Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 04-14-2010, 10:59 AM
 
46,940 posts, read 25,969,275 times
Reputation: 29434

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
He feels the orders given from the commander in chief are illegal since he believes the commander in chief isn't a natural born citizen.
What a way to run an army.

"Now, men, we will storm that bunker. In case any of you feel this is an illegal command, I've prepared dossiers on the credentials of every officer in the chain of command for you to inspect."

Quote:
To disobey an order is wrong but you're allowed to disobey an unlawful order.
But he's not questioning the order itself. "Ship to Afghanistan" is not an unlawful order. He's questioning his entire chain of command. In most military circumstances, that sort of decision rests with the superior officer.

Anyway, it's going to be interesting, as it's the Lt. Col. who has the burden of proof.

 
Old 04-14-2010, 11:09 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,035,296 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Anyway, it's going to be interesting, as it's the Lt. Col. who has the burden of proof.
To be Fair & Accurate™, he doesn't. He will be the defendant, the Army will have the burden of proof, which should be rather cut and dry.

Where it may get complicated is how much latitude the court allows the Lt.Col to mount a defense.
 
Old 04-14-2010, 11:25 AM
 
46,940 posts, read 25,969,275 times
Reputation: 29434
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
To be Fair & Accurate™, he doesn't. He will be the defendant, the Army will have the burden of proof, which should be rather cut and dry.
I must have been misinformed, then. I thought that to refuse an order, it's on you to prove it's unlawful? As you say, though, not that it matters.
 
Old 04-14-2010, 11:50 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,864,851 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
I must have been misinformed, then. I thought that to refuse an order, it's on you to prove it's unlawful? As you say, though, not that it matters.
Ovcatto is saying that Lakin is being charged, so it is up to the prosecution to make their case. But it's a pretty simple case, Lakin is disobeying orders, he won't challenge that. Where the case becomes interesting is how much leeway the court will give Lakin to explain why he's refusing to obey orders? Lakin's defense rests on his reasons, the facts already condemn him. So his justifications are what's interesting, but it will depend on the court as to how much opportunity he will have to justify his actions.
 
Old 04-14-2010, 12:08 PM
 
Location: On Top
12,373 posts, read 13,191,121 times
Reputation: 4027
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
<snip>obama has an army of lawyers making sure that never happens
The Department of Justice has an "army of lawyers"?
Learn something new every day....
 
Old 04-14-2010, 12:29 PM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,155,783 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
To be Fair & Accurate™, he doesn't. He will be the defendant, the Army will have the burden of proof, which should be rather cut and dry.

Where it may get complicated is how much latitude the court allows the Lt.Col to mount a defense.
The latitude will be,
"Is Col Gordon Roberts your commanding Officer?"

"Did Col Roberts on or about April xx, 2010 give you a direct order to report to Fort Campbell for deployment to Afghanistan?"

"Did you refuse that order?"

"Does the Defendant have any last words before the court pronounces its sentence?"

It will be one of the shortest military trial in history.
 
Old 04-14-2010, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,689,422 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
The latitude will be,
"Is Col Gordon Roberts your commanding Officer?"

"Did Col Roberts on or about April xx, 2010 give you a direct order to report to Fort Campbell for deployment to Afghanistan?"

"Did you refuse that order?"

"Does the Defendant have any last words before the court pronounces its sentence?"

It will be one of the shortest military trial in history.
Exactly, unless Obama personally signed those orders this guy is in up to his neck. He also needs to pay us back for his Medical Education while he is refusing to care for wounded American Soldiers
 
Old 04-14-2010, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,932,670 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Exactly, unless Obama personally signed those orders this guy is in up to his neck. He also needs to pay us back for his Medical Education while he is refusing to care for wounded American Soldiers
Of course obama signed the order for the troop surge - he's the only one that can, btw.
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,645 posts, read 38,639,083 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Funny, the same people cheering this guy on probably thought the lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq and ran off to Canada because he considered orders from Bush to be illegal was a traitor.
Interesting thought, although I'm from the other side on this. I think this birther (and all others) are idiots, and this guy is a traitor. But I also think that these guys who were on active duty and ran away so they wouldn't have to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan when Bush was Commander In Chief were traitors too.

When you sign up for the military, you take orders from your superiors and do what you are supposed to do.
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,645 posts, read 38,639,083 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotormanMike View Post
And some people can't accept that just because he's a black man he's not exempted from playing by the rules based on his skin color alone. Grow up and stop being a baby. Part of the reason he was elected president is because of that skin color.
What about the 42 white guys who were elected President before Obama? Weren't they elected President because of their skin color?

Quote:
Part of it was hatred of Bush , and the two wars , and the economy , and that it was hard even for dedicated right wingers to get behind the McCain/Palin ticket.
Bush gave us lots of reasons to hate him, including the economy, the two wars, the inaction post-Katrina, his general and overwhelming incompetence, etc. I could go on.


Quote:
But plenty of people , white people included , voted for him for no other reason than they felt it was 'time for a black man to have a chance' ... that was their sole rational ... these same people were practically demanding Colin Powell run a few years ago even though he clearly stated he had no interest.
I think the American people wanted a different kind of Presidential candidate and chief executive, and they knew that McCain/Palin (Palin? Palin?) were not that. With Obama, we have that different kind of President. Thank God.

Quote:
And now that Obama and the white Nancy Pelosi and company have shown just how much they suck at being in charge , there is a lot of 'buyer's remorse' being shown now by those that voted for them.
How have they shown this?

Quote:

Obama has provided a certificate of live birth not a birth certificate and the two are not the same. Some of Obama's own relatives and some Kenyan officials have stated he was born there and he may have been. Or not. He himself hasn't proved anything conclusively and so the question remains.
Spare me that birther bullshyt.


Quote:
It's not about racism as you suggest but since you suggest that I will agree that many white people have grown tired of constantly having to kiss minorities a*ses and won't do it anymore. Most white people want to treat everyone as equals , as it should be , what they don't want to do anymore is continue to put all non whites up on pedestals and treat them with complete reverence just because the government has tried to indoctrinate whites that that is what they must do for the last 40 years.
This is a joke, right? This is meant to elicit laughter in the reader, correct?


Quote:
If you believe in fairness and equality , then believe in fairness and equality. Equality is not one set of rules for one group and another for another group. Point being , Obama doesn't get a pass for being black. Had McCain won the election there would be the same thing coming from the other side since he was born in the Panama Canal zone.
McCain has been running for President since Ronald Reagan was playing football in college. I have never seen any McCain birthers surface.

Quote:
No doubt they both agreed in private during the elections not to make it an issue (and so did both parties).
I'm sure that happened.
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top