issue.) Assuming a subpoena, the witness will be paid travel, lodging, and meals for attendance. A subpoena may be enforced by a warrant of attachment if necessary.
See also, Article 47, UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code §847. The individual business records can be subpoenaed using a subpoena duces tecum. In my experience depositions are most often used with overseas witnesses who are not subject to subpoena or U. S. citizens who cannot be subpoenaed to appear as a witness at a court-martial held outside the United States.
I had a case some years ago where all four of the prosecution witnesses were Cypriots and refused to travel to the U. S. to testify. Depositions have also become common in A/Stan and Iraq related cases.
If the deposition is denied by MG Horst, Commander Military District of Washington, the defense can litigate this by pretrial motion.
R.C.M. 702(c)(3)(A) states that:
(A) In general. A request for a deposition may be denied only for good cause.
The non-binding discussion to the rule states that:
Good cause for denial includes: failure to state a proper ground for taking a deposition; failure to show the probable relevance of the witness’ testimony, or that the witness’ testimony would be unnecessary.
The fact that the witness is or will be available for trial is good cause for denial in the absence of unusual circumstances, such as improper denial of a witness request at an Article 32 hearing, unavailability of an essential witness at an Article 32 hearing, or when the Government has improperly impeded defense access to a witness.
(Note: LTC Lakin waived his Article 32, UCMJ, hearing therefore he waived using “improper denial” of the witnesses at the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing as a basis to request a deposition. This seems to have been a point where the defense at the time of the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing could have done a much better job of setting up the issue.
I would start the analysis of this issue with United States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143 (C.M.A. 1978) which deals with the failure to make a witness available at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. And always keep in mind that the LTC Lakin waived his Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.)
I’m not convinced the Analysis (found as an appendix in the MCM) to the Rule aids the defense:
A deposition is not a discovery device under the Federal rule. 8.J. Moore, supra Para. 15.02[1]. See also United States v. Rich, 580 F.2d 929 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 935 (1978); United States v. Adcock, 558 F.2d. 397 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 921 (1977). The Court of Military Appeals has held that depositions may serve as a discovery device in certain unusual circumstances. See Analysis, subsection (c)(3)(A) infra.
Consequently, “exceptional circumstances” may be somewhat broader in courtsmartial. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of this rule is to preserve the testimony of unavailable witnesses for use at trial. See Article 49; Hearings on H.R. 2498 Before a Subcomm. of the Comm. on Armed Services 81st Cong. 1st Sess. 1064–1070 (1949).
I wholeheartedly agree with the principal that discovery is broader in the military.
The military justice system provides for broader discovery than required by practice in federal civilian criminal trials. See e.g., United States v. Williams, 50 M.J. 436, 439-40 (C.A.A.F. 1999). But depositions are not the normal avenue for discovery outside the Article 32, UCMJ, process. In Williams the CAAF had this to say about the broad military discovery right.
The military justice system has been a leader with respect to open discovery and disclosure of exculpatory information to the defense. See Moyer, Procedural Rights of the Military Accused: Advantages Over A Civilian Defendant, 51 Mil. L. Rev. 1, 11-14 (1971).
As noted in the Drafters’ Analysis accompanying RCM 701, “[m]ilitary discovery practice has been quite liberal,” with “broader discovery than is required in Federal [civilian] practice.” Manual, supra at A21-31; see United States v. Hart, 29 MJ 407, 410 (C.M.A. 1990).
The foundation for military discovery practice is Article 46, UCMJ, 10 USC § 846, in which Congress mandated that “[t]he trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe.” See United States v. Enloe, 15 U.S.C.M.A. 256, 258-59, 35 C.M.R. 228, 230-31 (1965).
The President has implemented Article 46 by setting forth specific discovery and disclosure responsibilities in RCM 701.
We have interpreted RCM 701 and related rules to ensure compliance with the equal-access-to-evidence mandate in Article 46. See United States v. Eshalomi, 23 MJ 12 (C.M.A. 1986).
We also have interpreted these rules to ensure that discovery and disclosure procedures in the military justice system, which are designed to be broader than in civilian life, provide the accused, at a minimum, with the disclosure and discovery rights available in federal civilian proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Walbert, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 34, 33 C.M.R. 246 (1963) (applying the “Jencks Act,” 18 USC §3500, to military justice discovery practices).
I have already mentioned that the witness would likely be available for trial. So we come back to the issue:
what if anything is the relevance of deposing potential witnesses about President Obama’s birth and birth certificate?
If you have been following the discussion so far you will know that those of us who know and practice military law as our profession are having a hard time fathoming the relevance to LTC Lakin’s case.
Just because the defense says it is doesn’t make it so.
So I think it likely that the CG will deny the deposition request.
That makes the next real battle worth watching the discovery request after charges are referred, assuming they are.
Here’s something else to wet the appetite.
Discovery practice is not focused solely upon evidence known to be admissible at trial. See United States v. Stone, 40 M.J. 420, 423 (C.M.A. 1994)(materiality standard normally “is not a heavy burden,” evidence is material as long as there is a strong indication that it will “play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.)(citations omitted); United States v. Roberts, 59 M.J. 323, 325 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
(If anyone has access to the request and is willing to share it, I’d be interested in knowing what the defense said for items R.C.M. 702(c)(2)(B) and (C) of the required content.
(B) A statement of the matters on which the person is to be examined;
(C) A statement of the reasons for taking the deposition; and)
(On a personal note. The oddity here is that the defense could have asked for the witness to testify by telephone at the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, which the defense waived, and they could have asked or pushed for production, which they waived.
That would have put them in a far superior position now to be arguing and whining they didn’t get a full and fair Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. I just can’t fathom this. They want to make issues, but they don’t take advantage various points in the process to lay their foundation.)
OK, had a chance to think about this? Let’s look at the deposition from two sides.
As a defense counsel I don’t think I would have approached the issue this way. But that’s because I’m used to the military justice system and how to get “discovery” which is different from the process in civilian courts.
Anyway. There’s nothing wrong with the deposition approach to try and set up the issue even though it is (should be) a loser. That is because the defense will likely get the witnesses and the documents through discovery and through a pretrial motion on the legality of the order.
The defense submits a discovery request, the government gets the official documents, and if there is a hearing on the lawfulness of the order various witnesses can testify in an Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code §839(a), hearing.
I’ve certainly tilted at this windmill in the past, for example seeking to depose the Secretary of the Navy and the General Counsel to the Navy.
As a trial counsel (prosecutor) I think the process would be as follows.
1. Recommend to the SJA and CG that they deny the deposition because there is an insufficient showing of necessity; witnesses will be made available and evidence will be produced in accordance with R.C.M. 701.
2. In response to a motion to order depositions I would argue the lack of necessity; I would argue that the prosecution has already sent a subpoeana to the appropriate Hawaiin authorities to get official records (to be certified in accordance with Mil. R. Evid. 902); and that should the defense seek to litigate the lawfulness of the orders the prosecution intends to make the Hawaiin officials available for telephone testimony on the motion.
Telephone testimony by witnesses in a pretrial motions session is common in the military where oftentimes a witness is in a different part of the world or the country.
As has been explained many times elsewhere, in United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001) cert. denied, New v. United States, 534 U.S. 955 (2001), the CAAF reasserted the basic principle that it is the military judge who makes a ruling on the lawfulness of an order.
Once the military judge (MJ) rules on the lawfulness of the order the issue is resolved for the Members. Of course the issue of the order’s lawfulness can be raised on appeal.
3. At this stage the prosecution has nothing to lose in cooperating with the defense to get the testimony of the officials and the documents available in the official records.
IMHO the worst position for the government would be to refuse to get the official records from Hawaii or to make the witness available by telephone on the motion. Moot the issue, accede to the defense requests for motions testimony and certified copies of the official records.
4. In the process the prosecution can ask the court for the documents to be sealed, that the parties be prohibited from further distribution of the documents, and that the documents be made available by later court order if necessary, for an appeal for example.
The documents would contain personal information ultimately irrelevant to the issues in the case. Remember, discovery in a criminal trial is not about a public right to know, it’s about an accused’s right of access to information that may be helpful to the defense.
—————————————————————————
Lewis Carroll, The Tale of the Snark. Basically the Snark and his friends arrive on a god-forsaken uninhabitable island. Proclaiming the finding of the veritable garden of eden, the Snark three times tells his comrades to set up house. Thus the the saying, that if I say something three times it must be true regardless of the facts.
When my mother finally got a birth certificate as an adult,she had to have an older sibling (her parents were both deceased) testify as to the particulars. If she had not had one another type of document would have been supplied, but not a birth certificate.
“At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.
“This was completely inappropriate. Col. Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me,” Paul Rolf Jensen said.
There’s a new strategy to get answers to Obama’s eligibility questions. See how you can help.
Jensen said he was not sure how long Lakin was being detained because the Army offered no explanation as to why he needed an escort after the hearing. Jensen did say he thought it was because the Army did not want him talking to the press.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=188649
~~~~
Is this a typical military action ?
The charges and specifications that were filed against LTC Lakin......
887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
CHARGE I, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 87
The Specification: In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 12 April 2010, through design, miss the movement of US Airways Flight Number 1123, departing from Baltimore/Washington International Airport arriving in Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.
********
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
CHARGE II, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ . ARTICLE 92
Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Lieutenant Colonel William Judd, to report to the office of his Brigade Commander, Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, at 1345 hours, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 31 March 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.
Specification 2: In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, to wit: a memorandum signed by the said Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, dated 31 March 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 31 March 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.
Specification 3: In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Colonel Peter M. McHugh, to wit: Temporary Change of Station orders 099-17, dated 9 April 2010, issued by Colonel Peter McHugh, requiring the said Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin to report to Fort Campbell, Kentucky not later than 1500 hours on 12 April 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey, did at or near Washington, District of Columbia, on or about 12 April 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to report to 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Specification 4: In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, who knew or should have known of his duties at or near Washington, District of Columbia, on or about 12 April 2010, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to report to Fort Campbell, Kentucky in accordance with Temporary Change of Station orders 099-17, dated 9 April 2010, issued by Colonel Peter McHugh, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, as it was his duty to do.
Looks like a writ of Habeas Corpus is in order
Habeas corpus (literally, “that you have the body [the subject person under detention]”) is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid.
I think they should allow not only depositions but freezing of the records at the HDOH. I say that because the HDOH has already claimed that 3 items which are required to be retained permanently - including one person’s actual birth certificate - don’t exist.
The State Department is claiming the same thing in regards to SAD’s passport records.
I think whoever decides whether to let Lakin depose and subpoena records needs to know the criminal activity these people have ALREADY been up to, and realize that there are no guarantees that there will be any chickens left to inspect if the wolves are allowed to keep guarding the henhouse.
If the issue is whether the evidence could be “unavailable” by the time of the court-martial, I think we’ve got enough evidence that evidence has disappeared that the military better seriously consider freezing all the records and/or allowing immediate depositions and subpoenas.
ping
I’m going to include some information from what I posted earlier today, so people will be sure to see it.
This article reports on how the meeting with the National Security Council went about. Says Obama issued a Presidential order in March regarding Afghanistan. But this describes how Obama arrived at the presidential order which resulted in the COMPLAN that eventually ordered Lakin to deploy.
So it started with a presidential order from Obama, with the approval of the Joint Chief of Staff (Adm Mike Mullen) and Petraeus. It did not have the approval of Joe Biden, the only person authorized by the US Constitution to “act as President”.
Lakin’s deployment order was directly caused by Obama acting as President rather than the only one the Constitution authorized to “act as President”.
There is NO WAY anybody can claim that Obama is irrelevant to this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1
That article describes Joe Biden’s oppostition to the surge. Regarding the final plan it says:
“The president went around the room asking for opinions. Mr. Biden again expressed skepticism, even at this late hour when the tide had turned against him in terms of the troop number. But he had succeeded in narrowing the scope of the mission to protect population centers and setting the date to begin withdrawal. Others around the table concurred with the plan. Mr. Obama spoke last, but still somewhat elliptically. Some advisers said they walked out into the night after 10 p.m., uncertain whether the president had actually endorsed the Max Leverage option or was just testing for reaction.”
And regarding Obama’s announcement of the final decision to go with that plan, the article says this:
On the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He would send 30,000 troops as quickly as possible, then begin the withdrawal in July 2011. In deference to Mr. Gates’s concerns, the pace and endpoint of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time.
“I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was a pause and no one said anything.
“Tell me now,” he repeated.
Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr. Gates and others signaled agreement.
“Fully support, sir,” Admiral Mullen said.
“Ditto,” General Petraeus said.
Mr. Obama then went to the Situation Room to call General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. The president made it clear that in the next assessment in December 2010 he would not contemplate more troops. “It will only be about the flexibility in how we draw down, not if we draw down,” he said.
Two days later, Mr. Obama flew to West Point to give his speech. After three months of agonizing review, he seemed surprisingly serene. “He was,” said one adviser, “totally at peace.”
Here’s what I posted based on Centurion316’s input regarding some of the anacronyms used. I looked up what I could and posted this:
Okay. Here’s a document which sort of outlines things, although the anachronyms are hard to follow for a novice like me.
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jrm/jplan.doc
This is what it says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are several types of deliberate plans that are prepared under joint procedures and in prescribed formats as either an OPLAN, CONPLAN with or without time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD), or functional plan.
An OPLAN is a complete and detailed operation plan containing a full description of the concept of operations. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, deployment sequence, and resources required to execute the plan and provides closure estimates for their movement into the theater.
A CONPLAN without TPFDD is an operation plan in an abbreviated format that would require considerable expansion or alteration to convert it into an OPLAN, campaign plan, or OPORD. It contains the CINC’s Strategic Concept and appropriate annexes.
A CONPLAN with TPFDD is a CONPLAN that requires more detailed planning for phased deployment of forces. Detailed planning may be required to support a contingency of compelling interest and critical to national security but is not likely to occur in the near term. It may also be required where the primary purpose is force movement planning in support of alliances.
A functional plan involves the conduct of military operations in a peacetime or permissive environment. These plans are traditionally developed for specific functions or discrete tasks, such as nuclear weapons recovery or evacuation, logistics or communications, but may be developed to address functional peacetime operations such as disaster relief or humanitarian assistance. (JP 5-0, Chapter I, para 13a) “
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t see any other explanation for CINC so I would gather that means Commander-In-Chief. Do I have that right?
Seems like the first step where the CINC’s input is translated into military plans is a CONPLAN, which needs to be developed into an OPLAN which would include overall plans for troop deployment.
As I understand it, that would mean that if Obama authorizes a “surge in Afghanistan”, that is basically a CONPLAN. The Joint Chiefs of Staff work together to develop that into an operational plan (OPLAN) which includes figuring out what forces need to be where and when. Those plans are implemented by the units called upon.
Am I making sense of this at all? I don’t claim to be an expert, but I am a willing and eager learner and if anybody can help me make sense of it, or correct me where I am wrong, I would be most appreciative
Not military .. but sounds protocol.
~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note, DAMN ..!!!! Does this infuriate me!!!1
###
“WND reported the Obama administration spent $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to support the “Yes” vote ratifying the new Kenyan constitution, which coincided with Obama’s Aug. 4 birthday.
Obama has maintained a strong personal commitment to Africa, often identifying himself with continent as his father’s homeland.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2567673/posts
Our taxpayer $$$ going to boost a socialist country?
How can this be legal or Constitutional??
What are they waiting for?
Thanks STARWISE.
Payback. Odinga courted the Muslims in Kenya to get elected. Abortion ends up killing off infidel babies so the Muslim women can out-produce them and get the Muslims into the majority. This is Odinga/Obama’s offering to the Muslims as payback for their violence which allowed Odinga to share power with Kibaki, IMHO.
It’s also silence money for Obama.
Lawlessness. It’s all over. Nobody in a position of power is willing to do anything to stop it.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
Correct.
Seems like the first step where the CINC’s input is translated into military plans is a CONPLAN, which needs to be developed into an OPLAN which would include overall plans for troop deployment.
Correct. Military CinC's are now called Combat Commanders so not to confuse with "CINC" as in Commander in Chief in accordance with the US Constitution.
See article.
Top US Officer Says It's Time to Execute Afghan Plan
A snippet from the article: "The top U.S. military officer is on a visit to Afghanistan, where he says the coalition effort is in its execution phase, after months of preparation to implement President Barack Obama's new strategy. "
As I understand it, that would mean that if Obama authorizes a “surge in Afghanistan”, that is basically a CONPLAN. The Joint Chiefs of Staff work together to develop that into an operational plan (OPLAN) which includes figuring out what forces need to be where and when. Those plans are implemented by the units called upon.
Correct.
Am I making sense of this at all? I don’t claim to be an expert, but I am a willing and eager learner and if anybody can help me make sense of it, or correct me where I am wrong, I would be most appreciative
Yes, you are on the money. :-)
If that doesn’t sound like grounds for removal
or impeachment, what is ???
WHO’S MINDING OUR COUNTRY ???
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.