Officer Who Called Obama "Usurper" May Be In A Lot Of Trouble

[WeDidIt]

Officer Calls Obama 'Usurper' President

February 25, 2009
Military.com|by Bryant Jordan

Using words such as "imposter" and "usurper," an active-duty Army officer in Iraq has joined a California lawyer's lawsuit intended to force President Barack Obama to prove he is a legal U.S. citizen, and therefore able to legally serve as the commander in chief.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office -- an impostor," 1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling states in his letter published at Defendourfreedoms.com.

<snip>

If true, however, Easterling, as an Army officer, "is subject to ... against using contemptuous language toward the president." There were such incidents in the 1990s, he said, when service members were disciplined for comments made against President Clinton. In one case brought under the provisions of Article 88 of the UCMJ a major general was forced to retire for comments he made, Tully said.

Easterling also could be charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, he said.

<snip>

Military.com Article

[RC]

1. Lets see these people that want to see Obama's 'vault copy',

whatever that is, produce theirs. It has already been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. If there really was any doubt, there would have been noisy front page news already.

[AllentownJake]

3. You can't prove to these people anything

Barack Obama could invent a time machine to show people his birth and these individuals will still invent another theory on a conspiracy.

The truth is this birth certificate nonsense comes down to one thing. Barack Obama is half black. These people are racist. They can't believe that a person whose father is black became the leader of this country through hard work, intelligence, and message. They have grown up all their lives thinking black = inferior and now a black person is the leader of their country. There has to be something evil behind it in their minds because no black man should have had the ability to become President.

[Empowerer]

12. Not just half black - but "half African"

[WinkyDink]

27. He can be 'half-Martian", if half is AMERICAN.

[ddeclue]

30. Bwa ha... take me to your leader..oh wait I AM your leader...

:rofl:

[csziggy]

160. He could be ALL Martian if he was born in the USA, he is an American n/t

[roguevalley]

156. first lieutenant asshole needs to be courtmartialed and released

from duty with a dishonorable discharge.

[n2doc]

2. Guy needs a court martial and a dishonorable discharge n/t

[Baikonour]

7. Nope. He deserves worse.

This clown is bordering on treason.

[Thothmes]

10. His actions hardly meet the Constitutional definition of treason

[JohnnyBoots]

28. Agreed.

[Mariana]

11. It's not treason to badmouth the Commander-in-Chief.

His crime is defined in the UCMJ, Article 88:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

As far as I know, he hasn't yet actually disobeyed an order. Even if he had, that in itself isn't treason, either.

That said, I hope they lock his ass up for a good long time.

[WeDidIt]

33. Since his actions have resulted in at least one enlisted man following his example

it IS Mutiny and sedition.

[ddeclue]

43. That is very debatable...

Did these two men know each other?

Was the enlisted man in the officer's chain of command? Probably not.

I think it would be hard to establish that this was truly a mutiny.

[WeDidIt]

47. Quote

"I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," said the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq.

Definitely sedition. Possibly mutiny. Both are covered under the same article of the UCMJ, so it really doesn't matter.

[ddeclue]

49. NOPE.. not even CLOSE...

In concert requires MUTUAL communication, not one way communication - in this case through an intervening third party - the press.

Do you have evidence that these two men communicated with each other to form a plan of mutiny?

Case dismissed...


Main Entry:
1con·cert
Pronunciation:
\ˈkän(t)-sərt, ˈkän-ˌsərt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, from Italian concerto, from concertare
Date:
1571
1: agreement in design or plan : union formed by mutual communication of opinion and views
2obsolete : musical harmony : concord
3: a public performance (as of music or dancing)
— concert adjective
— in concert : together <acting in concert with others>

[14thColony]

That was a mis-used word when the Republicans tossed it around

and we do no great service mis-using it ourselves. Treason is well-defined in the Constitution, and this officer has not committed it, at least as far as is known from this story.

[WeDidIt]

57. Agree, does not rise even close to the level of treason n/t

[Edith Ann]

4. Copy

Nobody gets the original bith certificate. All any of us ever get is a certified copy, which is what President Obama produced. Look at the certificate there is a state seal embossed at the top, I believe. It's been a while since I've seen it. My certified copy is an old microfish copy. I haven't called Jefferson City, Mo. to get a new one. Living in Oklahoma as I do, with all the wingnuts and Randy Terrill, I probably need to do that.

[izzie]

8. I have two certified birth records with two mothers.

Both from the same city in Ma. and both legal. My natural mother died and my second mother adopted me. I do keep both as they seem a little odd just to look at them. I swear I have seen a copy of Obama's on this PC some place. What is it with this birth thing any how? They need to run that guy out of the service or hand him over to our 'God General'.

[populistdriven]

17. you mean this one?

source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html


Some of these Republicans are INSANE

[pnorman]

20. That's a saver!

I've been hearing about that document for almost a year now, but that's the first time I've actually seen it. Yessiree, it sure do look authentic!

pnorman

[izzie]

177. That is one crazy one.

I do think that some of the things said were odd. I think one of FDR sons was born in Can. and they said he could not be President so he never ran. McCain was born on US land so that does not count. I do not see the fuss about all this my self but it has turned up my whole life and since I am over 70 it must be important to many people. I my self think it just said the President has to be a citizen and his age,so who cares where he was born and one parent a US cit. would make him a cit. any how. I also think their is some thing in the Con. about Vice and Pres, and where they come from. I guess I will have to get out the Con. and read it once more.

[timtom]

5. It's OK.

Frankly, if I had been an officer under B*, I would have resigned my commission, quick time.

But ya can't remain in the ranks with that position! The lad has got to go.

[14thColony]

63. And that would have been the appropriate course to take

I hated GWB, but as an officer I made sure that I never uttered a word that would constitute a violation of Article 88. Once the military becomes politicized, we will be no better than the Praetorian Guard, choosing and deposing leaders at our whim. The death of democracy. We are taught that even if we don't resepct the Person of the President, we will damned sure respect the Office of the President.

Junior needs some schooling. Harsh schooling. Like career-ending.

[Cha]

145. My theory is those who

didn't like serving under bush were sane and those who make comments like this Officer about Obama are susceptible to brainwashing and on the edge.

[mmonk]

6. Good.

[Jawja]

9. Wow.

Yes, let's treat this son-of-a-bitch as the special asshole he thinks he is and fly him in to Hawaii for the purpose of getting his personal approval of President Obama's original birth certificate, then we can move on as a country.

Where does this ass-clown come from? :eyes:

[a la izquierda]

13. Can somebody please tell me...

what the heck a "vault copy" is? Please. Enlighten me. I've been an American citizen for 31 years (born in NJ, to American born parents), and I don't know what a vault copy birth certificate is. I don't believe I own one-all I have is a certification of live birth because I lost my original. It was good enough to get me a passport.

[sledgehammer]

109. Not completely sure, but I can shed some light...

There's an original birth certificate that is prepared when a child is born. That is usually stored in the hospital archive, aka vault copy.

The certificate of live birth, that Obama has presented, is a document that presents some of the important information on the vault copy. This certificate is issued by hospital staff.

The original certificate is never accessed or shared with others unless there's a reason to do so (Hawaiian law). Upon request and approval of Obama, the Hawaii government (they have a republican governor who supported McCain) has inspected the vault copy and verified that the information on the certificate is the same as the vault copy (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/10/27/daily60.html).

Now, for some reason, Obama does not want to release his vault copy to the public. That's his personal choice - he has no reason to share it with anyone since he has an official certificate of live birth that confirms the facts on the vault copy.

If I had to guess a reason why Obama is not sharing it, it would be that the vault copy shows that Obama's mother was not 18 years of age when she conceived him, and he has no interest in making that public. That's a pure guess though. Or, maybe his name was slightly different at birth. Or maybe it the vault copy lists his father's religion.

All just guesses, and they are all moot anyway. It's Obama's choice what he wants to do with the vault copy. If he were constitutionally ineligible, that would have been brought up just as he announced his candidature. By other Democratic candidates, or the Republican candidates.

Remember, there are people who still believe the moon landing was faked. There are some people you can't convince, even if there was a youtube video of Obama's birth in a Hawaii hospital.

[Hekate]

155. IIRC, the State of Hawai'i Dept of Health has made it plain that they do not "release" vault copies

... period. Nor do they allow random strangers (i.e. non-employees) to go grubbing about in the "vaults". The public record is what they say it is, and they've already gone as far as they are going to go by releasing -- at Obama's request -- an authorized copy. The original isn't going any place.

This is nuts. Let the bozos with an ax to grind fly to Hawai'i and sue. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will convince them. You are absolutely right about the moon landing.

Hekate

[Number23]

167. You need to get out of here with that mess

If I had to guess a reason why Obama is not sharing it, it would be that the vault copy shows that Obama's mother was not 18 years of age when she conceived him, and he has no interest in making that public.

That doesn't make one damn bit of difference and you know it. My understanding is that acquiring access to one's "vault copy" is damn near impossible. Obama was born in 1961. Who knows what format they used for his original BC and why the hell should anyone care?? I'm willing to bet that the hospital in Hawaii where he was born is not the slightest bit interested in looking for his "vault copy" BC anyway when a certified copy has been more than enough evidence for every single person in this country since BC's were first issued.

Obama has supplied a certified copy because that is all he is legally obligated to do. The thinking and non-insane people of this country are more than satisfied with his citizenship status. And as Obama has been very open about the fact that his mother was 18 when he was born, the "age in which he was conceived" really ain't all that hard to figure out.

[sledgehammer]

170. Why the hostility?

I see no reason why Obama should share his vault copy at all. I'm just stating he may have his own reasons, and am speculating as to what they might be. The RW nutcases are insane. If it has his mother's birthdate on it and it's different from the date that is commonly known, you know they would go nuts with it. I know it "doesn't make one damn bit of difference", but nor does his middle name Hussein, yet you've seen what Rwingers have done with that.

There may be other reasons too. Or he may not want to share them just for the sake of not doing it. It's really up to him. Had he not released a certificate of live birth, I could see some reason for freepers to get all psycho about it. The fact that they still bring this up as an issue is pure entertainment for everyone else.

BTW, I think the vault copy is accessible. It has been looked at by the Hawaii dept of health and they confirmed it's the same as the certificate of live birth. At least that's what I inferred from the article I linked to in my original post.

[Number23]

172. The reason for the hostility was your "reasons" for why he hasn't released a vault copy

Including because it may indicate his mother's age or what his father's "religion" was. I've read this mess on just about every post on Free Republic. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

He hasn't released his "vault copy" birth certificate because he hasn't needed to. 'Nuff said.

[sledgehammer]

174. He's human

He has reasons to do things the way he wants. And that's his problem, especially since the issue at hand is resolved without the vault copy.

But I don't think that trying to understand his reasons is that big a deal.

[Number23]

176. LOL Lucky for you I'm not one of the self-appointed troll-hunters here

But I have no doubt that you will catch the eye of a mod or two soon enough. Enjoy your time on DU.

[sledgehammer]

178. Lucky for me...

...I don't give a shit what you think.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable on other boards, where thinking and reasoning are taboo.

Enjoy your time being you, though I can't imagine that's too enjoyable.

Edited to add: Congrats on being the first person on my ignore list!

[Number23]

188. I'll try to find a way to post through the pain.

[Jeneral]

14. Where are the certificates?

Let me ask you all and correct me if I'm wrong but did Bush II show his birth certificate for all to see before he ran for office? How about Clinton? Bish I? Reagan? Carter......how do we know that all these ex Presidents were really American? Suddenly the certificate becomes the key factor to be President--didn't some of the past Presidents have mixed ancestry? Were they really natural born?

You get what I'm getting at.

[zbdent]

15. How about "adopted name" Gerald Ford? Or Piyush Jindal?

I bet his birth certificate doesn't say "Bobby" or "Robert" ...

[RC]

159. Or McCain's 'vault copy' that should be in a hospital in Panama.

Let's see that one!

[jberryhill]

162. What you are getting at

...is what we normally call "a double standard".

[csziggy]

164. And how about McCain's birth certificate from the Republic of Panama?

He was not born in the Canal Zone but in the country of Panama. But since his father was in the military and both his parents are American, this was allowed to ride and McCain's eligibility was not questioned by anyone but fringe types. Even so, the US Congress passed a special bill to declare McCain a "natural born" American just to be sure.

This whole thing is ridiculous and any US Military member that has questions about Obama's eligibility at this point should be allowed out of the military on a Section 8. ASAP!

[rasputin1952]

16. For one thing, under the UCMJ, this "Lt" will never get beyond

O-1/2.

He'll be lucky if he remains in the service. When I was in Weisbaden FRG, we had a Lt (O-1), that called Jimmy carter a an "asshole" during the President's visit to Weisbaden AB. He was "gone" the next day. Personally, I hope he was sharpening pencils for a LTG...in Leavenworth...:D

[WeDidIt]

31. HE's currently an O2

he may end up being a P.

I hope he likes Leavenworth Barracks.

[rasputin1952]

157. LOL...E-1, 20 years in Leavenworth no pay/allowances...

"Big rocks into little ones"...:D

One thing about officers, they can rescind their commisions and avoid some trouble. But this guys CO, and those in the CoC are going to be PISSED. Some Colonel to a Full General is gonna have this guys ass...:rofl:

[DevonRex]

37. As do I. The most important thing in the article is about the proper chain of command

for addressing issues in the military.

As veterans, you and I both know that chain of command is vitally important in the military. And the fact that there IS an avenue to follow and that this Lt bypassed it completely to go OUTSIDE the military (without even using the whistleblower venue) is just about the biggest sin there is.

Even the officers who might agree with this nutcase will be highly offended that he broke the chain of command and that he went public. I see no hope for this idiot's career, thank God.

[rasputin1952]

158. The CoC is one of the most important aspects of the military...

even an "Open Door Policy" is only used for the most serious problems.

There are some livid Sr Officers out there, and those who were under this jerk wouldn't follow him to a latrine now.

One less idiot O-2 to wrorry about...I hope some LTG rips his bars off and sends him to the stockade...:D

[zbdent]

18. The only reason I would want this to come to trial (and not as a "civil" action, because

that doesn't require the "all or nothing" "beyond a reasonable doubt"),

is that these "frivolous lawsuits" would have court costs have to be paid by the person filing the lawsuit when they lose ...

[SpiralHawk]

19. "I will always be loyal to Commander AWOL. Smirk." - Easterling

"As a loyal Republicon Homelander, I feel obliged to do what I can to make sure Ameria FAILS, and to salute our true Heroes: Commander AWOL Bush, VP Dickie 'Five Military Deferments' Cheney, and Rush 'Ass Pimple Deferment' Limbaugh. They are examples of what, um, Homelanderism is all about. Smirk."

- Easterling

[Captain Hilts]

21. Good!

[HughMoran]

22. Words do have consequences

We had to listen to all the veiled threats from the Bushies over the past 8 years, it's time for these clowns to face the consequences of their actions.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Dishonorable Discharge.

Our military has become so undisciplined since Limbaugh took to the airwaves.

[Marrah_G]

24. He just put his career, future and pension on the line for his stupidity

I will be happy to see him dishonorably discharged.

[DevonRex]

38. Me, too. I hope they make an example of him. nt

[WeDidIt]

39. Since an enlisted Military Policememan has followed his lead

and expressed that it was Easterling's letter to Taitz that convinced him to join the lawsuit, they will probably make a huge example out of Easterling.

[Marrah_G]

114. Yup

[Historic NY]

25. perhaps if these Morans checked with their hometown clerks..

they would find that the one issued here by the registrar is almost identical to the one they would get. I have my large original one from the hospital and a registrars copy which I needed for school, retirement board, passport & for social security disability. Either one is a certified legal document.

[mr1956]

26. Easterling should resign his commission

If he doesn't, he should be given a dishonorable discharge. I was once enlisted in the military but decided to get out when Reagan was elected. I felt it was the honorable thing to do since I had no respect for the new Commander In Chief. No one is forcing this asshat to serve.

[Jennicut]

32. Exactly. If you don't like who the President is then get out.

No one wants to listen to his bitchin and moanin.

[WeDidIt]

34. Too late, this is now a criminal matter under the UCMJ

He coudl do time because an enlisted man has now followed his lead.

That's mutiny and sedition.

[WeDidIt]

29. This may now be Mutiny and Sedition

Another U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq is joining a challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be commander-in-chief, citing WND's report on 1st Lt. Scott Easterling, who has agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit over the issue, as his inspiration.

"I was inspired by 1LT Easterling's story and am writing you to inform you that I would like to be added as a plaintiff against Obama as well if you feel it would help your case," said the soldier, identified for this report only as a reservist now on active duty in Iraq.

<snip>

He continued, "When I enlisted last year I had to show my birth certificate, as well as my driver's license, high school diploma, college transcripts, social security card; I also filled out loads of paperwork to include listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of my family members and had to answer any questions regarding foreign travel.

<snip>

Link To WorldNutDaily Article

The actions of the officer has incited an enlisted man to take the same actions. That's mutiny and sedition.

And the applicable articles from the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

894. 94. Mutiny or sedition.

§ 894. 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;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.


917. 117. Provoking speeches or gestures

§ 917. Art. 117. Provoking speeches or gestures
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[ddeclue]

35. I think that mutiny would depend on what "in concert" means...

If both or all parties have to be working together and have knowledge and give at least tacit consent to the other's actions OR whether it is merely one party following the other's lead without his or her consent which appears to be the case here - i.e. is the communication two way or one way?

Perhaps a DU lawyer type can explain it but I would think this is an important element that would need to be proven (two way consent of the other's action).

Perhaps a DU lawyer can compare and contrast this with the concept of "conspiracy" in a civilian court.

I would be concerned about there being a trial because a creative defense counsel for Lt. Numbnuts might actually try to drag Obama into the case and leverage the Numbnuts courts-martial as a way to get standing on the issue of birth certificate and although this is probably easy to satisfy it would distract the O administration and cause a lot of unnecessary grief and legal fees for BHO (which is their REAL objective much as it was with Clinton so as to discourage Democrats from running for office.)

I say demand his resignation and until he gets booted out - station him somewhere that will get his attention like an arctic circle weather station.

Doug D.

[WeDidIt]

36. Military law is so specialized that no civilian lawyer can truly offer an opinion

Military Justice and our normal judiciary are two completely different animals, so any standard set for a civilian court probably cannot be considered the same standard under the UCMJ.

When you enlist, you give up many of the rights civilians take for granted.

Also, officers will usually be held to a higher standard than enlisted men. Since the actions of the officer in quesiton has resulted in an enlisted man following his lead, mutiny may apply and sedition definitely applies, which are both covered in the same article under the UCMJ.

[ddeclue]

40. Duhh... I grew up in a military family I know about the UCMJ but you are still wrong.

A civilian criminal lawyer is entirely capable of explaining these two concepts adequately.

Doug D.

[WeDidIt]

41. A JAG officer is your better bet

JAG officers understand the nuances better.

[ddeclue]

45. We aren't talking about rocket science here...

a lawyer is a lawyer is a lawyer..

the primary skill of use here is in reading the law and interpretation of it and we aren't talking about something that is "nuanced".

You need to turn off JAG re-runs and stop watching TV.

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

46. A lawyer ISN'T a lawyer, ISN'T a lawyer

I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand the legal field. An IP LAwyer is not the appropriate choice for a constitutional law case, just as a contract attorney isn't a good bet for a criminal case.

I've never seen "JAG" on TV. I don't watch the crap shows on television.. I keep my television viewing exclusively to History Chennel, A&E, CNN, MSNBC, and similar channels.

[ddeclue]

51. A criminal defense attorny is a criminal defense attorney..

trust me I know a lot of them. This isn't rocket science and you apparently get your worship of military lawyers off of TV. UCMJ is just a part of Federal Law it's not beyond the skills of an average defense attorney

[Usrename]

169. I don't think that's a fair assessment of the military.

Courts martial are not the same thing as regular civilian criminal trials.

[DevonRex]

42. I agree. He's an officer. He went public. Another followed his lead.

Sounds applicable to me.

[WeDidIt]

44. Definitely sedition, possibly mutiny.

Since both are covered under the same article, it makes little difference.

[ddeclue]

53. Nope you haven't proven that they have acted "in concert"

[ddeclue]

48. Nope...

You are totally glossing over the ACTUAL requirement of what "in concert" means.

"followed his lead" in no way indicates whether the officer in question issued an order or even communicated with or knew the enlisted man.

It is an intellectual cheap shot worthy of Rush Limbaugh to use this term.

"in concert" from Websters indicates that it requires MUTUAL communication of opinion or views not merely a one-way communication as this appears to be where one man heard of the other's actions through an intervening third party (the media).


Main Entry:
1con·cert
Pronunciation:
\ˈkän(t)-sərt, ˈkän-ˌsərt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, from Italian concerto, from concertare
Date:
1571
1: agreement in design or plan : union formed by mutual communication of opinion and views
2obsolete : musical harmony : concord
3: a public performance (as of music or dancing)
— concert adjective
— in concert : together <acting in concert with others>

[WeDidIt]

50. They acted IN CONCERT

Via Orly Taitz.

They joined the same lawsuit through the same attorney.

Your definition does not describe the medium through with the communication happens. It has happened through Orly Taitz.

[ddeclue]

52. Um... NOPE...

can you prove that he communicated the two men's messages to the other party or did he merely agree to include them in the lawsuit? How do you intend to prove that?

I really don't think you can...

Doug D.

[DevonRex]

65. Going public, going civilian is the Lt's "Who's with me?" line. So I agree.

[WeDidIt]

67. And joining the same civil lawsuit outside the military chain of command

is acting in concert.

That's the arguement that would be made, at any rate.

[ddeclue]

74. Umm NOPE... he is entitled to do that...

He's just not entitled to mouth off like he did to the press.

[WeDidIt]

79. No, he's NOT entitled to do that.

He CANNOT join a lawsuit against his Commander in Chief, that is against the LAW.

There are options within the military under Article 138 of the UCMJ he could have followed. Instead he stepped outside the chain of command. His words and actions incited an enlisted man to join in his illegal activities.

[ddeclue]

81. Sorry but he can... people in the military did the same thing to Clinton in the 90's

cite me chapter and verse to show me I'm wrong.

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

86. Link please

As my citations I cite Articles 88 and 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Where's your link to lawsuits against Clinton?

[ddeclue]

92. Articles 88 and 138 do not prohibit active duty military from joining in civil lawsuits.

As I recall there was Michael New they guy who didn't want to be a UN peacekeeper back under Clinton who either sued or went to his Congressman or something.

[WeDidIt]

98. No lawsuit against Clinton

Not one.

There were lawsuits against the Pentagon regarding that issue as well as a lawsuit against the pentagon over Anthrax vaccines. They were not against Clinton and in both cases, the claimant went through the proper steps within the chain of command.

Article 88 precludes ANY lawsuit against a sitting president specifically because doing so demonstrates "contempt" and the wording of any lawsuit is considered "comtemptuous words against the President". As I stated, there are means to address concerns that adhere to the UCMJ and the chain of command. Neither of these individuals followed those procedures.

[ddeclue]

102. No a lawsuit does NOT demonstrate contempt.

It is merely an attempt to seek a legal remedy to an (perceived) injury by the plaintiff.

The Lt.'s public words to the press are indeed contemptious of President Obama but that is a separate issue from either his lawsuit or the issue of "mutiny or sedition".

Doug D.

[ddeclue]

69. NOPE... that is inferring something that he never said...

You actually have to DO something overtly - you can't be guilty by metaphor.

[DevonRex]

70. He DID something overtly. There is no metaphor here.

[ddeclue]

75. NO he didn't do what the LAW requires overtly - you are creating the metaphor by claiming a legal

act is metaphorically a criminal one.

[WeDidIt]

72. I still contend, joining the same lawsuit outside the military chain of command

when there was a remedy for the situation within the chain of command is acting in concert.

[ddeclue]

76. Nope...that is NOT the definition of "acting in concert"

Acting in concert requires mutual (i.e. TWO WAY) communication between the parties involved.

You have no evidence of that.

[WeDidIt]

80. It is two way

The intermediary is Orly Taitz.

[ddeclue]

83. Nope.. you don't know what was said and you really can't prove it.

And the definition of "in concert" says nothing about intermediaries.

Doug D.

[WeDidIt]

87. Definition of "in concert" does not define the medium for communication. n/t

[DevonRex]

89. Not only that, but read the first sentence of the law. The first "person"

that is mentioned has to be subject to the UCMJ. That is clearly stipulated. The second "person" mentioned does not have that stipulation.

In other words, a military person can act in concert with a non-military person to begin a mutiny or sedition.

Thus, the enlisted man is also acting in concert with the non-military person, and with the officer, for the same purpose.

[WeDidIt]

91. So both acted in concert with Orly Taitz

Yep, I get what you're saying.

I bet there is a JAG officer in Iraq exploring this stuff right now, too.

[DevonRex]

94. Exactly. To read it otherwise would be to determine that no civilian could

EVER be involved in the process of beginning mutiny or sedition within the military.

[ddeclue]

97. A red herring that has nothing to do with the issue of two way communication.

[DevonRex]

100. Once again, slowly. Orly filed the suit. The 2 military personnel joined the suit. That's 2-way.

[ddeclue]

103. Um NOPE.. Orly may have had two way communications with each man separately

but it does NOT establish that communcations flowed THROUGH Orly BETWEEN these two men.

Did the left hand know what the right hand was doing?

That's what you have to prove.

Doug D.

[DevonRex]

105. The 2 men do NOT have to have communicated personally with each other.

They have joined the same cause.

Every person in a mutiny or in a seditious act is guilty of that act, whether or not they have personally communicated with every other person committing that same act or not.

[ddeclue]

110. NOPE - if they haven't communicated with each other then they haven't acted "in concert"

"in concert" requires two way communications.

[DevonRex]

112. They have acted "IN CONCERT" with the person who is inciting sedition

or mutiny. They are following the same leader. They are speaking out publically. Others will join.

[ddeclue]

115. That person is NOT subject to UCMJ and may speak out as much as he wants to..

- his acts as a civilian are NOT "seditious" - we eliminated the Alien and Sedition Acts under Thomas Jefferson's administration as I recall.

These two military people are his clients and he is not at liberty to discuss their communications with him because of atty client privilege and can't be forced by a military court to reveal it.

You really can't prove sedition or mutiny by virtue of the lawsuit.

You can prove contempt of President Obama by virtue of the Lt.'s public comments to the press however.

[DevonRex]

142. You must have missed this law: 18 USC Sec. 2387

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

[ddeclue]

95. If Taitz is their attorney, he can claim atty -client privilege

and then you can't prove anything about what transpired between them and will have to assume their innocence.

[WeDidIt]

108. Privilege does not apply

if the communication was a violation of the law.

John Gotti's attorney tried to claim privilege. He ended up in prison.

[ddeclue]

111. First learn to SPELL privilege...you can't establish if the communication was a violation of the law

unless you know the substance of the communication.

So much for that bootstrapping argument...

Doug D.

[WeDidIt]

124. The communications are documented publicly. n/t

[ddeclue]

127. No.. some things said to the PRESS are documented publicly.

You don't have evidence that officer A talked to enlisted man B or otherwise communicated to him through lawyer C.

Lawyer C will claim he talked to each man separately and that the subject of their communications was private and was not revealed to the other man nor can it be revealed to anyone else.

You can courts martial these guys for failing to follow orders, you can courts martial them for their public comments to the press but you can't courts martial them for joining the (baseless) lawsuit.

[ddeclue]

96. You aren't proving that they COMMUNICATED in a TWO WAY manner

it doesn't really matter whether all involved are in the military or not.

You haven't proved the key point of two way communication/agreement and you really can't.

[DevonRex]

99. Orly filed the lawsuit. The military personnel have joined it. That's two-way on its face.

[ddeclue]

104. No it is not..

You haven't proved that two way communications flowed THROUGH Orly BETWEEN these two men.

Orly may have had two way communications with each man separately and kept what he knew to himself and not relayed it on to the other man.

You can't prove that and Orly will claim atty client privilege prevents him from revealing that.

[WeDidIt]

106. What DevonRex is claiming is the act of joining the lawsuit

with Orly Taitz WAS the act of mutiny. Read Article 94 and pay attention to the bold and underlined parts I highlighted as well as the italicized part I added:

894. 94. Mutiny or sedition.

§ 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
(a) Any person subject to this chapter (1LT Easterling) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person (Dr. Orly Taitz), to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

The first person MUST be subject to the UCMJ. The second person NEED NOT be subject to the UCMJ.

[DevonRex]

107. Thank you. :)

[ddeclue]

117. The civilian lawyer is NOT subject to UCMJ and can say whatever the hell he likes..

and he is prevented by atty-client privilege from discussing his communications with either military person with a third party.

In fact he will claim that atty-client privilege prevents him from discussing the nature of his communications with either man to the court and prevented him from discussing it with the other man in the first place.

And you have yet to establish that filing a lawsuit in a Federal Court constitutes an act of "contempt" for which either man can be courts martialed.

Doug D.

[WeDidIt]

118. Orly Taitz is publicly on the record calling for Servicemen to disobey orders

Joining with Orly Taitz could definitely be considered an act of mutiny.

[ddeclue]

120. No you are again assuming knowledge and intent on the part of those joining him that you can't prove

[WeDidIt]

122. Intent is clear, Easterling stated specifically eh could not follow orders

He did so publicly.

[ddeclue]

125. He can be courts martialed for failing to obey orders

but not for merely filing or joining a lawsuit.

[ddeclue]

113. And you have NO basis to claim that filing a lawsuit is "an act of mutiny".

Sorry..

[WeDidIt]

116. Have you read the lawsuit?

Under the UCMJ, this very well could be mutiny. The officer in question was urged by Taitz to ignore lawful orders because of the lawsuit. The officer in question has stated he will not obey lawful orders until he is satisfied under the terms of the lawsuit.

[ddeclue]

123. Well he can be courts martialed for refusing to obey orders

but not for the lawsuit itself.

He has to treat his CIC as lawful until a court would say otherwise (won't happen).

[WeDidIt]

126. The lawsuit is where he acted IN CONCERT with the second party.

That demonstrates the mutinous act.

[ddeclue]

129. NO it DOESN'T.

As long as he continues to obey the orders of his superiors until the lawsuit is decided, he hasn't done anything "mutinous".

Doug D.

[DevonRex]

119. Oh good grief. Keep the players straight. The military personnel may

be guilty of mutiny or sedition in joining with a non-military person and refusing to obey their CIC.

Orly may actually be guilty of something far more egregious in actively trying to get active duty personnel to refuse to obey their CIC.

[ddeclue]

121. Refusing to obey their CIC - YES they can be courts martialed for THAT

but not for filing a lawsuit.

As far as I know Orly has a free speech right to advocate for anything he wants to advocate for as a civilian.

[DevonRex]

128. Orly is the instigator. The military men acted in concert with HER

and they are both following the same leader. THEY are subject to the UCMJ. She doesn't HAVE to be subject to the UCMJ.

She is a civilian who is trying to instigate a military coup against the CIC. The men themselves could be guilty of mutiny or sedition. SHE is not guilty of mutiny. SHE could be guilty of far worse.

[ddeclue]

130. Nope... they are NOT guilty of mutiny or sedition by virtue of their lawsuit.

their public comments are a different matter.

She is NOT trying to instigate a military coup against the CIC - she has no reasonable expectation of being able to do so. She is just a lawyer following legal tactics to an end and can do what she wants under the First Amendment both as a matter of free speech and seeking redress of grievances.

The lawsuit itself is NOT a mutinous act and the men have every right to file it even if it IS frivolous as long as they continue to follow orders while it is proceeding.

[DevonRex]

137. You are SO WRONG. Read the following statue:

CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2387 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally


STATUTE-
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval
forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

-SOURCE-
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, Sec.
46, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L),
Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109-163, div. A, title V,
Sec. 515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236.)

Here's the link:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

[PatGund]

140. Well.....

The birther blogs in general - Dr. Orly's included - routinely call for military coups to "restore the Constitution". Something I'm sure would be brought up in any suit.

Dr. Orly herself has been so misleading her clients and attacking her critics that seriously, the California Bar Association should look at sanctions or disbarrment.

[ddeclue]

93. You have to prove that there was indeed two way communication.

and if your proposed intermediary was THEIR attorney, he's going to claim attorney client privilege and you won't be able to prove anything.

:eyes:

[DevonRex]

54. This officer bypassed the chain of command. He went OUTSIDE

the military to air his grievances. He went PUBLIC to air his grievances. There are established avenues for addressing issues, which would NOT have been public and therefore would NOT have encouraged others to follow his lead.

If you believe that he has to specifically say, "I will not obey the usurper president. Who's with me?" in order to intentionally start a mutiny then you must believe only in the letter of the law rather than the spirit of that law.

[WeDidIt]

61. It'll be up to the JAG to determine charges

but guranteed, there will be charge. At a minimum Article 88, probably article 133 and 134. Articles 89, 90, and 92 are also highly likely charges.

Article 94 is a possiblity. Given the nature of prosecutors, they may hold article 94 over his head to get him to cop to a guilty plea on articles 88, 133, 1nd 134. That will get him a probable dishonorable discharge and they'd let it go at that. If he takes it to a full blown court martial, article 94 could come into play and articles 89, 90, and 92 will definitely come into play.

[ddeclue]

71. Well the "spirit" of the law isn't what sends you to jail - the letter of the law is.

The law has to be construed narrowly especially where guilt and innocence of a criminal defendant is concerned. You can't say someone violated the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law so he's guilty and get's five years in jail. It doesn't work that way.

:eyes:

[madmom]

55. Hubby just brought up an interesting thought...aren't these two also just following the

lead of Patreus and Odierno?

[WeDidIt]

56. Patreus and Odierno?

Neither have question the citizenship of Obama, so, um, no.

[madmom]

62. Not that they question his citizenship but his authority, they started it and made it

look acceptable.

[WeDidIt]

66. Gotta link to them questioning his authority?

That's a heavy charge to lay on two generals. That would eb HUGE news and I've seen nothing to the effect that they questioned Obama's authority.

In fact, if they had, it's a criminal offense.

[madmom]

101. Here ya go...

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45795

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/petraeus-leaked-misleadin_n_165450.html

This guy has political ambitions and is trying to undermind Obama's presidency. I too wonder why no charges where brought, it was dicussed here (on DU) also.

[WeDidIt]

132. I don't see either quesitoning Obama's authority in those articles.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

[madmom]

139. The CnC's job is to establish policy and issue orders, the miltary's job is to

follow those orders to the letter. The fact that they went public put their "policy" over and above the CnC, breaking the chain of command. This promotes dissension in the ranks. That is what we are now seeing in this lawsuit.

[WeDidIt]

148. High ranking generals have another job, and one that Obama asked them to perform.

They are to advise Obama about policy making.

Obama takes the advise, formulates the policy, and then issues the orders which they must follow to the letter.

The issue here is a leak about the discussions leading up to Obama's policy making, not a questioning of authority.

[madmom]

154. No at issue here is that Petraeus lied about what was said at the meeting to try to undermind Obama,

He did not leak what was said at the meeting, he changed the details of the meeting. The meeting was between the CnC and a subordinate. The subordinate then went in a public forum and tried to influence policy.


"The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.

This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision' published two days earlier.

The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus's argument against a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal plan within that time frame, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with the outcome of the meeting."

[nichomachus]

58. I haven't seen any proof

That Lt. Easterling isn't a child molester. Until I see such proof, I will consider him as such.

[CitizenPatriot]

59. turn around is fair play

I have started writing LTTE etc asking to see elected officials birth certificates, diplomas, IQ results, and psychiatric testing. I mean, it's only fair. It's also only fair to demand to go to the supreme court, as the bcers did. I don't understand how anyone in the military can fail to understand that the judicial branch has already responded to this issue and it is not a military issue. It is not their job to interpret the law and SCOTUS already said this issue was a non issue. Invalid. etc.

Here's an example of taking the freepers example and expounding on it; I wrote an email to the racist mayor of CA (of the watermelon scandal) and cc'd the entire city council, Rachel and Keith:


"Re: Watermelons on the White House Lawn Email

Shame on you. Shame shame shame.

The mayor claims he didn't know the stereotypes watermelons evoked when he used them in the email of the White House he sent out recently. Here's my concern: If indeed the mayor did not understand the watermelon reference, then why did he use it in the first place? Of all of the fruits, are you suggesting he just thought: January, of course, watermelons would be growing on the front lawn!

Either he's ignorant or he's racist. Apparently, he's going with ignorant as his excuse. Here's the real concern: If he is that ignorant, he surely isn't fit for office. He must have some sort of mental or emotional impairment that the people need to told about.

Have we seen a psychiatric evaluation of the mayor? Do we have access to his IQ scores? I am compelled to question his fitness for office.

I intend to see this question through, if I have to take it to the supreme court to get an answer. While we're at it, have we seen his birth certificate? His diplomas? And if we have, how do we know they're legitimate, anyway? Are they notarized? Are they the originals from the "vault"? Etc. Is he really married to his wife? Are their children really legitimate? Does one have to be white to be legitimate in this country? If not, exactly what races are "exempt" from having to show birth certificates, etc and what are "free"?

Now, I'm just spit-balling here: but what if someone drew a picture of the mayor wearing a white sheet next to a burning cross and used it as a cartoon in the paper this Sunday, would that suggest anything to you? I mean, a sheet is just a sheet. Right?

We demand to see the psychiatric evaluations and the IQ tests.

Sincerely,

xxxxx"

[Orsino]

60. Well, it's his ticket out of Iraq. n/t

[WeDidIt]

64. Possibly a one way ticket out of Iraq to Kansas

[GOTV]

68. What is a "Vault Copy" anyway?

How can you tell when you're looking at one?

[WeDidIt]

73. It's a made up phrase.

The contention of the Birthers is that the copy Hawaii keeps on record within a "vault" is the only legitimate copy.

They want document forensics performed on that "vault copy" to insure it's not phony, or something like that.

Again, it's made up phrasology.

[ddeclue]

77. Wouldn't it be the vault "original" anyways?

Wouldn't everything else be a "copy"?

:crazy:

[WeDidIt]

82. Yes, and it's copies that states send to people.

It's all I have.

The little piece of paper they give you (or gave, most hospitals don't do it any more) is for sentimental value and is not usable for real legal purposes. I discovered this the hard way as I had my "birth certificate" the hospital gave my mom. When I tried to use it to join the military many ages ago, I had to go back to the county of my birth and request a copy of my ACTUAL birth certificate.

[backscatter712]

144. Same here.

When I was younger and needed to get a passport, I discovered that the "birth certificate" the hospital gave my parents was nothing more than a ceremonial bauble, and I needed to get the real state document.

I went to the local office for the state Department of Health and Environment, showed them my driver's license, filled out a form, paid fifteen bucks, and they printed off a birth certificate for me, and embossed the state seal on the document.

We've been over all this with the birthers before. Obama released a redacted copy to the press, and it was broadcasted all over the Internet - they thought it wasn't good enough. He showed select members of the press the real thing, the birthers said "Not good enough" They went to the state of Hawaii, pulled some strings, and got a look at the original records in Hawaii's archives - that's as official as it gets, and the birthers still think it's not good enough. We went through microfiche records in Hawaii's newspapers and pulled Barack's birth announcement. Obama's shown the press the goods. The birthers will never be satisfied.

So the next time a birther presents this crap, just ask them if they forgot to take their thorazine.

[sunnystarr]

175. The "Vault copy" is the original birth certificate

All births and deaths require a certificate signed by a physician and filed with the County Clerk. When a woman has a child at home or in a hospital there is a form that is filled out by her and signed by the doctor who delivered the baby. This is also commonly referred to as the "long form." It has information about the mother and the father such as their birthdate, address, occupation, mother's maiden name etc. This form is then filed with the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the County of birth. Anyone can get a copy of the long form by requesting and paying for it. From this form a Certificate of Live Birth or Birth Certificate is prepared with the State seal. This is called the "short form" and has less information on it and is issued by the county clerk.

One common reason for not releasing it, especially during that time, is if the mother and father were not married at the time of the baby's birth. It was not unusual to have the original certificate changed in order to rename the child. Other changes may also be made. My son and his girlfriend had a baby boy (my grandson) and although she named him with my son's last name, she did not put him (the father) on the birth certificate (the long form). Documents were later filed to add his name but that didn't occur until years later (after they were married).

[Hepburn]

78. Hoping the asswipe gets a dishonorable discharge. n/t

[WeDidIt]

84. I hope he gets an all expnses paid trip to here

[14thColony]

85. Dear 1st Lt Dumbass;

1. You don't get to pick and choose which presidents you will or will not obey. If you can't handle that little stipulation, feel free to resign your commission.

2. You are in violation of the UCMJ and could very well could be charged, especially since you've made your derogatory comments a matter of public record. Evidence suggests you may be an idiot just for that.

3. You don't get to decide what constitutes a 'natural-born citizen' of the US. Did you ever notice the Constitution doesn't use the phrase 'native-born' even though it existed at the time? Wouldn't that have made more sense if that's what they meant to say? Natural-born means 'as a matter of birth,' i.e., citizenship granted because of the conditions of your birth - something naturally yours. US law says that one parent being a US citizen imparts the right of citizenship to the offspring. That's being a 'natural-born' citizen too.

4. If he's an 'imposter' who's he impersonating? Are you saying he's not really Barack Obama? Or is it that you don't know the meaning of the word, but it sounds cool to say? In which case you really are an idiot. In print.

Signed,
An officer who's been around a lot longer than you.

[Mad_Dem_X]

133. Amen!

If he wants a definition of "usurper" and "imposter," he need only look to the guy who was in office before Obama!

[damonm]

135. Dear 14th Colony,

PREACH!

:headbang: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang: :headbang:

[rox63]

88. Vault copy? WTF are these people smoking?

I'm pretty sure they could see a copy of Obama's birth certificate by taking a trip to the Honolulu City Hall.

[WeDidIt]

90. Not under Hawaii privacy laws.

Only directly interested parites such as the person whose birth certificate it is, certain governmental agents, and family members.

Once the person has passed away, it's a different story

[AtomicKitten]

131. Easterling is in a leadership position and should be prosecuted. n/t

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

134. Hope you enjoy the stockade, dude.

Cos that's where you're gonna be livin' for a while.

What a numbnuts.

[LibertyLover]

136. Is the person who filed this lawsuit Orly Taitz?

If so, I must smile a bit - Orly, a French airport and Taitz, not one of your common American last names as it didn't make the 1,000 most common surnames list from the last census. I wonder if Mr. or Ms. Taitz could produce his or her vault copy birth certificate upon request. I know that I sure can't and have gotten a passport, gotten married and adopted a child on the basis of notarized copies of what's on file with the office of vital records in New York City.

[PatGund]

141. Yep....

Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, JD. She's a immigrant from the former Soviet Union with a law degree from an on-line law school.

[DevonRex]

143. And now that she has been successful in getting 2 active duty personnel

to sign on to her suit, she may be guilty of this: 18 USC Sec. 2387

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

[Butch350]

138. Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman !!

[TwilightGardener]

146. Make an example out of him, and nip this shit in the bud before it becomes

a widespread problem in the ranks.

[TwilightGardener]

147. oopsie-dupesie

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

150. And you're a FUCKING RW TROLL FREEPER. Thanks mods!!! :)

[LostinVA]

163. What did it say?!

[DevonRex]

166. It said...

nevermind. probably shouldn't repeat it.

[acmavm]

151. Absolutely. This cannot stand. He is military. He swore an oath, right?

[treestar]

152. Was he in the military before 1-20-09?

Did he demand to see a "vault copy" of Bush's birth certificate before he would consider him his CIC?

Throw the book at him.

[SoxFan]

153. Next tactic: Obama ineligible because he hasn't been born yet

Obama isn't scheduled to be born until 2012, but Axelrod used his frozen donkey wheel...

[LostinVA]

161. Officers can't say shit like this -- he needs to see the inside of a stockade

He needs a court martial and a year or two in jail. He wanted to be an officer with the highre pay and perks, so he has to deal with the different rules and expections.

The Military is NOT a Democracy.

[Danger Mouse]

165. He deserves a court-martial and dishonorable discharge.

:puke:

[genna]

168. Thanks for explaining what statutes were involved

I was sure that the military didn't tolerate this kind of free speech. I remember the military guy during the Clinton administration who did not want to serve under a U.N. blue helmet because he said it went against his pledge to the U.S.

I don't remember what they disciplined him for exactly, but I do know he didn't have the right to complain in the way that he did. I was in college at the time. They said there was a specific and special procedure any military personnel has to follow in order to be heard and complain.


Now, I am not sure that I understand why or how a civilian attorney would have the actual knowledge or the practice to be able to persuade, entice, or subvert the military procedural process. I thought the issue with Guantanamo was that civilian attorneys could not get in and represent the detainees because they did not know the military uniform code. Only former military lawyers had the background for the types of suits the U.S. brought against the detainees.


I never served a day in the military but my father did. I don't recall these kinds of charges being a light matter for a commanding officer nor do I remember military personnel having the rights that civilians take for granted. In fact, if a soldier's family is in base housing and acts up, the soldier can be brought before his commanding officer to answer charges for their behavior.


How can anyone who has been in the military explain this sensibly to a non military family?

[14thColony]

179. I will give it a try

First, the US military is born of a democracy, but is itself an authoritarian institution, as it has to be.

Therefore, anything that could be 'prejudicial to good order and discipline,' or might serve to undermine unit morale or unit cohesion, must be controlled, or even banned. Many freedoms you enjoy, if practiced to the same extent by me, could damage a military unit and undermine its ability to perform its mission. There are therefore things I cannot do or say that you can, to wit;

- I cannot refuse an order unless I believe that order to be a violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict (in which case I MUST refuse the order). This is what got Mr. No Blue Beret; his refusal to deploy constituted "Failure to Obey a Lawful Order" and/or "Missing Movement".

- A member of the armed forces cannot use contemptuous words against the Pres, the VP, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of any military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present. I can say things like "I disagree with the President's policy in this case, and I feel it is the wrong course of action." I can't say "the president's an asshole and his policies are stupid."

- I cannot freely associate with whomever I please. Article 134 forbids 'fraternization' between officers and enlisted, subject to the customs of each service.

- I can be charged with a crime for committing adultery, regardless of who the other party may be.

- I can be executed for committing rape, even in peacetime.

Some of the 'crimes' in the UCMJ are silly, moralistic, and I cannot image would compromise good order and discipline, such as consensual sodomy (sodomy includes any oral sex) or the crime of cohabitation with someone of the opposite sex, even non-military (who cares?). These are pretty outdated and are very rarely enforced, in my experience.

At the same time, the UCMJ affords certain protections that are absent in civilian courts. I cannot plead guilty to any crime for which the punishment could be death, and if found guilty of a capital crime, appeal is automatic.

And yes, I am responsible for my family members' actions, but I am also responsible for their support and care. I can be charged with a crime for neglecting them or not providing sufficiently for their well-being.

All this is supposed to ensure that good order and discipline are maintained. Personally I think it does a pretty good job of balancing the needs of military discipline with the individual protections and rights provided by a liberal democracy.

A useful link for the various parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm.htm

[Posteritatis]

185. Transportation?

88 blocks language against the Secretary of Transportation in particular, and not any of the other nonmilitary cabinet posts?

What's that about?

[14thColony]

186. The Coast Guard

Until the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard (who are a military force and subject to the UCMJ as well) were under the Department of Transportation, whereas the rest of us are under the Department of Defense. None of us, therefore, can disparage either of the two secretaries who control military forces. I would expect this will be amended to delete DoT and substitute DHS now that the Coast Guard has moved departments.

[Posteritatis]

187. Ah! That makes sense

So now they're not allowed to disparage a secretary that no longer has any connection to them, but can do so for the secretary that's actually in charge? Dubya turned balldropping into an art form, didn't he?

[14thColony]

189. It appears you are correct

To the best of my knowledge, this has not been changed yet, although a revision was done to parts of the UCMJ in 2006. But then I am no expert and in fact the change may have already been made for all I know.

As much as I think Bush was a village idiot, the UCMJ is the sole perogative of Congress, which is given exclusive right to establish, maintain, and regulate the armed forces. The president's only role is to employ the armed forces as commander-in-chief when Congress gives him permission via a declaration of war.

[liberal1973]

171. I agree with one of the posts above

I agree with one of the posts above, that this guy deserves more than just "charged unbecoming an officer".

He should be made a example of. This un-American pos should have never been let into our armed forces.

This guy has committed treason to America.

What's the penalty for treason? death? then so be it.

[Thothmes]

173. Check you copy of the Constitution if you have one

His actions do not meet the Constitutional definition of treason

[14thColony]

180. The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Please note the use of the word ONLY.

It might sound good to say it, but accusing this officer of treason speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge of the accusers.

[Posteritatis]

181. "Treason's" one of those "you ought to pass a test before you throw it around" words

Too many people here use the word for anything up to and including "disagreeing with me over anything." It's a pity that that's not exclusively the other side's schtick.

(Of course, I expect you'll get some replies defining "giving aid and comfort" in a broad enough sense that "voting for a third party" or something would qualify. That just goes back to my initial point. ;) )

[14thColony]

183. Hear Hear

It has become something akin to "you disagree with the government when my party is in power."

Like the ever-expanding definition of terrorism, which seems to have come to mean "any violence against me or someone I like."

[bertman]

182. As a former Army officer, I would like to ask who put Lt. Easterling in charge of

verifying President Obama's birth certificate?

If there was one thing we were taught in our military officers' training it was that YOU DO YOUR JOB and count on others to do their jobs. If you have a problem with how someone else has done their job then you take it up the chain of command. Apparently Lt. Easterling thinks he has the right to challenge anything he feels is invalid regardless of whether it's within his area of responsibility. Uhhhh, Lt., you done messed up.

Make an example out of this reich-wing idiot.

[14thColony]

184. And for that reason

I'm willing to bet any court will rule that he has no standing or cause to bring any such suit.

[bertman]

190. Good point, 14thColony.