Weren't the initial orders to go into Afghanistan given in 2008? Wouldn't that make them the standing general orders of GW Bush? I could be wrong (I often am!) but I really thought we went there with at least a token force before Obama. Again, that would (pardon the pun) cook Cook.
On Jul 17, 6:58 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
