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.”
I agree with everything you said in that last post. One way or another, this MUST be resolved.
And I do want it *really* resolved. Telling our troops not to ask the obvious question is not fixing the situation. It’s not fair to them to sweep it under the rug.
It is not required that a precedent be in place in order to bring a suit and cause a decision to be made. That is what these suits are all about. And this administration seems to be all about squashing them in every way possible.
In one respect I like what this officer did. (this thread is one of my shoe-on-the-other-foot experiences). He placed himself in a position to receive the orders to be able to contest them. In an earlier post I argued this as inappropriate. In retrospect, it is probably the least problematic way for an officer to do this – for the military, not for him – obviously. And, as also previously mentioned, it paves the way for others in the military to bring suit, possibly w/ fewer repercussions. As the sheer weight of those signing on to a suit grows the government will have no choice.
Obama promised transparency. Let’s have some.
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”.
Ping, ping, ping. Sorry if I've left off anybody. Please ping anyone else on the list.
Oh com’mon! You pinged to my most poorly worded post! lol! (In my defense, it was after 2AM.)
Reading this article I get the feeling Stars & Strips has gone over the edge to the left.
Stars & Stripes is now an official member of the leftist biased MSM?
I agree. That's actually not what I'm saying.
What I'm looking at is officers following legal orders versus illegal orders. I'm looking specifically at situations where the issue isn't clear (regardless of whether we, as political agitators see the issue with 'clarity' or not). I'm asking at what point is an officer expected to question the legality of an order or the authority issuing the order?
I think if the situation is not clear to the officer, then he should look to any legal precedent that is available for this clarity. In this case, I don't believe there is a clear precedent to rely upon. It's like they say- 'you can disobey, but you had better be right'.
What is being questioned here is the legitimacy. As I said, the military has ceremonies for these things that we recognise as custom. They are ceremony but they are functional ceremonies. A change of command ceremony physically demonstrates something relevent to the troops. It demonstrates the legitimacy of the commander. Obviously, it doesn't guarantee to the men that the commander has not forged some pertinent document somewhere along the way that would invalidate him as commander if the issue ever came to a legal tribunal.
But we have to deal with practicalities as well. We are in an actual shooting war. The war was going on before Obama ever showed up. Lives are on the line. We can't just stop the war every time someone has a question about the incoming president. As per constutional requirement and per military custom, Obama has been sworn in as CinC.
Because of this I think any officer questioning the legality of an order from the CinC needs to be able to clearly demonstrate the illegitimacy of that order and I just don't think this is the case- going by the military's own customs.
I think an officer when weighing this must also take responsibility for his actions. He must look at and consider: A) what harm comes from following the order if it turns out it was issued by an a non-legitimate authority and B) what harm comes from not following the order.
I have my opinion here. Others will have theirs.
WOW, looks like the Military found something of an out. They can’t afford to be in the middle of this, because it might call for them to go and question the president, which would look like a coup.
They can’t afford to do that.
So this sounds like a hard core duck.
They don’t just let officers out of duty with a phone call or an email. Come on.
Megan McCloskey wrote it.
Let me make one more point: Whatever the fallout, the fault is not with Cook. The fault is with the military refusing to handle the situation. *He* is not the problem.
If the military finds themselves in the middle of a strike, then it’s on *them*. They set the precedent.
And if ten thousand of our brave men and women stand up for our Constitution and refuse to fight until Dear Leader’s papers are shown to the public, I will stand with them.
It’s much better than a coup. It’s better than a bloody civil war. It’s a way to a peaceful resolution. A way to show the public that the emperor really has no clothes.
And maybe - just perhaps - that’s why the Pentagon behaved as they did. Maybe they’re giving the “nod” to our troops to carry on.
Star Traveler is an avowed anti-birther.
You read my mind. (See #129)
“Star Traveler is an avowed anti-birther.”
Correct term should be After Birther.
The thing with the change of command situation you highlighted is that the troops know that the military has seen their commander's birth certificate and other qualifications. They have no reason to question his authority. In this situation, there is good reason to raise a question.
I am with you. The Military is between a rock and a hard place with a veneer of legality. That veneer is getting thinner every day this damned thing goes on.
I am convinced.
Dude, you are whacked.
I didn't see her rank listed or is that normal for S&S?
No. She is a reporter for S&S.
LOL’ing!
I am so glad I swallowed my juice before I read that! LOL
>>>If I recall correctly it is owned and operated by a house that is known to be fairly liberal
I believe you are thinking of ARMY TIMES. Part of the group that includes NAVY TIMES and similar publications. They are all civilian owned and published by Gannett, the same people who put out USA TODAY and similar editorially inclined papers.
After Birther:
Anyone who thinks Obama made clear he is Constitutionally qualified.
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.