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.
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.
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.