Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT
I think they want this in court even if it is Military, because no civilian court would hear the case. Now they have forced the issue unless Obama does not want information getting out.
If it is the same legal beagles working these other cases they are clueless as to how the military works. And, not having read Easterling bio previously, I didn't realize how clueless he is as well.
As I have pointed out previously, Easterling has no chance of raising any issues of Obama legitimacy in a court martial. As a Second lieutenant he will never receive a direct order from the President of the United States so he will never have an opportunity to disobey such an order.
Second in times of war any officer can be dismissed from the service by order of the President or the Secretary of Defense acting in his stead. Such a dismissal does not require a hearing or even the specifications of reason.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 59 > § 1161.
Third, there are a number of charges which can be brought that have absolutely nothing to do with obeying or disobeying orders.
Article 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman
2) Nature of offense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer.
There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency,
Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special , or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer, cadet, or midshipman cannot fall without seriously compromising the person’s standing as an officer, cadet, or midshipman or the person’s character as a gentleman. This article prohibits conduct by a commissioned officer, cadet or midshipman which, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is thus compromising. This article includes acts made punishable by any other article, provided these acts amount to conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Thus, a commissioned officer who steals property violates both this article and Article 121. Whenever the offense charged is the same as a specific offense set forth in this Manual, the elements of proof are the same as those set forth in the paragraph which treats that specific offense, with the additional requirement that the act or omission constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
And we haven't even gotten to Article 92, Disobeying a Direct Order
ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
Easterling, unless he's got some cozy Joe the Plumber RNC guaranteed job, needs to tread lightly. With these many cards stacked against him, his battle with Obama makes David and Goliath look like a matched bout.