Major balks at order to deploy...

Nah, it should end here, as it is starting to stray from the subject.

Of course, discussing it a little bit is totally relevant, as the sorry excuse for an officer used it as his lame excuse for being a CO.

Knowing what I know about military law, I'll wager he gets fried, if he's dumb enough to go for the sure to be court-martial (or they refuse his letter of resignation, per AR 600-8-24).

So, all of you that aren't military know, he gets a bad discharge.

An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

It amounts to about the same thing effectively, as a Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge.
 
Nah, it should end here, as it is starting to stray from the subject.

Of course, discussing it a little bit is totally relevant, as the sorry excuse for an officer used it as his lame excuse for being a CO.

Knowing what I know about military law, I'll wager he gets fried, if he's dumb enough to go for the sure to be court-martial (or they refuse his letter of resignation, per AR 600-8-24).

So, all of you that aren't military know, he gets a bad discharge.



It amounts to about the same thing effectively, as a Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge.

Sorry, by "here we go again" I didn't mean a shitstorm on here. I'm just sick of idiots taking the spotlight from those that deserve it.
 
Martlet, both scenarios are bad.

Nah, troops today are much better than they were 6 years ago. The cowards up my way pretty much got out, some before a deployment, some after. When we started shipping troops from here to Iraq in 2003/2004, we got a lot of "medical discharges" coming out of the wordwork. I know one guy that should have been about dead, according to his medical info (private physician). He damn near RAN to the medical folks when we SRP'ed. I wish they had lifted his retirement from his sorry ass. A real chickenshit.
 
How about we play Devil's advocate?

Suppose the Major is not a coward. The story doesn't mention his service record or if he has served in theater already.

What if he could turn this into a pivotal event and more Soldiers, Sailors and Marines refused to deploy due to the Hadji in chief's unlawful election?

If he is just using this as an angle to stay out of combat, then crucify him.

If he is a true believer that the presidency was stolen, good luck to him.
 
He's one of the loons who support the "Obama isn't a citizen" conspiracy theory. I hope he enjoys sending his career down the toilet and that he's court-martialed for missing movement and failure to obey a lawful order.
 
Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009
BORN IN THE USA?
Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern

Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Dr. Orly Taitz

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.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

(Story continues below)




"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be 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.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying 'I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.


Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm the authenticity of the alleged Jan. 24, 2009, letter from President Obama to his purported place of birth, Kapi'olani Medical Center. His remarks begin at the 55:27 mark of the press briefing. (Click photo to view)

Obama has maintained he was born in Hawaii, and at least one hospital, Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children, claims it received a letter from the president declaring his birth there.

As WND reported, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm that the letter which was used by the hospital to solicit donations is, in fact, a real correspondence.

When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code and had no presidential or White House seal, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.

WND also reported that just within the last week, at least two reports have cited Obama's birth in Kenya. Wikipedia also was found to have been reporting on Obama's birth in Kenya, before a series of scrubs placed his birth in Honolulu.

And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president's supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.
 
Lets face it this administration is less than honest, and I don't see them starting now. Then again I don't know of too many politicians that are.[thinking]
We'll probably never hear any more about it.
 
Lets face it this administration is less than honest, and I don't see them starting now. Then again I don't know of too many politicians that are.[thinking]
We'll probably never hear any more about it.

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

His lips are moving.



Seriously, the whole birth certificate/presidential eligibility issue just reminds me of the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark, when it's just crated up deposited in the endless government warehouse.
 
I find it interesting that his orders were revoked the day after the story broke.

To those of you who've served....ever hear of this happening before?
 
Holy crap!

This is a rather odd development. Might there be some legs to the Birth Certificate theory?
 
I find it interesting that his orders were revoked the day after the story broke.

To those of you who've served....ever hear of this happening before?


I've heard of it happening. It's what they do if you're going to be deployed right before they do an article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury). He's about to get courts-martialed. He hasn't won a damn thing. At best he's going to be shown the snopes website before they ram it up his ass sideways.
 
I hope they do. Legit or not, he is the legally elected POTUS and, as such, is CinC. You don't have the right to refuse a legal order, you voluntarily give up that right when you sign on. Someone point out that if he didn't believe Obama was legally the POTUS he should have resigned his commission. Exactly. You can't have it both ways.
 
I hope they do. Legit or not, he is the legally elected POTUS and, as such, is CinC. You don't have the right to refuse a legal order, you voluntarily give up that right when you sign on. Someone point out that if he didn't believe Obama was legally the POTUS he should have resigned his commission. Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, in the age of Obama, they're drafting up a 1500 page bill to federally mandate that you, in fact, have a constitutional right to have it both ways. And they're voting on it before it's written. [wink]
 
I hope they do. Legit or not, he is the legally elected POTUS and, as such, is CinC. You don't have the right to refuse a legal order, you voluntarily give up that right when you sign on. Someone point out that if he didn't believe Obama was legally the POTUS he should have resigned his commission. Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

If he doesn't have the legit qualifications, the election isn't legal, right? I think that is the whole point of this one. Just because the sheep go along with it doesn't make it legal or right. Why would he resign? Perhaps he still wants to serve his country, and honor the Constitution and not an illegally elected figurehead? Now I'm not familiar with military rules, but lets just say that he is in fact illegally in office. Would the soldier be justified in this case if it was proven so?

BTW I think if he's doing this to avoid deployment then he is scum and deserves whatever is coming to him. But really, why not just resign if that was the case.
 
If he doesn't have the legit qualifications, the election isn't legal, right? I think that is the whole point of this one. Just because the sheep go along with it doesn't make it legal or right. Why would he resign? Perhaps he still wants to serve his country, and honor the Constitution and not an illegally elected figurehead? Now I'm not familiar with military rules, but lets just say that he is in fact illegally in office. Would the soldier be justified in this case if it was proven so?

BTW I think if he's doing this to avoid deployment then he is scum and deserves whatever is coming to him. But really, why not just resign if that was the case.


With respect; bullshit.

The POTUS is CinC of the Armed Forces. Quibble all you want over the legitimacy of the election, he was sworn in, he is LEGALLY the POTUS until such time as his term runs out or he's impeached.

IINAL, but IF anything ever comes of the whole Birth Certificate thing, that STILL doesn't invalidate the election. I BELIEVE he would have to be impeached first but I'm not positive of that.

What it comes down to is this man swore an oath to serve his country. That includes following legitimate orders from those in his chain of command. LEGALLY his deployment is a LEGAL order.

IF he believes he cannot serve his country for whatever reason then he has the duty to resign his commission - NOT to continue to take the 'king's shilling' until he's called upon to actually do his job - lead troops in battle.

He's a field-grade officer for Christ's sake! He's letting down every single soldier under his command by refusing a movement order - or given what he's doing he may be doing them a huge favor.

No, this guy's not a hero. I don't care what his reasons are, he did it wrong.
 
His claim has as much reasonability as the loony left claim that the 2000 election was fixed.

The citizenship thing has been debunked about a thousand times. That's the thing with conspiracists, you can NEVER give them adequate evidence because as soon as you answer one claim they come up with another "proof" that their wacky ideas are true.

And no, it's not within his authority to question whether or not the president was lawfully elected unless he's prepared to resign and take his issue up in another forum. Doing so in uniform is called mutiny. We're in a war. Theoretically he could be hanged for it.

I have no more sympathy for him than I do for the idiots who claimed the Iraq war was illegal and refused to deploy.
 
His claim has as much reasonability as the loony left claim that the 2000 election was fixed.

The citizenship thing has been debunked about a thousand times. That's the thing with conspiracists, you can NEVER give them adequate evidence because as soon as you answer one claim they come up with another "proof" that their wacky ideas are true.

And no, it's not within his authority to question whether or not the president was lawfully elected unless he's prepared to resign and take his issue up in another forum. Doing so in uniform is called mutiny. We're in a war. Theoretically he could be hanged for it.

I have no more sympathy for him than I do for the idiots who claimed the Iraq war was illegal and refused to deploy.

Whether or not there's any validity to the citizenship claim isn't even relevant. Whether you believe Obama's not a naturalized citizen or if you believed that Bush stole the election from Gore via voter fraud AND you're in the armed forces AND you believe you can't serve under 'that man' then you are honor bound to resign or at least ATTEMPT to resign. Not doing anything until you get deployment orders is UNACCEPTABLE.
 
What if he could turn this into a pivotal event and more Soldiers, Sailors and Marines refused to deploy due to the Hadji in chief's unlawful election?

Well, hard telling how it will play out, but I'll wager not too many will refuse deployment over this. Considering who I am, and what I do in life, take it as an indicator refusal won;t be real big.

To those saying 'wtf, he took the oath!' I'm curious, wouldn't he actually be upholding his oath in this case?

Actually, I say he wouldn't be upholding the oath. But, I'll post referring to how he won't be, with info to back it up.

He's one of the loons who support the "Obama isn't a citizen" conspiracy theory. I hope he enjoys sending his career down the toilet and that he's court-martialed for missing movement and failure to obey a lawful order.

Yup, I concur about being "one of the loons" that won't let it go.

I am one person that is pretty certain Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, but went there right after his birth. His mother's citizenship didn't get him made a citizen, due to her age (and only due to her age) at the time.

But, I let it go long ago, before the election. There were enough other negative issues with Obama, and most of them provable. The public was dumb enough t oelect him, they got what they deserve.

Yeah, or the Whitehouse sweeping it under the rug and ignoring it all together.

Looks like they're headed that way. Bet it doesn't work like they hope it will.

Or a "disappearing".

Wouldn't be the first time someone got "Vince Fostered", but this one would be suspicious at best, and folks are more wary of that kind of crap these days. A political assassination of a desenter won't wash well.

I find it interesting that his orders were revoked the day after the story broke.

To those of you who've served....ever hear of this happening before?

Pretty rare, unless they're going to Court-martial the POS.

I've heard of it happening. It's what they do if you're going to be deployed right before they do an article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury). He's about to get courts-martialed. He hasn't won a damn thing. At best he's going to be shown the snopes website before they ram it up his ass sideways.

Here's hoping he gets the Court-Martial.

I'll go on record that I disagree with Snopes, and take into consideration they do make politically biased judgments, and not just this one. (In other words, we agree on the CM, but disagree on Snopes. I just think the whole birth certificate deal is not that great an issue.)

Now I'm not familiar with military rules, but lets just say that he is in fact illegally in office. Would the soldier be justified in this case if it was proven so?

BTW I think if he's doing this to avoid deployment then he is scum and deserves whatever is coming to him. But really, why not just resign if that was the case.

I say he isn't justified, regardless of Obama being legit or not.
 
If they prosecute under Article 90, UCMJ (Article 90—Assaulting or willfully
disobeying superior commissioned officer), the following takes effect.

Any person subject to this chapter who—willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.
(a) That the accused received a lawful command from a certain commissioned officer;
(b) That this officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused;
(c) That the accused then knew that this officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and (d) That the accused willfully disobeyed the lawful command.

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.
(a) Lawfulness of the order.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.
(iv) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy
cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected
the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
( v ) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
(b) Personal nature of the order. The order must be directed specifically to the subordinate. Violations of regulations, standing orders or directives, or failure to perform previously established duties are not punishable under this article, but may violate
Article 92.
(c) Form and transmission of the order. As long as the order is understandable, the form of the order is immaterial, as is the method by which it is transmitted to the accused.
(d) Specificity of the order. The order must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. An exhortation to “obey the law” or to perform one’s military duty does not constitute an order under this article.
(e) Knowledge. The accused must have actual knowledge of the order and of the fact that the person issuing the order was the accused’s superior commissioned officer. Actual knowledge maybe proved by circumstantial evidence.
(f) Nature of the disobedience. “Willful disobedience” is an intentional defiance of authority. Failure to comply with an order through heedlessness, remissness, or forgetfulness is not a violation of this article but may violate Article 92.
(g) Time for compliance. When an order requires immediate compliance, an accused’s declared intent not to obey and the failure to make any move to comply constitutes disobedience. If an order does not indicate the time within which it is to be complied
with, either expressly or by implication, then a reasonable delay in compliance does not violate this article. If an order requires performance in the future, an accused’s present statement of intention to disobey the order does not constitute disobedience of that order, although carrying out that intention may.

So much for Article 90.
 
Fortunately or unfortunately you don't get to decide who you serve under for President.[thinking]

But his oath is also to protect and defend the Constitution. He shouldn't take orders from the President if the President is illegitimate under the Constitution, right? (not saying I think he is or isn't, just for the sake of argument)
 
But his oath is also to protect and defend the Constitution. He shouldn't take orders from the President if the President is illegitimate under the Constitution, right? (not saying I think he is or isn't, just for the sake of argument)


The POTUS is the CinC of the armed forces. If you don't believe he's legitimate then resign, don't wait until you have orders that put you in harms way to suddenly profess your belief in the illegitimacy of the POTUS.

Edit
For sake of example, look at the behavior of of R E Lee and the other officers that served with the Confederate Army. They resigned their commissions.

Edit X2

Further; look at Nickle's post. You're obeying the OFFICE, not the MAN. Per the terms of article 90, there is nothing illegal about the order. Further, Article 90 states that if you BELIEVE the order is illegal and refuse it on that belief then the burden is on you to prove it was illegal.

This is a VERY different situation then the Oath Keepers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom