When the subhead of your website’s logo is “The Truth Matters,” you really ought not post obvious falsehoods. Consider this from the Lakinista website’s “COUNTDOWN to Court-Martial” page:
This week, the American Patriot Foundation heard from a retired Navy SEAL, shocked by the stunning decision by a civilian court in which a terrorist suspect/detainee was convicted on only ONE count of 249 criminal charges: “Let me see if I understand this, Col. Lakin can get a more severe punishment that Ahmed Ghailani?”
Of course, the answer to that question is no, no he can’t. Ghailani faces a minimum of confinement for 20 years and a maximum of confinement for life. Even if LTC Lakin could be separately punished for all the offenses he faces (and, for reasons that I’ve discussed previously, he can’t be), his maximum confinement would be four years.
The website also posts an “‘Open Letter to Congress’ from a supporter of Terry.” This letter repeats the untruth — repeated often among birthers — that “Lakin is being denied due process by Judge Lind who has ruled that Lakin cannot defend himself in any way whatsoever because she will not ’embarrass the President’ to show his vital records, and prove his eligibility under Article 2 Section 1.” The claim that Judge Lind denied disovery so as not to “embarrass the President” is false. Additionally, those at safeguardourconstitution.com know or should know that it’s false. They were working directly with Paul Rolf Jensen when Judge Lind issued her ruling on the defense’s discovery motion. They know — or should know — the actual content of that ruling. For all his faults — and there were certainly many — Mr. Jensen (to the best of my knowledge) never participated in the false characterization of Judge Lind’s use of the word “embarrassment,” which came from a quotation from Baker v. Carr concerning the political question doctrine and spoke not of embarrassment to the President, but rather the embarrassment that would arise if two different branches of the same government reached two different legal conclusions. Shame on safeguardourconstitution.com for furthering that lie.
It’s also untrue, of course, that Judge Lind ruled that LTC Lakin “cannot defend himself in any way whatsoever.” I’ve discussed earlier today some ways in which LTC Lakin can defend himself. No doubt there are others. What Judge Lind ruled that was LTC Lakin wasn’t entitled to discovery that was irrelevant to any legally viable defense. Under CAAF’s New decision, it was up to Judge Lind to determine whether the orders that LTC Lakin received were lawful. She’s ruled that they were. The content of her ruling would have been unaffected by any information concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility. That demonstrates that her ruling on the discovery issue was correct. There’s also no question that Judge Lind’s rulings were compelled by an objective application of existing case law — just as LTC Lakin’s current counsel has conceded.
Now, I know Judge Lind. And while we aren’t buddies, I both like and respect her. And I suspect my reaction to untruths like those posted on safeguardourconstitution.com is intensified because I know, like, and respect her. So I’m not pretending to be objective. But I’m sure that even if I didn’t know, like, and respect her, I would still be disgusted by the ignorant and false (and sometimes vile and misogynistic) attacks that have been launched at her. Many of LTC Lakin’s supporters are prone to use the words “truth” and “honor.” safeguardourconstitution.com has demonstrated once again that it has no commitment to the former and no claim to the latter.