U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:33 PM
 
29,931 posts, read 15,264,016 times
Reputation: 15656

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The officer responsible wasn't questioned before or during the acts. Hmmm.... No wonder you don't like it to be brought up.
Yeah, I have this weird affliction where I think casually throwing around a crime costing the lives of hundreds of innocents to make a point (and a really stupid point, too) is a bit on the tasteless side. Ethics, such a burden.

Did you ever get around actually answering the question? It's not a trick or anything. Let's try another angle: Why is it illegal to obey an order to fire on civilians? I'll provide a free hint: It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the officer giving the command.

Quote:
Depends on who is responsible for ordering the deployment.
Ehm - no. A subordinate who gets an order from a superior officer doesn't get to question "who's responsible for ordering it". The superior officer answers to his chain of command, but not to his subordinates.

It's not as if people don't try though, generally in Basic, generally to their own detriment and generally providing much merriment of those around them.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:59 PM
 
62,620 posts, read 27,865,532 times
Reputation: 7912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Yeah, I have this weird affliction where I think casually throwing around a crime costing the lives of hundreds of innocents to make a point (and a really stupid point, too) is a bit on the tasteless side. Ethics, such a burden.
And your 'ethics' permits you to ignore a horrendous crime that occurred because the officer responsible for such wasn't questioned by those afraid to do so for fear of punishment, as Lakin is facing? Selective ethics, hmmm???

Quote:
Did you ever get around actually answering the question? It's not a trick or anything. Let's try another angle: Why is it illegal to obey an order to fire on civilians? I'll provide a free hint: It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the officer giving the command.
Ignoring the other acts, are you? Where's your 'ethics?'

Quote:
Ehm - no. A subordinate who gets an order from a superior officer doesn't get to question "who's responsible for ordering it". The superior officer answers to his chain of command, but not to his subordinates.
Well, there's this little thing called an oath that's clouding that issue. Lakin swore to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Refusing to obey a deployment command issued by a Constitutionally ineligible CIC is an act of defending the Constitution.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,130,605 times
Reputation: 3949
Just announced: Guilty on all charges. Sentencing phase underway.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:07 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,966,888 times
Reputation: 1806
GUILTY.

Jury Convicts Army 'Birther' Who Refused Deployment to Afghanistan - FoxNews.com

The jury on Wednesday found Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin guilty of missing a flight that would have gotten him to Fort Campbell, Ky., for his eventual deployment. He was convicted of a charge of missing movement by design.
His attorney had argued that he should be convicted of a lesser charge.
Lakin had already pleaded guilty to another charge against him. All told, he now faces up to three and a half years in prison.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:08 PM
 
62,620 posts, read 27,865,532 times
Reputation: 7912
In the meantime, has anyone figured out what the other eight born British subject presidents had in common? (The ninth, Chester Arthur, excluded as his British subject status at birth wasn't known until recently. Arthur lied about his own and his family's backgrounds to conceal the facts, knowing he was ineligible, even going so far as to having his personal papers burned before his death.)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,130,605 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Well, there's this little thing called an oath that's clouding that issue. Lakin swore to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Refusing to obey a deployment command issued by a Constitutionally ineligible CIC is an act of defending the Constitution.
His oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not interpret it. That responsibility is already assigned elsewhere.

His fellow officers have now found him guilty of even the one charge he tried to defend himself regarding. That's what actual fealty to the oath looks like.

Not what Lakin tried to pull.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,130,605 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Arthur lied about his own and his family's backgrounds to conceal the facts, knowing he was ineligible, even going so far as to having his personal papers burned before his death.
That's just stupid.

The only "lie" he ever has been shown to have told was his age, and it was one year off.

He was 13 when his father naturalized.

How, pray tell, would that "lie" conceal that his father was not a citizen when he was born?

Like I said.... stupid.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:13 PM
 
62,620 posts, read 27,865,532 times
Reputation: 7912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
His oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not interpret it.
SCOTUS has already interpreted it. See the citation earlier in this thread. Having a non-U.S. citizen parent precludes natural born American citizen status.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,041 posts, read 98,964,874 times
Reputation: 31517
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Just announced: Guilty on all charges. Sentencing phase underway.
Appropriate!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,130,605 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
SCOTUS has already interpreted it.
Yes, in the case of Wong Kim Ark.

They defined natural born citizen as a person born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or foreign army in hostile occupation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Having a non-U.S. citizen parent precludes natural born American citizen status.
This is a Birther lie that never dies... and by the way, even Lakin does not believe it.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top