Well, not exactly what I had in mind and probably not best for my first post here, but I'm always drawn to yes-but stories. Terry Lakin is an Army doctor and "birther" who, in a nutshell (about as much space as his idea deserves), doesn't believe Obama was born in the U.S. and, therefore, can't be commander-in-chief and, therefore, can't give legitimate orders for anyone to deploy. Easily dismissed, but his story has some echoes of the what resisters I'm in sympathy with have faced.
For instance, it's clear in his video that he's refusing deployment to make a point, albeit a nutty one, and he is going against 18 years of apparent obedience to Army culture, which can't be easy. And a 2003 lawsuit, John Doe v Bush, questioned Bush's legitimacy as an argument against invading Iraq -- though in that case, they challenged his authority to go to war without an explicit declaration from Congress, which is a big difference. Congress hasn't voted to go to war since WWII & the judge was unimpressed, ruling that his court didn't have jurisdiction to second-guess the executive branch. (Proving yet again that U.S. courts are supine when it comes to military matters.) And, finally, my reluctance to give this guy a platform is what happens to antiwar resisters too, as courts routinely deny them the opportunity to introduce their reasons for refusing orders or going AWOL. The instinct is to shut them up so their ideas won't spread because, don't ya' know, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.
There are significant differences, of course, beginning with what's being resisted and including that Lakin said he wanted a court martial -- apparently as a platform. The antiwar resisters I know of probably knew they'd get court martialed, but they would have been happier with another solution. So this guy will spend 6 months in jail, probably less -- compared with nearly a year for Camilo Mejia and 15 months for Kevin Benderman. I guess conscience costs less these days.
