Freddie you are conflating apples and oranges. Thinking requires making distinctions Not wanting to go to war after you have signed up for military service is different in principle from not wanting to go to war or otherwise be deployed because the person giving the orders is not the commander in chief
Though perhaps if your reason for not going to war was because you thought the war had not been properly declared as the Constitution requires they become more similar You have course assume,as your always do more out of alack of intellect than out of simple rhetorical dishonesty, that these are 2 and only 2 sides, that no one could have supported both groups of refuseniks And as a liberal or moderate you aren't critical at all of the policy that a soldier,unlike any other employee,cannot quit at will. Because you believe the individual belongs to the state On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Frederick The Moderate < [email protected]> wrote: > > > His refusal is not based on rumor.... it is based on an absolute lack > > of proven fact. > > Again, the basis of outrage by Conservatives in 2006 was whether a > soldier is allowed to abandon his duty based on political opinion. As > one put it, if Bush's was was illegal, why wasn't anyone arrested, > impeached, imprisoned etc...? > Well folks, Obama has not been arrested, impeached, imprisoned etc... > Anyone care to show me a verdict on lexis-nexus? No? No verdict? No > establish FACT by ANY court in the land? Hmmm. So sorry. That makes > Cooks assertion a RUMOR. > Now I know this rumor just THRILLS the extremists and let's suppose > that at some point, it actually becomes a fact. Fine, at that point, > Cook would have valid reason to ignore his duties. > But based on your "logic" if we were attacked by the Russians, > everyone could refuse to do anything until this was sorted out > legally. Now maybe a few people here are so brainwashed and whacked > out on on the Right Wing kool-aid, that they simply can't see this but > anyone who has actually SERVED in uniform knows, you don't ever > abandon your post. Ever. > Right now and until legally PROVEN otherwise, any order issued by > Obama is a lawful order. And guess what? Let's suppose Obama IS proven > unfit. Every order issued by him must be obeyed by every member on the > military until those orders are modified by his replacement. > The case with Cook? Combination of political statement and desire to > dodge. I don't blame him on not going to Afghanistan. I've posted > several times, I think it's a mistake. But he abandoned his lawful > duties and rather than spend $$$$$, they just let him go, realizing > that HE trashed his own career. His CEO of Simtech may try to spin it > and put blame on the government but the simple fact is, anyone suing > the government can't hold a security clearance and definitely can't be > a systems engineer for the DoD. > But hey! His lawyer got some great publicity so there's that! > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 9:40 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > He swore to defend the constitution and based on that > > to follow lawful orders... those were the terms of his employment with > > the Army, Aren't the requirements for POTUS/CIC written in black and > > white in that document ?? Or is it that you have no use for the > > constitution ?? > > > > If I walk up to him wearing a generals or colenels uniform and give > > him an order should he follow that order when he knows or truly thinks > > I am not a real general ?? > > > > On Jul 16, 9:43 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why is it that you libbies get such delight in the government ruining > > > peoples lives for political purposes? This guy clearly had no standing > > > to refuse orders as he cannot claim, based on unsubstantiated rumors, > > > that the commander in chief is a fraud. He should be treated as a > > > soldier refusing orders. Not have someone get him fired. > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:52 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from > > > > their superior officer and I guarantee that someone between Obama and > > > > this guy, ordered him to go. But that's okay, they had this guy's > > > > sentence figured the moment he filed. Instead of going through all > the > > > > legal bs, they just revoked his security clearance. Guess what kind > of > > > > company he works for? Defense contractor. Makes pretty good money > too! > > > > Well, he used to, anyway. Hope his lawyer got paid in advance... > > > > > > Funny thing though. When that soldier refused to go to Iraq in 2006 > > > > because the WPA made clear that Bush's war was illegal, all the > > > > Conservatives and GOP called him a traitor and touted how a soldiers > > > > duty should never be interefered with by politics and Rush Limbaugh > > > > brought up the point that, if that were allowed, half our armed > forces > > > > could refuse to fight at any given moment etc... Funny how their > > > > opinion of a soldiers' duty has changed (rather hypocritically) now > > > > that the politics are on the other foot... > > > > > > On Jul 15, 7:35 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By "revoking" a > > > > > standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean > one > > > > > thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was > issued > > > > > by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto. > > > > > > > Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the > > > > > "natural born citizen" rule as it pertains to the president - as a > > > > > Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; > > > > > "Take the remedy up with the legislative." > > > > > > > More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in > > > > > this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of > "standing." > > > > > > > The military certainly has "standing," although they're now beyond > the > > > > > court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, > challenge > > > > > the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the > > > > > Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books > to > > > > > challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful > requirement. > > > > > > > The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a > lawful > > > > > military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the > > > > > underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of > > > > > additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to > run > > > > > Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the > > > > > Constitution. > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > d.b. > > > > > > > > Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for > POTUS, > > > > > > I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for > sure > > > > > > what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic > > > > > > qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to > provide > > > > > > proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. > Sure > > > > > > as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone > else. > > > > > > The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's > license, > > > > > > etc. How did he get those? > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:15 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or > request > > > > > > > orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all > civilian > > > > > > > appointees are out. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > d.b, > > > > > > > > > > The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the > orders of > > > > > > > > a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold > his rank/ > > > > > > > > office would be illegal. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 7:27 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [Q] - A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to > report for > > > > > > > > > deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military > orders > > > > > > > > > revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve > under a > > > > > > > > > president who has not proven his eligibility for office. > > > > > > > > > > > His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has > rescinded > > > > > > > > > his impending deployment orders. > > > > > > > > > > > "We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with > excitement. "It > > > > > > > > > means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It > means that > > > > > > > > > the military has directly responded by saying Obama is > illegitimate – > > > > > > > > > and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the > order!" > > > > > > > > > > > She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No > explanation. No > > > > > > > > > reasons – just revoked." > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
