Author Topic: U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?' (Read 18534 times)

DULurkster · « **on:** July 11, 2009, 08:35:36 PM »

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

RightCoast · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2009, 08:47:08 PM »

Rock on...The buffoons on the left challenged GWB endlessly.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2009, 07:50:35 AM »

NICE MOVE! Let's see how the Messiah laughs this one off!

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2009, 08:36:33 AM »

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?

Duke Nukum · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2009, 02:28:42 PM »

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.

TheSarge · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:22:32 PM »

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:06:38 PM »

I guess some folks are willing to stand on principle even when it may not be in their own personal best interest.

TheSarge · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:08:26 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on July 12, 2009, 05:06:38 PM

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:18:53 PM »

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.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:21:44 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on July 12, 2009, 05:06:38 PM

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.

TheSarge · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:27:16 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on July 12, 2009, 05:18:53 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:39:16 PM »

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:42:46 PM »

Quote

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?

TheSarge · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:51:08 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on July 12, 2009, 05:42:46 PM

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2009, 05:58:08 PM »

Quote from: TxRadioguy on July 12, 2009, 05:51:08 PM

Now you're sounding like that Ronulan idiot Lurkster.

Quit being purposefully obtuse.

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.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2009, 06:27:50 PM »

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!

TheSarge · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2009, 06:54:36 PM »

Quote from: AllosaursRus on July 12, 2009, 06:27:50 PM

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2009, 07:05:15 PM »

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?

rich_t · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2009, 07:10:31 PM »

Damn...

There I go with the thread drift again.

My bad.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2009, 07:55:04 PM »

Quote from: TxRadioguy on July 12, 2009, 06:54:36 PM

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!

dutch508 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2009, 08:26:54 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on July 12, 2009, 05:42:46 PM

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.

rich_t · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:11:35 PM »

Quote from: dutch508 on July 12, 2009, 08:26:54 PM

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.

dutch508 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:19:44 PM »

Quote from: rich_t on July 12, 2009, 09:11:35 PM

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.

Rebel · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:22:39 PM »

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.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2009, 09:28:23 PM »

Quote from: Rebel on July 12, 2009, 09:22:39 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?' (Read 18534 times)