TDPS: Birther Army doctor indicted, and the hypocrisy is thick

[celtics23]

Run time: 04:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaFEPxhab_Q   Posted on YouTube: December 17, 2010 By YouTube Member: MidweekPolitics Views on YouTube: 89   Posted on DU: December 17, 2010 By DU Member: celtics23 Views on DU: 402

 
From: www.davidpakman.com | Subscription: www.davidpakman.com/membership | YouTube: www.youtube.com/midweekpolitics

Let's talk about this birther, Louis, who has been convicted for refusing to deploy. Did you hear about this story?

Louis: No.

David: OK. Our audience may not be surprised to hear that from you. A military jury has convicted an army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions whether President Barack Obama is eligible to be president. OK, so we've interviewed Orly Taitz, the queen of the birther movement, several times. We've heard a number of different birther arguments. Here we actually have a member of the military who is actually acting, conducting his career, essentially, around the idea that he questions Barack Obama's eligibility and legitimacy as the president.

Louis: Well, first of all, it wasn't... it was George Bush who sent people to Afghanistan, so I don't see...

David: Right, well, Barack-- but I think this is a new, this is a new deployment. Barack Obama has expanded deployment, is what this refers to. And this is a jury in Fort Meade, Maryland, which found Lieutenant Colonel Terrance Lakin guilty of missing a flight that would have gotten him to Kentucky for his eventual deployment. He was convicted of a charge of missing movement by design.

He posted a bunch of videos on YouTube, and he certainly... to say he aligned himself with the birthers is an understatement. And a quote, I think, is, "He aligned himself with those who question whether Obama is a natural-born citizen as the Constitution requires for presidents." So essentially he's a birther. I think that's fair to say. Would you agree?

Louis: Agreed.

David: He disobeyed court orders... or, orders to deploy to Afghanistan, and he believed that his inaction is justified because as a birther, he questions whether President Barack Obama is actually qualified to give that order.

This reminds me you know of what? Of the Tiller killer, Scott Roeder, trial, where the man who killed abortion doctor Scott Tiller argued well, I was actually saving lives by taking this one, so you actually should not convict me for this crime. It's kind of the same thing, where you're just pulling in things that have no bearing on the actual issue at hand, which is did he miss the deployment date or not?

Now, he told the military jury he had gone to a chapel to do some, quote, "soul-searching", and he felt he simply had no choice but to disobey the orders.

Louis: Pretty bogus.

David: This strikes me as incredibly hypocritical, and I'll tell you exactly why. Conservatives are all for order, military discipline. All of a sudden, enlisted soldiers are now just questioning whether any order is valid based on is the president really the president? I mean, there's something hilarious about that, is there not?

Louis: It's odd. I mean, you're not really supporting your fellow troops, you're not really supporting the mission, you're not setting a good example.

David: Certainly not.

Louis: It's dumb.

David: Talk about two guys having... or, rather, guys having to shower with other gay soldiers affecting unit cohesion, supposedly. Isn't a guy not showing up because he says the president, the guy at the top, isn't really a legitimate president, isn't that really going to be what affects unit cohesion? That's the argument, I think, that is much more reasonable. Unit cohesion? This guy doesn't think that the Commander in Chief is even qualified or legitimately giving orders.

Certainly a conviction here was in order, but I could even argue that a higher conviction. Again, the charge was missing movement by design. He may be instigating a revolt, could he not? I think there's an opportunity here for actually a bigger charge. Questioning those... questioning the Commander in Chief's validity at giving orders?

Louis: And what would that charge be?

David: I don't know, I mean, I'm no lawyer, but it just sounds to me. Listen, if we want Julian Assange dead or alive and charged with treason and the death penalty, so on and so forth, this has got to carry something, doesn't it? Something more than just missing movement by design.

He faces up to 18 months in prison and dismissal from the Army when he's sentenced on the first charge. Here's his quote: "I believe there is a valid question that needs to be asked and answered," referring, of course, to Obama's eligibility to be president.

Louis: Well, it has been asked many times and it has been answered many times.

David: That's right. It seems that he's just not paying attention to that.

Louis: Right. Maybe he doesn't have a TV.

David: That could be it. It could just be a lack of media access that's causing this whole misunderstanding.



Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham. For transcription, translation, captions, and subtitles, contact Alex at [e-mail].

[donthebun]

1. Yep, conservatives all for order and discipline

but not when the President is foreign

[pacalo]

2. "Conservatives for DISCIPLINE?"

:rofl:

And, with a $1+ trillion deficit, there are no "conservatives".