The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: DULurkster on July 11, 2009, 08:35:36 PM
-
(http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu273/planb497/highway78billboard.jpg)
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida with orders to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has filed a court demand to be classified as a "conscientious objector" because without proof of the commander-in-chief's eligibility for office, the entire army "becomes merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."
[Maj. Stefan Frederick] Cook told WND he's ready, willing and able to carry out the military needs of the United States, but he raised the challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president because if he would be captured by enemy forces while serving overseas under the orders of an illegitimate president, he could be considered a "war criminal."
He told WND he is prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.
"What I want to do is deploy to Afghanistan, do my job as an Army officer, engineer. I do not want to subject myself to the possibility that I might be violating the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," he said.
"Others may cynically ridicule this plaintiff when, as an officer responsible not only to obey those above him but to protect those under his command, he comes to this court asking for the right to establish the legality of orders received not only for his own protection, but for the protection of all enlisted men and women who depend on HIS judgment that the orders he follows are legal. Above all, when Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook submits and contends that he files and will prosecute this lawsuit and seeks an injunction or temporary restraining order against the enforcement of potentially illegal orders for the benefit of all servicemen and women and for the benefit of all officers in all branches of the U.S. military, he knows that those in power illegitimately may seek to injure his career. He knows that he risks all and he does so in the conscientious belief that he does so for not merely his own, but the general good,:" according to the court filing.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=103626
-
Rock on...The buffoons on the left challenged GWB endlessly.
-
NICE MOVE! Let's see how the Messiah laughs this one off!
-
While I understand his concern and sympathize with it, since the court system seems to have conspired to wipe Obama's ass with the Constitution by deciding US citizens don't have the standing to actually challenge this issue, once the Chief Justice swears him in, he's been 'Duly appointed' and except in the case of facially unlawful orders, the Oath pretty much compels one to get in line.
The argument about being treated as a "War criminal" is rather silly considering our opposition. Does that mean they will cut your head off slower so it'll hurt more, or faster because you are an especially bad guy?
-
I have mixed feelings about this but if it really is a matter of conscious, I don't see he has a choice but to push the issue. In the end, we all have to live with our own self.
-
If this idiot wants to push the issue then he needs to do it as a civilian.
He keeps this up while he's a commissioned officer and he'll find himself in front of a Courts Martial.
-
I guess some folks are willing to stand on principle even when it may not be in their own personal best interest.
-
I guess some folks are willing to stand on principle even when it may not be in their own personal best interest.
If he wants to stand on his principle then he needs to do it free of the oath he's taken and the UCMJ articles which govern his conduct.
Otherwise all he's doing is falling on his sword.
-
Perhaps. But as an American citizen 1st, and a soldier 2nd, it's his sword to fall on if he so choses.
I must admit after reading the article, his points in the lawsuit are interesting.
To my knowledge he has not refused to deploy. He is merely asking for legal claification, which is indeed the right and responsibility of any soldier if the legality of an order is in question.
We prosecute soldiers in this country for following illegal orders.
-
I guess some folks are willing to stand on principle even when it may not be in their own personal best interest.
As far as I'm concerned he's abandoning his sacred oath and his comrades headed for war over an unproven possibility. That's unacceptable.
-
Perhaps. But as an American citizen 1st, and a soldier 2nd, it's his sword to fall on if he so choses.
As long as he's doing this while still a commissioned officer...he's no different in the eyes of the Military and the UCMJ...than the idiot soldiers letting their mouth and their BDS run wild.
The same articles apply to Conservatives/Republicans in this kind of political grandstanding as do the Libtards who do the same thing.
To my knowledge he has not refused to deploy. He is merely asking for legal claification, which is indeed the right and responsibility of any soldier if the legality of an order is in question.
*sigh* Am I going to have to point out the same UCMJ Articles that we always do to when the DUmmies do the same thing?
Look I'm not saying if I agree or disagree with what he has to say...I'm just saying he's wrong to do it as a Major in the Army. If we don't hold both sides to the same standard...we're just as big a group of hypocrites as the Left.
It's wrong no matter how you slice it.
We prosecute soldiers in this country for following illegal orders.
And until it's proven oterwise...any order that Obama gives myself...this Major and other soldiers are lawful orders...and will remain so up to and until the time that it's proven otherwise.
-
Relax guys.
I'm not saying I agree with the Major's decision. I think that unless he is very careful and has his ducks very tightly lined up, his career is over. Hell, for all I know it is already over...
I don't like it when liberal soldiers pull this sort of stunt when a republican is in the WH either. The UCMJ rules are supposed to apply equally.
If you go back and re-read my comments carefully, the only thing I have really agreed with, is that he has the right to fall on his sword if he so chooses.
Please don't read anything else into it.
Oh and for the record.... your principles don't get put in a drawer somewhere just cuz you're wearing a uniform.
-
And until it's proven oterwise...any order that Obama gives myself...this Major and other soldiers are lawful orders...and will remain so up to and until the time that it's proven otherwise.
So you will open fire on your fellow citizens, that are merely exercizing their constitutionally protected rights, if some asshat in the WH orders you to? You would consider that order lawful until proven otherwise?
Proven by whom, to whom?
-
So you will open fire on your fellow citizens, that are merely exercizing their constitutionally protected rights, if some asshat in the WH orders you to? You would consider that order lawful until proven otherwise?
Proven by whom, to whom?
Now you're sounding like that Ronulan idiot Lurkster.
Quit being purposefully obtuse. :whatever:
-
Now you're sounding like that Ronulan idiot Lurkster.
Quit being purposefully obtuse. :whatever:
I thought my question was pretty straight forward. What did you find obtuse about it?
What I am driving at actually, is to get a feel for what orders our current military members might balk at and refuse to follow.
I know it's a big thread drift, so perhaps the question deserves it's own thread.
To stay on topic: Although I don't necessarily agree with the way the major is going about it, I find the points he brings up as mentioned in the linked article to be interesting. I think he has indeed fallen on his sword.
-
I agree with you TxR about him being in the service and having taken the oath. However, when will the American people actually get an answer to this question? As long as it stays in the limelight it puts pressure, however slight, on the Messiah to answer. Personally I can't fathom why in the world he keeps ducking. It begins to look like he must have something to hide.
The longer he refuses the more I believe he is not a natural born citizen!
-
I agree with you TxR about him being in the service and having taken the oath. However, when will the American people actually get an answer to this question? As long as it stays in the limelight it puts pressure, however slight, on the Messiah to answer. Personally I can't fathom why in the world he keeps ducking. It begins to look like he must have something to hide.
The longer he refuses the more I believe he is not a natural born citizen!
That very well may be the case. But as Conservatives is THIS what we want to base our efforts in the 2010 elections on?
When there's so much more to hammer the Dems on...the question is do we want to become so fixiated on a "third rail" that no one outside the chat rooms seems to want to tackle that we lose an opportunity to expose the entire Liberal platform and it's leaders for the sham that they really are?
All focusing on this issue does is allow the Libs and the MSM to portray us as a bunch of bigoted whackjobs.
-
It is bigoted to expect a sitting president to actually be qualified IAW the COTUS to hold the job?
Or is it merely bigoted to ask him/her to prove it when there is a good reason to question it?
Wow.
Oh.. and who (other than you) said anything about this being about the 2010 elections?
Or am I being obtuse?
-
Damn...
There I go with the thread drift again.
My bad.
-
That very well may be the case. But as Conservatives is THIS what we want to base our efforts in the 2010 elections on?
When there's so much more to hammer the Dems on...the question is do we want to become so fixiated on a "third rail" that no one outside the chat rooms seems to want to tackle that we lose an opportunity to expose the entire Liberal platform and it's leaders for the sham that they really are?
All focusing on this issue does is allow the Libs and the MSM to portray us as a bunch of bigoted whackjobs.
I certainly don't think this issue is what we should focus on for 2010. However, I certainly would like to know if this hoser is circumventing our constitution. I detest the asshole for being so arrogant as to refuse the American people the truth!
-
So you will open fire on your fellow citizens, that are merely exercizing their constitutionally protected rights, if some asshat in the WH orders you to? You would consider that order lawful until proven otherwise?
Proven by whom, to whom?
an order to fire on civilians is an illegal order, no matter how gives it. Now- if they start shooting at me, then all bets are off.
-
an order to fire on civilians is an illegal order, no matter how gives it. Now- if they start shooting at me, then all bets are off.
It's not like it (an order to fire on civilians) hasn't happened before.
Bonus Army comes to mind.
They were civilians. They were fired upon by government troops.
So my question isn't entirely without reason.
-
It's not like it (an order to fire on civilians) hasn't happened before.
Bonus Army comes to mind.
They were civilians. They were fired upon by government troops.
So my question isn't entirely without reason.
that happend (post WWI) before the current laws governing military forces.
-
He took an oath. He must abide by that oath. This fight of his will ruin his career. If he wants to do something, he needs to go through the channels, I.e. his representatives.
-
He took an oath. He must abide by that oath. This fight of his will ruin his career. If he wants to do something, he needs to go through the channels, I.e. his representatives.
Could be he's well aware of this and this is his ticket to public life.
-
Remember this part of the oath you took - to support and defend the constitution.....?
Evidently the major feels very strongly that he is doing just that. He doesn't believe that OH-BUMMER has the constitutional authority to issue orders since the question of his eligibility to be the POTUS is STILL in question.
OH-BUMMER can very easily resolve the matter and produce his birth certificate.
If all he has is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH issued by a U.S. consulate, then he IS NOT a natural born citizen and is therefore INELIGIBLE to be the POTUS. Watch and see how quickly the OH-BUMMER worshippers will push for a ONE-TIME exemption to allow him to remain the POTUS.
Hell, there is already a move afoot to revoke the Constitutional Amendment which limits the POTUS to two-terms in office so that OH-BUMMER can become PRESIDENT FOR LIFE.
-
Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.
-
Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.
Unfortunately you're right! What I find hard to swallow is his peers not taking the same tact. All the way up the chain of command.
-
Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.
While I shudder at the thought of "defending" a post of Blue-Suiters, as far as I'm aware the oath that Officers take (especially in the Army), the POTUS is never mentioned.
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
-
Hmm, Interesting.
I still don't think he can win this battle. From reading it looks like when I go back in, and hopefully make CW2, I'll be taking the same oath.
-
Officers and enlisted don't take quite the same oath, it's true. Thing is, once the Chief Justice swears him in, he is presumptively the President and it's not up some random doofus to challenge any order he gives, as long as it isn't unlawful on its face.
-
Let's see how the DUmbasses react to this, since they were the ones calling for enlisted personnel to desert and officers to be shot. I don't guess I have to make any predictions that are probably not known on this site.
-
Remember this part of the oath you took - to support and defend the constitution.....?
Evidently the major feels very strongly that he is doing just that. He doesn't believe that OH-BUMMER has the constitutional authority to issue orders since the question of his eligibility to be the POTUS is STILL in question.
OH-BUMMER can very easily resolve the matter and produce his birth certificate.
If all he has is a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH issued by a U.S. consulate, then he IS NOT a natural born citizen and is therefore INELIGIBLE to be the POTUS. Watch and see how quickly the OH-BUMMER worshippers will push for a ONE-TIME exemption to allow him to remain the POTUS.
Hell, there is already a move afoot to revoke the Constitutional Amendment which limits the POTUS to two-terms in office so that OH-BUMMER can become PRESIDENT FOR LIFE.
Hell, I would support that, as long as it was part of a law requiring the FEC to verify Constitutional eligibility for any person running for a national office (i.e. Rep, Senator, POTUS). I don't see how they could boot him now, as it would be ex post facto, but it would bar him from running for re-election. Of course, as soon as he becomes a lame duck, expect the massive swing leftward.
-
As far as I'm concerned he's abandoning his sacred oath and his comrades headed for war over an unproven possibility. That's unacceptable.
Hi Guys,
I am not so sure that he does not have some merit. Here is why. Recall the Vietnam era where officers were told to lie about body counts, napalm civilians, etc. and many officers were in a heep of trouble because they followed orders and did just that. If you do not believe me, ask Ollie North. If any officer, or NCO for that matter, can be prosecuted for following orders, then should that officer have some sort of recourse to challenge the validity of the order beforehand?????
Just a thought,
5412
-
Hi Guys,
I am not so sure that he does not have some merit. Here is why. Recall the Vietnam era where officers were told to lie about body counts, napalm civilians, etc. and many officers were in a heep of trouble because they followed orders and did just that. If you do not believe me, ask Ollie North. If any officer, or NCO for that matter, can be prosecuted for following orders, then should that officer have some sort of recourse to challenge the validity of the order beforehand?????
Just a thought,
5412
There is no comparison whatsoever, and I'm somewhat surprised that you would try to put forward such an obviously defective analysis. What you are talking about is exactly what amounts to 'Facially invalid' or illegal/unlawful orders, it has exactly Jack Shit to do with the qualifications to hold office of the person issuing them. In fact, in all of the examples you use, the people who issued those orders didn't have the slightest shadow of a doubt cast on their official qualifications to issue orders, the whole point was the substance of the orders that were issued.
And Hell no, it would be an unbelievably stupid idea to allow a Soldier to challenge a company commander's order just because he thought the commander had cheated on tests in college and therefore ultimately lied his way to being commissioned, or he heard a rumor the commander had tried drugs in high school but lied about it on his security clearance application and wouldn't have been able to be commissioned if he told the truth, which is exactly where your "Shouldn't he be able to..." would end up in no time flat.
-
The way I see it, there is a slim to none chance of 0bama being removed from office, even if it is shown that he was born in Kenya. The reality is, the SCOTUS has so far refused to hear any of these cases, and Roberts effectively endorsed the election results on 20 Jan 09.
0bama is POTUS, like it or not, and for the next 3.5 years (God help us all). The thing to focus on is removing his Congressional help in 2010, and removing him in 2012. There may be some who will be swayed by the "0bama's not even qualified because he was born in Kenya" routine, but most people will look at you the same way we look at troofers, with pity and worry that you aren't in a long sleeved jacket that buckles in the back. The way to hit him hardest, especially when tax increases come, is by reminding everyone that he swore "not one single dime" more in taxes. (Come to think of it, he's right, it won't be one SINGLE dime, it'll be hundreds and thousands of them)
-
One way for officers to protest, when they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve under an POTUS whom is an IDIOT, is to resign their commission.
It happened in big numbers under clinton.
How many career NCOs whom had 20-years in submitted their retirement paperwork when clinton took office?
-
One way for officers to protest, when they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve under an POTUS whom is an IDIOT, is to resign their commission.
It happened in big numbers under clinton.
Actually, they were paid for an early out. My neighbor got out as a Major and is still drawing money and will be for the next 10 years.
-
I'll have to side with the dissenting Major. How can the Major be obligated to follow orders of an "illegal" President?? Since there is a question about his birthplace, it COULD be justified to ask the President to bring forth his actual birth certificate to prove his legality. Once that's done, and depending on the outcome, that would become the deciding factor on whether or not the major complies. Should 0bama be proven to be a legitimate President, from that time on, most all of his orders should be "legal" (unless they violate the Constitution or UCMJ).
What my problem is, I suppose, is the fact that 0bama seems to be hiding something. His minions are busy scrubbing the internet of any and all documents. ( http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html )
Also, troops have fired upon civilians since the Bonus Army. Anybody remember Kent State?? Didn't seven civilians die there??
-
Also, troops have fired upon civilians since the Bonus Army. Anybody remember Kent State?? Didn't seven civilians die there??
Kent state was a national guard unit under the Governor's orders- not federal.
Also, there was no order from higher to fire on the students.
-
I'll have to side with the dissenting Major. How can the Major be obligated to follow orders of an "illegal" President??
Because it's not his decision or charge to make. Right now, he is the legally-sat President of the United States.
-
Because it's not his decision or charge to make. Right now, he is the legally-sat President of the United States.
Concur. Military personnel who resort to this kind of activity are attention whores, imho. This guy is spoiling for an angle of some type, though that angle might include some vertical and parallel steel bars intended to incarcerate people.
Also concur with docstew. SCOTUS completely dropped the ball on this one, and Roberts implicitly declared the election valid when he administered the Oath of Office - twice, because both participants hosed it up the first time.
I saw this as a wasted opportunity to rid the country of a :loser: .
-
I agree with you TxR about him being in the service and having taken the oath. However, when will the American people actually get an answer to this question? As long as it stays in the limelight it puts pressure, however slight, on the Messiah to answer. Personally I can't fathom why in the world he keeps ducking. It begins to look like he must have something to hide.
The longer he refuses the more I believe he is not a natural born citizen!
Do Hawaiian Birth Certificates list the race of the child? In many if not all states, the race of the child in mixed race births is listed to match that of the mother.
-
Do Hawaiian Birth Certificates list the race of the child? In many if not all states, the race of the child in mixed race births is listed to match that of the mother.
You mean that not only is he NOT the first black president, but he may just be another "crackuh" in the White House?
-
Well, on that fakeass birth certificate that the libs are circulating, his father has "African" listed as his race. Last I checked, "African" isn't a race. Is my race "American"? No, it's Caucasian.
-
The way I see it, there is a slim to none chance of 0bama being removed from office, even if it is shown that he was born in Kenya. The reality is, the SCOTUS has so far refused to hear any of these cases, and Roberts effectively endorsed the election results on 20 Jan 09.
0bama is POTUS, like it or not, and for the next 3.5 years (God help us all). The thing to focus on is removing his Congressional help in 2010, and removing him in 2012. There may be some who will be swayed by the "0bama's not even qualified because he was born in Kenya" routine, but most people will look at you the same way we look at troofers, with pity and worry that you aren't in a long sleeved jacket that buckles in the back. The way to hit him hardest, especially when tax increases come, is by reminding everyone that he swore "not one single dime" more in taxes. (Come to think of it, he's right, it won't be one SINGLE dime, it'll be hundreds and thousands of them)
Carefull there Doc, I seem to remember Daddy Bush becoming most forcfull when repeating over and over again "Read my lips, no new taxes."
Now about this Army Officer and his problem with obaying orders passed down to him by his Superior Officer. Surely the President is not involved with personally issuing orders to each and every lowly Major in the Army.
Just who the heck does this Officer think he is, this dude is going to have a hard time in civilian life if he refuses to obay his supervison at work untill he is shown proof that the CEO of the company can prove they hold the position due to legal means and has the RIGHT to run that company.
Yaqh-yah- he is not conserned with HIS safty as much as he is with the men and woman who are building roads and bridges to make it easier for the civilians to get to market and the hospital, or to schools for the kids.
Some how the idea that he has been offered one heck of a well paying job in the civilian sector, from a compaqny that will not keep the position open for long, comes to mind. He needs an excuse to dump his commision and get out with the reputation of being, not a coward but a man with the highest of principels.
If he were sincere he would have just quietly resigned, however he has chosen to go public with what would be called Treasonist comments about the very man who he swore an oath to defend and obay.
Just what we need at this time is for Military Officers of like mind to form cells that undermine our government.
Nasty piece of work there, He was not drafted, he knew full well and has known for a few years that the Millitary cannot be run by everyone that disagrees with the rules. :banghead:
-
Just what we need at this time is for Military Officers of like mind to form cells that undermine our government.
Way to broadbrush there.
Guess you support the feds catagorizing sildiers and vets as "terrorists"
-
Tx, it's vesta--need I say more?
-
Tx, it's vesta--need I say more?
Except here she'll actually have to defend her left wing BS and not just have it taken at face value.
-
There is no comparison whatsoever, and I'm somewhat surprised that you would try to put forward such an obviously defective analysis. What you are talking about is exactly what amounts to 'Facially invalid' or illegal/unlawful orders, it has exactly Jack Shit to do with the qualifications to hold office of the person issuing them. In fact, in all of the examples you use, the people who issued those orders didn't have the slightest shadow of a doubt cast on their official qualifications to issue orders, the whole point was the substance of the orders that were issued.
And Hell no, it would be an unbelievably stupid idea to allow a Soldier to challenge a company commander's order just because he thought the commander had cheated on tests in college and therefore ultimately lied his way to being commissioned, or he heard a rumor the commander had tried drugs in high school but lied about it on his security clearance application and wouldn't have been able to be commissioned if he told the truth, which is exactly where your "Shouldn't he be able to..." would end up in no time flat.
Hi,
I appreciate the point but do not feel the need for you to put me down. Quite the contrary, an order to go to war from a person who is not qualified to give the order, and quite possibly a muslim and all the other things outlined in his lawsuit would appear to have some merit. Were it some insignificat order that might be something different, but to send a person into a war zone to me is what makes it legitimate.
5412
-
One way for officers to protest, when they feel so strongly about not wanting to serve under an POTUS whom is an IDIOT, is to resign their commission.
It happened in big numbers under clinton.
How many career NCOs whom had 20-years in submitted their retirement paperwork when clinton took office?
Hi,
My oldest son graduated second in his class at the Naval Academy, went to MIT and got a masters degree in nuclear engineering with straight "A"'s. Every fitness report he received as an officer basically said he was a shoo in to become an Admiral. He resigned his commission right after Clinton got elected, saying, "I will be damned if I want to spend the rest of my career decommissioning submarines." There was no early out program for him, he simply refused to serve a commander in chief for which he had no respect.
This officer is not resigning, he is filing as a conscious objector, the same as many other Americans have done in the past. it is his right to do so, and he knows it will be the end of his military career.
regards,
5412
-
a year ago vesta would have been cheering this Major.
****ing retards.
-
a year ago vesta would have been cheering this Major.
******* retards.
Different President...different set of rules.
-
Hi,
I appreciate the point but do not feel the need for you to put me down. Quite the contrary, an order to go to war from a person who is not qualified to give the order, and quite possibly a muslim WTF, over??? and all the other things outlined in his lawsuit would appear to have some merit Not to any lawyer he isn't paying to listen to it, they don't. Were it some insignificat order that might be something different, but to send a person into a war zone to me is what makes it legitimate.
5412
Whatever, I'm not really trying to be offensive, believe me, you'd know it if I was. But you keep saying the same wrong stuff.
The idea that it's okay for a Soldier, let alone an officer, to pop up with "Hey, I'm not going to follow your orders until you prove to me you were really a citizen when you were commissioned, 'cause I'm not sure you were, and it's a requirement, y'know" to his CO after getting an order is not only incredibly stupid but totally unacceptable and would get the individual slapped in irons in a combat zone, and rightly so. Shot on the spot would really be more appropriate, but we don't do that anymore. THAT is the situation this Major is claiming, NOT the unlawful substance of an order. Apparently you either do not want to acknowledge the difference between the unlawful substance of an order and the propriety of the authority issuing it, or just really don't understand the distinction, but they are worlds apart. The propriety question really isn't open for subordinates to raise - once the President signs that CO's commission, he's acting with authority and not open to challenge on it from the ranks, and ditto for the Commander in Chief once the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has sworn him in.
The conscientious objector aspect of the guy's claim is even dumber, those provisions exist to give an 'out' for people who have a deep-seated sincere and permanent shift of their moral compass on bearing arms against other men, it has NOTHING to do with wanting to call into question the bona fides of current political leaders. He's saying in effect "Oh, I have deep-seated moral objection to using deadly force - unless somebody I agree with politically tells me to do it." That's just ridiculous.
-
The conscientious objector aspect of the guy's claim is even dumber, those provisions exist to give an 'out' for people who have a deep-seated sincere and permanent shift of their moral compass on bearing arms against other men, it has NOTHING to do with wanting to call into question the bona fides of current political leaders. He's saying in effect "Oh, I have deep-seated moral objection to using deadly force - unless somebody I agree with politically tells me to do it." That's just ridiculous.
Now THAT I will agree with.
-
And Hell no, it would be an unbelievably stupid idea to allow a Soldier to challenge a company commander's order just because he thought the commander had cheated on tests in college and therefore ultimately lied his way to being commissioned, or he heard a rumor the commander had tried drugs in high school but lied about it on his security clearance application and wouldn't have been able to be commissioned if he told the truth, which is exactly where your "Shouldn't he be able to..." would end up in no time flat.
This is the money quote right here. If this is allowed to progress, it would open up a whole can of legalistic worms of which would be totally unacceptable in order to run any semblance of an efficient military.
-
Except here she'll actually have to defend her left wing BS and not just have it taken at face value.
Wonder if she held the same beliefs about Ehren Watada?
-
Quite the contrary, an order to go to war from a person who is not qualified to give the order, and quite possibly a muslim and all the other things outlined in his lawsuit would appear to have some merit.
Whether we like it or not, Professor Dickweed was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Highest Court of the land. It is not the Major's charge to counter his decision; it's up to another branch of government, I.e. the legislative branch. There are ways to do things, and there are ways to lose your f'n job and be generally-discharged under other and honorable conditions. He's taking the latter.
-
Wonder if she held the same beliefs about Ehren Watada?
I'm tellin' ya Reb...the rules on that stuff all changed around 1300 on 20 January 2009.
The hereo's speaking truth to power have become "cells of dissenters" working to undermine the government from within.
-
Tx, it's vesta--need I say more?
Correction, It's Princess Vespa
-
I'm with TRG and alot of you guys here that if he wanted to make a stand then he should have done so as a Civilian. The service is more important then a personal crusade/vendetta any day. They have all the resources to put you out they need and getting kicked to the curb isn't worth getting the wal mart greeter job later on when your qualified to much more.
The whole thing about his birth is never going to be settled but we can take his ability to wage the type of social warfare o nthe people by votiong out his party and voting in some people with balls and an understanding of what needs to be done to fix the problems he created.
-
....snip
The whole thing about his birth is never going to be settled but we can take his ability to wage the type of social warfare o nthe people by votiong out his party and voting in some people with balls and an understanding of what needs to be done to fix the problems he created.
The issue of Lord Zero's birth could very well be settled, but it won't happen anytime soon - least of all while the asshole is sitting in the Oval Office.
This kind of thing may fly the same course as JFK's assassination, just not as long and certainly not as dramatic.
-
Yeah, remember the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Whether we like it or not, the idiot is the POTUS and if the Major has a problem with it, he needs to take it up through the channels. This is not a fight he can win.
It is not a fight he can win. But he obviously feels that it is a fight worth fighting. That is his choice is it not?
Even if you don't agree with his choice?
-
Whether we like it or not, Professor Dickweed was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Highest Court of the land. It is not the Major's charge to counter his decision; it's up to another branch of government, I.e. the legislative branch. There are ways to do things, and there are ways to lose your f'n job and be generally-discharged under other and honorable conditions. He's taking the latter.
Hi,
I agree the officer indeed just sealed his career. Had the democrat party done proper vetting this would not have happened. Had the court system done it's job it never would have happened. Had the mainstream press done thier job instead of heading to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin this never would have happened. The fact is however it did. We do not need to continue to compound this problem.
The fact remains that this idiot in the white house is destroying our country more and more each day. It is getting obvious that he was not raised in this country and does not have what most would call American values. Whether he was duly elected or not does not preclude the fact that he is hiding something and probably was not qualified to run for the office and he knows it. If the major wants to tank his career and can take BO down with him I will be the first to contribute to his legal fund.
They are talking about destroying the military, it is not the Major doing it, it is the libs with BO at the point. Someday this will all come out and we likely will find out just what a fraud this guy is. We need to be taking steps to be sure never again can we allow a smooth talking non citizen to ever be in this position of power once again.
regards,
5412
-
Hi,
I agree the officer indeed just sealed his career. Had the democrat party done proper vetting this would not have happened. Had the court system done it's job it never would have happened. Had the mainstream press done thier job instead of heading to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin this never would have happened. The fact is however it did. We do not need to continue to compound this problem.
The fact remains that this idiot in the white house is destroying our country more and more each day. It is getting obvious that he was not raised in this country and does not have what most would call American values. Whether he was duly elected or not does not preclude the fact that he is hiding something and probably was not qualified to run for the office and he knows it. If the major wants to tank his career and can take BO down with him I will be the first to contribute to his legal fund.
They are talking about destroying the military, it is not the Major doing it, it is the libs with BO at the point. Someday this will all come out and we likely will find out just what a fraud this guy is. We need to be taking steps to be sure never again can we allow a smooth talking non citizen to ever be in this position of power once again.
regards,
5412
Excellent points. Ever since Obama's eligibility to hold the office of POTUS came up all those months ago, I have been trying to find what government agency (if any) is responsible for confirming a candidates eligibility to hold the office of President and what form of proof that a candidate is required to submit (if any).
I haven't had a great deal of luck in that search. Perhaps others can find what I haven't been able to.
-
It is not a fight he can win. But he obviously feels that it is a fight worth fighting. That is his choice is it not?
Not legally.
-
Not legally.
Forgive my ignorance, but what law is he breaking by filing his lawsuit?
To my knowledge he has yet to refuse to follow any order, lawful or otherwise. He is asking the courts for legal clarification. At least that is my take after reading the OP article.
-
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.'
The bolded portion is where it gets rather sticky. Is a service member supposed to assume that all orders are legal until they are on trial for obeying them and being charged with a crime because they followed the orders of their superior officers?
The UCMJ doesn't specifically state: 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders."
But we sure as hell have prosecuted some that did obey certain orders from their superiors.
Where is the service member supposed to draw the line?
How is the service member supposed to discern between lawful and unlawful orders?
According to some of you, no order should be questioned and should be considered lawful until proven otherwise.
The otherwise part might involve your ass being prosecuted and jailed for following such orders.
It's a damn catch-22 for service members. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Or am I being obtuse?
-
Article 134 can encompass many things.
-
The bolded portion is where it gets rather sticky. Is a service member supposed to assume that all orders are legal until they are on trial for obeying them and being charged with a crime because they followed the orders of their superior officers?
The UCMJ doesn't specifically state: 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders."
But we sure as hell have prosecuted some that did obey certain orders from their superiors.
Where is the service member supposed to draw the line?
How is the service member supposed to discern between lawful and unlawful orders?
According to some of you, no order should be questioned and should be considered lawful until proven otherwise.
The otherwise part might involve your ass being prosecuted and jailed for following such orders.
It's a damn catch-22 for service members. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Or am I being obtuse?
That's why they teach everyone down to the newest private some aspects of the law of war, along with requesting clarification when in doubt. If I recieved orders to deploy from my division commander, I would follow them, no matter where they come from, as I know that he has the authority to give that order. Just because 0bama is the CINC doesn't make every military order unlawful. Does it make me telling my Soldier to go to PT unlawful? How about telling him to go up a hill under fire? Those are lawful orders. If I told him to mistreat prisoners or withhold medical treatment, that is an unlawful order. I'm screwn for giving it, he's screwn if he follows it. The difference is the first examples, I have command authority (since I'm talking to MY Soldier) and the orders are within the UCMJ. The second, I have command authority, but the orders are outside the UCMJ. No court or act of Congress has brought 0bama's command authority into question, whether it deserves to be or not, therefore, as long as the orders given are within the UCMJ, there is a duty to follow them.
-
Another nail in the military's coffin, OH-BUMMER is threatening to veto the pending defense authorization bill for FY2010 because it includes money to build additional F-22s.
If he doesn't allow the military to continue to build the hottest fighter in the sky, then he best get busy and direct that Boeing, which now owns McDonald Douglas, to begin building BRAND NEW F-15s to replace the ones which are falling out of the sky because of fatigue.
-
Another nail in the military's coffin, OH-BUMMER is threatening to veto the pending defense authorization bill for FY2010 because it includes money to build additional F-22s.
If he doesn't allow the military to continue to build the hottest fighter in the sky, then he best get busy and direct that Boeing, which now owns McDonald Douglas, to begin building BRAND NEW F-15s to replace the ones which are falling out of the sky because of fatigue.
Nah they won't do that either. They'll just ferry the broken ones to Davis-Monthan. Then tell the people how they've saved the country (insert figure here) in wasteful spending through stricter budgetary discipline.
You know...like when in 2000 Algore bragged on the campaign trail how under his "re-inventing government initative" when he was the VP he "cut 400,000 jobs from the federal payroll and if elected President I won't add a single job to that payroll".
When in reality those 400K jobs that were cut were the 400K members of the armed services they tossed or bribed to get out so they could cut our military to the bare minimum.
-
Back on topic, the bigger problem with the Major attempting to do this as a civilian is that he would no longer have any "standing" to pursue a lawsuit. Sure he's probably throwing away his career, but this is how he NEEDS to proceed in order to keep his standing.
In similar news, the case may be heard yet: http://vrwcgrapevine.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-eligibility-case-will-be-heard-on.html
Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits!!
GREAT NEWS ALERT!!
Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits !!
Please distribute everywhere.
Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.
At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.
The DOJ will be involved with the case also.... I wasn't clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.
Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.
Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.
-
Whether he was duly elected or not does not preclude the fact that he is hiding something and probably was not qualified to run for the office and he knows it.
I think he's pretty safe though. Actually he was eRected, not eLected. Had to be, 'cause he's the biggest "boner" to hold the office in my lifetime!
-
I think he's pretty safe though. Actually he was eRected, not eLected. Had to be, 'cause he's the biggest "boner" to hold the office in my lifetime!
AllosaursRus, you do have a way with words. :devious:
-
AllosaursRus, you do have a way with words. :devious:
Heh, heh! Figured you guys would like that one! lol
-
Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
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.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009
Interesting.....
-
I think he's pretty safe though. Actually he was eRected, not eLected. Had to be, 'cause he's the biggest "boner" to hold the office in my lifetime!
...then why are all his policies so limp?
-
Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez
The Department of Defense has allegedly compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.
This major had to see that something like this might happen.