Birther U.S. Army officer to be court-martialed

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 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.

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.

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”.

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.

I suppose you could say “Queen of England” is correct. But it’s not:

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… :slight_smile:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Well, missing movement is failing to deploy with one’s unit. This <ahem> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ::

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/