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.
No, I will not abide your command that I not call a spade a spade. The man deserted his unit by refusing to deploy with them. That makes him a deserter, period. And as "a person who betray[ed] another, a cause, or any trust," he is a traitor, plain and simple.
Command? And to think that I thought it was a simple request...
As for calling a spade a spade.
Learn the difference between Article 85 and Article 87 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
As for exceedingly broad definition of traitor, do what you like, despite how utterly silly it makes you.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but this man doesn't oppose the war, he opposes the President, and he's refusing to deploy in opposition to the President.
The men who refused to deploy because they thought the war was immoral or illegal weren't refusing to deploy as an exercise in free speech. They were simply refusing to do something they thought was immoral or illegal.
If the man thinks that Obama isnt "president", then in his mind the orders are illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
This soldier is refusing to deploy, not because he thinks anything is wrong with deploying, he's deployed before and served. He's protesting the legitimacy of the President. Which he has neither standing nor right to do. He evidently got very poor legal advice, and he's made some very poor decisions. He's demonstrated a lot of arrogance and very poor reasoning skills, and for those two things alone, I could never support him.
He not only has standing and a right to question orders which he views are illegal, he has a moral obligation to do so.. I'm not questioning if the man is demonstrating rational reasons for raising those questions, just that if he believe Obama is NOT the president, he would have no other choice but to reject orders from Obama.
Again, not saying the man has an argument, just that if you believe something is false, than you need to fight it and take the consequences of your actions. He will most likely receive a discharge, just like the others that refused to serve in the war.. I dont know if any of them have been sentenced to prison like some here are calling for..
I never claimed his actions made any sense or that he was right.
Yet you objected to my calling them "absurd and futile." Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You can pretend they are unrelated but they very much are similar. Both of them refused orders because they viewed those orders as illegal.. They are very very similar and you have yet to tell me why they arent...
First off they can not be called similar because you have given us exactly nothing to compare them to. You have not cited a single one of "these (other) people" or shown us where any "liberals" in general or anyone in this thread specifically were ever calling them patriots. So I have no basis for concluding that they acted because they viewed their orders as "illegal," or because they were conscientious objectors, or because they were simple cowards trying to avoid getting shot at... or even if they existed at all.
If all you wanted was a generic opportunity to call liberals hypocrites, then there are no shortage of other threads started specifically for that particular venting.
You think calling him a "traitor" is harsh? You should hear what we call him when it's just us old soldiers in the room.
But secondly, LTC Lakin cannot seriously be credited for believing his orders are unlawful. We know this because of all the other orders he has continued to obey even though they would also (were he honest in his convictions) be just as unlawful. This includes most interestingly his continued acceptance of his military pay.
And finally... do you know what a "blue falcon" is? If you have ever served, you should share the deep antipathy those of us who have served carry for people who, like Lakin, would disregard the safety and well being of his fellow soldiers for an act of pure and ill considered political grandstanding.
If the man thinks that Obama isnt "president", then in his mind the orders are illegal.
He not only has standing and a right to question orders which he views are illegal, he has a moral obligation to do so.. I'm not questioning if the man is demonstrating rational reasons for raising those questions, just that if he believe Obama is NOT the president, he would have no other choice but to reject orders from Obama.
Again, not saying the man has an argument, just that if you believe something is false, than you need to fight it and take the consequences of your actions. He will most likely receive a discharge, just like the others that refused to serve in the war.. I dont know if any of them have been sentenced to prison like some here are calling for..
If he followed the same orders before Obama was sworn-in, then refuses to follow those orders after Obama was sworn-in, his issue isn't the orders. It's the President. And he doesn't have a moral obligation to disobey those orders. He can register his concerns with his commanding officers, but his moral obligation is to the soldiers he's refusing to render medical aid to.
As I said, he has neither standing nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the President, and his actions are simply so poorly thought out and so arrogant, that they cannot be supported by anyone of reasonable intelligence.
If he followed the same orders before Obama was sworn-in, then refuses to follow those orders after Obama was sworn-in, his issue isn't the orders. It's the President. And he doesn't have a moral obligation to disobey those orders. He can register his concerns with his commanding officers, but his moral obligation is to the soldiers he's refusing to render medical aid to.
As I said, he has neither standing nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the President, and his actions are simply so poorly thought out and so arrogant, that they cannot be supported by anyone of reasonable intelligence.
As to the other red herring you want to talk about. You go ahead and chase it. I'm not interested.
Same here. We both know how futile engaging in such arguments is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Ah, but the devil is in the details. He views the order as illegal b/c he thinks Obama is not a "natural born citizen". He doesn't think the war is illegal. Supposedly, if a NBC CIC had given the order, he would have gone. Um, hm.
Oh, this wasn't to be his first deployment to Afghanistan, but his second. He went under Bush. He just refuses to go under Obama. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how he feels about the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMyTree
Liberal Fascism clearly on display.
I mean, "stockades" ? hahahaha
When the hell did using the proper definition of a word become fascist?
"The United States military's equivalent to the civilian jail. . . is known colloquially as the guardhouse or stockade by the army and air forces and the brig by naval and marine forces."
I am intimately qualified to declare his actions absurd and futile. The decision today proves my judgment was correct.
very bad decision to destroy his career to make a political statement about President Obama.
This is about a Birther, not about "conscientious objectors" of which Lakin is not one.
I'm sorry but I can't wrap my head around how a guy with such a career and with any amount of intelligence could let himself be used by a right-wing personal injury attorney with absolutely no experience in either criminal or military law. I can't imagine what Lakin is thinking knowing that even before his trial begins that the sole purpose for the trial was dismissed during pretrial motions.
Yet you objected to my calling them "absurd and futile." Go figure.
First off they can not be called similar because you have given us exactly nothing to compare them to. You have not cited a single one of "these (other) people" or shown us where any "liberals" in general or anyone in this thread specifically were ever calling them patriots. So I have no basis for concluding that they acted because they viewed their orders as "illegal," or because they were conscientious objectors, or because they were simple cowards trying to avoid getting shot at... or even if they existed at all.
If all you wanted was a generic opportunity to call liberals hypocrites, then there are no shortage of other threads started specifically for that particular venting.
You think calling him a "traitor" is harsh? You should hear what we call him when it's just us old soldiers in the room.*
But secondly, LTC Lakin cannot seriously be credited for believing his orders are unlawful. We know this because of all the other orders he has continued to obey even though they would also (were he honest in his convictions) be just as unlawful. This includes most interestingly his continued acceptance of his military pay.
And finally... do you know what a "blue falcon" is? If you have ever served, you should share the deep antipathy those of us who have served carry for people who, like Lakin, would disregard the safety and well being of his fellow soldiers for an act of pure and ill considered political grandstanding.
Darnit, I still can't rep you yet, but this post so deserves it.
*
And thank you, sir, for your service to our nation.
Yet you objected to my calling them "absurd and futile." Go figure.
First off they can not be called similar because you have given us exactly nothing to compare them to. You have not cited a single one of "these (other) people" or shown us where any "liberals" in general or anyone in this thread specifically were ever calling them patriots. So I have no basis for concluding that they acted because they viewed their orders as "illegal," or because they were conscientious objectors, or because they were simple cowards trying to avoid getting shot at... or even if they existed at all.
If all you wanted was a generic opportunity to call liberals hypocrites, then there are no shortage of other threads started specifically for that particular venting.
Not at all.. I'm simply pointing out how one mans hero is another mans villian, and find it surprising how all of a sudden someone who refuses to follow Obamas' orders should be sent to jail but when someone refused to follow Bushs' orders, they should write books and make millions..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
If he followed the same orders before Obama was sworn-in, then refuses to follow those orders after Obama was sworn-in, his issue isn't the orders. It's the President.
Its the ORDERS.. and the legalities of the orders. The president is simply the one giving them..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And he doesn't have a moral obligation to disobey those orders. He can register his concerns with his commanding officers, but his moral obligation is to the soldiers he's refusing to render medical aid to.
Your argument about the moral obligation might be true.. But there are instances when its a moral obligation to question and disobey orders. I dont think this is one of those instances, but clearly the man does.. As for your argument about him refusing to render medical aid, that would be true if the military didnt send soemone in his place. I'm sure they will
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
As I said, he has neither standing nor right to challenge the legitimacy of the President, and his actions are simply so poorly thought out and so arrogant, that they cannot be supported by anyone of reasonable intelligence.
He doesnt have the legal standing to challenge the legitimacy of the president, but he does have one to question the orders. See above.. Its the ORDERS in question.. I'm not supporting the mans decisions, why do you keep trying to make that argument?
Not at all.. I'm simply pointing out how one mans hero is another mans villian, and find it surprising how all of a sudden someone who refuses to follow Obamas' orders should be sent to jail but when someone refused to follow Bushs' orders, they should write books and make millions..
Its the ORDERS.. and the legalities of the orders. The president is simply the one giving them..
Your argument about the moral obligation might be true.. But there are instances when its a moral obligation to question and disobey orders. I dont think this is one of those instances, but clearly the man does.. As for your argument about him refusing to render medical aid, that would be true if the military didnt send soemone in his place. I'm sure they will
He doesnt have the legal standing to challenge the legitimacy of the president, but he does have one to question the orders. See above.. Its the ORDERS in question.. I'm not supporting the mans decisions, why do you keep trying to make that argument?
It's not the ORDERS, if he's followed IDENTICAL ORDERS before. As I stated, he can register his dissatisfaction with the source of those orders with his superior officers. But he has no moral highground in refusing to obey those orders. The orders themselves do not command him to do anything which is morally repugnant to him, since he has obeyed the same orders in the past. He also had no problem accepting pay under this Commander-in-Chief during the first months of Obama's Presidency. If he came to realize that this President was illegitimate, then when he refused to deploy he should have also proferred a check for all pay and benefits he received from the day Obama was sworn into office. He can't be okay with some things and not okay with others if his issue is the person in command. And that is his issue, not the orders per se.
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 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.
