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.”
The Stars and Stripes writer has learned to type with his/her nose firmly up Obozo’s butt.
If an active duty commander said “we might need to see it before I deploy my troops”, that would end the problem.
Bingo.
Love to see more people challenge their orders.
About Stars and Stripes
From their site.
http://www.stripes.com/webpages.asp?id=97
And, yes, terribly biased.
Have things changed that much in the Army?
Don't ask 0 where he was born or he will have an army of attorneys tell you to go F yourself.
Army Times is the Gannett paper you are thinking of.
Aww .. yes .. thank you.
I knew there was one .. ;)
“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.”
Exactly. Any other reason outside medical/hardship and the army would have intitiated disciplinary/legal action.
Wow,talk about biased writing.Who the hell wrote this?I dont think this was the majors first deployment to the war.It may however be the first since the fraud was installed as president.
People or soldiers? And if soldiers, why?
That would not be a good thing. We're at war right now. Last thing we need is for large portions of the military to decide they can have a sit down strike.
One key point for me in this article is where the Stars and Stripes point out that Cook volunteered for the mission first and then refused to go. A bit difficult to paint him as the innocent soldier just trying to do his job with a clear conscience when called up for duty when he picked the fight. If he truly feels the order is illegal, fine let him fight it. But the flip side of that is- if the order turns out to be legal they should lock his butt up for a good long time. He went looking for it and he should be prepared to accept the consequences that come with it.
I understand. A commander of a battalion or squadron is all the same. The commander expects all to protect the very essence of our Constitution. In my day, A field grade or better would have taken this weasel on.
Bet there is more to the story then what S&S wrote.
Maybe the lawsuit that was filed in Florida by Cook will bring out more of the story and the truth.
Maybe he volunteered for Afghanistan rather then Iraq. Either way the Army was sending him somewhere.
Hope also to find out why Gates and the pentagon found it necessary for them to pressure the Company Cook worked for that got him terminated.
I know the Company does business with the Pentagon but the only reason for his termination was because he challenged the 0.
Yes, our military. Why should they subject themselves to unlawful orders if the Commander In Chief is a big phony which most of us believe.
I hope there are some field grade or higher commanders willing to take this on and settle the issue. I’m an AF veteran (retiree actually) too. Keep aiming high! :)
>Exactly. Any other reason outside medical/hardship and the army would have intitiated disciplinary/legal action.
So then, WHEN is a member of the military SUPPOSED to inquire about the authority over him? That is, the legality of the orders.
If someone were to come up to me while I was on guard-duty for a restricted site and say “I’m a major, let me by!” I wouldn’t be obligated to do so... the same with sergeants, generals, congressmen, and even the president of the united states, if they weren’t authorized to be there. I say this because I’ve worked the site of a nuclear facility and not even the commanding general of the post was allowed entry w/o the proper authorization. (As a safeguard against say, someone holding his family hostage and making demands regarding nuclear material.)
Yes, there is. FR has several threads about this. Do a keyword search on stefancook. He's a FReeper, by the way.
Thank you sir for your service to the USA. :^)
You know what kills me about this is the fact that 0bama has spend millions to defend himself against these suits, when it takes maybe $15 and some first class postage to settle the whole thing.
Yet the media doesn’t mention that BUT if it were a Republican who was hiding his birth certificate, school records, passport records, Selective Service registration, thesis papers, published articles, and health records the media would be screaming about it until they’re purple in the face.
It's like reporting on a man named Henry who weighs 1,000 pounds. There's a big difference in referring to “Henry, who weighs 1,000 pounds” and “Henry, whose friends call him ‘half-ton-Hank’.”
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.