Thank you, Frederick, nice to know the effort was not in vain. I'll only add this, the president (CIC) is constitutionally responsible for the issuance of all general military orders. While subordinates may also be culpable (e.g., alterations, forgeries) - I'll paraphrase Harry Truman: "The buck stops with the president." This is especially true here because the general order to deploy was/ is well defined and established by the president.
Meanwhile, it seems Maj. Cook's challenge has gone viral. Now even parts of the media are covering it. On Jul 17, 4:49 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > DB, that's probably the most intelligently put explanation of what's > going on in this case that I've heard. Thanks. I was not in the JAG > (although I had / have friends who were / are). > I believe everything that you wrote would stand up under one > condition: So long as not one officer anywhere between Obama and Cook, > ever ordered Cook to deploy. At that point, it became a general order > - which is what I mentioned earlier in this thread. I have to believe > someone lower in the chain of command, covered this base somewhere > along the line. > > On Jul 16, 9:19 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
