The LA Times has this piece about the increasing politicalization of the military (something I somewhat tongue in cheek commented was behind LTC Lakin’s contumacy):

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s criticism of Obama administration officials symbolizes an accelerated partisanship of the officer corps.

Here is a link to the article.

Here is a link to a 1999, Army Lawyer article which discusses prior cases of Article 88, UCMJ, issues (does McCarthur ring a bell). See, LTC Michael J. Davidson, Contemptuous Speech Against the President, Army Lawyer, July 1999.

These issues were debated to some extent during the presidential campaigns.

Article 88, UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code 888, 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.

At what point do public comments of senior officers remain purely disciplinary in the same manner as the enlisted soldier who gets prosecuted, disciplined, or chucked out, rather than having the luxury of resignation or other symbolic gestures.

His Greeley relatives are putting distance between themselves and his birther campaign. Lakin’s father Frank told the Greeley Tribune Friday that his son’s video wasn’t representative of the family. “This does not reflect the opinions or the attitude of the family by any means,” he said. “We’re Obama supporters.”

A posting at Buzzflash.com asserts that LTC Lakin is also a member of the Tea Party.

A comment from LtCol Christopher Matthews, USAF (Ret.) on CAAFLog

[M]ilitary appellate courts adopted the de facto officer doctrine long ago — see, e.g., United States v. Jette, 25 M.J. 16 (C.M.A. 1987); United States v. Watson, 37 M.J. 166, 168 (C.M.A. 1993); and United States v. Brown, 39 M.J. 114 (C.M.A. 1994). CAAF not long ago denied petitions on a pair of Air Force cases where we upheld convictions by courts-martial convened by an officer ineligible to assume command as the GCMCA, so I believe the law on this point to be unchanged.

An article at Huffington Post posits that the ultra conservatives are “taking advantage” of military people such as LTC Lakin, as part of an all out assault on the military – a strange position for the far right who once accused those who didn’t support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being traitors.

Why put this man’s career in jeopardy over a lie? For the same reason Glenn Beck is taking advantage of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation to pay for a hate filled rally or Sean Hannity is scamming wounded warriors and their kids.

(There have been a number of reports about the extravagant expenditures of Sean Hannity that are charged off to the charity. I believe the Salvation Army has an overhead of about 4%, the rest of their donations going to the charity work.)

The Colorado Independent reports that:

Terry Lakin, the Army Doctor who has refused orders to deploy to Afghanistan, hasposted online the letter he wrote to Pres. Obama last week explaining his decision.

If he is correct, then all orders are illegal since President Obama was sworn in? Thus an additional charge at his court-martial (in addition to Article 88, UCMJ, Article 92, UCMJ, for unlawful political activity) should include theft perhaps or wrongful receipt of government funds or some other wrongful taking – like his pay checks? Military personnel are routinely prosecuted for taking and keeping BAH they are knowingly not entitled to and failing to report the matter?

Query. If President Obama is not lawfully president, who is? Well is it not Vice-President Biden? There has been no issue raised that VP Biden is not lawfully elected. Either way, military orders, assuming they come from the president qua president, must come from VP Biden then. So LTC Lakin is getting lawful orders. See, we can all make silly arguments about this.

Here’s an interesting piece from the Guardian in the UK (a liberal paper):

Lakin’s outburst of birtherism should not be seen in isolation. Instead, it’s further evidence that rightwing hate, aided and abetted by leading Republicans, has gone mainstream. Remember when people, especially conservatives jumped on DHS for issuing a warning about extremism.

The first warning came a year ago, when the department of homeland security predicted a rise in rightwing extremism fuelled by economic calamity and the election of our first black president. News of the report, and especially about a warning contained therein that military veterans might be pulled into the movement, set off criticism among conservative bloggers. Yet it proved prescient.

In the Nov. 10 Journal article, Davis wrote that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision to use both federal court and military commissions to try detainees was “a mistake.” “It will establish a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions,” Davis wrote. In a letter to The Post that was published Nov. 11, Davis said former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey was engaged in “fear-mongering worthy of former vice president Dick Cheney” when he raised security concerns about bringing detainees into the United States for prosecution.

As a retired military officer, is there Article 88, UCMJ, jeopardy here?