1) He'll get his wish of not going, and

he can't be court martialed.

Why? Because the second part of court martial proceedings is discovery.
All Obama has to show is the general certificate,the long form (the one signed by a doctor in a hospital), even if it does exist, is in Kenya. So, Obama's lack of long form means that the light Colonel can't get a fair trial, ergo, he'll be reassigned.

2) He will, however, get a poor fitness report for missing a movement (a MAJOR offense-military equivalent of a class A felony). One poor fitness report, or lack of promotion is the military's way of showing you the door. The question is, how soon will he get the fitness report.

3) Usually, when awaiting this kind of thing, the military will send you to a real shithole, like Greenland, Diego Garcia, or Adak Alaska.

The irony, glossed over, or ignored here, is that if it was a soldier thumbing his nose at Bush, the ACLU would be at his side and the alphabet networks would be nominating him for person of the year. Because he's thumbing his nose at the hero of the ACLU and alphabet networks, he's practically friendless (tea partiers hate Obama, but they back the troops 100% and disobeying orders is not kosher and really frowned upon).

I wish the light Colonel success, but he's got an uphill fight in a rainstorm against hurricane force winds.

 

Somehow I think the dichotomy of the views they hold on abortion and punishment seeem to go over their heads by yards and not inches.

 

Probably. But look at it from his side. If Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, then his presidency is nullified. Part of the job of president is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. All orders all the way down the chain of command are based upon the policy that the Commander in Chief sets. Therefore, if the acting Commander in Chief is not legitimate, then not a single order anywhere in the armed forces is legitimate, including the one telling him to go to Iraq.

That's a big if, but if it's true, then this guy is in the right.

Personally, I think the evidence is too strong that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States. As much as I don't like him, I don't doubt his legitimacy as President.

 

Orwell coined the word for it: doublethink.

 

Not even a topic of discussion. President Obama was certified by the Electoral College, as per the Constitution. Implied in the Electors' mandate is determining eligibility. The Constitution has been satisfied.

Even if the President's mother rose from the grave, got on FoxNEWS and shouted, "Na-Na Na-Na Boo-Boo! We tricked you! Kenya now controls the US!," President Obama will still be the President of the United States - set in stone unless impeached by the Congress.

We have a constitutional system. Regardless of the "truth", the system recognizes President Obama's legitimacy. The individual soldier doesn't have the liberty to cherry-pick parts of the Constitution to obey and parts to ignore.

 

Well, I'm glad to see that your brain is functioning on some basic motor-skill, signal-recognition level, at least.

But there's a problem with your analysis. I could have done this with any president in history. Simply claim that his birth certificate is not legitimate, is a forgery, whatever. Who is to say otherwise? Hell, I could say he's an extraterrestrial humanoid from Alpha Centauri. Or I could say that he's a robot and that his doctors are covering up the fact that he has no pulse. That sort of delusion is not sufficient grounds for me to refuse to obey an order from the Commander-in-Chief or my immediate superior officer.

 

President Arthur was born in Canada to a British father.

 

I heard that!

 

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 2 1884

 

Funny that this was brought up. last night i happened to turn on Bill ORiely, and they were talking about this, and good old Bill explained to the viewers that he had proof that Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on the day he said he was. He want on and explained that he got a copy of the birth announcement from the paper at that time.So he went on to wonder we the birther gang is still pursuing the issue and to find something else to complain about As for LT.COL. Lakin, i dont see this man being court martialed, he will most likely be ask to resign his comission for the good of the service. If he refuses to do this , then let the chips lay were they fall. / Master Chief /dogmeat

 

Explain to me one simple thing, how do you figure the order was illegal. It is very obvious that you have know knowledge of the military at all, when a officer gives you an order you do it, and when the CIC gives you an order it had best been done the day before/Mastre Chief

 

If your claim turns out to be true, then yes it is sufficient grounds. In this particular case, since the claim is already known to be false, then it won't be.


It does amuse me to see so many Americans saying "soldiers must follow orders regardless" and completely forgetting that it was Americans who set up the Nuremberg trials to establish, once and for all and worldwide, that actually no you must NOT and you can be given a death sentence for obeying them.

 

I agree...but there's a big difference between disobeying an order to clean the latrine because you think your Commander-in-Chief is a fraud, and disobeying an order from a superior to, say, burn down a village and massacre the women and children who live there. I have to believe that most soldiers would refuse to carry out such an order.

 

The United States military is very strenuous in educating individual soldiers in regards to the laws of war. However, that education focuses upon the individual conduct of a soldier, they are also trained to obey the chain of command - so long as those lower on the chain of command do not violate general orders concerning individual conduct. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts. In a world of general orders concerning conduct the ethic of obeying the chain of command is necessary for the individual member to identify what is and is not an illegal order.

 

They must be piss-poor at it then. You and we both went to war in Iraq without a legal mandate, and both governments have denied their soldiers the right to refuse orders because of their illegality.

 

Thank you for highlighting the differences between individual conduct and collective conduct. I prefer my military obey civilian authority.

 

Bring our men and women home!

 

Agreed. Yup. Absolutely.

Anyway, Master Chief is probably right, but... I'm not sure, from the couple of stories that I've read (which I posted earlier) that he'll be willing to resign. I think that he's doing this on purpose, to make a statement. The poor schmuck wants a court martial, is seems to me.
Like I said: dumb-ass.

 

The illegal/legal orders is simple to overcome, follow the Geneva Convention. The problem is you will still have to clean the latrines.

You cannot be Courts Martialed for refusing to obey an illegal order. You just have to prove it was illegal.

 

Oh, you can be sent to a courts martial for disobeying an illegal order. You're supposed to follow orders, period (incidentally, the Geneva Convention has no legal weight to soldiers and sailors in the US military. Everything important has been integrated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so that's the only law that matters to military personnel). Even if the Judge Advocate agrees that you received an illegal order, you'll still get some punishment for disobeying orders. They'll simply charge the person who gave the order with whatever made it illegal, after finding that it was.

The UCMJ is rather unforgiving, but there's a good reason for that. You'll notice that we've never had a military uprising in this country, unlike... just about every other nation though history has, at some point. Even before and during the ACW, the officers (and, to a lesser extent, the men) followed orders, resigning their commissions in the Union Army (and Navy) before being commissioned in the Confederate. I mean, if they could figure it out for the Civil War, what's this guy's excuse?