• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Army officer won’t accept Obama as chief

Petamocto said:
Very surprised that there isn't some sort of clause stating "A Medal of Honor recipient can do whatever he wants forever".

The Congressional Medal of Honor recipient in the story is the commander of the guy who is refusing to go.  The guy refusing to go does not have a CMOH.

http://www.cmohs.org/living-recipients.php?p=3..
 
T2B,

Ahh, thank you.  Once again I have been owned for not paying attention to detail.

Beer for you if you find me in person.
 
Don't buy him one unless you see his birth certificate first.
 
I am waiting to see if this season we have a conscientious objector that refuses a posting to CTC because of no LDA.
 
Officers in particular are supposed to be apolitical. This officer should shut up and deploy or face court martial.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Officers in particular are supposed to be apolitical. This officer should shut up and deploy or face court martial.

Officers are also supposed to follow lawful commands. His point is that any command stemming from an unlawful authority is also unlawful, and he is willing to risk all in order to determine his point. He may ultimately be proven wrong - he may even be a complete loon - but he is at least honourable and has the courage of his convictions, and I can respect that far more than somebody who dodges the question of his legitimacy.

I do not think that he is just being political. This is not the action of somebody being political, it is either the action of a madman or somebody who completely believes in his cause (which could be both).

Would you dismiss those who founded your country as being "political"? They, too, stood up for their convictions.

And it seems to me that facing a court-martial is something that he desires.
 
Once Obama was sworn into office he became Commander in Chief and military personnel must obey a lawful order. Whether Obama meets the constitutional criteria to be President is up to the courts and not a service member. The bible on this is the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice].

Army to court martial 'birther' officer
Posted: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:10 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Security
From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and Mark Murray
U.S. military officials tell NBC News that the U.S. Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from President Obama to be "illegal."

Army doctor Lt. Col. Terry Lakin believes Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be president and commander-in-chief, because he believes (incorrectly) that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

Lakin refused this week to report to Fort Campbell, KY for deployment to Afghanistan, but instead showed up at the Pentagon, where he was confronted by his brigade Commander Col. Gordon Roberts, a Vietnam Medal of Honor recipient.

Lakin was informed by Roberts that he would face court martial, and his Pentagon building pass and government laptop computer were seized.

 
tomahawk6 said:
Once Obama was sworn into office he became Commander in Chief and military personnel must obey a lawful order. Whether Obama meets the constitutional criteria to be President is up to the courts and not a service member. The bible on this is the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice].

...

And, it seems now it will indeed become a matter for the courts because of this Officers action; perhaps that's exactly why he refused to deploy as he did? Because he knows exactly how the UCMJ reads?
 
Several Federal Courts have already ruled against the birthers. LTC Larkin will be tried in military court for failure to follow a lawful order to deploy.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1009/Brutal_ruling_quashes_birthers_suit.html

A federal judge in California has issued a brutal ruling dismissing a closely-watched "birthers'" lawsuit challenging President's Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

In a 30-page ruling issued Thursday morning, Judge David Carter used unusually withering language to throw out the suit prominent birthers' attorney Orly Taitz brought on behalf of a variety of military personnel and some third-party presidential and vice presidential candidates, such as Alan Keyes.

Carter, a Clinton appointee who sits in Orange County, attacked the motives of the military plaintiffs, suggesting they were simple trying to avoid duty in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. "This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve," the judge wrote.

Keyes and the other candidates also got the back of the hand from Carter as he discussed whether any of the plaintiffs could show the individualized harm needed to pursue the suit. "Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter," the judge scoffed.

Ultimately, Carter found that while he might have had power to consider the suit before Obama's inauguration, the court could not do so now.

"There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch," the judge wrote. "There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President....The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts."

The birthers make a variety of claims about Obama, the chief one being that he was born in Kenya and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery, notwithstanding contemporary birth notices in Hawaiian newspapers.

The case Carter dismissed today had garnered considerable publicity, but similar efforts by Taitz and others have been thrown out by a variety of judges, often on similar grounds. One in New Jersey was dismissed just last week. And Taitz is facing $20,000 in sanctions for her actions in another case in Georgia.
 
Tango2Bravo said:
The Congressional Medal of Honor recipient in the story is the commander of the guy who is refusing to go.  The guy refusing to go does not have a CMOH.

http://www.cmohs.org/living-recipients.php?p=3..

Off-topic, but there is no such thing as the Congressional Medal of Honor; its the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor can be awarded by two different methods; one by the relevant military command (most common) or by a member of Congress, hence the mistaken title as the "Congressional Medal of Honor."
 
Petamocto said:
I am waiting to see if this season we have a conscientious objector that refuses a posting to CTC because of no LDA.

These guys are not conscientious objectors; they are wallet objectors !!
 
Career Over and rightly so. You dont get to demand your company commander show his commissioning papers before obeying his orders. You dont walk up to your 1SG and say "Top, I aint gonna do this detail until I see your ANCOC graduation certificate"

The Military doesnt work that way.

One less Tard, Darwin in action
 
Of course the "Birthers" are latching on to a sliver of truth (and trying to grow it). More interestingly is how it is being delt with by the Legacy media and otherwise:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/04/covering-up-the-coverup.html

Covering Up The Cover-Up

The recent NY Times poll and the recent legislation in Arizona have kicked the 'birther' question back into the news, so let's watch how the heirs of Woodward and Bernstein at the Times tackle this:

President Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. A scanned image of his birth certificate released during the 2008 presidential campaign says he was, and Hawaii’s health director and its registrar of vital statistics have confirmed it.

Despite all that, a substantial number of Americans are not convinced.

And away we go, with twenty-one paragraphs that never mention or attempt to illuminate the central issue vexing so many - there is a much more complete record of the circumstances of Obama's birth maintained in at the Hawaii Dept. of Health; they will not release that file to the general public, but will happily release it to a citizen with a "direct and tangible interest in the record", such as President Obama himself.

So why won't Obama just release the darn file?  Is is possible that the most transparent Administration in history is fanning this particular partisan fire for their own ends?  Why don't they end it, or at least make a good-faith attempt to do so?

And since I am asking silly questions, is it possible that the NY Times reporters are unaware that a more complete record exists and is being kept under wraps by Obama?  Why don't they even want to see those records for themselves?  [An example of the old-style Hawaiian birth certificate is here].

I have this old-fashioned notion that reporters like to ask the tough questions and probe for the truth behind the facade.  As if!  Now the earnest Timesman are probably worried about access for their next White House interview and are afraid of what Gibbs might Tweet about them.

Oh, well - our watchdog press did a great job on Joe the Plumber.  They showed no fear their, and boldly spoke truth to the powerless.

MY QUESTION FOR BEN SMITH OF THE POLITICO:

Ben Smith writes this:

I've been avoiding an immigration critic's unsupported claim about Senator Lindsey Graham's sexuality for the usual reason that reporters shouldn't go around repeating such things for fear of abetting a smear campaign. That was the reason many were slow to cover rumors that Barack Obama was a Muslim.

The Muslim smear (and its birth-certificate heir), however, grew so widespread that the another principle, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, kicked in. In the contemporary media age, whispers spread fast.

Hmm.  Would it be a smear to say that there is a more complete record of Obama's birth which Obama could make public if he so chose?  Would Mr. Smith like to bring a bit of sunlight to the question of why the White House has not requested and disseminated those records?  Or should we all just blithely accept the assurances of some Hawaiian state official - is that how the big time journos roll these days?

WELL SAID:  The AllahPundit offered this incomplete taxonomy of birthers and their fellow travelers:

What I will say in the Birthers’ semi-defense is that I think there are actually two camps inside the movement. One is the group that simply wants Obama out of office as soon as possible and has latched onto this thin, exceedingly lame reed as a way of making it happen. The other is a group that’s grown curious about the fact that … no official enforcement mechanism for the Constitution’s natural-born requirement seems to exist, even though it’s a baseline requisite for the presidency.

A commenter provides this supplement:

I would also posit that there are THREE “camps” of thought that get lumped into the “birther” category.

The first two are as [AllahPundit] stated.

The third is where I would put myself – a person:
1) who wonders why it is so difficult for Obama to provide an actual Birth Certificate; and
2) who sees a connection between the lack of details and secrecy regarding Obama’s birth and the lack of details and secrecy about so much else of Obama’s life – his connections to Ayers, his grades in college, the papers he published, the lectures he taught, etc.


I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya or any other place other than Hawaii.

But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama.

Just so.  But our Don't Ask, Don't Tell media would rather demonstrate their high-mindedness by ridiculing anyone who asks about Obama's birth.  And please don't get me started on their shifting stories on Bill Ayers and the whiz-bang media job there.  (David Remnick described Obama's characterization of his relationship with Ayers as "disingenuous" in "The Bridge", his new entrant in the Obama hagiography sweepstakes; he also took the opposite side of Team Obama and the Times in yet another aspect of the Obama/Ayers cover-up.  Out watchdog press is acquiver!).

I can stop anytime.  Really!

So just get on with it, pay the $15 administration fee and put the entire thing to bed.
 
Thucydides said:
So just get on with it, pay the $15 administration fee and put the entire thing to bed.

"Arizona House bill requires Obama to prove citizenship:
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2010/apr/23/arizona-house-bill-requires-obama-to-prove-citizen/
 
Update:

'Birther' colonel's attorney wants charges dismissed

Fort Belvoir, Virginia (CNN) -- Charges against the Army officer who refused deployment to Afghanistan because he says President Barack Obama doesn't have the authority to send him, should be thrown out says his attorney, Paul Jensen.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin went before a military judge -- and a standing-room-only courtroom -- in Virginia on Friday to face three charges of disobeying a lawful order, one count of missing movement (not deploying with his unit) and one count of dereliction of duty.

He did not enter a plea at the arraignment hearing, and Jensen asked to defer any plea until after the court could consider a motion to dismiss the case.

Judge Denise Lind, an Army colonel who was wearing basic camouflage fatigues under her black robes, agreed to the request and gave Lakin's attorneys until August 20 to file a motion to dismiss. Both the prosecution and the defense will then have until August 27 to formulate and send written responses to the motion. Hearings on the motion will follow on September 2 and September 14. Future hearings in the case will be at Fort Meade, Maryland.

If the charges are not dismissed, court martial proceedings will begin on October 13.

...
 
Wednesday, Dec 15, 2010 18:10 ET
Birther Army doctor convicted
The lieutenant colonel who refused orders in protest of President Obama now faces serious prison time

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/15/birther_terrence_lakin_convicted/index.html

A military jury today convicted a Birther Army doctor who refused to deploy to Afghanistan on the grounds that orders from President Obama are illegitimate, a development that marks the full maturation of the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who announced in a YouTube video earlier this year that he would not be deploying to Afghanistan until he got answers about Obama's background, now faces over three years in prison.

More at link.
 
A sad end to a career. Still, the questions upthread are waiting to be answered:

What I will say in the Birthers’ semi-defense is that I think there are actually two camps inside the movement. One is the group that simply wants Obama out of office as soon as possible and has latched onto this thin, exceedingly lame reed as a way of making it happen. The other is a group that’s grown curious about the fact that … no official enforcement mechanism for the Constitution’s natural-born requirement seems to exist, even though it’s a baseline requisite for the presidency.

A commenter provides this supplement:

I would also posit that there are THREE “camps” of thought that get lumped into the “birther” category.

The first two are as [AllahPundit] stated.

The third is where I would put myself – a person:
1) who wonders why it is so difficult for Obama to provide an actual Birth Certificate; and
2) who sees a connection between the lack of details and secrecy regarding Obama’s birth and the lack of details and secrecy about so much else of Obama’s life – his connections to Ayers, his grades in college, the papers he published, the lectures he taught, etc.

So long as that is hanging out there, there will always be people who will attempt to get the answers (and I can imagine there will still be people out there in 2020 asking these questions and going to extremes to find answers). It is too bad the Legacy media was so far in the tank during the primaries and campaign; those questions have been around for quite a long time (and there was a loud silence on things that were open, like then Senator Obama being elected to the Illinois Senate as a candidate for the Socialist "New Party", or the strange case of sealed court documents concerning candidate Obama's opponents suddenly being leaked to the press during the Illinois Senate race.)

The problem with a blank canvas is people will paint what they want to see on it.....
 
Thucydides said:
A sad end to a career. Still, the questions upthread are waiting to be answered:

So long as that is hanging out there, there will always be people who will attempt to get the answers (and I can imagine there will still be people out there in 2020 asking these questions and going to extremes to find answers). It is too bad the Legacy media was so far in the tank during the primaries and campaign; those questions have been around for quite a long time (and there was a loud silence on things that were open, like then Senator Obama being elected to the Illinois Senate as a candidate for the Socialist "New Party", or the strange case of sealed court documents concerning candidate Obama's opponents suddenly being leaked to the press during the Illinois Senate race.)

The problem with a blank canvas is people will paint what they want to see on it.....

It doesn't matter; it is the US of A ... great land of the conspiracy theory. If the above answers were "given", you'd also have a third camp and that would be "those who never accept the answer even if smacked upside the head with it."

These questions don't need to be answered because there are those who will scream "conspiracy" or "fake documentation" regardless.

Witness ... JFK, 911, etc etc etc. This too will now live on and on and on despite anything anyone could do or answer so wasting one's breath trying to provide an answer to an asshat who'd never accept it anyway is pointless --- regardless of those who'd complain about it. There are some people in this world (and the US has lots of them political-wise), who will never be satisfied.
 
Back
Top