Replies

There were soldiers who firmly believed in 2001 that Bush had not been legitimately elected. They believed that Bush had stolen it.

Should they, also, have been able to disregard orders because Bush was “COMMANDER IN CHIEF!” and “the potential for disaster [was] INFINITELY higher”? What happened to the soldiers who refused to participate in the Iraq invasion, or go back for additional deployments? There traditionally has been no sympathy here for officers who refuse their deployments. You can easily search FR and find numerous threads where the firm group conviction was “court-martial him and make him pound rocks.”

What makes this case different from those?

Totally different scenario there. But first of all, Cook didn't disregard anything. The order was rescinded prior to its taking effect.

As far as your point about Bush, no one doubted his ELIGIBILTY to hold the Office, as is the issue with Hussein. The Democrats, Gore, etc., received the full "Due Process" to which they were entitled, up to & including a ruling by the USSC.

Cook is NOT claiming that Hussein stole the election (though there are some who do suspect that to be the case), but he is questioning his conformity to the Constitutional qualifications clearly laid out in that Sacred Document [which, as has been repeated here fairly often, that Major Cook has sworn to defend]. Kudos to him for trying to defend the Constitution, instead of just "going along to get along" (which history has repeatedly shown to be an essential ingredient for tyranny).