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

#26
#26
gsvol said:
this whole Lakin episode boils down to a constitutional question
Click to expand...

No, it does not. It boils down to a disgruntled officer seeking sensationalism.

Dr. Larkin is not up in arms over the 2nd Amendment, which is taken away by Federal law stating he can't carry a weapon on his base.

Dr. Larkin is not up in arms over the 1st Amendment, which is taken away by various UCMJ articles, namely Article 88 or Article 91.

If he was as heroic as you imply, he would have made such challenges years ago. He would have lost those challenges.
 
#27
#27
OK, so when soldiers refused deployment when the Iraq war began because GWB was considered illegitimate (the whole Florida recount thing) they were branded as cowards.

Now, an officer is doing something very similar and he's being considered a hero by the birther movement.

I, for one, will remain consistent and consider Col. Lakin a coward.
 
#28
#28
Whole thing is weak. His contention that an elected, but unqualified, CinC invalidates the orders of the remainder of his chain of command is utter garbage. This is a publicity campaign and will end poorly for Lakin, even if he's right, which is highly unlikely.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
BigPapaVol said:
Whole thing is weak. His contention that an elected, but unqualified, CinC invalidates the orders of the remainder of his chain of command is utter garbage. This is a publicity campaign and will end poorly for Lakin, even if he's right, which is irrelevant.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


fyp
 
#31
#31
63Vol said:
Yes, it is extremely easy for me to say considering my father was a decorated vet of WWII, Korea and Vietnam and served his country for over 25 years.
Click to expand...

So what have YOU done to qualify you to call Lakin a coward or ignorant either for that matter.

Seems to me you are just having a knee jerk reaction without even considering the matter.



fl0at said:
Deployment to Afghanistan was not an order handed down from Obama. We can get into a discussion on CoC and how it originates with the CiC via the Constitution all we want, but it doesn't alter the fact that Congress has granted approval of this police action to the President.

It is a conundrum, unless you consider that the Constitution says the President shall be CiC. Obama is the President, period. If you think his presidency is unconstitutional, so be it, but it doesn't alter the fact that he was sworn in as President and thusly his order, as President is constitutional until, and only until, his Presidency is determined to be unconstitutional. This has not occurred.

If dude was displeased, he could have resigned his commission. After 17 years, I am quite certain he has exhausted his obligation. Even if he did 4 years at West Point (+8) and 4 years at USUHS (+8) he would still be one year over his obligation.

He did not resign his commission, he instead wanted to make a point in the most inappropriate and irresponsible way possible.

You are also being a bit of a hypocrite here, but as it serves your agenda, I'm sure you don't mind.
Click to expand...

The reasons you give is why he pled guilty to disobeying an order.

How am I being a hypocrite?




fl0at said:
No, it does not. It boils down to a disgruntled officer seeking sensationalism.

Dr. Larkin is not up in arms over the 2nd Amendment, which is taken away by Federal law stating he can't carry a weapon on his base.

Dr. Larkin is not up in arms over the 1st Amendment, which is taken away by various UCMJ articles, namely Article 88 or Article 91.

If he was as heroic as you imply, he would have made such challenges years ago. He would have lost those challenges.
Click to expand...

You have your opinion, that doesn't make what you say the truth of the matter.

He did make such challenges, even before being ordered to deploy to the Ghan, that's probably why he received those orders.

As for losing those challenges, that remains to be seen.

We will know whenever we see all the evidence, something that seems more and more unlikely as time goes by.




BigPapaVol said:
Whole thing is weak. His contention that an elected, but unqualified, CinC invalidates the orders of the remainder of his chain of command is utter garbage. This is a publicity campaign and will end poorly for Lakin, even if he's right, which is highly unlikely.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, he swore an oath to uphold the constitution.

Do you fault him on that?
 
#32
#32
gsvol said:
How am I being a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

You have slippery slope'd your way around the Wikileaks issue as possibly causing harm to American fighting men and women.

Dr. Lakin is a doctor, in the Army, that didn't deploy to a combat zone.

Do you think the Army needs doctors in a combat zone?

Applying your same slippery slope argument to this case, as you applied to Wikileaks, his failure to deploy could result in harm to American fighting men and women.

If you refuse to apply the same slippery slope fallacy to Dr. Lakin as you do Wikileaks, you are practicing hypocrisy.
 
#33
#33
gsvol said:
He did make such challenges, even before being ordered to deploy to the Ghan, that's probably why he received those orders.

As for losing those challenges, that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

I was speaking about challenges that Article 88 violates the Constitution, or challenges to the 2A ban on Federal property, not challenges to Obama's validity as President.
 
#34
#34
fl0at said:
I was speaking about challenges that Article 88 violates the Constitution, or challenges to the 2A ban on Federal property, not challenges to Obama's validity as President.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would even bring that up.
None of what you say has anything to do with anything we are discussing.

Col Lakin invited the court marshall over the constitutional quesion alone.

Here is what happened in court today.

Standing with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin drkatesview

In a packed military court room at the Ft. Meade complex in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin steadfastly faced Court Martial trial proceedings with family, friends and Patriots standing with him. Undeterred by the weight of the charges, LTC Lakin and his attorney, Neal Puckett, deftly executed a strategy that left the government prosecutors red-eared and shaken by the magnitude of their own mistakes and inability to articulate a valid claim.

Recall that Judge Denise Lind, presiding over the Court Martial, denied LTC Lakin an opportunity for discovery and told him literally to ‘get another defense’. This decision is in my view reversible error as the Judge offered no legal reason why Obama’s records could not be retrieved except that they would be ‘embarassing’. Based on what knowledge, and what law, Col. Lind?

And to that challenge, LTC Lakin and Attorney Puckett certainly rose to the occasion.
---------------------------------

Because Judge Lind denied LTC Lakin’s right to discovery and evidence, the only possible outcome for LTC Lakin on the second charge–disobeying orders–was to plead guilty.
--------------------------

Lakin described the anguish involved in his decision, yet accepted responsibility for his final course of action. On balance, this discussion between the Judge and LTC Lakin revealed Lakin’s extensive efforts to alert his Chain of Command as to his concerns, and the failure of the Chain of Command to address them. This is the reason he invited his own Court Martial–it may be one of the only ways to reveal Obama’s problems on proving his eligibility for office.
-----------------------------------

To this charge, LTC Lakin pleaded ‘not guilty’, and asked for a jury to hear the case. A jury was assembled consisting of initially ten senior officers; through questioning, two were excluded.

For this charge, Lakin is accused of missing a commercial airline flight from Baltimore to Ft. Campell. As attorney Neal Puckett pointed out, however, Lakin could have traveled to Ft Campell in any manner he chose. Prosecution witness after witness divulged to Attorney Puckett that no one gave Lakin a direct order to take a commercial airline flight to his next duty position, as his orders allowed him to travel in any manner to Ft. Campell.

Additional injury to the government’s case was to come, as it was revealed in cross examination that the actual deployment of troops was going to occur three-four months after Lakin was called to Ft. Campbell. Thus, LTC Lakin did not ‘miss movement’

Painstakingly asking each of the six prosecution witnesses as to the schedule, timing, deployment, and general practice of deploying troops to a war theater, Attorney Puckett demolished the ‘missing movement’ charge.
----------------------------------

Recall that the government would rather bury LTC Lakin on a bunch of piled on charges than address the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. In what can be termed as a little ‘divine intervention’ the fifth government witness actually stated the reason why LTC Lakin refused his orders–Obama’s eligibility. You should have seen the prosecution shut that lady down right away!
Click to expand...
 
#36
#36
rmsmith said:
I wonder how many times before has an presidents legality has been questioned.
Click to expand...

Don't know although the dems did quetion Juan McLame's eligibility.

Instead of spending $2+ million dollars in legal fees to keep his birth record secret, Barry could have done the honorable thing and produced his birth certificate, if he indeed does have one instead of prosecuting a good officer.

frontpage201004222.gif


The thing about Obama is his extreme secrecy about everything concerning himself, that raises some serious questions itself.

For instance: (among other things.)

***
Records Obama is fighting to keep sealed

Passport records

Obama kindergarten records

Punahou School records

Occidental College records

Columbia University records

Columbia thesis

Harvard Law School records

Harvard Law Review articles

University of Chicago scholarly articles

Illinois State Bar Association records

Illinois State Senate records/schedules(said to be lost)

Medical records

Obama/Dunham marriage license

Obama/Dunham divorce documents

Adoption records

Long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

Barry has used several Social Security Numbers, the one most used was issued in a state in which never resided.

There are two afadavits on record in courts that claim Obama to have been born in Kenya.

Have Barry and Michelle both lost their Illinois law licenses?? If so, Why?

Every president up until now has been fairly open about all personal records.

If Obama ever has a presidential library it will probably have a guest register and a picture of the community organizer in chief and that will be about it.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
MG1968 said:
OK, so when soldiers refused deployment when the Iraq war began because GWB was considered illegitimate (the whole Florida recount thing) they were branded as cowards.

Now, an officer is doing something very similar and he's being considered a hero by the birther movement.

I, for one, will remain consistent and consider Col. Lakin a coward.
Click to expand...

Kudos. Intellectual consistency is a very respectable thing.
 
#38
#38
MG1968 said:
OK, so when soldiers refused deployment when the Iraq war began because GWB was considered illegitimate (the whole Florida recount thing) they were branded as cowards.

Now, an officer is doing something very similar and he's being considered a hero by the birther movement.

I, for one, will remain consistent and consider Col. Lakin a coward.
Click to expand...

+1

There are quite a few hypocrites.
 
#39
#39
gsvol said:
I don't know why you would even bring that up.
Click to expand...

I know you don't know why. As sad as it is, I honestly believe that you have absolutely no idea why I would bring it up. I really think you are often ignorant of your own hypocrisy.

Let me put it in simple logic, based on your viewpoints from previous posts:

Men who might harm Americans are bad.
Dr. Lakin might harm Americans.
Ergo, Dr. Lakin is bad.

Your disconnect is at the conclusion, as usual.
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
Kudos. Intellectual consistency is a very respectable thing.
Click to expand...

Even knee jerk jelly consistency??

I didn't call the others cowards either and their reasons couldn't be classified as quite so noble, at least any cases I know of.
 
#41
#41
gsvol said:
Even knee jerk jelly consistency??

I didn't call the others cowards either and their reasons couldn't be classified as quite so noble, at least because I agree with Larkin and not them and so therefore my outrage depends on the content of their position, as opposed to the merit of the process.
Click to expand...


fyp
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
fyp
Click to expand...

Just when I thought you were going to boycott.

You claim to be a lawyer, do you believe Lakin should be denied the right to discovery?

Do you think there will eventually be a congressional hearing over the matter.



fl0at said:
I know you don't know why. As sad as it is, I honestly believe that you have absolutely no idea why I would bring it up. I really think you are often ignorant of your own hypocrisy.

Let me put it in simple logic, based on your viewpoints from previous posts:

Men who might harm Americans are bad.
Dr. Lakin might harm Americans.
Ergo, Dr. Lakin is bad.

Your disconnect is at the conclusion, as usual.
Click to expand...

Methinks you need a new chrystal ball, the one you're using seems to have a chip in it that is way distorting your insight or lack thereof.

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.
 
#43
#43
gsvol said:
Methinks you need a new chrystal ball, the one you're using seems to have a chip in it that is way distorting your insight or lack thereof.

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.
Click to expand...

And you need a new dictionary, your's seems to lack the word "classification." Try looking under the "Cs," sometimes they hide multi-syllable words in there...

Also, nice fallacy, again. (Hint: That one is under the "Fs").
 
#45
#45
rmsmith said:
The guy has changed his mind.
Army 'birther' changes course, says he'd deploy - Yahoo! News

Ha, waste of time.
Click to expand...

Waste of a career. Will be interesting to see the outcome. I wouldn't want to try to decide his fate, that is for sure.

There are many reasons to allow him to stay in, and there are equally as many reasons to remove him.

If he is booted, I doubt it is a DD, though. Probably an OTH and no confinement, and that would be lenient.
 
#46
#46
fl0at said:
Waste of a career. Will be interesting to see the outcome. I wouldn't want to try to decide his fate, that is for sure.

There are many reasons to allow him to stay in, and there are equally as many reasons to remove him.

If he is booted, I doubt it is a DD, though. Probably an OTH and no confinement, and that would be lenient.
Click to expand...

would you let him stay in under your command?
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
would you let him stay in under your command?
Click to expand...

Oh no, no chance. Dude is bad for good order and discipline. He will never advance, and after doing scut work for 3 years, he'd just punch out anyway.

But even Levonworth needs doctors. Treating that population might give him some perspective.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
fl0at said:
Oh no, no chance. Dude is bad for good order and discipline. He will never advance, and after doing scut work for 3 years, he'd just punch out anyway.

But even Levonworth needs doctors. Treating that population might give him some perspective.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Not bad in concept but ultimately he has to be punished as would any solider who refuses a command.
.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Not bad in concept but ultimately he has to be punished as would any solider who refuses a command.
.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#50
#50
fl0at said:
And you need a new dictionary, your's seems to lack the word "classification." Try looking under the "Cs," sometimes they hide multi-syllable words in there...

Also, nice fallacy, again. (Hint: That one is under the "Fs").
Click to expand...

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

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

Feel free to use your dictionary.

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.

If you are merely trying to prove what an immature smartass you are capable of being, consider that mission accomplished.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top