Vatic Note: Ok, just one more. If this can be finalized through the courts, its the one greatest chance we have of overturning all of it and immediately. It frees everyone up to do their jobs that were either being blackmailed, threatened or otherwise controlled. Thus can begin the immediately reclamation of our great nation and make it what it used to be. No more torture, rendition, wars, criminal mass theft of the nations wealth, the destruction INTENTIONALLY by Greenspan, Bernanke, Summers, and Geithner of our economy, currency and financial systems. It all goes away. Let push for this since its the least dangerous way for us to reclaim our nation.
US State Dept Confirms: Obama “NOT” a US Citizen Prior to & in 1968; UPDATE: Important historical find
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/us-state-dept-confirms-obama-not-a-us-citizen-prior-to-in-1968/
Posted by constitutionallyspeaking on September 24, 2010
ALL UPDATES WILL APPEAR AFTER THE INTIAL ARTICLE
Not that our elected officials who refused to do their job in the fall of 2008 before the election and everyday since then will do anything, but these official documents from Obama’s mothers passport files are proof positive that Obama was ”NOT” a US citizen prior to & in 1968. Even after an order from a federal judge, the US State Dept is still withholding all of Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records prior to this 1968 renewal she submitted at the Jakarta, Indonesia consular’s office. So the question begs to be answered…
Where is the affidavit of Obama’s foreign citiznship that was submitted with this application & when did Obama or his mother formally renounce this foreign citizenship that has now been verified by the US State Dept? Where are those records?
pic - sads_sig_declare_4
Support Lt Col Terry Lakin
pic - ltcolterrylakin
September 28th is the next hearing date for discovery. Thus far it has been denied because it just might “embarrass” Obama. Read all about the Obama administrations abuse of this highly decorated active military doctor who has served in 2 wars & is still packed & ready to go if only the commander in thief would pony up his papers. Just as every other member of the military has to do prior to each & every deployment.
March 30, 2010
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer’s oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and “natural born” status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity–the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician’s or midwife’s name that should lay to rest the “natural born” dispute.
In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his “natural born” status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.
I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.
Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm’s way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.
Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.
Respectfully,
// Terry Lakin
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
37 comments:
Obama was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows, and the facts on it were confirmed by the officials and governor of Hawaii.
Every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
'September 28th is the next hearing date for discovery. Thus far it has been denied because it just might “embarrass” Obama.'
__
That was yesterday and the judge reinforced her ruling that there will be no discovery with regard to Obama's eligibility.
However, the claim that it has anything to do with '"embarrass[ing]" Obama' is simply false. You can read her entire ruling at http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lakin-ruling.pdf
Everything you have said could be true IF HE WERE BORN IN HAWAII, but he wasn't and that was not the birth certificate, it was like registratin of a birth certificate that can be filed by anyone for someone born overseas. Further even that registration was bogus as determined by a forensic investigator. It was a forgery because it was missing the signature of the certifier and the seal was also missing.
Further a real copy of his real certificate was obtained from Kenya where he was born and is thus a british citizen at time of birth, was placed before a grand jury who then determined that the case should go to trial for evidentiary hearings before a jury to determine innocence or guilt. What is interesting is the amount of money Obama has spent avoiding showing all documents that could put this all to rest like the other candidates questioned about their being born overseas like McCain who was born in panama.
Because he was born in Panama of TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS his process of naturalizing was simpler than Obama's who only had one American parent while the other was British. So you see, he had to go through additional steps to become natural born in order to qualify to run for president. He did not.
In fact his mothers documents show he was not an American, rather an indonesian when he traveled with her. He never renounced his indonesian citizenship from his previous step father, and thus even if born in Hawaii, he still had problems definition-wise. It may explain why he is able to do what he does to Americans and America with no feelings of guilt or remorse. Obama used a british passport back in the early 80's to enter pakistan since the state dept would not approve any passports for Americans to travel to pakistan.
There is obviously, from your writings, a lot you do not know. Its also obvious what you do know was fed to you by the neolibs to cover up what is the truth. I am afraid that very fact that some americans buy into the propoganda, disinformation and lying, is the very reason we are dying as a country.
JFK said it well, "The ignorance of one voter, imperils the security of all voters". Please educate yourself and provide proof that all of this is true that you say.
@Vatic:
"it was like registratin of a birth certificate that can be filed by anyone for someone born overseas."
__
Not true. Hawaii says: "Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth." (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)
__
"that registration was bogus as determined by a forensic investigator."
__
I believe that's false too. Would you please name the "forensic investigator"?
__
"It was a forgery because it was missing the signature of the certifier and the seal was also missing."
__
Not true. The photographs clearly show a signature stamp and a raised seal.
__
"a real copy of his real certificate was obtained from Kenya where he was born"
__
More than one purported Kenyan birth certificate has surfaced. Would you tell us please which one you think is real?
__
"...was placed before a grand jury..."
__
Are you speaking of a legitimate grand jury, convened by a court? Can you provide some documentation please?
__
"state dept would not approve any passports for Americans to travel to pakistan."
__
No, State Department records clearly show that was not the case.
I would very much appreciate any clarification you could give on the above matters.
anonymous on Larkin, I am genuinely sorry to hear that, but then again what did we expect. For the past 3 years or so every obstacle has been put in the way to prevent the truth from coming out and you would suspect that would be the case with military controlled by a commander in chief is may well be a foreign agent and certainly would not want that out there.
I would have been more shocked if they had given him what he asked for. That doesn't mean he should not appeal to a civil court on the grounds that the evidence for the case rests in the hands of these peoples boss and is unlikely going to allow him to get a fair trial.
Civil courts will hear them if they believe that will happen.
Anonymous on the live birth...
YOU FIRST. Your the one disputing the article, so you provide your evidence against the article first. The long form birth certificate is what you say you have seen, so produce it. Thanks I am sure all of us would love to see it, since no one has admitted to having access to the long one filed with Hawaii.
The only one they will allow out is the registration of that long form, and Obama has refused to show us the long form, so you first. You do that then I will jump through your other hoops, but you have to jump first.
"The long form birth certificate is what you say you have seen, so produce it."
__
No, that's not at all what I said. Read it again.
What I said was that a Certification of Live Birth is not a "registratin of a birth certificate." It is an actual birth certificate, the only type of birth certificate that the State of Hawaii has issued since 2001, and it is full legal proof of when and where someone was born. COLBs are used every day in Hawaii to obtain passports, drivers' licenses, and anything else for which an official government birth record is required.
That's why I quoted the official Hawaii web page that says, "Certifications of Live Birth ... are official government records documenting an individual’s birth."
Don't you wonder why no one has yet stepped up and actually shown a COLB issued by the State of Hawaii that states incorrectly that a foreign-born person was born there? For a while it was claimed that Obama's sister, Maya, has one although she was born in Indonesia. But it never surfaced, and finally it had to be conceded that it doesn't exist, based on index data released by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Now will you answer my questions?
(from "anonymous on Larkin"[sic])
Vatic, did you read the judge's ruling that I gave the link for? Not only does it not say that the denial of discovery has anything to do with embarrassing Obama, it also makes it very clear why discovery was denied.
The reason is that, according to military law, the subject of Obama's eligibility is irrelevant to the question of Lakin's guilt. Here's a brief excerpt, but I really suggest you read the whole thing:
"The Secretary of the Army has promulgated numerous Army Regulations ... These Army Regulations provide an independent authority for military officers to issue lawful orders ... Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any alwful order ceases to exist if a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law. Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution toi hold office, service-members have no duty to follow orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous."
It seems very unlikely that a civilian court would rule differently with regard to these military matters.
Wow, we are alike, neither one of us can read. LOL I said the following:
"The long form birth certificate is what you say you have seen, so produce it." I do not see the certified copy of that certificate you were suppose to provide. If you need to email it to me at vatic2010@gmail.com and that will suffice for me to then go through the work of producing all the proofs that I have.
Also you did not dispute anything the article said either nor prove what he said was not true, so please do that while you are at it. You first my friend and me second.
Vatic, what are you talking about? I never said that I saw a "long form birth certificate," so why are you claiming I did? And how can I show it to you if I've never seen it?
Ok, so now we are in agreement that no one has seen this so called legit birthcertificate you say you saw or did not see??? Which ever, now you admit you never saw it. So, until someone shows me a certified copy of a live birth certificate then this discusssion is moot. Even Obama's wife said he was born in Kenya right on TV in front of everyone and you ahve seen that yourself and know she did that.
So, until things are disproved, then this article stands.
I forgot to mention to you that I was worse as far as being tough on Bush than I am on Obama. At least Obama doesn't say that the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper". He just steps on it like Bush did..... but he doesn 't rub our face in it.
Look, I have to do my daily summary now for the blog, will try to get back later and deal with this, but what you gave proves this could in fact go before a civil court and have a real good chance of making it. International law treaties that we signed override army regulations. "LAWFUL ORDERS" are just that. Lawful. If, "BY FRAUD" someone committed a crime such as becming president under fraudulent conditions than all orders are unlawful. Hello??? LOL But I will deal with it later, but that will be the basis of what I intend to point out here.
At the time of Obama's birth, Hawaii was issuing those certs of live birth to babies that were foreign born. He needs to show the long form to prove anything. And besides, there have been three different copies of the probably phony cert of live birth floating around on the internet.
@BryanD: "At the time of Obama's birth, Hawaii was issuing those certs of live birth to babies that were foreign born."
__
Remember what Janice Okubo, director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said on that subject: "If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate."
As I said earlier, if you are right, it should be simple enough to prove your point. Where are all those COLBs saying that people were born in the State of Hawaii who were in fact born someplace else? Don't you think, since this issue came up over two years ago, that someone would have come up with at least one? And if Hawaiian procedures allow that to happen, don't you think some current or former Hawaiian official would say so?
Check the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Official state documents are considered self-authenticating and are prima facie evidence in any court of law.
Bryan, what do you mean when you say "there have been three different copies of the ... cert of live birth floating around on the internet"?
These are computer-generated forms from the Hawaii Department of Health; I suppose it's possible that there are multiple copies of it.
But what are you saying? Do they contain different information from each other? Can you tell us please where we can find these three distinct documents?
MAJOR NEWS CONCERNING LTC LAKIN:
LTC Terry Lakin has hired a new law firm to defend him. It is a well known, reputable firm, and will probably adopt a very different legal strategy.
Anonymous, thanks for the update on Larkin and I believe it was a good move too. At least these attorneys would know that since the Commander and chief and boss of the judges is also a major factor in the case, that there is a good possibility this would have to go to civil court to get unbiased judges except those paid off by the international bankers. lol
Keep us updated on the case will ya? I am very much interested as you can see I did this blog a long time ago as it proved there is a serious affect on the serving men and women as to following "legal" orders per the Nuremberg trials.
Well, Vatic, it will be interesting to see what happens. But I doubt very much that the new lawyers will see it as you do.
What is rumored to be the new law firm (Puckett & Faraj) is a top-of-the-line team specializing in military cases. There is no doubt in my mind that they are able to give him the best defense possible under the law.
But they are also a reputable, mainstream firm; and the opinion has been unanimous among reputable, mainstream military lawyers that the President's eligibility is absolutely not a factor in this case (with the possible exception of the sentencing phase) and that it's foolhardy to pretend that it is. It's pretty clear that switching law firms means he's abandoning the birther defense.
What's less clear is how far he'll go in repudiating it. His best hope now is for a plea bargain, and the Army has little incentive to give him one, as they've got an open-and-shut case. He may be tempted to say that he was led astray by some of those who counseled him, a move not likely to be welcomed by the birther community.
(It's interesting, though. I know you've expressed an interest in seeing this case go to a civil court, and if it should happen that LTC Lakin sues his previous counsel, Mr. Jensen, for bad advice, that suit would take place in a civil court.)
If you like, I will continue to keep you informed. I should tell you that my information comes entirely from public internet sources, I'm not privy to any inside information.
Why isn't that important? If he is not the President because he lied and committed fraud, that is also a felony crime and he is giving orders to military that can cause death and destruction and he is not even an American????
Something is seriously wrong with the system if that is the case. Maybe it should all come down and start over again.
Regarding Songbird McCain, he wasn't born in Panama. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which, at the time, was an American territory. The law as it applies to him was the same one that applied to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater was born in Arizona while Arizona was still an American territory. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed his American citizenship.
The two cases are not identical, as the Panama Canal Zone never became a U.S. state. The Goldwater case does, however, support Wetstart McCain's case.
Hey, Vatic, how do you expect me to keep you updated if you're not going to approve my posts?
Anonymous, I have approved all posts that have come through, please try again or email the post to me at vatic2010@gmail.com and I will put it up myself. I only disapprove spam or blatant racism.
Is there any way you can check to see if it's around somewhere? I sent it in response to yours of 10:00 PM last night, probably within a half hour of your posting, and I didn't keep a copy of it.
I can try to recreate it, but I hope you can find the original.
Thanks.
The way the system works I would have received it and responded right away like I did with this one. There is no place to put it, I only have three options and one is approve, spam, or disapprove. I did not get it at all. So please send it again only this time send it by my email vatic2010@gmail.com.
thanks
You asked if I was saying "Can you honestly say that any soldier who, for whatever reasons, doubts the legitimacy of the President, whoever that may be at the time, should simply feel free to disobey orders until the President proves his legitimacy to his or her satisfaction"
Of course not. That is why I favor him being before a court that is fair. The court and jury determine the facts and the law. As for willy nilly not following orders, I never said that. In fact, I made it clear that the "law" is "No military man has to follow 'ILLEGAL' orders and that is the law. Whether you like it or not, its the law of the globe, not just of this land.
Why do you think the oath was changed to say ".....and to follow all "legal" orders". That was because of the nuremberg trials.
What I do expect is for our military to act in accordance with their oaths and to do so in good conscience. In other words, like Larkin, to follow principles even at a cost to himself and his family. I would do it because without people like that this nation would have gone down a long time ago.
Now we do not have a nation of principled people who understand what it will be like to live in a dictatorship, but they will soon and if our military is on the side of a foreign dictator, then we are doomed. We then will have to face the military right along with the foreign enemy that controls our government.
@Vatic -- "Of course not. That is why I favor him being before a court that is fair."
__
But I don't understand that. He already disobeyed his orders, and it would take some time for any court to rule. Are you saying that it's all right for him to disobey his orders while he's waiting for the court's decision? Isn't that just the kind of anarchy I was asking about?
Once more I ask you to read Judge Lind's decision. She clearly distinguished between the Nuremberg precedent you speak of and the current situation. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an order is illegal if it is an order to perform an illegal act, like those of which the Nuremberg defendants were accused. The things that LTC Lakin was ordered to do -- like reporting to the office of his commanding officer -- were clearly not illegal and therefore he had to obey the orders.
Again, you will not find a single military lawyer who will tell you anything different.
Here is the balance of my comments.
You say that his defense was illegitimate but you dont' say why you believe that, so let me tell you why I believe its legitimate.
First of all, he took an oath that he has to abide by. Second of all the congress did not declare war on Afghanistan, rather it declared war on terror and bogusly on Iraq, and then it was not by the process it was suppose to be done.
Third of all the President WHO IS COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the United States Military, is an illegally elected president as a foreign national with a foreign countries interests above that of the US which is against the US constitution, but more importantly High treason.
If he gives an illegal order to invade a nation that congress did not authorize, then larkin is obligated by his oath to ignore that order. Its simple and legal reasoning. However, more & more of our people buy anything the press tells them to think and they don't use their heads anymore. Maybe that was not the right lawyer for him to have... I definitely agree with that, but it was the right argument for innocence and I don't care what the traitors on that court said, the law is clear to even the most ignorant.
Rationalizing the law away does not make it disappear for anyone. Sorry. German and Spain and Greece and Iceland have all rioted in their countries over a lot less than what we have going here with an illegitimate president and foreign occupation of our government in the persons of Obama, Leiberscum and Rahm and Levin.
Are we doing anything about it? NO, but Larkin tried, God bless him for that. To me he is a true American hero for trying.
Final comment since these ran pretty long. Sorry.
Larkin is a bell weather for us. Its like the song bird in a mine. What happens to him indicates the downward spiral of our free nation and loss of all our liberties and our final condition as slaves for a satanic elite cabal that is international with no loyalty to any nation only loyal to their class internationally.
If you saw the waiting list of articles I have going up and the slow steady implimentation of the dismantling of this nation, you would croak, but you will croak soon as they complete their task. Legislation is in right now INTRODUCED BY THE ISRAELI SENATOR LIEBERSCUM THAT WOULD ALLOW A LIFE SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE WHO PROMOTES THE 9-11 THEORY THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OFFICIAL VERSION.
and you think that is ok??? It starts with violating the law and perversion of justice with Larking and moves into full dictatorship with this foreign occupying senator introducing that BOR gutting piece of legislation.
What Larkin has done is draw attention to just how really bad this has gotten and he has and will pay a dear price for that because there is no justice as we know it in this nation any longer. Its gone. We are now a third world dictatorship with a fascist structure in place.
@Vatic -- "If he gives an illegal order to invade a nation that congress did not authorize, then larkin is obligated by his oath to ignore that order. Its simple and legal reasoning."
__
He was ordered by his commanding officer, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, to appear for a meeting in his office. Col. Roberts, by the way, received the Medal of Honor at age 19 and is currently the only Medal of Honor recipient on active duty.
As he admits in a recent court filing, he disobeyed the order and failed to show up for that meeting.
Please explain, why was that an illegal order?
it was my understanding that his order was to show up for deployment to Afghanistan and he refused and that is why he was being charged. if that is incorrect, please provide proof of the charges that were filed against him showing it was not for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan.
I suspect that was why he did not show up at his commanding officers call since it was probably to send him to Afghanistan. But if I am wrong about that, I would be happy to say so. However, it may well be that any order from a foreign fraudulently placed president's chain of command would fit within that same legal structure.
@Vatic -- "if that is incorrect, please provide proof of the charges that were filed against him showing it was not for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan."
__
Certainly. All the charges against LTC Lakin can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/30359983/LTC-LAKIN-CHARGED-Chargesheet-apf-14-chargesheet.
The one I specifically asked about is Charge II, Specification 1:
"In that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin, US Army, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Lieutenant Colonel William Judd, to report to the office of his Brigade Commander, Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, at 1345 hours, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, at or near Arlington, Virginia, on or about 31 March 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed."
Now, you were the one who raised the Nuremberg precedent, saying that LTC Lakin was not obligated to follow illegal orders, and I'm asking you to explain to me what was illegal about the order to report to COL Roberts's office.
obama is not an american. he is a kenyan. he was tried and convicted along with cambridge university for treason by a constitutional grand jury.A BLACK MAN---REVEREND DAVID MANNING FORMED THE GRAND JURY. YOU SHILLS NEED TO QUIT LYING. END OF STORY.
Anonymous, you are right, he was born in Kenya, which at the time he was born, kenya was a British colony. Thus he was and is a british subject, and in addition his mother is part Jewish and by the Law in Israel the mother carries with her for the son, a full Israeli citizenship, so he is also an Israel subject, which is as bad as being british.
Now add to that, he was also Indonesian, by his step father, and he never rescinded that citizenship either. Both Britian and Israel allow dual citizenship, where the US does not. And for good reason, as we can now see.
Ok, now its splitting hairs, he knew what it was about. He was told to "report" to go to Afghanistan to that person you mentioned and that is why he refused.
It was an illegal order. Its an illegal war and he was ordered to go to war by an illegally seated president as commander in chief. And that is that.... dress it up anyway you wish, its done.
@Vatic --
Well, I guess you can see the point I was making now. Lakin was in a position where his only defense was to claim that being ordered to his commanding officer's office was an illegal order based on what he presumed COL Roberts was going to tell him. Unfortunately for him, under the Nuremberg precedents, illegal orders are orders to do something illegal. Going to your brigade commander's office is never an illegal act, so such a defense is on its face invalid, and that's just what the judge ruled. (Have you read the ruling yet?)
(Oh, and by the way, Lakin's never said a single word about the war in Afghanistan being illegal, and no surprise about that -- he accepted a deployment there in the past.)
So, while you are safe espousing those theories on your blog, LTC Lakin finally came to realize the folly of trying to use them in a real courtroom. You've got nothing to lose; he's got his career, his pension, and possibly his freedom. He seems to understand now the price he's going to pay for listening to those who egged him on -- at no risk to themselves.
Well, I guess you can't read..... lol I do NOT see the point you were making which was bogus and flimsy at best. He refused to go through the process of being shipped to afghanistan and that is that... period and thus fits with the definition under nuremberg since all wars we are in are war crimes anyway.
Here is the good news. Everyone under the sun knows exactly what this is really all about except Zionists and neocons (no difference) and they understand what I am saying but none the less, its moot, the criminal treasonous Israeli controlled military has made up their mind they cannot afford to have him get away with doing the right thing or others will follow suit.
Simple, we just had a military coup, like some second rate tin pot dictatorship. Thats fine, it makes everything that we will have to do a lot easier and with a lot less angst.
Post a Comment