On Jul 16, 9:26 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
> D.B.
>
> No, you are wrong. The military can revoke ANY order for ANY reason or
> no reason at all. If one has the authority to issue an order than same
> person/command has the authority to rescind or nullify that same
> order.
Makes sense, but there are "direct orders" and there are "general
orders" (i.e., standing orders). Refusal to follow a direct order may
or may not be a court-martial offense; e.g., "Take out the garbage,
private." "No, sir, Sarge." (Can't sue the CIC on this one.)
Refusal to follow a general (or standing) order is definitely a court-
martial offense. An order to deploy is a general or standing order.
The issuing commander (general) may rescind the order for a valid
reason (surrender of the enemy, for example), but he/she may not do so
selectively without good (provable) cause. A general order applies to
everyone under his/her command. So too the order's revocation.
Maj. Stefan Cook did NOT refuse the general order; he requested a
hearing in district court (GA) to establish the validity of the order
- given his belief that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and
therefore ineligible to be president. The hearing was held today
(Thurs), and dismissed because the underlying general order (to
deploy) had since been [selectively] revoked by the military.
This is where it gets interesting, because the selective revocation of
the standing order was in itself a violation of the UCMJ, that is,
unless the military can prove the revocation was not capricious or
arbitrary. If properly pursued by Maj. Cook, this action could lead to
the demotion or dismissal of the issuer and many of his/her
subordinates. In short, to date we have one court-martial offense,
committed by the military, not Cook.
The revocation was tactical, and for the time being effective. It's
also a gamble that Cook will not be able to muster the resources to
mount a successful counter-offensive, such as acquiring a top notch
JAG to address the revocation ("without good or just cause"); Maj.
Cook wanted to go to Afghanistan, the military refused by summarily
and selectively revoking the standing deployment order. An obvious
ploy to avoid - at any cost - the legality of the underlying question
(Obama).
Depending on Cook's determination, and his legal counsel, this is the
type of case that has the potential to alter the course of military
and civilian history. Simply because there's no way Obama can prevail,
even in the unlikely event he produces a valid Hawaiian birth
certificate. The reason being that his father was not a US citizen,
and there is no record of Obama declaring US citizenship when he
reached the age of majority (a requirement).
But with the military, Cook now has a second front he can attack; the
revocation vs. UCMJ. He doesn't have to rush in, either - because
there's bound to be others. But given his rank and exemplary military
record, he can go it alone, and prevail.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
