Army judge tells officer: Shut up and be punished! Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’ impossible under military rulings
| This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
BORN IN THE USA?
Army judge tells officer:
Shut up and be punished!
Defense counsel warns ‘fair trial’
impossible under military rulings
Posted: September 28, 2010
9:01 pm Eastern By Brian Fitzpatrick
FORT MEADE, Md. – An Army judge has made it “impossible” for a career medical officer to get a fair hearing on charges he refused to deploy to Afghanistan because of concern that obeying orders in the chain of command under an ineligible commander in chief would be illegal, his attorney says.
The rulings came today from Col. Denise Lind, who in so many words told Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to pound sand. Rocks actually. He faces up to four years at hard labor if convicted in his case.
“We got absolutely slammed today,” said Paul R. Jensen, lead counsel for the defense. “It’s impossible for us to have a fair trial under these rulings.”
Jensen continued, “The judge did what she thought was right, but the result is to deprive us of any opportunity to have a defense.”
Lakin believes any order issued under Obama’s authority as commander in chief of the armed forces may not be valid because his eligibility to serve as president is unproven. After fruitlessly requesting the Army to verify Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, Lakin wrote directly to Obama asking for proof of eligibility.
(Story continues below)
But without a response, Lakin decided it was his duty to refuse an order to deploy with his unit as part of Obama’s Afghanistan surge. As one of the defense briefs states, he “… [took] the distasteful route of inviting his own court martial.”
Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Click for information.
In her decision, Lind, acting as judge in the case, censored the last remaining arguments Lakin planned to make in his defense: motive and duty. Lakin had intended to explain his motive for disobeying the order and contend that it was his duty as a good soldier to disobey orders that he believes to be illegal.
The defense also planned to call as witnesses Ambassador Alan Keyes and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. Keyes was to explain the constitutional issues involved in the case, and McInerney was to talk about the training soldiers receive regarding when they should question and even disobey orders.
Lind was following up on her rulings from Sept. 2, when she rejected defense plans to introduce evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility. The defense also requested for Lakin’s defense documents referencing Obama’s birth records on file in Hawaii, but Lind refused to allow that either, noting that providing the documents might prove “embarrassing” to Obama.
“Our arms were cut off last time,” said Jensen. “Our legs are being cut off this time.”
In rejecting Lakin’s right to discovery of Obama birth documents, Lind joined a host of other judges – in civilian courts – who have refused to allow plaintiffs suing Obama to obtain his birth records. Jensen told WND he had hoped the court would permit Lakin to go to discovery, because Lakin is the defendant in a criminal case and has the right to mount a full defense.
In objecting to the participation of Keyes and McInerney and the presentation of Lakin’s planned arguments, the prosecution argued that all issues related to Obama’s eligibility, Lakin’s motives and the good soldier doctrine were “irrelevant.”
“We have to have the opportunity to present some defense!” Jensen countered.
Just before Lind recessed the hearing to prepare her decision, Jensen asked rhetorically whether the government intended to allow him to call any witnesses at all and thundered, “This is all we had left!”
Jensen’s pleas fell on deaf ears. Less than two hours after the court recessed following arguments, Lind returned to the bench to render a lengthy, detailed decision. Reading in a dry monotone, Lind reaffirmed her Sept. 2 decision and ruled out discussions of motive and duty.
Lind, with her rulings, effectively has restricted the scope of Lakin’s trial to what the government wanted: the simple questions of whether the officer had received orders to deploy to Afghanistan and whether he complied.
Neither of these facts is in dispute
But Jensen said the trial will not end the case.
In an Oval Office interview, the president discusses the Tea Party, the war, the economy and what’s at stake this November ___What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?
[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints.
I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:53:25 PM by Windflier
Do you think this guy is fired up? Be sure to note his license plate.
From the Rolling Stone Interview via MSNBC, emphasis ours:I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.President Obama also criticized the “glass as half-empty” views of many Democrats emphasis ours:It’s like, “Well, gosh, we’ve got this historic health care legislation that we’ve been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn’t have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let’s focus on what we didn’t get instead of what we got.”
That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.And President Obama also attacked those in the hedge fund industry, complaining about the Carried Interest tax emphasis ours:I know a lot of these guys who started hedge funds. They are making large profits, taking home large incomes, but because of a rule called “carried interest,” they are paying lower tax rates than their secretaries, or the janitor that cleans up the building. Or folks who are out there as police
My, how things change.Or not.Remember this? Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.
As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.Naturally, that went the way of all Obama promises: On the campaign trail, Barack Obama harshly criticized Bush administration policies allowing warrantless wiretaps. But, since he assumed office as president, Obama’s Justice Department has attempted to deny a private organization the right to sue the federal government for wiretapping communications without court authorization.Ironically, more and more people are missing the old days:
In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ’s New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush’s We had hoped this would go differently. Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF’s litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration made two deeply troubling arguments.
This past week was a busy one in New York City’s United Nations building. Besides the speeches by Iran’s president and the U.S. president, there were meetings and conferences regarding the future of planet earth. While all eyes were on the speeches and pomp and circumstance of world leaders, the denizens of U.S. newsrooms ignored what one observer termed “The Mother of All Power Grabs.”
The United Nations General Assembly is considering a historic resolution recognizing the human right to “safe and clean drinking water and sanitation” initiated by the Bolivian government. Other UN members have been consulted on the resolution and the final text is expected to be presented to the President of the General Assembly.In a letter sent today to all UN Ambassadors and permanent missions, global water advocate and Blue Planet Project founder Maude Barlow urges a decisive and swift passage of the resolution.”This would be one of the most important things the UN has done since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” says Barlow, who chairs the boards of the Council of Canadians and Washington-based Food and Water Watch. In 2008/2009, Barlow served as Senior Advisor on Water to the 63rd President of the UN General Assembly.”It’s time politics caught up with reality,” says Barlow, noting that nearly two billion people live in water-stressed areas of the world and three billion have no running water within a kilometre of their homes. “It’s time states finally recognize water as essential to life and a fundamental human right.
“But this latest moved — backed by U.S. progressives — is viewed as disturbing by conservative activists such as political strategist Mike Baker.