Posted on 07/29/2009 9:31:48 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Army Maj. Stefan Cook sought out a notorious lawyer in February, formally volunteered for an Afghan deployment in May and was granted orders to deploy in June.
But the Army reservist’s intention appeared not so much to fight for America as to fight against President Barack Obama, in furtherance of a bizarre conspiracy theory.
In July, Cook filed a lawsuit against the Army, the defense secretary and the president, claiming that Obama could not lawfully order him to go to war because he is not the legitimate president of the United States.
Cook is one of the so-called “Birthers,” a small group of activists who subscribe to a fringe conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore cannot legally serve as president. The conspiracy theory, proven false by numerous media investigations as well as officials in the state of Hawaii where Obama was born, first surfaced early in the presidential campaign, but in recent months it has continued to fester on the Internet.
For a moment, at least, Cook’s lawsuit managed to revive the rumor — or at least gain his lawyer, Orly Taitz, a few more minutes of screen time on the cable news networks.
Taitz, a Russian-born dentist who got her law degree online, is the public face of the Birthers. She has been trying to get the conspiracy theory heard in court since before the election. So far, all of the lawsuits brought by the Birthers have been summarily dismissed.
And in Cook’s case, the Army refused to be baited.
Soon after Cook filed his lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of his deployment, the Army ruled that since he volunteered to go to Afghanistan, he was within his rights to change his mind. No lawsuit was needed.
In fact, said Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a spokeswoman for Army Human Resources Command, “he just had to call or e-mail.”
On July 14, the commanding general of Special Operations Command Central formally revoked Cook’s orders. Two days later, a Georgia court dismissed the case.
Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman for SOCCENT, said the Army couldn’t let Cook’s critical engineer billet be hijacked by further legal wrangling. Cook was scheduled to deploy on July 15, and his position cannot sit empty.
The officer Cook was supposed to replace “is going to have to remain in Afghanistan a while longer,” Silkman said, noting the Army is seeking a replacement. “No one has been identified yet, but it is a priority fill, so we’re working on it and expect to fill it soon. Engineers are in high demand.”
Taitz, unfazed by the facts, claimed victory.
The military has shown its cards “and they have nothing to play with,” Taitz said. “By revoking the orders, it’s clear to anybody. Think reasonably: Why would the military undermine itself by revoking its orders?”
Her conclusion: The Army let Cook out of his orders because officials couldn’t prove in court that Obama was born in the United States and is therefore the legitimate commander in chief.
“That’s ridiculous,” CENTCOM spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Bill Speaks said, calling Cook’s claims “a bizarre conspiracy theory.”
“Suffice to say [that revoking the orders] is certainly not an acknowledgement or validation in any way of his claims,” Speaks said.
Taitz, who in a phone interview compared Obama to Hitler, often strayed from the merits of Cook’s case into broader political rants.
“I have one question: Why would any member of the U.S. military risk his life or take any orders . . . from someone who is refusing to prove he is the legitimate president?” Taitz said. “We can’t stand for the arrogant, obnoxious behavior of Obama. He wants to defraud the whole nation.”
Stripes requested an interview with Cook, but Taitz did not make him available before deadline.
Cook’s legal ploy drew condemnation from Brandon Friedman, vice chairman of VoteVets.org, a political action committee seeking to elect veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to public office.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not the way Maj. Cook was trained and brought up in the Army,” Friedman said. “You don’t leave a unit like that, and you certainly don’t do it because you’re trying to make a political statement.”
Military is not a democracy.
Listen up, Numbnuts. I have served myself so I certainly have respect for our War Dead. My family has served in every War except the Spanish-American War this Country has ever been involved in including Iraq and Afghanistan. This is about the actions of an Illegal President who is therefore going around giving illegal orders. This imposter is guilty of Treason and his continuing acts are Treasonous.
The acts of obeying his illegal orders verge on Treason themselves.
I would like some info on Lt. Col. Maria Quon. I have never heard of this “Army Human Resources Command.” I have heard of PERSCOM but Human Resources Command?????? Is it new or can anyone shed light on it?
“In fact, said Lt. Col. Maria Quon, a spokeswoman for Army Human Resources Command, “he just had to call or e-mail.”
By-by it's now bed times over here zzzzzzzz!
Yep.
But the opposite also holds true does it not? Obama has been sworn in as per constitutional directive. He has been accepted and recognised as the POTUS by all branches of the government. What more would he actually be expected to do to have the military respect his orders? He has gone through all the ordinary ceremonies and legal processes as far as one can see. For all intents and purposes, there is no reason to legitimately suppose that he is not the President and thus the CinC. He has been legally installed into the office and thus the role of commander.
Sure, if it works out in civilian court that the President is not who he says he is (not that we will ever see it in court) then a soldier would be right to refuse the order. No question there. It just seems to me that all the normal ceremonies and procedures have been fullfilled and until a credible civilian authority (i.e. The Supreme Court or the Congress) can demonstrate the illegitimacy of the current CinC, then soldiers ought to obey his orders as long as those orders themselves are legal (i.e. fall within the legal framework of orders).
Sorry, but I've associated with soldiers for two decades and that's a sentiment I've heard a hundred times. When you're in the mix, you're not thinking about America and Apple Pie. You're thinking about your buddy bleeding out. You're thinking about not letting the baby private get killed. A soldier doesn't throw himself on a grenade for America. He does it to save his friends.
That is why it's so critical to get a unit working as a team before they go.
I stand by what I said. They go to war for their country. (Which is why we say they die for *us*.) They fight and volunteer to stay longer for their fellow soldiers. It doesn't make their deeds less noble. It's just basic human psychology, that's all.
My *point* was that soldiers in combat won't let their buddies down because they're worried about the president's birth certificate. They won't let their buddies down for anything.
I’m sorry to hear that. I know it started getting impossible for conservatives but I hope things are OK now.
That's what makes me sick. S&S typically tries to stay out of politics. They report on bills and new laws that directly effect the military, but they never have a slant this bad.
I don't read it as often as I used to. Maybe it's changed.
I'm all ears. Explain to me how it's ok to say to the soldiers out there fighting right now 'you aren't at war! No declaration of war has been signed'
If they are not at war, what are they doing? Are we back to calling it police action? Is that what it is? Looks like war. Tastes like war. Kills like war. It is war.
I didn't make you say what you did. You go ahead and get mad about it if you want.
LOl... water shooting out of my nose... choking... tears!
Apparently YOU need to get some SLEEP! LMAO!!!
I knew your meaning. Attacking the military is no excuse.
LOL. Simple solution to that. Don't read them. Don't reply to them. Problem solved.
A public Apology to you! I am so pissed about a number of Items I have a tendency to screw up. (please forgive me)
Usually, S&S is facts and reporting.
But, more than occasionally they slant to the left on stuff.
JMHO
There is a great deal of reason to believe the electoral college and other government entities and officials failed in its/their responsibility to ensure Obama is legally a natural born citizen if the US. That is a very specific definition.
But let us be realistic. The die-hard liberals don't care if Obama meets that standard. I would say 25 to 33% would think that the right has again managed to get the SCOTUS do do their evil will if the messaiah is removed. And who knows? If he get s the boot it may pave the way for a constitutional change that puts the likes of the Gubinator in the white house. Then all of Obamas policies can continue w/ rino backing.
As for me, I want this IV drip of poison out of America's arm and I am fine with what would be perceived as a loop hole getting it done.
I think Cook may believe he is fulfilling his oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We just need to figure out which kind of enemy Obama is first.
Agree. But has it ever been codified? It for sure doesn't spell it out in the Constitution. I mean we can read papers by the relevent authorities from the time frame when the Constitution was written and ratified but it isn't the same as there being a clear legal precedent to rely on.
Much of my argument rests on this obviously. If it has clearly been demonstrated (to quote myself) in the past, this is a relevent precedent. I don't believe it ever has though. And because of this I don't believe the issue is clear enough where I want soldiers disobeying orders over it. I think both items of discussion are a very serious issue. The legitimacy of the President and the military following the directives given to it. Very serious.
Personally, I would like to see this definition determined and codified into law so that is clear in the future.
If we were in a real “War”, our objective would be to destroy the enemy with all means at our disposal. You can ask the Krauts and the Japs how effective this strategy is.
What we are in is a No Win armed conflict with tribes of Savages with a strategy of trying to “contain” said Savages and to keep from repeating the Debacle seen in Vietnam in 1975. Sounds like a recipe for success to me. s/
Here’s where I think the army screwed up with Cook (and I think you can get behind me on this): Cook questioned the legality of the order - the military said, “Fine, you aren’t going.” and left it at that.
They never addressed the actual accusation. They didn’t say, “Hey, guy! This guy is your president now get over it. The orders are legal.” They didn’t do *anything* to deal with the actual problem. They just dropped him. (Then went and violated the crap out of the Whistle Blower’s Law and got him fired, but that’s for another lawsuit.)
The military didn’t act like the *military* at all in this process.
Seriously, Son - when have you ever seen the Pentagon act so “cute”? Have you *ever* seen them behave in such a vindictive manner? Seen them bounce around a legal issue instead of addressing it? I don’t know everything about the ins and outs of the military legal system, but this just doesn’t seem real to me.
It’s obvious to every thinking person in this country that by not addressing Cook’s accusations one way or another, the Pentagon left a wide open door for anyone to stroll through.
I think that you and I are actually on the same side here. I agree with you that this is *very* dangerous and that something should have been done. We’re just disagreeing on the “what”.
Apology accepted and misunderstanding forgotten! (It’s easy to get turned around in here.)
Yep. I agree with you 100% there. When I read they had simply cancelled his orders I was disappointed. That is just wishy-washy.
but this just doesn’t seem real to me.
There is something very odd about the whole thing, I agree. But, without the inside information, it's only speculation what's going on. I know from my own experience that there are always a lot of barracks lawyers. This is a known fact- I mean everybody knows this in the Army. And left to their own devices, barracks lawyers can foment quite a bit of trouble in the ranks. I can't figure what the command was thinking when they tried to handle it like this. It makes no sense.
We maybe aren't disagreeing on the what either. I just want the issue to be quickly decided so the armed forces aren't even put in the situation where their loyalties are played upon. If there is something Obama can do to bring the matter to a conclusion, I believe he should look at the matter 'as a CinC doing what's best for the troops he commands'. If producing the document would settle this issue quickly, I, personally, wish he would do so.
Failing that, I wish the Army would take a definitive stance on the matter so at least the soldiers would know what the service expected them to do and what would happen to them if they didn't do it.
A soldier in combat has enough to worry about without all this in his head too.
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.