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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

What other ways are there to challenge the legality of something other than in a court? What “other ways” were tried? I’m curious.

Now, if IIRC, there were several cases thrown out because people challenging Obama’s legitimacy were ruled to have lacked standing. I can reasonably understand why someone, being an active duty soldier, would think they have standing where others didn’t, but it’s implicit that when you are challenging something that something is what currently stands, otherwise you wouldn’t need to challenge it. If his lawsuit was never decided, or wasn’t decided in his favor, what made him think that he could disobey the very same orders he was challenging?




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


A medical officer takes the same oath as the ground pounders. the people that gave him the orders did so lawfully. He was ordered to deploy. If he had a problem, he could have resigned his comission. This was a contrived situation so he could challenge Obama's eligibility in a court. Unfortunately, he went to med school, not law school.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 
You answered your own question, others didn't have legal standing.

The soldier thought failing to follow orders might give him standing others lacked, to bring up the issue in his defense. Then of course if Obama had provided his birth certificate during the trial, the soldier is automatically guilty, because that would show the orders from the president are lawful.

Some snippets from the OP article:


Lakin, a flight surgeon, says in the videos that any reasonable person looking at available evidence would have questions about Obama's eligibility to be president and that he had "no choice" but to disobey orders. He said he would "gladly deploy" if Obama's original birth certificate were released and proved authentic.

Officials in Hawaii say they have seen and verified Obama's original 1961 birth certificate, which is on record with that state. But birthers have not been satisfied with that assurance or the "Certification of Live Birth" Obama has released. The certification is a digital document that is a record of a person's birth in the state, but the certificate does not list the name of the hospital where Obama's mother gave birth or the physician who delivered him....

During the morning portion of the trial, Lakin said he had gone to a chapel and done some soul-searching about whether to disobey orders.

"I believe there is a valid question that needs to be asked and answered," he said, referring to Obama's eligibility to be president.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:21 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 if the shoe fits....

"Go execute those little kids"

"I was just following orders"

Screw the stupid people who commit war crimes in the name of following an order. You have every right to question orders from anyone, just because you are in the military doesn't mean you forfeit the right to think for yourself, if that is the case of the military however, then the military needs to change.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You answered your own question, others didn't have legal standing.

Is there any indication that he has? Either before or after not following orders? So he gambled, basically, is that it?


The soldier thought failing to follow orders might give him standing others lacked, to bring up the issue in his defense.

I’m glad he isn’t challenging a murder penalty law, otherwise he might have, under this rationale, to murder someone in order to have standing to challenge it.

It makes perfect sense!



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Happyfeet

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 if the shoe fits....

"Go execute those little kids"

"I was just following orders"

Screw the stupid people who commit war crimes in the name of following an order. You have every right to question orders from anyone, just because you are in the military doesn't mean you forfeit the right to think for yourself, if that is the case of the military however, then the military needs to change.


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.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
So what have we learned here?

1. If you are in the military, you are a slave. The only time you will be told that you should disobey any order is when you are being court martialed for obeying an order.

2. President Obama would rather see an 18 year Army veteran's career ruined than expose his secrets.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
So he gambled, basically, is that it?

I'm not trying to say what he did was right.

I'm just explaining why he did what he did from his perspective. Yes it was a gamble and it looks like he may pay the price for losing by spending time locked up, though if he intended to defend himself, I'm not quite sure why he plead guilty?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kurotachi
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.


Don't you also follow on oath to uphold the constitution??
Which would mean firing on your old school would be illegal as it's on home land..
But that and many other issues aside..

Thank God all soldiers don't think like you....



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
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)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 



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.


But note what comes first..
If you believe the constitution has been breached then the first part of the oath is saying that's your first concern..

Also, he obviously believes Obama is ineligible to be president and therefore is NOT his Chief...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Happyfeet
 

The order was get on a plane and deploy, what was unklawful about that?
Apparently you never served



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


The order might have entirely been "lawful" It doesn't make it right. I believe that since this guy is a birther though his argument goes something like this...

The president has only verified to politicians that his birth certificate is valid. There have been photoshoped birth certificates, thus raising questions. If the president were indeed not born in Hawaii, then he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to become president of the US. Because the evidence is being suppressed, there is reason to believe that the president did not issue lawful orders because he is not even the president of the US legally.

As to questioning whether or not I served, I came very close at age 18, but I knew enough about 9/11 to decide not to go to Afghanistan with the rest of the guys from my church at the time. 7 guys signed up, I became an outcast at that church for being a "pussy." 4 guys died in Iraq, 2 killed themselves, one is a brain damaged drunk that swears against what he did. None of those guys preserved any freedom.

I thought about my actions and what the consequences would be, I decided not to work for a lying government. 8 years later I am senile and alive, I feel I made the right choice.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Happyfeet
 


I'm glad you didnt serve, your questioning orders would probably gotten your squad killed



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Part of your military oath says you swear to protect the people from an illegal or injust government.

I hope those who break this oath are punished much more severely



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
If IIRC in a few opinions of the several cases that were thrown out challenging Obama’s eligibility that preceded this incident, the judges wrote in their opinions that, only Congress has the power to remove a sitting President.

I wonder if those seeking to challenge the President’s eligibility, or giving legal advice to people like Lt. Col. Lakin, have no knowledge of this point and opinions, or, not agreeing with it, decided to give it a shot anyway.

In any case it’s certainly foolish that someone would risk, or let risk, their career and pension after this point being raised by judges in cases seeking to challenge what Mr. Lakin was trying to. If it stands, then it renders the disobeying of orders completely irrelevant to the question of standing, and the only difference is that Mr. Lakin will now most likely be dishonorably discharged and probably even serve some time, because, whether he had disobeyed orders or not, he had exactly the same standing: none.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
UGGG! Where are his comrades in our glorious military? He is making a stand for the rest of us and giving up everything he has worked for and I am sure proud of.

It is a shame, we have nothing but cowards that mindlessly follow what ever they are told. Right or wrong, makes no difference, they just go along with it. This man should have had Generals fighting for his right to question, he is not just some gunny. If he felt this strongly about this, I would have hoped that it would have raised some concern among others. It is a sham.

I am ashamed of what has become of this country and our military. I use to be one who would always stand behind our troops, Not anymore! Most of them would round up their mother if they were told to.
edit on 12/14/10 by xyankee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


did you serve in the Military Homer?

I hope to god you didn't serve because you fail to remember one fact.

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.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
he failed in the analysis of the fundamentals of conscientious objection to the war in itself. His religious beliefs could sustain the killing on enemies of the kingdom, yet if there is confusion on whether the kingdom is led by a rightful ruler then his religious beliefs would sustain a conscientious objection. God supposedly blesses the rulers. If the ruler is smuggled into power then he is illegitimate and therefore his orders are superfluous.

Checkmate



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join