Army "birther" pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
NO Soldier has to follow an ORDER they Believe to be ILLEGAL or IMMORAL!
people like yourself make me sick if you honestly believe that a soldier shouldn't question any order before carrying out said orders.

I think this will help clear up some of these questions:

Lakin's lawyers argued that all military orders stem from the commander-in-chief. Without evidence that Obama is eligible to be president, they say, the doctor's deployment order was illegal. (...)

"If the president is ineligible, you need to know that," Lakin's civilian attorney, Paul Jensen, told Lind. "Col. Lakin needs to know that, the government needs to know that, America needs to know that."

The prosecutors in the case argued that Obama's eligibility is not relevant because the officers who ordered Lakin to go to Fort Campbell and then ordered him to answer questions about why he didn't go were his proper superiors in the military chain of command, and they gave him legal orders. Jensen later conceded that point.

The judge ruled that the matter of Obama's eligibility is not relevant because he did not give any orders in the case. She pointed out that while the president is commander-in-chief of the military, it is Congress that is constitutionally empowered to raise armies, pay them and equip them.

Any contention that any orders are invalid if the president is ineligible "is erroneous," the judge said.

Lind also said that military law says that a soldier's personal beliefs or convictions are not sufficient to allow that soldier to determine that an order is illegal. The soldier has to have "no rational doubt" that the order is illegal before he or she can ignore it.

Source

reply to post by aptness


and you wasted your time posting that as a reply to me. i was bluntly pointing out to Homer that all soldiers have a duty to question orders the believe to be ILLEGAL or IMMORAL. ie murdering innocent civilians etc.

No serviceman or woman is expected to blindly follow orders. The Uniform Code of Military Justice States basically that any service personal that follows an ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL Order issued by any superior is just as guilty as the person that gave the order. and Actually anyone that blindly follows an illegal or immoral order will face tougher punishment than the person giving the order because they didn't question the order and just blindly followed it.

I'm not saying the Officer was right in this instance to not report because he was in the wrong. he wasn't ordered by Obama he was ordered by his immediate superior to report for deployment. and he failed to report. Even if he thought the Order was Illegal he still had a duty to report for deployment while he used his chain of command to question the order which he believed was illegal, which he failed to do. honestly he's lucky. the military could have brought much harsher charges against him.

reply to post by awakentired


a conscientious objecter defense doesn't really work these days in the military considering the Military is ALL VOLUNTEER.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Happyfeet

 

Here's a little excerpt from the Oath of Enlistment, an Oath ALL servicepersons VOLUNTARILY TAKE:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

see where it says "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me", wanna know that says?
Its simple: it says you WILL DO AS YOU ARE ORDERED TO.
What you people FAIL time and AGAIN realize, this is a VOLUNTEER MILITARY, there is NO DRAFT, noone FORCED this person or ANY OTHER to enlist. Questioning orders gets people KILLED.
Until you enlist and have served, you dont have ANY VALID ARGUMENT!

I thank God MOST of you who say to question orders NEVER SERVED, if you have, there would be ALOT MORE body bags with our soldiers coming home

edit on 12/14/2010 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)

though its not really worth bringing up as there are only menial differences, THAT is the oath of ENLISTMENT, for ENLISTED personnel. There is a different oath for officers.

Just so you know. People always jack this up.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


I DID serve, and I served with HONOR
NOTHING about his orders were illegal or immoral...

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Mercenary2007

 

I DID serve, and I served with HONOR
NOTHING about his orders were illegal or immoral...

You are absolutely correct, his orders were lawful. He had obligation based on his own signature allowing the military to control/own his life for whatever the time was.

As military you have the right to protect the freedom of others, but you yourself do not have the luxuries of these freedoms. You protect democratic ways but there is no vote you can make.

As military you are told to do this and that, regardless of what this and that is those orders are lawful unless they are a blatant illegal activity. Deploying to a theater to accomplish the job there whichever branch requires is a lawful order and always will be.

Want a unlawful order example? Being told to burn a church, shoot a unarmed civilian, not allowing surrender, etc.

There are rules of engagement, there are sofa agreements, geneva, UFMC, many many rules that clearly state what is a lawful and unlawful activity.

This guy is basically saying that the POTUS is not legally in office, which then passes to the SEC Def, MAJCOM Commander, Wing Commander, Squadron Commander, his desk. He is stating that all people throughout his chain above him is giving an unlawful order, which regardless of your birther belief, he was given the office and therefor having "suspicions" is not a good reason to question the lawfulness of this order.

The Officer in this case needs to be tried under Uniform Code Military Justice through court martial for his refusal to abide by orders. Removed of rank, and fired (he is not enlisted, he can be fired) with no benefits.

This clown is the worst scenario a military can have, rogues in the ranks causing questions of what is lawful or unlawful orders, purely based on speculation and suspicion. Remove him and move on.

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by Somehumanbeing

 

I agree with you. BUT, he is a medical officer not a grunt. It's apples and oranges man.

I would say that, if anything, that adds a level of moral disgrace to it even further. What was he afraid of? That he'd be forced to fire on afghanis? Presumably his job was to care for wounded american and ANA soldiers. Surely he would be doing more good by going to help injured men survive than to play a ridiculous political ploy which he was bound to lose from the start?

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
and you wasted your time posting that as a reply to me. i was bluntly pointing out to Homer that all soldiers have a duty to question orders the believe to be ILLEGAL or IMMORAL. ie murdering innocent civilians etc.

I wouldn’t call posting explanations wasting of anyone’s time. My intent was to help explain some questions we have been debating, I’m sorry you felt singled out.

You wrote, initially, that “no soldier has to follow an order they believe to be illegal or immoral,” with no further qualification, and this is why, in part, I quoted the judge’s opinion in response to your post, because, as the judge wrote, “a soldier’s personal beliefs or convictions are not sufficient to allow that soldier to determine that an order is illegal.”

You have now qualified your statement further by giving an exemple of an action that would qualify as an illegal order — “murdering innocent civilians etc.” That is undoubtedly true and you are correct, but the aforementioned action — murdering civilians — would be a patently illegal order, and an action or order of such nature isn’t in question in regards to the case we are debating here.

For clarification, this is what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says

Inference of lawfulness. 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.

In other words, unless the order is patently illegal, orders in the military are presumed to be lawful. This is in ¶14.c.(2)(a)(i), that can found on page 301, of the Manual for Courts-Martial that, according to wikipedia, contains the current and most up-to-date version of the UCMJ.

More, in ¶14.c.(2)(a)(ii) it goes on to say

Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

I agree in toto with your opinion that even if he thought the orders given to him were illegal — which, clearly, under UCMJ principles, are assumed to be legal unless they are patently illegal — he still had to report for deployment.

Originally posted by Happyfeet

Originally posted by pteridine


It is apparent that you do not understand what comprises a lawful order. Being ordered to deploy is not an unlawful order. Working in a field hospital is not committing a war crime.

Should there be a return to conscription, I hope that you are fortunate enough to enjoy an education in such from a Marine Corps drill instructor. I predict that you will be an attentive, if reluctant, pupil.

And its apparent that you do not understand that one should not give a flying middle finger to a "lawful order." What defines the lawfulness of the order, the fact that its "legal?" Or is it the fact that the order is the right thing to do? By going over there the man is helping a system that is committing war crimes.

Should there be a return to conscription...I will not only be as unamerican as possible by dodging it, but I will help as many other people do the same. If I am forced into service, I will either happily defect with as much intelligence as possible, or get as many officers killed as I possibly can.

Does this make you mad? Of course it does, but consider that you are just another brainwashed, "MERIKA IZ DA FREEST" "1 NATION UNDER GOD KILLING BROWN PPL FOR JEEBUZ" idiot to me.

The "right thing to do" is subjective. When everyone has a different idea of what the right thing to do is, then everyone acts as an individual. This is not a good plan. You obviously have no clue about how a military service operates and are not mentally equipped to learn.
I recommend that you defect now to a better country that is innocent of any wrongdoing. If you do it soon, you can complete your sophomore year with new friends in a new, happier place. I'd recommend North Korea as there are no brown people to kill and no religion. Paradise for you.


Try North Korea.

happyfeet, just LEAVE the USA, you apparently dont like it here, why stay?

It has always been my understanding that each servicemen is accountable for their own actions, whether or not the actions were ordered. It is their individual responsibility to determine which orders are lawful and which orders are un-lawful. Where-in it is unlawful to disobey the chain of command, it seems that the prosecution would have to offer an actual defense in regards to the legality of the orders. Unfortunately, the officer in question may have nullified his chance for a defense by pleading guilty to the first of the two charges. This is a very sad day, condidering the large amount of US servicemen that have recently been tried for following un-lawful orders.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by spacedonk

 

His superiors ordered him deployed, he REFUSED, you dont REFUSE orders, you do as your told
when you question LAWFUL orders, people can get hurt or killed
Being deployed was a LAWFUL ORDER

Explain to me please how an order can be considered "legal" if the commander in chief is acting illegally to begin with?

The invasion of Iraq *was* an illegal war to begin with.

"On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]"

"Iraq war illegal"
news.bbc.co.uk...

Link to UN secruity council resolution PDF's:
www.undemocracy.com...


More to the point:

The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[9] The UN Charter is a treaty *** ratified by the US*** and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” [10]

This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.

Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[9]


[11]

The FACTS are - that there was NO UN resolution authorising the US to use force or invade Iraq!


SO....

Either the US is a PART of the international community..or it isnt...which is it?


Rattified treaties are real and meaningful or they mean di*ck...which is it?

?


Iraq didnt even make an armed attack on the US or US interests which would have at least given this Corporate police action an ounce of credibility!

So... which country is next in line for the US corporate agenda? Who's next to be despised or envied for its natural resources or other comodities and so blithely taken over in another 'illegal war' next time enough fake evidence can be rounded up and spoon fed to an ignorant and fearfull public and a gullible greedy and naive body politic?

What exactly are these men in Iraq for? Given we know full well the ruse to get them all there was a faked up lie - so do people even care anymore about the why? Is it even important to you?

I can tell you that being in Iraq is not to 'defend America' its people, lands, sea or national interests... its simply to enforce transnational coporate interests!

Coporations that _own_ yor politicians and dont give two hoots what happens to the US and view you as "consumers", and your kids as cannon fodder!

The corporate 'market' is not the American people, yet the 'market' has been the ONLY force to dictate real policy on and in Iraq. First it dictaed it to your politicans ..now it dictates it to you!

It remains that there was no *need* for preemptive self defence against Iraq..thats why they had to manufacture threat...to get you to agree to send your kids over there in the first place.

This soldier and his exercise of mind and moral conscience told him this..showed it to him in living color...and his stance should be upheld and celebrated...not punished!!

He is quite possibly one of the bravest people in the world still alive today.

This action against him is an utter disgrace and utlimately, the only people that pay for this..are the decent people of the US who are failing to listen to him.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:

"essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[52]


IOW - To coerce others to murder is *the* greatest crime....and in denying the conscientous objector his rights without punishment, the US is commiting it..willingly or not..only time will tell.



Rosha

Originally posted by Rosha
Explain to me please how an order can be considered "legal" if the commander in chief is acting illegally to begin with?

First, you are assuming Obama was not eligible and is holding office ‘illegally.’ When was this proven? Did I miss something?

Moreover, the orders Lt. Col. Lakin is contesting — deployment — didn’t come from Obama. I’ve cited the ruling of a judge regarding Lt. Col. Lakin’s case, making this point clear. Suspicion or belief alone is not a defense for disobeying orders. The judge I cited above makes this clear as well.

As I’ve posted here, the UCMJ makes clear that unless an order is patently illegal, orders are assumed to be lawful, and the lawfulness (or not) of an order is determined by a military judge.

In United States v. Huet-Vaughn, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, stated that “[t]he duty to disobey an unlawful order applies only to a positive act that constitutes a crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.”

I believe that in several cases, including the aforementioned, and United States v. New, the Court ruled that orders for deployment are nonjusticiable political questions.

All these cases predate Lt. Col. Lakin’s case, so I don’t know who was giving him legal advice, but whoever it was, appears to have given him bad advice.

Then the rest of your post seems to confuse two distinct questions: (1) the legality and legitimacy of orders given to the troops by their superiors — this is a matter of US law alone — and (2) the legality of a particular military action or operation on foreign soil — a matter of international law.

reply to post by Rosha


Before you flap your l;ips, READ THE STORY
He was being deployed to AFGANISTAN, not IRAQ
Fail for trollin

Army 'birther' changes course, says he'd deploy

Under questioning by his defense attorney, Neal Puckett, Lakin expressed remorse for disobeying orders. He said he now understands that the Army cannot answer his question about Obama's eligibility to be president and that it was not the appropriate place to raise the issue.

"I was wrong for trying to push this issue within the Army," he said.

On Wednesday, however, Lakin reversed course, saying he would now deploy even with his question unanswered. Puckett asked him why.

"That's my duty. It's what I've trained for. I'm in the Army," he replied.

"Are we done disobeying orders, Lt. Col. Lakin?" his attorney asked him.

"Yes," Lakin replied.

Lakin explained that he tried for two years to figure out to whom in the Army he could raise his questions about Obama's eligibility but that he was not given guidance what he should do. He acknowledged he used his deployment as a way to raise the issue and that he knew when he disobeyed orders that his "career was over."

www.foxnews.com...

Good, this soldier FINALLY came to his senses!!!
HOOAH!!!

Originally posted by thegoodearth
Army 'birther' changes course, says he'd deploy

Under questioning by his defense attorney, Neal Puckett, Lakin expressed remorse for disobeying orders. He said he now understands that the Army cannot answer his question about Obama's eligibility to be president and that it was not the appropriate place to raise the issue.

"I was wrong for trying to push this issue within the Army," he said.

On Wednesday, however, Lakin reversed course, saying he would now deploy even with his question unanswered. Puckett asked him why.

"That's my duty. It's what I've trained for. I'm in the Army," he replied.

"Are we done disobeying orders, Lt. Col. Lakin?" his attorney asked him.

"Yes," Lakin replied.

Lakin explained that he tried for two years to figure out to whom in the Army he could raise his questions about Obama's eligibility but that he was not given guidance what he should do. He acknowledged he used his deployment as a way to raise the issue and that he knew when he disobeyed orders that his "career was over."

www.foxnews.com...

this is so sad..

' you are property of the state you will not think or act on your own voilition or think through your own actions or obey the voice of your God given conscience...you are a human being in name only, owned by the state, by the megacoporation of transnational bankers and you will obey orders regardless of the cost to your own self or the lives of others...good dog..pat pat'


His DUTY was to protect and defend the constitution of the United States...and to date he is one of very few men actually doing that.....or rather..he was one of the few. His means may have been wrong..but his intention, to QUESTION teh validity of deployment, was spot on.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Rosha

 

Before you flap your l;ips, READ THE STORY
He was being deployed to AFGANISTAN, not IRAQ
Fail for trollin

Fair enough...but its the same war...same lies...same transnational and supranational corporate interests not US national interests being served and they are not YOUR interests....


Why do YOU think you're in Afghanistan?
Why do YOU think you are in Iraq?
WHO are you there serving ?
WHAT are you serving exactly?

How does your answer to those equate to the real job and role of the US military - to protect and defend the constitution? What threat does/did Afghanistan pose or Iraq pose to the US constitution?



Rosha

Originally posted by aptness


Then the rest of your post seems to confuse two distinct questions: (1) the legality and legitimacy of orders given to the troops by their superiors — this is a matter of US law alone — and (2) the legality of a particular military action or operation on foreign soil — a matter of international law.

If the military action is externally illegal to begin with, and so 'from the top down' is therefore a crime being justified and perpetuated internally, how does a convenient set of internal laws derivied by those same perpetrators of the crime 'make it right' ? How is anyone suposed to obey their oath *to the people and the constitution* under those circumstances?

More if international law is not the highest governing body here with the most predominant power of assertion......how can the US then justify its use of international law to validate such military actions especially given it itself will not abide by it? Are you asking everyone to just blindly accept this obvious contradiction?


Where is it written in the oath *this soldier took*, that being a servant of transational interests is part of the duty?
If its there I will stand correct utterly!

If not..then it's just a loaded deck. I do get and take your point but I do wonder how manipulated any military law has become since 9/11 and would question the independance and validity of military tribunals setting preceedent in cases like this.

To me, its like putting a bunch of paedophiles in charge of a kindergarten..( analogus not comparative) ..you know the rules are going to be made to facillitate the wants and needs of those in power, to suit the needs and intention of policy makers ( and those who pressure them), over the reality of the situation and needs of those on the ground.

Yes, he was given wrong and dangerous advice..he went after the man instead of the policy and historically that never works. Had he platformed on Transnational globalist interests governing military policy...well..we'll never know now.

Kissinger...king of global corporatism himself said if the people of the US knew what 'they' ( global corp) were up to, they'd be stringing them up and running their burning bodies through the streets...the saddest thing Ive ever lived to see is that the people DO know....they do....and yet they arent.

The military take the oath...the citizens the pledge of alegience...and both seem to have gone by the wayside and been replaced by convenience, macdonalds, tv and comfort.

So be it.
Its YOUR life.


Rosha

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Rosha
Explain to me please how an order can be considered "legal" if the commander in chief is acting illegally to begin with?

First, you are assuming Obama was not eligible and is holding office ‘illegally.’ When was this proven? Did I miss something?

No...I wasnt addressing that question. I am if anything, assuming that the protection and defence of the constitution of the US is the primary role and authority of the US military - not facilitating corporate agendas.

He lacked legal standing to challenge Obama's Birth Certificate.

Officers and Enlisted have 2 different oaths they swear to when they enlist.

The difference between the oaths is an Officer DOES NOT swear to follow the orders of the President of the United States.

Only Enlisted swear they will follow the orders of the President of the United States. Only an Enlisted person would have legal standing to challenge Obama's Legitimacy as President.

This officer failed to realize this crucial bit and had a poor attorney who didn't even know this bit of legal technicality.

Obama has a Connecticut Social Security number. He was never born there nor never lived there. It was...provided for him.