I think that's all correct. My post may have been a little misleading.
My point about "if she hasn't got an order" is that she may need some order to complain directly about to have standing.
But the rest of your commentary is where we think Orly may have screwed up in Cook--maybe she should have drafted her pleading to deal with not only the order to deploy but other orders. Although that would leave it open to the Court to say that isn't a direct impact but rather a "what if"--come back and see us when it happens.
The other reason the prayer for relief in Cook may have been narrower is because it was directed to a deployment order--in the battlefield environment, a bunch of other law comes into affect which operates on a person acting under orders from a command authority. So with respect to Cook, counsel could say well not only do I not have a Commander in Chief with pants who can issue orders I have to follow, I also suffer direct impact because I don't have protection of these treaties like Geneva Convention and other stuff in a life threatening environment either.
“maybe she should have drafted her pleading to deal with not only the order to deploy but other orders.”
Right!
That’s what I’m saying.
After all, just being an officer means one would be under “standing” orders!
1. Military. (formerly) a general order always in force in a command and establishing uniform procedures for it; standard operating procedure.
Now it would seem logical that standing orders would also rest — in theory as much as any other sort of “order” — on the authority and rank of his/her superiors: all the way FROM the commander-in-chief down.
Someone could argue that standing orders do not create the sort of uncertainty of authority that I argued was inimical to “following legitimate orders... orders that are coming from one who has the authority to GIVE the order.”
The theory would be the officer serves in a chain of command that requires a legitimate commander-in-chief, to legally function.
So the question is if the commander-in-chief is indeterminate how can the officer — or any officer at any time — receive or give legitimate orders though the chain of command?
How can he/she, legitimately, still function as an Officer under the above circumstance?
Therefore,he/she/ takes recourse in seeking to confirm the legitimacy of the commander-in-chief.
... or SOMETHING like that!
The question is where IS the immediate damage?
How has Obama personally damaged him/her?:
Is the officer’s career in jeopardy?
And finaly, IF the court were to come to a favorable decision, how would the court “redress” him/her?(as is required in the standing rule)
Not easy!
Thanks for your reply!
STE=Q