Posted on 07/29/2009 9:31:48 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Who is the weasel?
Please tell me, what is the right way?
These soldiers have taken a serious oath to defend the Constitution. The American people let them down. Congress let them down. The Electoral College let them down. Now they're trying to do the right thing and help *us* straighten out this mess. They're doing it peacefully and legally, not organizing a coup.
We trust that they have our backs. We should have theirs', especially when they're trying to do the right thing.
“I thought soldiers made an oath to uphold The Constitution?”
Yep, and to defend it from all enemies foreign, and domestic.
“Stars and Stripes is giving O spin.”
Which goes against their own rules since by law, “Stars and Stripes is to operate under the First Amendment — free of censorship and any perversion as a vehicle for propaganda.”
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought you were calling Cook the weasel.
Again, this sets a dangerous precedent. I think the Army should pursue this case with a great deal of vigor. If Cook is right, fair enough, we go from there. If he is wrong, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the UCMJ. He will be an example one way or the other.
“I was trying to recall. Is this the one
that’s owned by Gannett?”
You’re thinking Army Times and it’s sister papers (Navy Times, etc)
There is something over here we call the Constitution, and the men and women in the service swear to defend and uphold it. It is just that simple, so just pour yourself a Scotch!!!
I am a true guy with America First values. These come from our States “Bill of Rights” afforded from the framers of the “Constitution” to keep their nose out of my affairs. Glad to meet you.
“In my day, A field grade or better would have taken this weasel on.”
Sadly, most officers now are politicians who trample their troops to get that next promotion.
I got fed up with it, and got out. I’ve seen too many good officers who would stand up for the troops they led, get back stabbed by other officers and then get black balled by higher ups effectively ending their careers.
I understand and agree completely with Cooks' reasoning for bringing the suit. My problem was that the dates presented strongly suggest that Cook volunteered to be deployed only for the purpose of bringing the suit. That causes problems for the military trying to complete a mission and for the person who Cook was scheduled to replace. Basically, Cook suspended that person's return home until the Army could unscramble the paperwork. That's a crappy thing to do to that soldier and his/her family.
It is also a position that is easily uncovered and exploited by the media, as we can see in that patriotic publication, The Sickle and Hammer.
If you have been following all the new polices with regards to engagement with the enemy, yes I do. Either way the private is going to end up going before a military court because he fired at an insurgent when a civilian was within 100 feet of the insurgent. Never mind the fact that the towel head was firing at him.
We are fighting a PC war, forget that, a PC policing action since the war is over.
Time to get our people home. Time to tell anyone from a supposed terrorist sponsored state they are no longer welcomed in the US.
Kind of insane to be over there fighting them there and our immigration policy is open to not only allowing them in, but paying for them to come over here.
Tired of us going to war with the best equipment, best trained people only to fight it with both hands behind our backs and a JAG riding shot gun to make sure you don’t do anything that may hurt the enemy moral.
Back to the weak argument about his superiors. Major Cook was a superior and look he challenged it and won.
You're right about this setting a dangerous precedent. I couldn't agree more. But you CANNOT prosecute a soldier for *questioning the legality of an order*. He has every right (and the responsibility) to do that. If you did, you'd be setting an even *more* dangerous precedent.
I don't think that there will be a problem with soldiers setting down their weapons in a war-zone. Their butts are on the line as much as anyone's over there.
Soldiers may *go* to war for their country, but they don't *fight* for their country when they're in combat. They fight for their brothers. Anyone who refused to do guard duty in a combat zone would be eaten alive by their fellow soldiers.
I think he was referring to officers taking on 0bama, not taking on the Major.
Thanks. I have have read some of the threads.
It bothers me that S&S would only print have the story and that have favors the Military and tries to make Cook and Taitz seem like opportunist.
Yes, so what Taitz is russian born, how about the kenyan in the office that was born in several different hospitals?
Write the story S&S and try telling the truth next time.
“It’s a very serious offense under UCMJ. It carries the death penalty in certain circumstances.”
Just like it’s a serious offense to follow illegal orders.
Just ask all those German officers who were jailed or executed for “following orders”.
“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.”
We’d only lose maybe 5 to 10% of the military, and it would probably improve morale since the deadbeats, and slackers would be gone.
If this is the case, it means that he's willing to put his butt on the line so others don't have to.
That causes problems for the military trying to complete a mission and for the person who Cook was scheduled to replace. Basically, Cook suspended that person's return home until the Army could unscramble the paperwork. That's a crappy thing to do to that soldier and his/her family.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. My husband is a soldier and crap happens all the time. Soldiers get hurt or sick the week before the unit deploys and they just go one short. I've *never* seen or heard of a situation where a soldier can't come home because his replacement is late. Never once in 20 years. And yes, this goes for commanders and 1st sgts, too.
Heck, during our last deployment our company COMMANDER had a family emergency that set him back a month. The until deployed and made do without him (putting a LT in to hold his position until he could get to Iraq) and they did just fine. If the army is making someone stay because of Cook, they're doing it to be a jerk.
I don’t think you understand the military. You are engaging your thoughts inside a military mind. Very naive.
You cite guard duty, but guard duty is a special circumstance. Guard duty comes with its own special instructions- in your case you point out that not even a commanding general was allowed entry to nuke installation. Fair enough, but it isn't like that on every guard post because they all have their own special instructions. On many guard duty situations a soldier would be expected to recognise his own chain of command and to allow them access to what he was doing. Each situation is unique so I don't think guard duty is a useful situation to use as an example.
But I'll give you a different situation. A common one. Your company gets a new commander. By what authority do you begin following his directives? I mean, you're just Private Joe Snuffy. How do you know he's actually your new commander? If you're a private, you don't just go up and start asking your captain for ID. You don't ask a Light Colonel to inspect his documents.
The way you know is- 1) it is announced in an official way (i.e. the orders are read out loud) and 2) there is a ceremony where the outgoing commander physically hands the command over to the incoming one. It is a short ceremony and one in which the entire unit excepting detailed soldiers attend. The outgoing guy hands the unit guide-on (flag) to the battalion commander, and he hands it to the incoming guy. Then he usually gives a little speech, the troops get reviewed and everybody's off to the motorpool to sweep up oil spots.
The point being- these things have actually happened in Obama's case. There was an election. Obama won. He was announced publicly as the new president. There was an official, constitutionally mandated, swearing in ceremony and he took over the duties of the office.
So, in answer to the bit I put in italics at the start of this post... I think an officer should question the legality when it is reasonable to do so. When he has a reasonable and legitimate belief that the person giving the order has no constitutional authority to do so.
Personally, by the accepted norms of Army life and conduct, I don't believe Cook has a reasonable cause to disobey his orders. He is acting on a reactionary idea that the President has hidden his documents from the public in order to illegaly become president. I just don't think the 'evidence' supports a reasonable cause to disobey. If it did, you could disobey any time anybody on the internet created so much as a rumour that the CinC was not legit.
This is my opinion.
This is a huge issue and must be vetted. I'm less concerned with the necessity of the Army having to redo paperwork; that is barley worth mentioning. The officer Cook is replacing is another matter, but I am at a loss for how this gets done with out causing someone to be stuck.
Had this been someone other than a reservist that volunteered to go the outcome is the same. The legal standing and reasoning is the same. The currently assigned officer waits as it gets fixed just the same. The only difference I can see is that the Sickle and Hammer cannot claim that the officer bringing the suit volunteered only to have standing.
If anything, Cook may have cleared the way for regular officers to bring suit without as much risk to their careers.
OK - never mind. I'm wrong.
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.