Theodore's World

Your right WT. But he has a long roe to hoe. With the attitude of the PC pentagon they are going for the throat on this one. This will make the Court Martial of General Billy Mitchell look like a walk in the park. Amazing how history is repeating itself.

I hope the court martial is the extent of the repeat of history otherwise we are in for a long war.

Also I just heard Obama want to create a medal for 'Courageous Restraint'. You had that post about a week ago, now it becomes a reality. He's going to cut their pay and tell them not to shoot. Why not just give them blanks and a BFA.

One problem, though -- under the law, Lakin is required to obey his orders. Even if it turns out Obama is not qualified to be president, that has no legal bearing on Lakin's guilt or innocence.

That means that the only evidence they'll consider is whether or not he's guilty of "missing movement." And it looks like he is. From a legal point of view, all questions of Obama's eligibility are irrelevant.

I think the poor colonel is being taken advantage of. No good can come to him from this.

There's a vast difference between the oath Enlisted and Officers take. Enlisted swear to obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over them. Officers do not swear to obey the orders of anyone.

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

Mark, I worry about him, he has put his whole career on the line and I just hope he will stay safe. The left have a lot of nut cases.

Big Guy, please read the comment by BobF. He says it better then I could and he is a Veteran.

BobF., thank you so much.

WT, I read Bob's comment, and I checked his link. It's true, the officers' oath doesn't specify taking orders from anyone. It's a pledge to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office." I was an officer in the Army myself.

But what I said in my post is also true. The law on this subject is clear. All military orders are presumed to be legal. The only orders that can and must be disobeyed are those that are clearly illegal on their face, like killing civilians. Even if it turned out that the president took his office by fraud, that is not considered a valid excuse for disobeying an otherwise legal order.

I know it sounds odd; I was surprised to learn of it myself. But look it up, it's called the "de facto officer doctrine," and it's definitely the law. Before encouraging anyone in the military to disobey their orders, please check this out carefully. We owe it to our men and women in the service to give them straight talk.

BigGuy, thanks I appreciate it. I agree BigGuy we must never encourage our military to disobey orders, and honestly this is not being done at least not by myself or anyone at this blog.

Thank you so much for your input on this.

Thanks, WT. I guess what concerns me are comments like this:

"Lakin is a true patriot that understands his oath. Hopefully his courage will spark a fire among his peers."

To me, that sounds like you're saying that his oath requires him to disobey his orders, and you're hoping that his peers will do the same.
If they do, they are violating the law and will probably be punished.

Don't you think that characterizing illegal activity as patriotic and courageous could be seen as encouraging law-breaking?

BigGuy, I have to move on from this discussion not because I don't like it but I can't keep coming back to it. You and I see it differently but actually the same.

I would never tell a service member to go against their orders unless of course they would one day be told to drawn on we the people which could occur with the way things are going in our country since Obama got in power. If that ever happens you bet I would beg and debate to please don't shoot me because I speak out against Obama's agenda. haha Yikes

Lakin in my opinion is a true patriot just as all that serve in our military are. Just the fact that they enlisted and want to serve our country makes them far above any non serving citizen in my opinion as to being a true patriot.

When I said "understands his oath".....he does. He gets it and Obama hates to his core what our Constitution stands for and Obama has yet to honor his own oath regarding our Constitution. Add to that if Obama is in power illegally without being qualified according to the Constitution all bills signed, all R.O.E.s given would be null and void. Obama would be a fake pretending to be President and CIC. If a fake gave me orders I would laugh it off our troops do not, they can't because it is not established in a court or by a Judge that Obama has to step down and or is in office illegally due to his not being qualified, that is what I pray happens that the truth is exposed and set in place. Obama continues to fight this costing up to almost 3 Million dollars.
There are many in the military service that agree with Lakin and feel the same way. Lakin on his own has chosen to take a stand and I admire his decision and in no way would I ever discourage him from his strong beliefs and how seriously he has take his oath regarding our Constitution.
That does not mean that hundreds of thousands of others in the military do not "understands his oath" as I put it. They do as well, there is just a difference in what Lakin is willing to do and what they feel is not a good idea for them individually. I respect those not doing this as well, they are all patriots and warriors as well.

The rest of what I said "Hopefully his courage will spark a fire among his peers"....yes I said that and I don't have the quote handy but someone well known but it has to do with those that lead the way and take a stand on things vs. those that join in later. The quote does not put down those joining in after the fact, but it holds those taking the stand at the get go as leaders and how they through history have made the biggest difference in the world. There is a difference in those that lead the way, then those joining in later.
I am not "encouraging law-breaking" as you said by anyone and not Lakin either. It is more of appreciation of a man that is leading the way on something I feel passionate about and I give him my support emotionally and at my blog. It in no way lessons my passionate and consistent support of all of our troops and Veterans.

I hope this helps BigGuy. I appreciate your kindness in this discussion.

WT, I too appreciate your kindness. There's no excuse for the kind of insults and name-calling we often see in these discussions.

One area where we clearly disagree is where you say that "if Obama is in power illegally without being qualified according to the Constitution all bills signed, all R.O.E.s given would be null and void."

That's simply not true. That's why I referred to the "de facto officer doctrine" above. As much as what you say may seem like common sense, it's not what the law says.

Please, look it up. The "de facto officer doctrine" exists specifically for situations like this.

It is true that if a member of our military is ordered to fire upon innocent civilians, he or she can -- in fact, must -- disobey that order. That would be a clearly illegal order. On the other hand, an order that would otherwise be legal, like a deployment order, does not become illegal by virtue of a claim that the president is in office illegally, even if that claim turns out to be true. Please ask around -- I don't think you'll find a single military lawyer who will tell you anything different.

That's why I'm hoping you will be clear to your readers about that. If the president is in power illegally he should be impeached -- that's the remedy according to our Constitution. If he committed crimes to get there, he should be prosecuted and punished -- that's the remedy according to our legal system.

But members of the military disobeying orders based on the belief that the president is there illegally -- even if the belief is correct! -- is not a legal remedy. It is a violation of our Constitution and our laws, and as such it is a crime that deserves to be punished. I hope that those who love our Constitution will respect it even if it doesn't always say what we wish it said.