Skip to comments.Breaking: Major has orders revoked, by questioning Obama's legitimacy
Posted on 07/14/2009 9:16:09 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
This story has been slipping under the Main Stream Media Radar for some time now.
U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook Filed a restraining order asking for legitimate confirmation that his Commander in Chief was legitimately in Office, giving him his orders to Deploy to Afghanistan with his unit.
Today in a stunning development, the Military rescinded those orders. This has set a precedent heretofore unknown. The entire US Military can now not only question it's orders, a requirement of their duty when they believe that an order is given illegitimately, but can expect that their orders will also be rescinded should they question the legitimacy of the CIC who is the ultimate Authority in Command. In other words, Obama.
Orly Taitz, Major Cooks lawyer filed the request for a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia asking the court to grant her clients request for proof of Obamas eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
Stating in her filing that cook would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this Presidents command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties, Ms Taitz has essentiality won her case as the military has ducked on the issue.
Ms Taitz is quoted by WND as saying: "We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"
At first glance this may seem to have ended the case. However, it must be noted, that if Obama cannot legitimately give an order to deploy, then he cannot rescind the order either.
Things just got real interesting folks
Saw this before. It is getting real interesting out there.
Sarah Palin quit; could this be giving Obama ideas?
The sad thing is the guy who has to replace him in deployment.
AntiMullah just beat you to it (smile) with an extended narrative included. ( a couple of posts below yours.
I always say great minds think alike so let’s be great minds together.
Be happy, be well
Fist of all Palin didnt quit, she resigned to save the state of Alaska millions in litigation fees, second Obama came into office with a certain set of ideas and Palins resignation had nothing to do with them.
My statement was vastly oversimplified.
Understand, as such can make some of us accept you at your word. Amplification is always welcome. I have often let brevity be the reflection on my thoughts, a found they have gotten me into trouble on this site. ;-)
Thinking back to when I learned the UCMJ (in the 60s) disobeying deployment orders was huge, and dissing the CIC was huger.
One suspects a surreptitious nod from the (alleged) CIC via backwater pentagon channels; but, who knows?
My worry here is that it's a horrible idea for the members of the military to get into a potty contest with the administration.
We do not need a big rift between the members of the Armed Forces and the president. He hates the military anyway, why give him (and and BFF Bill Ayers) reasons to settle more scores against our precious men and women in uniform?
Military peeps are known for their tact and diplomacy (and political neutrality.)
And, it's in our best interests to maintain it (as frustrating as it surely is.)
Time to send copies of “Seven Days in May” to each of the Joint Chiefs, Generals, Admirals and Colonels in the military and suggest that they could have “Seven Days in August” .... only do it better than in the movie or book.
Everything you said is true...however, the military has never faced a situation where the President is not constitutionally qualifed to be the Commander in Chief and therefore is issuing legally questionable orders to military personnel in war.
“The sad thing is the guy who has to replace him in deployment.”
You must have missed the point: No officer legally following orders would replace Cook, since no order issued from National Command Authority is legal until legitimized.
Obama has to prove he’s a citizen, or the legality of all orders issued under National Command Authority are illegal, and as such, no officer can legally follow them.
Calley v. United State (Mi Lai massacre)
The dumbshit who takes his place is willfully following orders he/she now suspects are illegal.
“no officer can legally follow them”
I suspect the courts will say that the civilian authority, i.e. Congress and the USSC, has sworn him in and until he is proven not a US citizen the orders are lawful.
I am certain that improper command influence has been exerted at the highest levels. Whatever is done, will be done with the objective of protecting this rotten usurper from being exposed for the counterfeit POTUS that he is.
“I suspect the courts will say that the civilian authority, i.e. Congress and the USSC, has sworn him in and until he is proven not a US citizen the orders are lawful.”
Won’t work. Again, the oath officers take is to the Constitution, not the SCOTUS, POTUS, or Congress.
Worse, the military chain of command was designed to have a civilian at the top, not a general. Generals, and other officers, are legally wired to take legal orders, as per the UCMJ, which is a separate system of justice than the civilian system of justice (this is why all the talk of military tribunals instead of civilian legal courts for trying terrorists).
For an officer, it supposed to be simple: Is the order legal? Yes, follow it. Full stop.
If you are JCS, the same rule applies - does the President have the legal authority to issue the order?
No. Full stop. Joint Chiefs should be asking whether they have any legal authority at all to conduct military operations in any theater of war right now, because after last night, the answer is very possibly ‘No’. ‘Very possibly’ (reasonable suspicion) is the only standard an officer needs to question the legality of an order. If he thinks an order is illegal, he’s duty-bound to question it, or go to the brig like Lt. Calley.
One end around an officer can try is to use the same logic law enforcement uses to search a car: exigency. “I searched the car after pulling it over because to take the time to get the warrant from the judge, the suspect would have disposed of the evidence.” You have to have Probable Cause, but you don’t need to get the warrant to search the vehicle. Later, in court, you have to establish Probable Cause to make the evidence obtained from the search admissible in court.
How would an officer use this in this situation? You act on the orders, based on the exigency of the situation - “We were under attack by overwhelming hostile forces” - and you followed orders issued by your commanding officer to order an airstrike on advancing troops, killing hundreds of those troops.
If Obama is not legally allowed to be the National Command Authority, was the order to bomb attacking forces legal? Nope. Should the officer (suspecting Obama’s a Kenyan) ordered to call in the airstrike be subject to court marshall? Technically, yes.
Would they find him guilty of obeying an order he knew to be illegal? Can’t say. They may find him guilty, and find that the punishment to be nothing, not even an entry on his service jacket of the conviction, or in fact, perhaps get a commendation or medal. The problem the jury has is that if he’s found innocent, there goes the Constitution, the Oath, the chain of command, the Calley case precedent, etc.
How do you get around it? Amend the Constitution. The requirement for the President to be a natural born citizen isn’t some arcane bylaw in some United States Code.
For Obama to be legally sworn in by anyone, he’d have to get 2/3 of the States to agree to an amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to be President (otherwise known as the Schwarzenegger Amendment, probably since he made a big deal once of wanting to introduce such a thing). Obama would have to have this done ‘retroactively’, to make all the damage he’s already done, including executive orders signed, stick.
This isn’t going to be a simple fix. As of last night, if you don’t think Obama is a US citizen, you can refuse orders, and apparently the response is going to be that your orders will be rescinded, rather than you go to the brig where you’d normally richly belong.
Well, Z is from the “what if they gave a war and nobody came” generation.
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.