Posted on 07/14/2009 3:29:17 PM PDT by MacSuibhne
For those who are not convinced to the level that this gentleman seems to be convinced, then I would discourage such action. If there are others who have researched this and are compelled to the same conclusion, I would support them as well.
My ridiculous posts?
I’m not the one here that is daring to suggest that our armed forces should obey any order Obama gives with out question.
As part of professional ethics training in the military I was trained to determine what constitutes a legal order and a legal order must come from someone that is in your legal authority, plain and simple.
All us little fellas in the Marines know that if we obey an illegal order from someone who shouldn’t be in our chain of command we are just as guilty as anyone else in the chain of command that follows it.
From a general to a private American soldiers have been trained not to blindly follow orders but to first determine if such orders are valid, it is that individual responsibility that has been one of the corner stones of what has made our soldiers the best.
Ad hominem attacks are the sure sign of a poor argument. Geez man let people have their say, and address the content or don't address it, if you think it's asinine. But don't get into personal ad hominem stuff...it just makes you look desperate. Can't you win the discussion based on the superiority of your ideas? Or perhaps you can't?
You're correct (source).
No matter what you might think, reservists are civilians for almost all purposes. They can't resign after receiving activation or movement orders, but are still civilians until the effective date of such orders.
I'll grant that. Now... do you suggest that all reservists should file lawsuits whereby the military must justify those orders before the reservists must follow them?
Nope. The fella's argument was so lame, and his interpretations of my posts were so laughably off the mark, that the only explanation left was diminished mental capacity.
“Now that’s a sneaky and slimely way of mooting the lawsuit, and avoiding providing a $12.50 document, (It’s probably free if the court would order the state of Hawaii’s Registrar to provide the document).
If this is confirmed, then one has to suspect the “order” to cancel the orders came from on high, very high, and most likely verbally, with nothing written down. Of course the people who actually issued and then revoked the orders would know who directed that they be revoked. “
++++++++++++++
No doubt, and if your theory is true, and it well could be, just another proof in the pudding that zero is desperate to hide his BC...wow!
I’ve been toying with the idea that maybe he had another father, or some other such explanation, something embarassing, but now I’m wondering anew what the heck he would be hiding, if Cook’s orders were indeed revoked..
Amen.
Neither am I. Are you being deliberately dishonest?
As part of professional ethics training in the military I was trained to determine what constitutes a legal order and a legal order must come from someone that is in your legal authority, plain and simple.
Is it illegal for the Army to order this man to Afghanistan? For them to order anybody to Afghanistan?
All us little fellas in the Marines know that if we obey an illegal order from someone who shouldn’t be in our chain of command we are just as guilty as anyone else in the chain of command that follows it.
Are you suggesting that the entire military chain of command is committing a crime by passing on illegal orders to fight the war in Afghanistan? If so, do you think the military should stop fighting there immediately? And if not, doesn't your whole argument collapse?
Wow. This is getting curiouser and curiouser...
Sorry, look what you wrote:
“your mental faculties never progressed beyond “little fella” status...the only explanation left was diminished mental capacity.”
That’s a personal attack, beyond what you were trying to say or prove. Listen, I’m just discussing this with you, you have some very good points and perspectives, but insulting people should have nothing to do with it...it weakens your argument, to be sure.
That post contains personal information and should be deleted. I’ll hit “Abuse” to save you the trouble.
Perhaps. But sometimes personal attacks state the truth.
“He took an oath to up hold the Constitution of the United State not an oath to Obama.”
+++++++++++++
And especially if Obama is undermining the foundation of the Constitution by lying about his status and not providing the US people with his basic, basic, basic documents.
Please feel free to do so. But it’s public information from a public website.
Thankfully for the peoples of the earth, your opinion of the truth is as singular as your anus.
“But sometimes personal attacks state the truth.”
+++++++++++++++
And they always weaken your position...it’s as if you don’t think you can win on the substance of your argument/ideas...any truth there?
I imagine Major Cook knew this was going to be VERY PUBLIC, by the way.
Also, this is revocation order is more administrative process than anything else. Any soldier who refuses to deploy for whatever reason has their deployment orders revoked or amended.
The next order he may receive could be to active duty with assignment to the closest Army installation for Courts Martial proceedings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.