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.”
To uphold and defend is conspiracy?
Where have we gone wrong, please??
>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.
Are you talking about Cook being the weasel, or Obama?
I think Obama has shown what he thinks of the Constitution by violating contract-law [by invalidating the bondholder claims against GM / Chrysler] and effectively denying the equal-protection-under-law amendment.
Of course, Congress doesn’t fare much better when it passes (or even suggests) retroactive, punitive law like the AIG-bonus Tax Act (Or whatever the official name was.); which violates both portions of the single sentence in the Constitution saying: Congress shall make no ex post facto law, nor pass any bill of attainder.
(That’s from memory, so I might be off a bit.)
Sir? Nope. I’m a ma’am. But you can just call me Jen. And thank you sir, for your service to our country! :)
The thing is, I don’t think he was asking to get out of the deployment. He was just questioning the legality of the deployment order. He wanted to go.
Megan McCloskey is a reporter who covers the military for the Las Vegas Sun.
Check out this Stars and Stripes story - (reporter Megan McCloskey contributed to this report).
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63672
This is just more of the paranoic frenzy of Barak Obama/Barry Dunham/Barry Soetoro....
And NO, Fukino did not say last October that Obama was a natural born citizen...what she last October was that she had his birth certificate on file...never confirmed his natural born status...
What she said last week was that she had examined his ‘vital records’ and he is a natural born citizen...
She changed her statement...and is no more credible than Obama is himself...
The press going ballistic this week proclaiming that Congress in HR 593 honoring the State of Hawaii’s 50th anniversary of statehood and tagged on the Birthplace of the 44th President of the United States...is totally laughable...they even parsed their words on the bill so as not to purjor themselves.
“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.”
I read the entire brief. He didn’t refuse to go. He just questioned the Great One’s authority to give the order to go. In short, he basically said; Show me that you have the Constitutional right to be my CIC and I’ll happily do what you say. I want to go to war, but only if it’s legal.
“We can’t stand for the arrogant, obnoxious behavior of Obama. He wants to defraud the whole nation.”
########
This attorney said it right on the mark! I am so sick & tired of these upper level wimps around our country that don’t want to stick their necks out to question this a$$hole potus! Everyone in a position to stop Zero has done nothing but crawl cowering into a corner. Shame on them!
For all you yellow-bellied big mouths out there...you will never make Maj S. Cook look bad in our eyes! It is YOU, & your position we will reflect on when the time comes.....
LOL! Sorry about that Madame, LOL.
“In my day, A field grade or better would have taken this weasel on.”
In the legal brief, Cook pointed out that he and other officers wouldn’t be protected by international law if it turns out that Bambi isn’t the legal CIC. How is it weasel-like to make sure that what you’re doing is legal before you do it? Sounds responsible to me.
No problem. :)
I agree w/ you, RT. The article is biased, but so was Cooks' offer to be deployed. That's not a proper way to serve in the military. It's not fair to the Army or to the person who's billet Cook was slated to fill.
Is the "birther" fight legitimate? Absolutely, but there are right and wrong ways to do this. This was the wrong way.
I am clearly explaining that attacking the military in my age would have slammed obama to the floor in this age.
Be brave and refuse to do it until you see the president’s.
The whole "article" reads like something from the Huffington POSt.
So, are you saying that you believe what is best for us right now is to have a young private in Afghanistan suddenly tell his superiors 'I refuse. Obama isn't the president legally, so I refuse to go on this patrol today'.
You think that's a good thing? And how, pray tell, do you think his superiors should respond to that? It's a very serious offense under UCMJ. It carries the death penalty in certain circumstances.
Also, if we advocate this as a political tool because we don't align with the current Commander in Chief, then when there is a Republican president every democrat/liberal soldier is going to say the same thing.
That's the very height of folly what you're advocating. Even more so in war time.
Look, I want to see the birth certificate myself and have posted this many times on this forum. But honestly, the whole BC thing is little more than a 'conspiracy idea' at the moment. I'm not willing to have our national security jeopardised because of it. I'm not wanting to see the military suddenly believing they are some sort of democratic organisation where all orders are open to debate. It's folly. Sheer folly.
We're just giving aid and comfort to the enemy at that point.
I wish it WOULD.
I mean I have to produce crap like a PT scorecard if the S1 loses the one in my file/promotion packet if I wanted to be promoted, but Obama isn’t required to produce _his_ documentation to get his ‘promotion’?
FUBAR.
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.