It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Army "birther" pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Army "birther" pleads guilty to 1 of 2 charges


news.yahoo.com

FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questioned President Barack Obama's eligibility for office pleaded guilty Tuesday to one of two charges against him.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty in a military court to a charge that included disobeying orders to meet with a superior and to report to Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Lakin, a 17-year veteran, faces up to 18 months in prison and dismissal from the Army when he is sentenced on that charge.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Lets get something clear: this soldier's guilty of failing to follow orders, not because he questioned the President's birth, but missing a deployment flight.
I agree has EVERY RIGHT to question that, but to fail to follow orders can spell disaster in a military unit.
Its sad this 17 year veteran will probably lose ALL his benefits following a less then honorable discharge, but he deserves it.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 12/14/2010 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   


A military jury will decide Lakin's eventual sentence, but Lakin won't be able to raise the topic he wanted to as part of his original defense: whether Obama was born in the U.S. and therefore can serve as commander in chief. In September, a military judge ruled that whether Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution to hold office is not legally relevant in Lakin's case.


The military decided this had NO BEARING on this case.....
they were correct in this ruling IMHO



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


really, so if satan gave the order just rock on if you are in the military?!? idiot



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


no, the orders were given by his officers
Why do you need to resort to name calling?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by spacedonk
 


no, the orders were given by his officers
Why do you need to resort to name calling?


because you said he was in the wrong for failing to follow orders.

He said he could not bbecause they were not lawfully issued. You said even so, on he should craic. I think this is an idiotic opinion



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


really, so if satan gave the order just rock on if you are in the military?!? idiot


That was the dumbest possible analogy you could've used.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I am having a difficult time wrapping my mind around a
Lt. Col. missing a movement.

I, frankly, haven't heard of such a rank refusing to deploy or missing a movement...

I am shocked by this. What of the troops in his command?

Edit to add- throwing away a certain and decent retirement package seems like lunacy to me, with only a few years left as a senior officer. I can't help but think there is something strange about this.
edit on 14-12-2010 by thegoodearth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

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


So, then we are into a debate about the validity of the chain of command in a society that purports to be democratic. If the grunt gets an order to fire upon his former high school should he comply without question? Or should he consider his actions? If a grunt chooses to consider his options before firing, could this save the life of an innocent home or away?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joehio

Originally posted by spacedonk
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


really, so if satan gave the order just rock on if you are in the military?!? idiot


That was the dumbest possible analogy you could've used.


i agree totally, just frustration. sorry



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Being deployed was a LAWFUL ORDER
It seems to me like that is the point he was hoping to argue, whether or not it was lawful.

I think Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but since he's never really proven this, I can see why some people might question it, and if for some reason he wasn't born in the US and otherwise was ineligible to serve his office, then any deployment orders issued by him might not be lawful. I'm not saying I agree with that position, just pointing out that was supposed to be a case some people wanted to bring to trial for argument, as I understand it.

I think they are trying to get him to show his birth certificate, instead of the certification that was provided.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


A grunt is meant to follow the orders of his superiors. That is his purpose, everything else is just sugar-coating. If someone joins the military and believes they are entering some kind of "let's vote on it
" boyscouts group, that person is wrong. There is a hierarchy that needs to be followed for a unit to function effectively.

A grunt is merely a tool for his superiors, just as his superiors are tools for their superiors, and it goes all the way up. If you question a superiors orders, you are performing an illegal act and will be prosecuted. The army is not like civilian life. In basic they force you to understand that individuality gets you no-where in this environment, it all must function for the group.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Somehumanbeing
 


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



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It seems to me like that is the point he was hoping to argue, whether or not it was lawful.

Couldn’t he have challenged the legality of it without refusing his orders to deploy?

Regarding the actual challenge, I’m unsure about how sound Lt. Col. Lakin’s argument is. If Obama wasn’t President he wouldn’t have been ordered to deploy anyway?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


if you are in the military you sign a contract you have no freedom basically. if you are told to do something you have to do it. if i was in the military and it was an official order to open fire on my old highschool then yes i would do it no questions asked.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
My heart goes out to that guy. He's a real soldier no matter what the rigged courts do with him.

If I were president, I know I sure as hell would do something as simple as demonstrate my birth certificate when the alternative would be locking up a veteran for months. At one time our leaders really did care about our troops, and it wasn't just an empty claim, though that might have been hundreds of years ago.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


I was replying to spacedonk's post about grunts. But yes, the task of a medical officer is different. But the hierarchical structure is the same. The MO has to do what he/she is told, or face the consequences.

Apples and oranges may both taste, look and smell different. But they both roll down-hill. (my attempt at countering your comment hahaha)
edit on 14-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It seems to me like that is the point he was hoping to argue, whether or not it was lawful.

Couldn’t he have challenged the legality of it without refusing his orders to deploy?
I think others have tried, and failed, to challenge it other ways. Therefore he didn't want to repeat the same thing others had done when he knew they had failed.

So I think he was trying a different approach...that of bringing up the issue as part of his defense.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk

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


So, then we are into a debate about the validity of the chain of command in a society that purports to be democratic. If the grunt gets an order to fire upon his former high school should he comply without question? Or should he consider his actions? If a grunt chooses to consider his options before firing, could this save the life of an innocent home or away?


Not sure what you are saying this is about an ELECTED president?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join