Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status

ledger-enquirer.com ^ | July 15, 2009 | Lily Gordon

[PeterPrinciple]

Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8 in federal court here asking for conscientious objector status ........

---

Wait a minute, this is the first one I've caught using the terminology of conscientious objector. Is that true or is this another “loaded” article from the media?

DoD 1300.6 defines a conscientious objector as a person who has “a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and belief.” People who object to war “solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views” do not qualify for discharge or transfer under DoD 1300.6.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1503.shtml

[Genoa]

I think it’s the same two who are plaintiffs on the Orly Taitz Application for Injunction that we’ve seen already: Childers and Graeff. I don’t think this is new.

[libstripper]

Major Cook did claim CO status; I've read the complaint. His reason was, given the huge cloud that hangs over the legality of Obama's "presidency," he could easily find himself participating in an illegal private army that reported solely to Obama. That being so, he argued, he would not be subject to the Geneva Convention's protection for lawful combatants.

Your quotation of the statutory definition of CO raises even more questions regarding the Administration's motive for revoking the Major's deployment orders. From that quote, claiming CO status would be a bit of a stretch for him. If the Administration didn't deeply fear the discovery he was going to undertake and the likely revelation of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth," why didn't it just participate in discovery, reveal the certificate, and then move for summary judgment on the basis that his claim of CO status wasn't covered by the statute? Such an approach would apparently be superior to the mooting approach they took by revoking the deployment order because that approach gives thousands of other military personnel "get out of deployment free" cards by just filing suits similar to the Cook suit and waiting for their orders to be revoked.

[PeterPrinciple]

Yes, it does get interesting. The rational of CO appears to be weak but there would have to be an official hearing and discovery to discharge the weak charge. It is a cornered rat who rescinds the deployment order to get out of a jam now but leave themselves open. They thought taking his job away from him would work to silence him but they never do understand patriots nor the blood of patriots.

[PeterPrinciple]

Just reread my source. I think the info is still valid although the author probably had a different intention in writing it:

Conscientious objector status 101
By Nisa Islam Muhammad

[Sammy67]

“Oath Keepers” Military and Police Officers are responding to our Dictator in Chief!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAI