Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

[Terry]

This guy will get discharged because he broke the UCMJ more than likely under Article 88-Contempt toward officials. He should have waited until he got out of the Military. As a Civilain I see no problem but he signed a contract with the Military and must follow the law of the UCMJ.

I think Easterling is smart as a fox. I don't believe he really has any doubts about President Obama's legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. Instead, this could be a ploy to get out of Iraq by doing something so monumentally embarrassing to the US Army that it has no choice but to pull him out of Iraq, charge him under the UCMJ but give him a Other Than Honorable Discharge which doesn't really count against him in the civilian world.

I could be wrong. After all, we are talking about a second lieutenant!

Other than honorable discharge does matter in the civilian world. it's a record! If he wants to use his training he got in the Military or use it as a source of employment record, it will matter.

 

[BrianH]

IMO, regardless of whether or not this guy is going about it the "right" or "wrong" way, he has a point. I wonder how many presidents have been required to provide birth cirtificates? I feel that as a citizen, or soldier, we have the right to know where our leaders come from. We delve into every other aspect of their life, why not be able to check a candidates' eligibility.
I'm not expert on military matters, but as far as I'm aware of, this soldier took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. For some reason or another, this soldier/citizen of the United States feels like the Constitution is being stomped on.
This man is laying his life down on the line. If he wants to question the eligibility of the president, I feel he has that right. And I also feel his questions should be legitimately answered.
As far as the supreme court, we forget that these people are human as wel. We should quit thinking of them of this source of infinte wisdom and just morals. If we just lie back and accept everything that's told to us, we'd be more brainwashed than we already are. There would be no questions or problem if Obama would just produce a birth cirtificate. (He may have--but I've never seen or heard of him producing one.)

 

[AllieBaba]

To accept the facts!

He is your legal president!

Our president is sworn to uphold the constitution. THe Declaration states it is the obligation of citizens to rise up when a government becomes tyrannical.

If this guy thinks the C in C is tyrannical, he's doing what he's supposed to.

I thought you guys all thought that confronting and criticizing your government and elected officials was a sign of "patriotism"! You say it all the time when you try to justify ridiculing the military, calling our soldiers dopes and Republican presidents murderers and terrorists.

In other words, boo fucking hoo.

 

[Toome]

This guy will get discharged because he broke the UCMJ more than likely under Article 88-Contempt toward officials. He should have waited until he got out of the Military. As a Civilain I see no problem but he signed a contract with the Military and must follow the law of the UCMJ.

I think Easterling is smart as a fox. I don't believe he really has any doubts about President Obama's legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. Instead, this could be a ploy to get out of Iraq by doing something so monumentally embarrassing to the US Army that it has no choice but to pull him out of Iraq, charge him under the UCMJ but give him a Other Than Honorable Discharge which doesn't really count against him in the civilian world.

I could be wrong. After all, we are talking about a second lieutenant!

Other than honorable discharge does matter in the civilian world. it's a record! If he wants to use his training he got in the Military or use it as a source of employment record, it will matter.

Well, I was being somewhat flippant.

In reality, it depends on the economy. A Dishonorable Discharge is a red flag under most, if not, all circumstances. However, if the economy is good, then many employers are willing to overlook mostly anything in a prospective employee's background short of a felony or any of the automatic job disqualifiers. Not saying that a person with an Other Than Honorable Discharge is a front-runner for management; just saying that it's not an automatic hiring discriminator. When the economy is in a crunch, and the hiring is not as plentiful, then it's a matter of looking for anything that can automatically disqualify an applicant.

In either case, he won't be able to get a government job. He's already hosed down that option already.

 

[Toome]

IMO, regardless of whether or not this guy is going about it the "right" or "wrong" way, he has a point. I wonder how many presidents have been required to provide birth cirtificates? I feel that as a citizen, or soldier, we have the right to know where our leaders come from. We delve into every other aspect of their life, why not be able to check a candidates' eligibility.
I'm not expert on military matters, but as far as I'm aware of, this soldier took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. For some reason or another, this soldier/citizen of the United States feels like the Constitution is being stomped on.
This man is laying his life down on the line. If he wants to question the eligibility of the president, I feel he has that right. And I also feel his questions should be legitimately answered.
As far as the supreme court, we forget that these people are human as wel. We should quit thinking of them of this source of infinte wisdom and just morals. If we just lie back and accept everything that's told to us, we'd be more brainwashed than we already are. There would be no questions or problem if Obama would just produce a birth cirtificate. (He may have--but I've never seen or heard of him producing one.)

You state a very valid point in terms of freedom of expression and the right to ask questions as guaranteed by the Constitution.

To put it in blunt terms, the lieutenant (or any other military member of the armed forces) voluntarily accept the limitations the military imposes on that specific right. More directly, as an officer commissioned by Congress, this individual has committed a military crime subject to penalties that have the same weight as a felony. I seriously doubt it will go that far; I'm thinking there will be something akin to a plea agreement that will result in his discharge from the military.

 

[American Horse]

I think Easterling is smart as a fox. I don't believe he really has any doubts about President Obama's legitimacy as the Commander in Chief. Instead, this could be a ploy to get out of Iraq by doing something so monumentally embarrassing to the US Army that it has no choice but to pull him out of Iraq, charge him under the UCMJ but give him a Other Than Honorable Discharge which doesn't really count against him in the civilian world.

I could be wrong. After all, we are talking about a second lieutenant!

From the text in the link:
"Easterling said he joined the Army at age 40 after working in Iraq as a contractor."

"I chose to work … to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of basic training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent basic officer leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly thereafter deployed to Balad, Iraq," he wrote.

"I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced," he wrote.

.... Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama's eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.

"My conviction is such that I am compelled to join.... as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action," he said.

I do not doubt his sincerity. He took an oath (like all service members do) "to protect and defend the constitution". The fact is he, along with some others in that above list would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president, and have the necessary "standing" to challenge the President's lack of being forthright with his documents. Anyone who brings a case to the Supreme Court of the US must have that status of "standing" and that may have been the reason that up to now the Supreme Court has not taken up any of these cases. Attorney Berg has been ruled to not have "standing"...

STANDING
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit - Oct 25, 2008 ... Rules voters don't have standing to 'police' constitutional ... "Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff ...

I for one am interested in seeing how this pans out. And I hope that Obama's certificate of live birth in Hawaii proves to actually be a birth certificate. If it is proven that there has been a dereliction of duty by government officials of the US to ascertain the citizenship of a candidate for president, then a great deal of damage has already been done to the confidence in our system to be able to police itself. Sadly, we already know the answer to that question, and for good or bad some are determined to discover the truth in this matter rather than just brush it under the rug.

And if in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated:

“if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14)” (which would equal 19). “At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship….” (numbers in parenthesis are mine)

 

[Zoom-boing]

2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility
Says issue could decide if 'we are a Constitutional Republic'

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.

His letter was directed to California attorney
Orly Taitz who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Easterling, who confirmed separately to WND that he is questioning Obama's authority, wrote to Taitz that, "As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States."

2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility


Once again - if this is all garbage from the right to stir the pot, why doesn't Obama just show whatever documents that are being asked for and be done with this whole thing? If there is nothing to hide, why is he refusing to provide these documents? If it where me, I'd provide the proof just to show the yahoos who were bellyaching that they are acting like ninnies. So far the only ninny I see is Obama. He's keeping this thing alive with all his ducking and dodging.

 

[editec]

Just because hes a soldier doesnt mean he has an opnion. What about freedom of speech. Its his right to voice his opnion. Im married to a Sailor, who doesnt feel safe with Obama as president, does that mean hes going to be kicked out??

It's not about his right to speak his mind, Rach.

Its about his decision to refuse to obey a lawful order.

No, it probably means he'll go to prison.

 

[editec]

To accept the facts!

He is your legal president!

Our president is sworn to uphold the constitution. THe Declaration states it is the obligation of citizens to rise up when a government becomes tyrannical.

If this guy thinks the C in C is tyrannical, he's doing what he's supposed to.

I thought you guys all thought that confronting and criticizing your government and elected officials was a sign of "patriotism"! You say it all the time when you try to justify ridiculing the military, calling our soldiers dopes and Republican presidents murderers and terrorists.

In other words, boo fucking hoo.

He doesn't think the CnC is tyrannical.

He thinks he isn't POTUS.

Big damned difference.

 

[Ravi]

Shouldn't that be former soldier? What an idiot. I am glad he spoke up...people like him are a disgrace to the country and shouldn't be in the service.

 

[American Horse]

Just because hes a soldier doesnt mean he has an opnion. What about freedom of speech. Its his right to voice his opnion. Im married to a Sailor, who doesnt feel safe with Obama as president, does that mean hes going to be kicked out??

It's not about his right to speak his mind, Rach.

Its about his decision to refuse to obey a lawful order.

No, it probably means he'll go to prison.

Ed,
For clarification here, what specific lawful order has he refused to obey? I think (at least) that I have read all of this material and he has not done that, but has merely challenged the legal status (and eligibility) of the president to issue any orders that he might be called upon to follow in the future.

 

[del]

he could easily be found in violation of article 88 of UCMJ.

“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.”

articles 92 and/or 94 is a stretch, IMO, but could be used.

Main Menu

 

[American Horse]

he could easily be found in violation of article 88 of UCMJ.

“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.”

articles 92 and/or 94 is a stretch, IMO, but could be used.

Main Menu

But do we know that he has actually done that? For him to inititiate a challenge by following legal channels, does that amount to using contemptuous words? From my own experience in the military, which I admit is limited and in the early 60's, if a service member was thought to have committed a UCMJ violation, he would've been charged immediately so as to put a stop the violation. As far as I can see that hasn't as yet happened. That causes me to believe that charge cannot (yet) be made.

 

[del]

he could easily be found in violation of article 88 of UCMJ.

“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.”

articles 92 and/or 94 is a stretch, IMO, but could be used.

Main Menu

But do we know that he has actually done that? For him to inititiate a challenge by following legal channels, does that amount to using contemptuous words? From my own experience in the military, which I admit is limited and in the early 60's, if a service member was thought to have committed a UCMJ violation, he would've been charged immediately so as to put a stop the violation. As far as I can see that hasn't as yet happened. That causes me to believe that charge cannot (yet) be made.

you might be right, horse, i haven't followed it very closely. since it's relatively high profile, perhaps they're proceeding more slowly than usual?

 

[American Horse]

he could easily be found in violation of article 88 of UCMJ.
articles 92 and/or 94 is a stretch, IMO, but could be used.

As far as I can see that hasn't as yet happened. That causes me to believe that charge cannot (yet) be made.

you might be right, horse, i haven't followed it very closely. since it's relatively high profile, perhaps they're proceeding more slowly than usual?

I do know that he has been warned by the attorney he has been in contact with to be very careful in what he says. I take that to mean his "spoken words" rather than, perhaps, being a part of a legal process which would not amount to "using contemptuous words". I would say this: if he is not charged it will be because he can't be charged. It will be interesting to see if there is any intrusion in this from above. I don't think there will be but some up there in the military chain of command is/are no doubt being made very uncomfortable by this little flap, and people are talking about what to do next.

 

[BrianH]

IMO, regardless of whether or not this guy is going about it the "right" or "wrong" way, he has a point. I wonder how many presidents have been required to provide birth cirtificates? I feel that as a citizen, or soldier, we have the right to know where our leaders come from. We delve into every other aspect of their life, why not be able to check a candidates' eligibility.
I'm not expert on military matters, but as far as I'm aware of, this soldier took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. For some reason or another, this soldier/citizen of the United States feels like the Constitution is being stomped on.
This man is laying his life down on the line. If he wants to question the eligibility of the president, I feel he has that right. And I also feel his questions should be legitimately answered.
As far as the supreme court, we forget that these people are human as wel. We should quit thinking of them of this source of infinte wisdom and just morals. If we just lie back and accept everything that's told to us, we'd be more brainwashed than we already are. There would be no questions or problem if Obama would just produce a birth cirtificate. (He may have--but I've never seen or heard of him producing one.)

You state a very valid point in terms of freedom of expression and the right to ask questions as guaranteed by the Constitution.

To put it in blunt terms, the lieutenant (or any other military member of the armed forces) voluntarily accept the limitations the military imposes on that specific right. More directly, as an officer commissioned by Congress, this individual has committed a military crime subject to penalties that have the same weight as a felony. I seriously doubt it will go that far; I'm thinking there will be something akin to a plea agreement that will result in his discharge from the military.

Oh I agree with you. I'm not versed in military code of conduct, but if this man indeed did not follow the military law in what he has done, then by all means, there should be something done about it. But, I don't think he should be punished based on his questions and or view about the subject. He should be given whatever punishment based on his violation of military law or code of conduct as an officer, and not on his right and duty (as a citizen and soldier) to protect the United States Constitution. I don't foresee this making a big stink either, but I applaud the man for bringing up the question. It's funny, many people cheered on military men who violated orders to go to Iraq because they didn't believe in the war and hated George Bush. Now, that Obama is the target of illcontent, this man is somehow painted as a traitor. Double-Standard if you ask me.

 

[Againsheila]

I thought Clinton was a joke when I was enlisted during his tenure... but I certainly would not have and did not go about expressing my disapproval of him in this way

Yeah, but Clinton, as much as we hated him, was a native born American. Didn't matter that he lied to get out of the draft and then didn't uphold his end of the bargain. You can do that and still be president.

 

[Munin]

This guy is a moron, you don't question your commander in chief : that is high treason.

We all know that the Army is no democracy, so please CUT THE CRAP

 

[American Horse]

This guy is a moron, you don't question you commander in chief : that is high treason.

We all know that the Army is no democracy, so please CUT THE CRAP

Army Officer Appointment Acceptance and Oath of Office:
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

The US oath of military serivice for officers and enlisted is not an oath to support and defend the president, but the constitution, and that is exactly what this Lt. is attempting to do.

 

[Againsheila]

he could easily be found in violation of article 88 of UCMJ.

“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.”

articles 92 and/or 94 is a stretch, IMO, but could be used.

Main Menu

How is asking for proof of natural born citizenship, contemptuous words?

No where does it say you can't question the president or the validity of his requirements for office.