Educating the Ignorant
- Dec 19, 2008
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
I was under the impression Obama had cleared this up; obviously not.
Embarrassment to a president or anyone is not grounds for denying a defendant the right to mount a defense; especially when the code says he can garner whatever evidence necessary.
Whether you are a Birther or not... this stinks.
Is Lakin’s court-martial an American ‘Dreyfus affair’? | Alan Keyes is Loyal to Liberty
she (Judge Lind) has denied Lt. Col Lakin “the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence” for use in the Court Martial proceedings brought against him on the charge of refusing to obey lawful orders from the military chain of command until the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President has been investigated and resolved by the decision of a properly constitutional authority.
It’s marvelous that a supposedly competent legal officer of the United States military could cram so much prejudicial nonsense into so few words. She refers to Obama as president. But because, among other things, of her own action, his status as president is, as the lawyers might say, a fact not in evidence. If he is in fact not constitutionally eligible for the office, then he is not president. If he is not in fact constitutionally eligible, then no lawful authority emanates from him to the military chain of command. Therefore, Lt.Col Lakin is not guilty of the charge against him. Judge Lind’s language is prima facie evidence of prejudice, and she should either recuse herself or be removed from the case.
She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama. Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance? Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?
Judge Lind’s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part.