Today begins the court martial of Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Terry Lakin.

[lawgator1]

not necessarily. There is room for discretion in the military justice system. I think the response should be swift and painful, but I can understand the other side of that coin, in that there hasn't been any government refutation of his claim.

The problem is that his claim is irrelevant.

If he said he didn't want to go because he hates the shade of green of the uniform he'd be wearing he'd be making the same quality argument.

The point is -- and this is why the Court is not allowing him to go where he wants on this -- is that the issue for the Court to decide is whether he has willfully disobeyed an order. The reason he has offered is not recognized by the military as justifying his refusal, even if he is factually correct.

It's like someone defending the murder of an abortion doctor on grounds that he thinks what the doctor does is wrong. Or someone refusing to go as assigned because he thinks George Bush lost Florida.

Its not their role to make those decisions and, if individuals make such decisions, then I can run stop lights because I don't think the state has the power to regulate interstate travel, or I can take an item and not pay for it because I think a sales tax is unconstitutional.

Forget the politics of his argument. His argument is irrelevant.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The problem is that his claim is irrelevant.

If he said he didn't want to go because he hates the shade of green of the uniform he'd be wearing he'd be making the same quality argument.

The point is -- and this is why the Court is not allowing him to go where he wants on this -- is that the issue for the Court to decide is whether he has willfully disobeyed an order. The reason he has offered is not recognized by the military as justifying his refusal, even if he is factually correct.

It's like someone defending the murder of an abortion doctor on grounds that he thinks what the doctor does is wrong. Or someone refusing to go as assigned because he thinks George Bush lost Florida.

Its not their role to make those decisions and, if individuals make such decisions, then I can run stop lights because I don't think the state has the power to regulate interstate travel, or I can take an item and not pay for it because I don't think a sales tax is unconstitutional.

Forget the politics of his argument. His argument is irrelevant.

I don't give a shiz about the politics. I think his argument that an unlawful president invalidates the orders of the entire chain of command is stupid, but how do you refute it to render his misgivings irrelevant. It's a judgment issue for those deciding and they'll find this unbecoming a senior officer, but his point isn't irrelevant.

 

[droski]

agreed. it's not as though he reports directly to the president.

 

[lawgator1]

I don't give a shiz about the politics. I think his argument that an unlawful president invalidates the orders of the entire chain of command is stupid, but how do you refute it to render his misgivings irrelevant. It's a judgment issue for those deciding and they'll find this unbecoming a senior officer, but his point isn't irrelevant.

No, its not a judgment issue.

Even if he is correct that Obama is not a legitimate president, he cannot prove that up by refusing a command.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No, its not a judgment issue.

Even if he is correct that Obama is not a legitimate president, he cannot prove that up by refusing a command.

Of course it's a judgment issue. His oath made it so.

 

[lawgator1]

agreed. it's not as though he reports directly to the president.

Even if he did, the solution is not to refuse an order from him. Its a standing and jurisdictional type argument, if nothing else. A military tribunal convened for purpose of this charge does not recognize this fellow's claim that the order was illegal on this basis, nor does it have jurisdiction to order the relief he really wants.

And that goes hand in hand with the fact that he does not get to make this decision, even for himself. Well, actually, he can make it, but then he gets punished for violating the code/law, as would someone refusing to go for any other reason.

 

[lawgator1]

Of course it's a judgment issue. His oath made it so.

What?

 

[gsvol]

not necessarily. There is room for discretion in the military justice system. I think the response should be swift and painful, but I can understand the other side of that coin, in that there hasn't been any government refutation of his claim.

The Congress and many in the Military, including many of LTC Lakins' commanders ACKNOWLEDGE there IS an issue with Barry's eligibility. YET, they ALL pass the buck. This is totally unacceptible!

Today's trial proceedings:

New Details From LTC Lakin's Court-Martial The Media Will Not Report; Concern About Obama's Eligibility Throughout the Chain-of-Command | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

LTC Lakin continued that he became the chief of primary care at the Pentagon’s clinic in July 2009. Mr. Puckett then observed that the purpose of the hearing was for the members to determine an appropriate sentence. He then discussed the origins of LTC Lakin’s offenses.

He testified that he started to have concerns about the Constitution during the primary elections, when he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. He learned that there was controversy as to the natural-born-citizen status of both major political parties’ general election candidates. He said Senator McCain provided everything he could to address his status, including a birth certificate with the doctor’s name and hospital’s name.

He compared that with the lack of scrutiny that Senator Obama received. He had questions about the image of a certificate of live birth on the Internet and relatives stating they were present at his birth in Kenya. He said he had an open mind, but he was skeptical. One candidate went through scrutiny, but there was a lack of information as to the other.

There is a detailed account in the link above during testimony of Col. Lakin's actions formerly and informally through the chain of command, including contact with congressmen and senators.

(IMO all those people should have been called to testify but the judge seems adamant about this being a kangaroo court procedure in which many of Col Lakin's rights have been denied, which could possibly precipitate an eventual hearing before the congressional armed services committee.)

Is Lakin Obama's first political prisoner??

ATLAH Media Network | The Manning Report Live

I and my camera crew while attending the Lt. Col. Terry Lakin trial was detained by military police and threatened with trespassing charges here in Ft. Meade Md. We were interrogated for nearly three hours, searched, ask to sign statements and read the Miranda Rights. They placed us in separate rooms for interrogation, and Capt. Farr was placed in a cell block room. They released us after the trial was over.

I believe Dr. James David Manning is Lakin's chaplain, but I could be wrong about their exact relationship.

 

[fl0at]

I still don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

You said: "Your analysis of my postion would seem to be more applicable to that of Jtrain who opined that Lakin and the Ft Hood shooter were the same"

I said: You need to look up the word classification, because that is what Jtrain said, "classification." Classification has many meanings, it does not mean that Lakin and the Ft. Hood shooter were the same. It just means they can be classified similarly: ie: people that should be loathed.

You can start by telling me how it is that you are calling me a hypocrite.

Feel free to use your dictionary.

Feel free to re-read post 32. I have already stated quite "why" it is that I am calling you a hypocrite.

Then, once you get off your personal attack against me, tell me if you think Col Lakin should have had the right to discovery and if you think this will end up in a congressional hearing.

Lighten up. Calling you out on the fact that you flip flop isn't a personal attack.

I can't predict the whims of the US Government. If they feel the need to insert themselves into a military hearing, then they will, plain and simple. There are Congrits for a reason.

Would they be wasting their time, yes. Does a Lt. Col have the right to question the CiC? No.

If he isn't satisfied with Obama's Hawaiian live birth copy, too friggen bad. The CiC does not answer to paltry requests by mid-level officers.

His entire plight should be despised, not for his view, that is his and his to determine, but by the way he set out to accomplish his goal. It is unbecoming.

If you are merely trying to prove what an immature smartass you are capable of being, consider that mission accomplished.

 

[volinbham]

late to the thread but the dude (refusin deployment) in question is moron.

 

[gsvol]

You said: "Your analysis of my postion would seem to be more applicable to that of Jtrain who opined that Lakin and the Ft Hood shooter were the same"

Sooo, he put them in the same category, an absurd statement on the face of it.

I said: You need to look up the word classification, because that is what Jtrain said, "classification." Classification has many meanings, it does not mean that Lakin and the Ft. Hood shooter were the same. It just means they can be classified similarly: ie: people that should be loathed.

That was his assertion, not mine.

Feel free to re-read post 32. I have already stated quite "why" it is that I am calling you a hypocrite.

Post 32 makes no more sense now that it did then.

Perhaps you should consider the beam in your own eye before pointing out some speck you perceive in mine.

Lighten up. Calling you out on the fact that you flip flop isn't a personal attack.

Look, you flop flop, You are a damned hypocrite yourself.

Now you can get on with your lighten up program!

And I still fail to see just how I flip flopped.

I can't predict the whims of the US Government. If they feel the need to insert themselves into a military hearing, then they will, plain and simple. There are Congrits for a reason.

What's 'congrits' a contraction of congress critters?

I suppose you don't know that congress wrote the UCMJ which is one of the finest legal documents ever written and are responsible for seeing that it is followed.

Would they be wasting their time, yes. Does a Lt. Col have the right to question the CiC? No.

They may not be wasting their time if they serve justice.

You are also flat out dead wrong that a Lt Col doesn't have the right to question the CIC (through the chain of command.) In this case the chain of command let him down.

How you perceive things seem to be more like what it was like in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

So far the United States of America hasn't descended into such tyranny.

We are a nation of just (or at least more just than most) laws and the US Constitution is the basis for all those laws.

Don't forget that.

If he isn't satisfied with Obama's Hawaiian live birth copy, too friggen bad. The CiC does not answer to paltry requests by mid-level officers.

I don't know where you picked up the idea that the live birth certificate satisfies the legal requirement but you are flat out dead wrong on that.

Secondly that Hawaiian live birth certificate has been proven to be a forgery and the man who forged it has admitted to the forgery.

When and if we ever get to the point that the CIC doesn't have to answer to legal requirments we will be living in a tyrany.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of brainwashed young fools who would prefer to have it that way.

His entire plight should be despised, not for his view, that is his and his to determine, but by the way he set out to accomplish his goal. It is unbecoming.

How so, he is being faithful to his oath to uphold the constitution, we need more like him, particularly in the political arena.

late to the thread but the dude (refusin deployment) in question is moron.

:mf_surrender:

I give up, why do you call him a moron??

 

[lawgator1]

late to the thread but the dude (refusin deployment) in question is moron.

No worries. His rationale is, as you would suspect, just taking a baseless shot at a POTUS he doesn't personally like under the false pretense of being patriotic.

And the thesis of this thread -- criticizing the military for refusing to let this guy single handedly dismantle the concept of military command -- is a perpetuation of hatred for a President that some folks just will never accept.

 

[gsvol]

No worries. His rationale is, as you would suspect, just taking a baseless shot at a POTUS he doesn't personally like under the false pretense of being patriotic.

And the thesis of this thread -- criticizing the military for refusing to let this guy single handedly dismantle the concept of military command -- is a perpetuation of hatred for a President that some folks just will never accept.

No that isn't it at all.

The question is, shall we adhere to the US Constitution or not.

If not then all bets are off.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No worries. His rationale is, as you would suspect, just taking a baseless shot at a POTUS he doesn't personally like under the false pretense of being patriotic.

And the thesis of this thread -- criticizing the military for refusing to let this guy single handedly dismantle the concept of military command -- is a perpetuation of hatred for a President that some folks just will never accept.

again, how is it baseless? I, like you, don't agree with his actions here and think he should become an example, but how can you call his claim baseless? He has forced the prosecution to prove him wrong, which was his intent from the beginning. They, like the Disaster in Chief, have refused and that's why this has garnered national attention - again.

 

[gsvol]

There is an internet poster who bills himself as 'writer33'.

Here is one of his posts:

I therefore submit the facts for all Americans to see:


•Barack Obama has refused to follow the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified for the good of the Republic.

•He has forced a healthcare reform bill on the American people, which strips individual liberty of this generation and future generations, and stands in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution.

•He has failed to support Israel and other allies in defense of the United States of America, ignoring the Iranian threat of nuclear expansion.

•He supports all abortion, which deprives its very citizens of the opportunity at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

•He has failed to represent his American constituency through stimulus spending and the passing of laws which subvert the U.S. Armed Forces.

•He has chosen to assault the American people through excess taxation and class warfare without the consent of the governed.

•He has chosen to wage a war on Christians and Jews for merely believing in Almighty God.

•He has continued to destroy the housing market—and the private property of many Americans—through the use of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and subprime mortgage lending.

•He has promoted the segregation of men, women, blacks and Hispanics through judicial activism, race and gender politics.

•He has failed to create prosperity, and instead, has created dependency on an unemployment check, transitioning a representative Republic to a nation under Democratic tyranny.

•He has failed to enforce existing immigration laws and protect the American borders from invasion.

•He has placed incompetency and ideology on the Supreme Court of the United States, insuring favorable Marxist rulings.

•He has attempted to silence the conservative media in the country in direct opposition to the First Amendment.

•He has willfully destroyed the lives of many of the American people by shackling them in the chains of bondage through transfer payments, bailouts and utopian ideals, which contradict the notions of the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

As a conservative, I and millions of Americans, must therefore make an appeal to God, declaring that the United States of America ought to be free and independent of a meddling and overbearing federal government—that its citizens should be allowed to establish commerce, purchase private property and pursue happiness through the ideals of liberty handed down by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and that the Democrat Party should be completely destroyed to prevent further harm to the Republic.

 

[lawgator1]

No that isn't it at all.

The question is, shall we adhere to the US Constitution or not.

If not then all bets are off.

again, how is it baseless? I, like you, don't agree with his actions here and think he should become an example, but how can you call his claim baseless? He has forced the prosecution to prove him wrong, which was his intent from the beginning. They, like the Disaster in Chief, have refused and that's why this has garnered national attention - again.

His claim is baseless because he is in no position to prove it. The judge has the sense not to allow this fool the use of the Court to perpetuate this nonsense.

This is the difference between us.

I would condemn equally to this man another serviceman who refused to go to Iraq on grounds that Bush was illegitimate and tried to make a joke out of the court by using it as a platform for politics.

But right wingers will either outright defend this idiot as some sort of hero or say they think he's dumb, but still out of the side of their mouths say "Well, he has a point."

That's the irony here. This man wants to score political points so badly that he's willing to abuse the process to make a point. The only thing worse is people defending it. Even in part.

 

[gsvol]

Well actually it isn't nonsense, it's serious business.

Chicago Thugs vs. The Founders

On August 21, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article, Born in the U.S.A. which they claimed contained “The truth about Obama’s birth certificate.” It turns out, however, that this article contains at least one enormous bold-faced lie.
--------------------------------------

“We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka…We even brought home a few photographs."
---------------------------------------

In the same article, Factcheck.org provided links to photographs of the seal and signature found on the back of Obama’s alleged COLB. However, the photographs of the seal’s emblem and text do not show a “raised seal,” at all, they show an ‘incised seal’ – one that is cut into or impressed into the paper:
-----------------------------

Despite what anyone else tells you – Factcheck.org, Arlen Specter, and the rules, regulations & laws in Hawaii have stated and show that a legal, authorized and official seal applied to a certified copy of a vital record issued from the Hawaii Department of Health should be raised. And the COLB belonging to Obama bears an incised seal.

Actually a COLB can be issued at anytime and one doesn't have to be born in Hawaii to get one, it is not the same as a birth certificate which is issued at the time of birth.

Besides that it doesn't take a lot fact checking to find that factcheckdotorg is a creation of the Annenberrg foundation which has employed both Barack Obama and William Ayers.

The full name of FactCheck.org is The Annenberg Political Fact Check.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Also part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was founded by William Ayers, and to which he recruited the young Barack Obama. This was Barack Obama’s first big-boy job.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was the launching pad for Barack Obama’s political career. He owes every bit of success since then to the contacts he made and favors he was able to grant as Chairman of this fund. It would not be at all inaccurate to call Barack Obama “The Senator from Annenberg”.

 

[volinbham]

:mf_surrender:

I give up, why do you call him a moron??

I think he's abusing the situation to score political points or to benefit personally. I feel his actions are anti-thetical to military commitment as I understand it.

 

[gsvol]

I think he's abusing the situation to score political points or to benefit personally. I feel his actions are anti-thetical to military commitment as I understand it.

At the bare minimum I would say a moron doesn't rise to the position of being in charge of primary care at the Pentagon.

Likewise I would say your slur that he is doing it for persnal benefit just doesn't make sense (what benefit do you think he perceives he might gain?) and his actions certainly aren't anti-thetical to military commitment if you read the officer's oath.

 

[milohimself]

Read this whole thing, but found nothing but gsvol in his latest, rather extreme case of hollow talking points and staging ways to post his latest political cartoons and farks.

Is the debate about this Lt Col, or is it about Barry Saddam Hussein Obambi, doer of nothing but wrong?

I can see why gs is defending this guy, they both actively engage in meaningless political grandstanding entirely in some far-fetched hope of dethroning our illicitly-elected Dear Leader in Chief. Difference is Lakin is using his job as a platform for it, and is likely going to end up paying for it.

 

[fl0at]

Post 32 makes no more sense now that it did then.

I know it doesn't make sense to you. I have no doubt that logic is quite often beyond you.

And I still fail to see just how I flip flopped.

I know. I put it as simply as I could. You support one action when it benefits your cause, but are against the same action when it doesn't.

You wear flip flops.

What's 'congrits' a contraction of congress critters?

Surely with as well read in military history, and all your time being told "things" by Carter, or whomever. And all your time with all those classified documents, surely, surely you've come across a Congressinal Interest/Inquiry.

You are also flat out dead wrong that a Lt Col doesn't have the right to question the CIC (through the chain of command.) In this case the chain of command let him down.

He can request mast all he wants, but when he is turned down, he is done. He did not question through the chain of command. He went around it by personally writing a request a the CiC. Did he not?

How you perceive things seem to be more like what it was like in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

No, how I percieve things stems from how it is seen in the US, particularly in the US military. Which is why your boy was court martialed.

Because that is how it works in the military. So news flash, this viewpoint, yea... it is all home grown.

I don't know where you picked up the idea that the live birth certificate satisfies the legal requirement but you are flat out dead wrong on that.

Really, so Obama isn't the President? He wasn't sworn in, and the courts have allowed challenges against his eligibility to go through? Really? Reaaallly? Link? Yea, thought not.

How so, he is being faithful to his oath to uphold the constitution, we need more like him, particularly in the political arena.

No, he is being faithful to his own agenda, and using the Constitution as a door mat. Like I said. If he were truly a strict Constituionalist, he would argue several of the Articles I've already mentioned. But he isn't, is he? Nope. That is because to him, like you, the Constitution is nothing more than a punch line.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tim]

At the bare minimum I would say a moron doesn't rise to the position of being in charge of primary care at the Pentagon.
Likewise I would say your slur that he is doing it for persnal benefit just doesn't make sense (what benefit do you think he perceives he might gain?) and his actions certainly aren't anti-thetical to military commitment if you read the officer's oath.

Your judgement is clouded. How would you characterize the POTUS?

 

[WillisWG]

Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or somewhere else his mother is/was a citizen and the below rule would apply.

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.


Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

 

[WillisWG]

First Read - Military 'birther' sentenced
From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
The Army doctor who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he challenged President Obama's birthright has been sentenced to six months confinement and ordered discharged from the Army.


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin had considered any order from the commander-in-chief, President Obama, unlawful because he claimed the president has not proven he was born in the United States.


Besides today's sentence, Lakin will pay a potentially heavy financial price. At 18 years in the Army, he was two years short of retirement, which over the course of a lifetime could have added up to an estimated $2 million in retirement pay and benefits.
Lakin had pleaded guilty to one charge, and was convicted of another in failing to report for deployment to Afghanistan in a court martial at Fort Meade, MD.

 

[gsvol]

Your judgement is clouded. How would you characterize the POTUS?

I think he is a charlatan.

Ask yourself this, why would he spend over $2 million in legal fees to avoid producing his bona fides in courts?