Posted on 07/15/2009 12:31:54 PM PDT by kellynla
Rudman, I agree with you. Whether you like your commander or not, whether you feel he occupies his position legitimately or not, whether you agree with the commands he gives you or not .... you must obey your commander’s commands. That is the very foundation of military discipline.
Maybe the reason that the Major committed mutiny is a good one. Maybe it is the very issue of the Commander-in-Chief’s fitness! It DOES NOT MATTER. The officer is committing rebellion against a superior officer. If he truly felt that strongly about Obama’s fitness, he should have resigned his commission. Then he would be free to dissent as vociferously as possible.
But in the military, such behavior has always been, and must always be, punished.
If he doesnt reply and just ignores the situation like he does everything else that he doesnt want to deal with well then what??? He is very passive when it comes to uncomfortable situations. He just ignores until it goes away and people are focused on new news.
Sort of like my 7 year old nephew asking "Uncle Rob what would happen if the earth just stopped spinning"
Fully cognizant of the Machiavellian world in which we live in, and what they can do to you if they REALLY feel their power is being challenged, taking all things into consideration—a firing probably means he got of “lightly”.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Bumper stickers on vehicles are used for identification purposes, much like law enforcement does with tattoos. In addition, discussing anything with your co-workers many times can and will be used against you during the course of your employment.
Avoid both.
I guess the truth hurts. May not be legal, but suffice it to say, the contractors will do anything to get and keep contracts. It would be very hard to prove anything anyway. Stuff similar to this happens a lot...someone looks funny at a 2-star, next thing you know, he’s not on that project.
I guess the truth hurts. May not be legal, but suffice it to say, the contractors will do anything to get and keep contracts. It would be very hard to prove anything anyway. Stuff similar to this happens a lot...someone looks funny at a 2-star, next thing you know, he’s not on that project.
Right, perhaps you could use some research also...on how to be polite.
If Major cook has cats, like Katherine Willey did, he better keep an eye on them.
++++++++++++++++++++
Right. Wow, I remember that name...the press carried Billy’s water too - dirty rotten scoundrels all. Major Cook does have a cat:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~roaddog727/
Illegal fundraising
Illegal voter registrations
Illegal voting
Illegally taking over private held corporations
Illegally pressuring Major Cook’s employer
Seems there’s LOTS of illegal stuff going on with this administration of soviet socialist demonRATS..
But didn’t this officer legitimately pursue his legal avenues? He has done nothing inappropriate. It’s not like he went AWOL. He is using the system, even if the system is slapping him down.
Not to be a smart alec, but didn’t the Nuremberg “just following orders” defense get skewered a few decades ago? Suppose Obama ordered troops to turn on fellow Americans who cling a little too tightly to “guns and religion”?
By the way, the left would absolutely LOVE a precedent that says that military personnel can challenge the legitimacy of their Commander-in-Chief and thereby refuse orders... this plays right into the hands of the leftists.
++++++++++++++++++
This is unprecendented...we’ve not had a usurper in the WH before...how would what Cook did apply in normal circumstances - it wouldn’t...
Whereas here, many, many of us think 0zer0 is lying through his teeth about this all day and night long..
Or maybe the man was willing to sacrifice these things for his convictions.
They also have to be concerned for all the other employees and their families, that work on the same contract. Would it be wrong to possibly jeopardize the livelyhoods of many others?
Is that you, Colonel Nathan R. Jessup?
I guess I can’t handle the truth. :)
>The Department of Defense can not and should not tolerate this type of behavior. Regardless of who the POTUS is, it is
>astonishing and disturbing here that people here are tolerating mutiny of our military.
>
>WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS IN AFGHANISTAN, REMEMBER FOLKS?
Ever hear of the Nurmburg trials? There was an “I was following orders” defense that was soundly rejected; the governmental branches CANNOT now use the “It’s your orders, don’t question them” explanation/tactic now.
You've answered your own question. Because they are wimps. And a lot more, I am afraid.
Yup. What about the Saudi “terrorists” in the Beltway who own the USA now? How many live and “work” around DC? Who fund “think tanks” than employ Americans in govt?
Then why does U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook not want to go there?
Is "Mudville Gazette"'s timeline correct:
March: Cook acknowledges he's among the plaintiffs in a class-action suit "on behalf of 120 military officers" challenging President Obama's authority as Commander in Chief.In May, Cook tells the Army he wants to be sent to Afghanistan.
In June, the Army accepts Cooks offer.
In July, Cook sues to "get out" of that assignment, based on the same grounds (Obama not qualified) and using the same attorney (who actively seeks military members to participate in such suits) for a previous suit he was involved in that pre-dates his volunteering to deploy to Afghanistan.
Even without going to court, the Army says - essentially - hey, no problem. You were the one who wanted to go in the first place.
Actually, there is one "Major" problem. Because Cook waited to the last minute to take this action, either someone is going to get a very short notice non-volunteer assignment, or else the unit in Afghanistan will have to get by without one soldier for a while.
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.