Where are the anti-war crowd?

| April 14, 2010

Someone just emailed me an article in regards to LTC Terry Lakin, the Army officer who has refused deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that the President isn’t a US citizen who is now facing court martial charges. Now, I just spent the morning reading Dede Miller explaining how she respects only the soldiers who lay down their arms and quit.

I’ve been reading Courage to Resist for years, and there’s no praise for Lakin – lots about Marc Hall, the Stop Loss rapper, Travis Bishop, Alexis Hutchinson, Victor Agosto – but no mention of Lakin.

I scoured the IVAW website, Veterans Today, March Forward, Veterans for Common Sense and the multitude of other “veterans organizations” and can’t find a mention of support for him anywhere. Vets Voice doesn’t like him though, but that’s because he goes against the party line over there.

So it looks like This Ain’t Hell is the only consistent voice on the internet – we don’t like anyone who Blue Falcons their fellow troops and won’t do their duty for any reason. the military isn’t a political tool with which to whack any administration. it’s the tool of the American people to be used as we see fit, when we want.

If Lakin, Agosto, Bishop, Hutchinson or any other peckerwood has a problem with our policies or leadership, they should make their move before they’re called to duty. Period. Anyone on either side who thinks so little of the responsibility with which the American people have entrusted them that they reduce it to a political discussion should be executed on the spot. How’s that for being fair and consistent?

Category: Antiwar crowd, Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Stefan Cook

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. dutch508 says:

    It’s because the left only hates the right. Now that they have their socialist President in power it’s not cool to protest.

  2. They don’t support him, I feel, for various reasons. First, he is not opposed to the wars, just the orders. Also, many, not all, but many in the “movement” are quick to throw out race and they probably think that this guy is just motivated by masked racism.

    I dislike Obama for real grounded reasons. I also didn’t like that other joker. But this guy and his claims are plain stupid and I don’t give a damn where Obama was born. I give a damn about what he does in Office.

    To the best of my knowledge the “movement” folk have always had a standing policy of only supporting those against the wars. Sad to say though, they use those Soldiers and then when they are no longer of value, they toss them to the side.

  3. UpNorth says:

    “I don’t give a damn where Obama was born. I give a damn about what he does in Office”. Well said, Casey, and that should be our catch phrase.

  4. BohicaTwentyTwo says:

    Oh the left is all in a tizzy about soldiers not following orders these days. This one is beside himself about tea partiers and Oath Keepers not following orders.


  5. Cortillaen says:

    “I don’t give a damn where Obama was born.”
    With all due respect, if that is the case, then you don’t give a damn about the Constitution. The two are one and the same, after all. Either the constitutional requirements for the presidency matter, or they don’t, but you can’t split them from the rest of the document.

    Maybe my mindset will change in the coming months, but, for the moment, I can’t view this as a cut-and-dried issue. When one swears to defend the Constitution above all else, is that oath better served by ignoring a possible breach of the Constitution than by disrupting the service and refusing to carry out orders? I can’t say, but I can say that it shouldn’t come to that.

    My personal opinion is that bringing suit to try to uncover the truth, whether or not the orders are lawful, is admirable so long as the motivation and goal thereof is to uphold the Constitution. However, I can’t condone hanging his brothers and sisters out to dry by refusing to deploy. It seems that one would have to assume all orders are lawful until proven otherwise and act upon that assumption. In that vein, bring suit outside deployment, not during (I can’t imagine being able to commit the sort of time necessary for working up the suit during a deployment without hurting the service, even if you could find a lawyer willing and able to accommodate that situation), and surely don’t expect to use your court martial in place of the suit.

    As for not using military status as a personal political tool, I agree. However, the courts have consistently ruled that citizens have no standing, no right to investigate a possible breach of the Constitution. The absurdity of that notwithstanding, the situation means that military status may be the only way get the issue examined. Again, it comes down to motive: I can’t fault someone for using their military status as a tool when it is necessary to uphold the Constitution.

    As for LTC Lakin’s motivations, it’s hard to tell. I’m typically pretty cynical, more inclined to believe in baser motivations over justice, altruism, and all that. Still, the guy is literally torching his career with no visible fall-back, which would seem to make greed, fame-lust, spite, or sheer partisanship rather unlikely. On the other hand, tossing your brethren under the bus to make a point doesn’t exactly come across as very dutiful. I suppose he could feel that the added publicity of terminating his career in such a way is vital to the issue (I can see how a court martial for disobeying orders might be viewed to bolster one’s standing for investigating the legality of those orders), but I’ll remain well into skeptical territory. He would certainly have more credibility if he had brought suit on the issue well before refusing to deploy, but, as far as I can tell from a cursory examination, he has not brought suit at all. I suppose he could feel that his court martial is the better vehicle for the issue, but that seems like a stretch and bad judgment even if it is the case. He’s rather shot himself in the foot a couple times on motive credibility already.

    Also, the issue of whether or not a breach of the Constitution renders illegal orders from the offender doesn’t strike me as very well examined. The text in question states requirements for eligibility, so do the Electoral College and Chief Justice have the power to disregard those requirements and place in office someone who is ineligible? I can’t imagine claiming that they have the power to overrule the Constitution, but, if they don’t, their certification and inauguration of an ineligible person would mean nothing. The ineligible person would still not be the President, and his orders as CIC would thus be unlawful. If there are specific law, court cases, or reasoning that can justify the ineligible person’s orders being considered lawful, I’m all ears.

    To wrap up a post that turned out much longer than I’d intended, I view LTC Lakin’s refusal to deploy as an extremely poor course of action. I can understand how he might view it as the best way to uphold his oath, but whether that actually is his primary motivation is doubtful to me. All in all, I’m thinking he’s got some sort of vendetta or imbalance driving him rather than just being so ineptly well-intentioned, but him not doing justice to his proclaimed goal isn’t grounds to dismiss that goal as unworthy.

  6. Jen says:

    I bet Obama got that birth certificate at Kinkos, hence orders by him are illegal.


  7. caroline says:

    Cortillaen- no one cares what you have to say if you can’t say it in 5 sentences or less.

  8. Debra says:

    Not true. I read the whole thing. However, you might want to take note, Cortillaen, that the majority of TAH readers are apparently very slow readers and become overwhelmed by more than 5 sentences, as Caroline said. Plus some of them, such as NHSparky, seem to have very limited bandwidth and he becomes very upset if you use too much of his bandwidth… apparently. At least that is what I have learned in my experience as an active TAH participant..

  9. Debra says:

    Jonn wrote:

    “Anyone on either side who thinks so little of the responsibility with which the American people have entrusted them that they reduce it to a political discussion should be executed on the spot. How’s that for being fair and consistent?”

    They shouldn’t be executed on the spot, but they obviously need to be kept out of harm’s way.

  10. Debra says:

    Based on personal feedback I have received in response to my #8 comment above, perhaps I should clarify that I was KIDDING. I know that you all can read more than 5 lines; the question is whether or not some of us actually possess the ability to communicate what we mean in five lines or less.
    πŸ™‚ (I was not kidding on #9 above though.)

  11. If, and a very big IF here, our military members were “victim” of a draft, perhaps we could understand that some would claim to be CO’s, some would want to abscond to Canada, while others would just soapbox themselves and burn flags and shit. However, the IF does not fit here, and every single military person serving either joined or re-enlisted since the Iraq invasion, and could have avoided being in a military situation that they do not agree with. In our volunteer military it seems that some want the dessert without eating the spinach that comes with it.
    I have zero sympathy for anyone complaining about his/her military situation, and have no use or respect for any military person who disparages MY military.
    Any refusal to serve comes off as cowardice, or the move of an unpatriotic asshole.
    Matthis the loser is at the top of that stack, perhaps being jostled from position by any active military person who is disparaging the military.
    I spent 10 hours today with the 6th Ranger Training Bn, as they prepared for this evenings jump into their class exercises. I brought up this topic while in discussion with E-4 to an E-9 and Captains and a couple of Majors. None felt any sympathy for any of the IVAW kooks or any other of the cowards. They are losers, pure and simple.

  12. Debra says:

    To be honest with you, Frankie Cee, I’m surprised to hear that a conversation about it even took place in a military environment. In my neck of the woods, and I’m surrounded by military, too, I’ve never even heard the topic arise.

    I agree with your assessment to a large extent, however, it is also the case that a person’s beliefs leading to conscientious objection could conceivably crystallize after a person joined the military, while serving, and the law does recognize that as well. Of course, being a conscientious objector is not the same thing as objecting to a particular war on legalistic grounds; the lines of reasoning are completely different (though I can also see how they could easily be confused).

  13. JonP says:

    Where a person is born as a qualification for being President is set out in the Constitution as others have pointed out and should be a concern to all. I do agree that once you put on the uniform you give up your right to disagree with the politics of your superiors in regards to what orders you will obey and those that you do not. If you think you might have a problem with that then don’t sign on the dotted line in the first place. The military is not a welfare program or a job training program or a place to get free college tuition and generally party for several years.
    Debra: your dry humor is unappreciated by the more….hardcore and serious on this sight. πŸ™‚

  14. NHSparky says:

    Dear Debra,

    For someone who claims that I don’t put a burr up her ass, you sure are bugged by me, even when I haven’t posted in a thread. Called out specifically, that takes some serious obsession on your part, toots. Do I piss you off that much? If so, good! Wanna look me up in the phone book next?

    All that being said, coming across one of your posts I get the same feeling as facing the realization that there is going to be at least 30 seconds of my life I won’t be getting back.

    The powers that be have decided that Obama’s BC is valid, therefore he is in fact able to hold the office of POTUS. I’m fine with that. There have been plenty of opportunities for people more reputable than Oily Taint and her mouth-breathing crowd of “nirthers” to question the legality of Obama’s ability to hold office. Nobody has done so–not the GOP, not Hillary during the campaign, not a single reputable source. NOT. A. SINGLE. ONE.

    The good Colonel has a right to resign his commission if he disagrees with the C-in-C. He does NOT have the right to question every single order that comes down the pike simply because he doesn’t like the occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave. That’s the gist of his arguement–the prez is illegit, he is the head of the Armed Forces, ergo, all orders the LTC gets are illegit. What bullshit.

  15. OldTrooper says:

    Hey Debra; regarding your post #8. I take exception to that analogy and am highly offended. Just because I move my lips while I read doesn’t mean I’m s-l-o!!! I don’t think you were kidding, either, so now I’m going to go watch Spongebob and have a juicebox…..you big booger.

  16. Debra says:

    Dear Sparky (#14),

    If my calling you out makes your day, hey, have at it! BTW, I meant to congratulate you a few blog posts back. Not only have you gained my attention through your consistent and devoted slinging of insults toward me in response to comments I render on this site, you have also gone above and beyond the call of duty by distinguishing yourself as virtually the ONLY guy in my entire history on the internet who has ever responded to a comment of mine with the line, “Give me a kiss, baby!” When I read that, Sparky, you know what…my heart just did a little flutter and the first thing I wondered, naturally, was how old you are (since I’m opposed on principle to having affairs with any guys younger than at least twenty years older than my son-in-law (and I hope my son-in-law isn’t a reader of this site…), and the second thing I wondered, was, if you are married, as I’m also opposed on principle to having affairs with married men. Obviously you’re married, so you do at least have one thing going in your favor. I wish the best for your wife; Lord knows she must put up with a lot. However, I’m sorry to disappoint you, Sparky, but I’m totally not into stalking; I like transparency. Maybe you have me confused with one of your other, uh, admirers?

    JonP (#13): And you haven’t even seen the worst of it yet. The shorter the lines, the dryer it gets. πŸ™‚

    Old Trooper (#15), Thank you. It’s good to know that at least one person apppreciates my efforts here at TAH… πŸ˜‰

  17. Debra, did you notice in my comment that I brought up the topic. Your “neck of the woods”? Well, being 46.4 line of sight miles WSW of me, I guess I am not in your “neck of the woods”. This was not a conversation on these cowards, just a mention and some discussion as we discussed life in general. Actually, we had many much more worthwhile topics that we spent more time on. But still, I brought it up and looked and listened for reaction. There was no defense for those of the IVAW sorts.

    Nuf Sed

  18. Debra says:

    LOL, Frankie C…well, we are at different spots on the neck, then. And you’re in the woods with Army rangers; I’m at a training center with sailors and Marines. So, see…they are different. πŸ™‚ Anyway, I understand what you’re saying; personally I don’t ever bring anything like that up as I’m not comfortable with a conversation like that in that environment, and I’m way too busy working anyway.

    We really ought to get together one of these days before I move. πŸ™‚

  19. JD says:

    I didn’t vote for Obama, Nader was my guy. I retired from the USMC last year. This guy Lakin seems like an odd duck.

    Peace, Semper Fidelis, and IVAW…