# Birther U.S. Army officer to be court-martialed **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 15, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157 "2010-04-15T02:33:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/81 "2010-04-16T15:39:43Z")
Well, technically it’s not a full-blown war as Congress has not actually declared war. I’m wondering if this clown would’ve pulled this stunt had Congress declared war. In that case, he could face execution if his action would be construed as desertion. But now what he’s facing (and what I hope he gets sentenced to) is five years confinement for desertion, two years confinement for disobeying a lawful order, two years confinment for missing movement, 3 years confinement for disloyal statements, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and, of course, dismissal from the service (categorization of service: Dishonorable) for any of those. Personally, I hope he gets maxed out (but not piling up the time if any of those offenses I’ve just listed are considered lesser ncluded offenses of whatever he’s found guilty of) and the current sentencing guidelines permit the judge to direct the sentences be served consecutively. [Here](http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm.htm) is some information about the UCMJ. By the way, resigning one’s commission isn’t as simple as “I’m no longer thrilled to be a Commissioned Officer so I hereby quit effective right now.” There is a thing called Obligated Service (also known as OBLISERV). Generally, one cannot tender a resignation until the OBLISERV is completed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/82 "2010-04-16T16:41:54Z")
You could say, “I believe that X is illegal and I will refuse to be deployed there,” or “I believe Obama is an illegitimate President and I refuse to follow his orders” _before_ you get a deployment order, though. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/83 "2010-04-16T20:41:22Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > …The people who are in the business of making formal communications that call for the official title know it and use it appropriately. For the rest of us, it may be an interesting bit of information, but is ultimately not relevant to our day-to-day usage of language. I agree w/ this statement. As a concrete example from another situation, many people use the informal word “Klick” as a substitute for “Kilometer”. Are they “incorrect”? If they are writing some formal communication, requiring formal language, yes. If they are informally saying, to another person, something is “6 klicks west of me”, no. The listener understands, so proper communication occurred, so the usage was “correct”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/84 "2010-04-16T21:00:33Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > By the way, resigning one’s commission isn’t as simple as “I’m no longer thrilled to be a Commissioned Officer so I hereby quit effective right now.” There is a thing called Obligated Service (also known as OBLISERV). Generally, one cannot tender a resignation until the OBLISERV is completed. Actually, you can, but you are only resigning the commission. You then become an enlisted private (although eligible for promotion) for the balance of the obligation. It’s happened before. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/85 "2010-04-16T21:01:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, we’re disagreeing over what “incorrect” means in the context of usage and whether it’s correct to tell people that their usage is incorrect in a given linguistic context. “Formal” or “official” defines “correct” in only limited contexts. I suppose you could say “Queen of England” is correct. But it’s not: > [@](#): > > Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich,Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/86 "2010-04-16T21:09:58Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I suppose you could say “Queen of England” is correct. But it’s not: > [@](#): > > Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions… I was going to use this as a counterexample for a much earlier post, but couldn’t be bothered to look up her actual, legal, title. “Queen of England” is “correct” for many usages, just not official ones. Thanks… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/87 "2010-04-16T21:13:49Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I suppose you could say “Queen of England” is correct. But it’s not: I think you’re proving my point. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/88 "2010-04-16T21:43:08Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I think you’re proving my point. Only if your point is that only “official” usage is correct. Informal usage is different, and much looser, while still being “correct” for those (and only those) informal purposes. It’s a matter of “correct” usage for the purpose it’s being used for. Official and informal are two entirely different things, and “correct” for one is not the same as “correct” for the other. See my previous post about “klicks” vs “kilometers”. Same concept. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/89 "2010-04-18T03:38:44Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Only if your point is that only “official” usage is correct. Informal usage is different, and much looser, while still being “correct” for those (and only those) informal purposes. It’s a matter of “correct” usage for the purpose it’s being used for. Official and informal are two entirely different things, and “correct” for one is not the same as “correct” for the other. See my previous post about “klicks” vs “kilometers”. Same concept. I think you’re confused about which side I’m arguing. To the extent that I understand this post, I don’t disagree with it. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/90 "2010-04-18T04:05:55Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > We will simply have to agree to disagree, **acsenray** , as to the Chief Justice’s title. I can’t state things any more plainly than I have. It’s become obvious we aren’t going to convince each other. Do you call it scotch tape? Because it is actually Scotch brand magic tape. I expect you to call it by its proper name forthwith. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/91 "2010-04-18T04:39:34Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Do you call it scotch tape? Because it is actually Scotch brand magic tape. I expect you to call it by its proper name forthwith. :rolleyes: A contraction of a longer phrase that still leaves a clear meaning is no problem, and is quite understandable. A substantive change that misstates the title of a constitutional officer is, for me at least, a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/92 "2010-04-18T04:46:24Z")
A “problem” in what sense? Does it cost you money? Time? Romantic interest? Keep you out of your favorite dance clubs? Cause you to lose the state lotto? It doesn’t cause any problems to the people who use and understand the phrase informally in informal contexts. It’s the language police who thinks that official designations have authority over language that has a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/93 "2010-04-18T09:55:50Z")
What the HELL happened to the officer? ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/94 "2010-04-18T11:38:36Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > What the HELL happened to the officer? Not sure if you’re looking for the final outcome (pending) or this LTC’s mindset, but [this](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002577-503544.html) CBS story has a video that includes a youtube statement from him and info that he has been assigned to Walter Reed pending the court martial. [QUOTE=Monty] But now what he’s facing (and what I hope he gets sentenced to) is five years confinement for desertion… [/QUOTE] I cannot find (and suspect I will not find) the charges that were preferred against him, but since he merely did not report for the pre-deployment training and has not fled altogether, I doubt he is/will be charged with desertion. Missing movement is the more accurate charge, which you mentioned next. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/95 "2010-04-18T11:47:07Z")
Well, missing movement is failing to deploy with one’s unit. This \ officer went to where he wanted, not to his assigned unit, and then said he refused to deploy. That could be charged as desertion if the unit deployed while he was busy playing that little game. If the unit didn’t deploy before he volunteered himself at another non-deploying unit, then failure to repair and missing movement can both be charged. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/96 "2010-04-18T12:52:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yeah, but when a nutbag reaches the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, you have to wonder if something is wrong with the screening process. There must be upwards of 20,000 O-5s (Lieutenant Colonels, Commanders) in the Military. What do you propose we do? Give them each a political test? There are ~$2.3 million people in the military. If we get 2-3 nuts a year come out, I think that’s pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/97 "2010-04-18T13:15:55Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > A “problem” in what sense? Does it cost you money? Time? Romantic interest? Keep you out of your favorite dance clubs? Cause you to lose the state lotto? It doesn’t cause any problems to the people who use and understand the phrase informally in informal contexts. It’s the language police who thinks that official designations have authority over language that has a problem. Come on. Is this as important as world hunger, or homelessness, or ethnic cleansing? Of course not. It’s a minor irritant - from the outset, I conceded it was a nitpick. But where there is a correct title, provided by law (Chief Justice of the United States), and where some persist in using or advocating an incorrect title which implies that the official’s responsibilities are less than they actually are (“Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”), I can’t let it go by uncommented-upon. That’s all. Language is important to me. Words mean something. Ignorance is to be fought. If there were an ill-informed few who referred to Barack Obama as “President of the Executive Branch,” I would say something then, too. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/98 "2010-04-18T14:32:03Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > an incorrect title which implies that the official’s responsibilities are less than they actually are (“Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”) This statement of yours is so apparently false that it borders on the dishonest to propose it. Here’s where I get to “come on” you back. This purported implication is a false construct. For 100 years, the official title was “of the Supreme Court” and for 100 years, the official title is “of the United States.” _The job is exactly the same and the change in terminology implies no functional change at all._ There is absolutely no such implication as you suggest, and common usage supports the notion that the two phrases _are exactly equal in meaning_. One phrase is merely the current official title, while the other is used informally. It’s conceivable that things may change again. > [@](#): > > I can’t let it go by uncommented-upon. That’s all. When I was growing up there was a country whose official name in English was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was often referred to by informal variants, like “Soviet Russia,” or “Russia.” These names were not the official names, but they were commonly used by people at all levels of society in all kinds of positions, even official ones. Would you have gone around correcting people all the time? Here’s another example – Since 1947, municipal and state governments in India have made a lot of official changes to names of geographical entities, particularly names of streets and cities. There are hundreds of such instances, but just for illustration, in 1947, Benaras was officially renamed Varanasi; in 1995, Bombay was officially renamed Mumbai; in 2001, Calcutta was officially renamed Kolkata. But millions of people continue to use the old names, in the case of Varanasi, more than 60 years on. In Varanasi, nobody will blink if you refer to it as Benaras. Someone who continually went around correcting everyone would be seen as a weirdo. > [@](#): > > Language is important to me. Words mean something. Yes, exactly right. Why do you think I keep going around and around with you? My life is built on language and words, as a hobby and as a profession. I’m not a linguist, but I am a writer and editor and language is important to me. Words mean something, no question. And my focus is on the word “incorrect” here. The law does not get to decide what is “correct” in language. That’s not how language works. > [@](#): > > Ignorance is to be fought. There’s ignorance and there’s ignorance. If you had merely said. “You know, even though most people say X, the official title is Y,” that’s fighting ignorance. But saying, “X is _incorrect_.” Is contributing a new flavor of ignorance to the mix. Words have meaning, but they also have multiple meanings, and the meanings change according to context. It’s like people who just _have_ to comment when a chimpanzee is referred to as a monkey or if someone uses the phrase “koala bear.” “You know, a chimpanzee isn’t a monkey; it’s an ape.” “You know, a koala isn’t a bear.” It’s using one kind of knowledge (knowledge of zoological classifications) to spread a different kind of ignorance (regarding the meanings of words in informal usage). The first kind of knowledge does not apply in the latter context. It’s the same as knowledge of official titles. > [@](#): > > If there were an ill-informed few who referred to Barack Obama as “President of the Executive Branch,” I would say something then, too. These cases are not equivalent. In the case of the chief justice, you have loads of evidence in support of the nonofficial usage: (1) Functional equivalence of the meanings of the terms, (2) Past official sanction of the term you disfavor, and (3) nearly continuous usage by the majority of the people of the term you disfavor. Common usage makes a huge difference. Yes, language is important and words are important. But _context is important to language_. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/99 "2010-04-19T01:45:15Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This statement of yours is so apparently false that it borders on the dishonest to propose it… > > Here’s where I get to “come on” you back. This purported implication is a false construct. For 100 years, the official title was “of the Supreme Court” and for 100 years, the official title is “of the United States.” _The job is exactly the same and the change in terminology implies no functional change at all._… Well, that’s just not so. I will grant you that the change was largely due to Salmon P. Chase’s ego at first, but the CJ does several things now that he didn’t use to do, including indirectly supervising the entire Federal judiciary through the Judicial Conference of the U.S. (establ. 1922) and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (1939). His responsibilities are broader than they once were, and his title reflects that. He is the leader of an entire coequal branch of government, the Federal judiciary, and not just the top dude on the top court. To keep using the former title is mistaken and misleading. But again, it’s apparent I’ll never convince you. I’ve again said all I can say and it hasn’t sufficed. So be it. :: shrugs :: ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157/100 "2010-12-15T04:07:19Z")
Lakin has pled to one of two charges: [http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/14/army-officer-who-doubts-obama-was-born-in-u-s-pleads-guilty/](http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/14/army-officer-who-doubts-obama-was-born-in-u-s-pleads-guilty/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/birther-u-s-army-officer-to-be-court-martialed/536157.md?page=6)