Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#551

Post by PatGund »



Oh, and about Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers from Orly's Minister of Propaganda David-Crockett



[linkbtn]Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit,http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1144[/linkbtn]



"But more than 50% of America voted for this charlatan and he now has the helm of the ship of state. Even so, he is not MY President. I will not refer to him as such. I will call him Resident Obama, and an illegal resident of the white house at that. I resent him for what he is not. He has not given proof that he is a natural born citizen of these United States. He has spent millions of dollars protecting the truth of his birth from public knowledge; therefore, it is obvious he has something to hide. He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger to the future of the America that I love and have protected since I was 17 years old.



I have told my two senators and my member of the House of Representatives. I have written 9 justices of the Supreme Court as well as President Bush before he left office. NONE have responded, therefore, they are all complicit and should all be severely punished for having failed in their sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The instant Obamb was sworn in, he violated the oath he took because he took the office knowing he is ineligible and there stood Judge Roberts who should have immediately had Obama arrested and deported.



Other than this, my key short-term complaint is that he has not had a heart attack in office. But most important, what I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist."A couple of comments there are less than polite:



TSO // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:59 am

I served under you General Childers. In fact, you sent me to Slovinsky Brod Bosnia. I had lunch with you at the AUSA convention just prior to it. We talked about then 1SG Dancy. I also spoke to CSM Amos and a few others. I went to Bosnia. I served under you.



Now how about you show me your friggin Commissioning Certificate. I never saw it. Can I assume all your orders were illegal?



I dislike this President as much as anyone, but this quest of your dishonors the men like Stonewall Jackson and Thomas Dry Howie who came before you. For the first time ever, I am embarrassed to say I served in the 29th. I even did so twice, since I rejoined to go to A-stan.



How about concentrating on your retirement, and less time chronicling your time in our unit before acting like a total asshat.



Brown Neck Gaitor // Jul 16, 2009 at 3:09 pm

First, I did not vote for BHO, but someone sure did and we are stuck with him.



Second, where were you Resident Childers when we were in training for our Bosnia training? I know, you were back in VA hiding under politcal cover (like a good political appointee AG) until you could wet your (at the time) 1-star right index finger and figure out which way the wind was blowing.



Did you visit the troops (from your state) during the historic train up of the first Natioanl Guard combat unit to deploy overseas since Vietnam? No.



Did you show up for our departure ceremony in your Sam Brown belt and BDUs? Why yes you did. Because it was safe and would affect your promotion to Division Commander.



Finally, you stated,”Other than this, my key short-term complaint is that he has not had a heart attack in office.” It has now become apparent you have lost all cognitive abilities. Please do me and the 29th a favor by omitting the 29th from your resume.



“29th, Let’s see that commission!”

allison
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#552

Post by allison »



I do think the DOD is going to have to get out in front of this though. I thought so after the Easterling thing, but suspect they didn't that realize that there woud be more. The DOD essentially needs to let servicemembers know that it is not appropriate for them to use their rank to engage to try and prompt constitutional issues and that the issue of Obama's nationality is irrelevant as far as the UCMJ is concerned. Their actions are seen as being taken against the office of the President, and not an individual.IMHO, the best way to get in front of this and send a message is to make an example of this idgit...find a way to court-martial his sorry ass...at the least, conduct unbecoming maybe?

elliewyatt
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#553

Post by elliewyatt »



The wear of the uniform to the event coupled with his statements gives the impression that the Army doubts the legitimacy of the civilian chain of command. That's an extremely dangerous perception to allow to fester."This is *exactly* what military service members should consider doing! They should be lining up, jamming the courts with this exact type of case if they want to help expose this fraud. Eventually, someone will have to say “uncle.”"I do think the DOD is going to have to get out in front of this though. I thought so after the Easterling thing, but suspect they didn't that realize that there woud be more. The DOD essentially needs to let servicemembers know that it is not appropriate for them to use their rank to engage to try and prompt constitutional issues and that the issue of Obama's nationality is irrelevant as far as the UCMJ is concerned.What would be the likely way for DOD to "get out in front of this thing" and not allow this "extremely dangerous perception to... fester"?



I agree, it is extremely dangerous. What would be the steps for DOD to tamp this crap down?

Old Grunt
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#554

Post by Old Grunt »



Beneath you as an Infantryman. And Beneath you as a 29er. Drop this senseless bullshit and enjoy your well-earned retirement."The 29th ID (VA NG) are good people. We (25th ID Regular Army) shared battle space with them in Afghanistan.



"I'll bet that "non-volunteer"'s family will just be overjoyed to get rush orders to fill a gapped position vacated by this oxygen thief. Somewhere, a village is desperately searching for its idiot."Underlying a lot of this animosity toward Cook's stunt is the paranoia that members of the reserves feel (especially the IRR) over being involuntarily mobilized to combat. It is certainly within the latitude of the military to do so, but it's a different beast to mobilize a reservist (who has a job and minimal (if any/as is the case with the IRR) participation in the military, a job (which, despite the law, can be completely devastating. How can the law ensure that called up lawyer or stock broker will keep their clients while they are gone?), and no support system for his family (Family Resource Groups).



Cook voluntarily took a slot for the sake of filing a suit in civilian court and not deploying until the BC was revealed (if this POS case ever does go to court, it will take years to be over). That means he, essentially had no real desire to deploy. That means that, as has been pointed out, some unit goes with one less officer or some poor bastard gets involuntarily mobilized to fill Cook's slot.



Blue falcon indeed.



That is why the military folk, who are not exactly liberal, think Cook is a POS.

Old Grunt
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#555

Post by Old Grunt »



IMHO, the best way to get in front of this and send a message is to make an example of this idgit...find a way to court-martial his sorry ass...at the least, conduct unbecoming maybe?I think they will. The fact that he was stupid enough to get in front of a camera in uniform today is going to propel that IMO. (Thanks combatengineer for the reg).



That being said, most people in the military will still be completely ignorant of this (as they have better things to do, like clip their toenails).



I suspect the DOD has been putting this off in order to not legitimize these morons, but eventually they are going to have to put out a memo spelling out why it is not appropriate to consort with Taitz and the other birther lawyers.



I also suspect the federal government is going to take in interest in seeing Dr. Taitz ESQ legal license being revoked. She is essentially using her law license to try and formulate mutiny in the ranks, and that is unacceptable.

Old Grunt
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#556

Post by Old Grunt »



What would be the likely way for DOD to "get out in front of this thing" and not allow this "extremely dangerous perception to... fester"?I agree, it is extremely dangerous. What would be the steps for DOD to tamp this crap down?It's as simple as Secretary Gates writing a memo on the issue.It simply needs to be outlined that such legal action is deemed as counter to good military order and discipline, Article 88 of the UCMJ will be fully enforced, and that service members should utilize the proper chain of command for all gripes and complaints. Like I said, I suspect they haven't done so in the past to avoid legitimizing the movement.

Old Grunt
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#557

Post by Old Grunt »



Yikes. Sorry for the triple post. Don't know why that happened.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#558

Post by mimi »



Here is the [linkbtn]Freeper Post on the Dismissal,http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2294045/posts[/linkbtn].

Muledream
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 12:05 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#559

Post by Muledream »



In regards to public perception of Cook on TV wearing an army uniform, most of the usages are accompanied by the info that he lost.

That has some pacifying effect on other enlisted folks and the general public.

He's being portrayed as a loser who has already had his day in (civilian) court and lost.

Without that "lost" descriptive, he'd be in trouble very, very quickly with the DOD.



But this level of exposure is significantly higher than most birthers ever achieve and he is wearing a uniform.

Millions of real people are watching.

His only saving grace... today.... is that he's described as a loser.

Tomorrow is quite another day.

Because I expect some level of continued public curiosity since the question remains of what happens to the guy now, we enter a small paradox:

Does the Army snatch his ass off the street quickly right now or does his media exposure increase as he receives additional appearance offers?

That is, this is 1st hand reporting right now. The loser descriptive is still present.

If he's allowed a further soapbox, it may not have such a descriptive.

It could be spun other ways.

The army really doesn't want that.



So will he be hushed up immediately and perhaps an official press-release provided that answers the remaining question of his disposition, or will he be allowed more air time while wearing a uniform?

Allowing him an audience could suggest the gov is backing freedom of speech.

The reciprocal is possible too.



I'd also like to suggest that Orly has increased her own attention level in all the wrong (to her) places by an order of magnitude.

No matter where she goes, her already paranoid-self will be greeted with staring eyes and pointing fingers.

Hushed talking and whispers all around her and the occasional confrontational shout-down.

From the ticket taker for her flights, to the patrons at her favorite Starbucks, to the people stopped next to her at traffic signals, she's going to experience a more hostile reception than she's ever known.

We all know how temperate Oily can be. How will she handle this?



Popcorn is definitely the commodity to invest in now.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#560

Post by nbc »



I have been collecting some cases regarding the 'war crimes' issue[/break1]wordpress.com/2009/07/15/us-v-huet-vaughn-legality-of-the-deployment-is-a-non-justiciable-political-question/]US v Huet-Vaughn – Legality of the Deployment is a non-justiciable political question “[t]he duty to disobey an unlawful order applies only to a positive act that constitutes a crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.”[/break1]wordpress.com/2009/07/15/hinzman-v-canada-criminal-responsibility-for-fighting-in-an-illegal-war/]Hinzman v Canada – Criminal Responsibility for fighting in an illegal war[157] In summary, this jurisprudence establishes that an individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace: see Davidson, above, at pp. 122-124, and the Papers for the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (the “Princeton Papers”), United Nations Documents PCNICC/2002/WGCA/L.1, and PCNICC/2002/WGCA/L.1/Add.1.[158] That is, the ordinary foot-soldier such as Mr. Hinzman is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict in which he or she may be called upon to fight. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible merely for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her own personal wartime conduct is otherwise proper: Davidson, above, at p. 125. See also François Bugnion, Just Wars, Wars of Aggression, and International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 847, Vol. 84, p. 523.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#561

Post by mimi »



[linkbtn]Canada Free Press,http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12967[/linkbtn]Obama Crushes Army Majors Attempt to Get Justice By Jerry McConnell Thursday, July 16, 2009 As if our usurper President hasn’t been mean and nasty enough with all the new taxes and burdens he has decreed, most likely in an illegal way, or at least until he can PROVE he is qualified to hold that office according to the United States Constitution, he has just one-upped himself in nastiness.[snip]According to a July 15, 2009 report from Lily Gordon, Ledger-Enquirer, the defense against the military’s charges on Major Cook was apparently too much for both the military and the usurping President to counter and incredibly, the charges and the deployment orders were rescinded and the deployment of Major Cook to Afghanistan was canceled. Another report on July 15, 2009 by Red Steel, Auburn Journal, says that the Department of Defense has compelled Major Cook’s private employer, Simtech, Inc. to fire the U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job. Simtech Inc., is a private company contracted by the Department of Defense; the federal agency has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook. How is that for being the big bully on the block? I can only hope that someone can also get that order reversed. Imagine getting fired for seeking the truth? I am convinced that this is the single most disgusting Administration ever in the history of the United States with the most sickening person masquerading as our President. This Army Major put his career in jeopardy to take this action and he was facing military court martial, possible imprisonment, fines and loss of time served as well as a Dishonorable Discharge; actions which would have effectively destroyed the rest of his life. Bravery and love for country to do something that honorable is well beyond courageous; it borders on being qualified for a citation for eternal gratitude from every American citizen. When the heavy hand of tyranny strikes out at innocent people like Major Cook who is a good and honest American serving his country in volunteer military service, legitimately seeking information on what should be shown publicly, who will he hammer next?

editorkorir
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:51 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#562

Post by editorkorir »



The utter refusal to acknowledge the facts, from [linkbtn]Ed's pigpen,http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/static/ ... 9&cmd=show[/linkbtn]"Cook did not ask not to be sent to Afghanistan...read the pleadings over at orly's blog.Cook asked if those orders were legit"Even Orly states he requested to be sent to Afghanistan. Bob Gates and David Patraeus shouldn't have to spend one second on these idiots.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#563

Post by PatGund »



[linkbtn]Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR - conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisvi ... -gentleman[/linkbtn]"Given the known sequence of events, it is my opinion that Maj. Cook is guilty of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice by the following actions:Making a false statement – Major Cook requested orders that he never intended to follow thereby rendering his request completely disingenuous. Major Cook orchestrated a ruse that was designed solely to put the question of commander-in-chief’s birth before a federal court judge.Undermining the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States – Maj. Cook publicly questioned the integrity of the commander-in-chief without any reasonable basis or cause.Mutiny and Sedition – In the Ledger-Enquirer, Maj. Cook is quoted as stating,“(he) would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”Maj. Cook retained the services of an attorney, Orly Taitz, who made the following statements in a filing on his behalf before United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division which reiterated the claim by Maj. Cook that he, and by extension all U.S. Servicemembers serving in combat, were “war criminals” and therefore not entitled to the protections granted by the Geneva Conventions:“Plaintiff seeks to avoid not only court-martial in this country, but also treatment as a war-criminal or terrorist, not eligible even for protection under the Geneva convention, if he were found to be a merely mercenary soldier in a private army of slaves, “owned” or controlled by an unconstitutional and therefore illegal commander, if he does not ask the question: “is this order legal?”By recklessly advancing his unfounded theory that U.S. soldiers are “war criminals” and allowing his attorney to state that they are, “merely mercenaries in a private army of slaves”, Maj. Cook has provided enemies of the United States with a ready-made excuse to execute captured U.S. servicemembers using the statements of a commissioned officer in the United States Army Reserve as justification for their actions. Furthermore, given that it has been widely reported that a U.S. soldier was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009, Maj. Cook’s public statements and those of his attorney have put the life of that soldier in direct and irrefutable jeopardy. In addition, Maj. Cook has provided extensive recruiting material for terrorist groups around the world, thereby aiding enemy efforts to oppose ongoing combat operations."

allison
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#564

Post by allison »



Let me also add the following perspective...when ordinary people are thrust into the media spotlight wholly unprepared for what awaits them things rarely end well. Clearly, Orly has no "PR Team" she is, as they say, winging it. Add to that the fact that she clearly does not do the research about who is making the media request before she "jumps" and the further wonderful detail that she has no ability whatsoever to edit herself. Given this combination, I think THE BEST thing that could happen here is a sustained interest by the media...I am making a LOT of popcorn...

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#565

Post by TollandRCR »



[linkbtn]Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR - conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisvi ... -gentleman[/linkbtn]

To emphasize the conclusion of the article PatGund quoted (emphasis mine)

The opportunity

The case of Maj. Cook gives thoughtful, well-intentioned conservatives a chance to separate themselves from the right-wing extremists in their midst. It’s time for Senate Minority Leader,Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Ranking Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain (R-AZ), and the rest of the republican Members of Congress to stand up against the actions of Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR and insist that he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



As for Orly Taitz, I’ll let the content of her website which prominently solicits funds on its home page speak for itself. That said, you can rest assured that I will not be one of her “pay pals.”
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#566

Post by MaineSkeptic »



The utter refusal to acknowledge the facts, from [linkbtn]Ed's pigpen,http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/static/ ... 9&cmd=show[/linkbtn]

"Cook did not ask not to be sent to Afghanistan...read the pleadings over at orly's blog.

Cook asked if those orders were legit"



Even Orly states he requested to be sent to Afghanistan. Bob Gates and David Patraeus shouldn't have to spend one second on these idiots.Editor, you missed the double negative.



But that's the argument the birfers are using.



The truth is, he volunteered to be sent to Afghanistan, and then used his deployment orders to demand verification of Obama's POTUS eligibility. The DoD said, hey, if you've got any objection to going, don't go -- you have the right to withdraw your request, and as a matter of fact we'd be just as happy not to have you.



What the birfers are skipping is the question of what happens when someone is assigned KP and says, I ain't peeling potatoes until Obama shows his birth certificate.

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6161
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#567

Post by June bug »



Perfect match for Orly's sponsoring attorney? He and Mr. Lincoln would get along just fine, I'd bet.



Charges against attorney Mark Shelnutt stand

Judge denies lawyer's motions to dismiss; trial set for Sept. 8

By Chuck Williams - [/break1]com]chwilliams@ledger-enquirer.com

Add to My Yahoo!

Bookmark and Share

email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print

Comments (0) |

Text Size:

tool name

close

tool goes here



U.S. District Judge Clay Land denied all defense motions Wednesday to dismiss the drug, money laundering and other charges in a 40-count federal indictment against Columbus attorney Mark Shelnutt.



That paves the way for Shelnutt, a criminal defense attorney and former Muscogee County assistant district attorney, to face trial beginning Sept. 8 in Columbus.



Shelnutt’s attorneys asserted in a two-day hearing that the indictment should be dismissed because of “outrageous governmental misconduct.”

More [linkbtn]HERE,http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/778723.html[/linkbtn]Isn't Judge Clay Land the presiding judge who just dismissed the Cook case? If so, oh the irony...

dmataconis
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:26 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#568

Post by dmataconis »



What the birfers are skipping is the question of what happens when someone is assigned KP and says, I ain't peeling potatoes until Obama shows his birth certificate.Which is why I think we're seeing the DoD become more active in these cases.Like someone said above, they should've gotten involved when the Easterling story came out but they probably didn't think this would be the issue it's become. I think its safe to assume that a sizable majority of command-rank members of the military didn't vote for Obama, but I don't think there going to stand for nonsense like this for much longer. Orly doesn't know who she's going up against this time.

Old Grunt
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#569

Post by Old Grunt »



In regards to public perception of Cook on TV wearing an army uniform, most of the usages are accompanied by the info that he lost. That has some pacifying effect on other enlisted folks and the general public.He's being portrayed as a loser who has already had his day in (civilian) court and lost.Without that "lost" descriptive, he'd be in trouble very, very quickly with the DOD.Cook ignorance of the UCMJ needs to be addressed in a transparent fasion IMO.It has nothing to do with him "winning" or "losing", it has to do with the fact that he is all bass ackwards on, well, everything. In the past 48 hours he's already been crushed. I suspect an even bigger hammer is going to fall.I don't applaud other people's misfortune, but he brought this upon himself. Any officer that acts in a manner contrary to good order and discipline does not deserve to be an officer. I suspect his commission will be pulled. I am just not sure if that requires charges or any UCMJ proceedings. I suspect it does, since such action is detrimental. Any soldier would have the right to contest it. Cook has no legs to stand on though.

elliewyatt
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#570

Post by elliewyatt »



[linkbtn]Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR - conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisvi ... -gentleman[/linkbtn]



"Given the known sequence of events, it is my opinion that Maj. Cook is guilty of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice by the following actions:



Making a false statement – Major Cook requested orders that he never intended to follow thereby rendering his request completely disingenuous. Major Cook orchestrated a ruse that was designed solely to put the question of commander-in-chief’s birth before a federal court judge.



Undermining the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States – Maj. Cook publicly questioned the integrity of the commander-in-chief without any reasonable basis or cause.

Mutiny and Sedition – In the Ledger-Enquirer, Maj. Cook is quoted as stating,



“(he) would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”Maj. Cook retained the services of an attorney, Orly Taitz, who made the following statements in a filing on his behalf before United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division which reiterated the claim by Maj. Cook that he, and by extension all U.S. Servicemembers serving in combat, were “war criminals” and therefore not entitled to the protections granted by the Geneva Conventions:



“Plaintiff seeks to avoid not only court-martial in this country, but also treatment as a war-criminal or terrorist, not eligible even for protection under the Geneva convention, if he were found to be a merely mercenary soldier in a private army of slaves, “owned” or controlled by an unconstitutional and therefore illegal commander, if he does not ask the question: “is this order legal?”[highlight]By recklessly advancing his unfounded theory that U.S. soldiers are “war criminals” and allowing his attorney to state that they are, “merely mercenaries in a private army of slaves”, Maj. Cook has provided enemies of the United States with a ready-made excuse to execute captured U.S. servicemembers using the statements of a commissioned officer in the United States Army Reserve as justification for their actions. Furthermore, given that it has been widely reported that a U.S. soldier was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009, Maj. Cook’s public statements and those of his attorney have put the life of that soldier in direct and irrefutable jeopardy. In addition, Maj. Cook has provided extensive recruiting material for terrorist groups around the world, thereby aiding enemy efforts to oppose ongoing combat operations."[/highlight]

Patricia
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#571

Post by Patricia »



Sure resembles "aiding and abetting the enemy," doesn't it? Sounds like real treason to me.

Old Grunt
Posts: 920
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#572

Post by Old Grunt »



Orly doesn't know who she's going up against this time.You got that right. I am glad I won't be in the blast zone when this inevitable mortar round lands on Taitz's and Cook's laps.Clueless as they are, they still won't realize the how and why. Simply put (for any lurkers who are here with dummy accounts), it will have nothing to do with a conspiracy out of the oval office and everything to do with the Pentagon having zero tolerance for those who would formulate dissent in the ranks.When I joined here (in response to the Easterling case, which as a former officer, embarrassed me), I predicted this would happen.Now, I am sure of it. All active and reserve military members who were silly enough to put their trust in Taitz are going to get crushed, and Taitz will be lucky if she withstands the fall out. If the prospect of the military bucking the civilian chain of command and seizing control (as Orly has advocated for) doesn't scare the hell out of you, party affiliations aside, you are brain dead.

combatengineer
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:35 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#573

Post by combatengineer »



In regards to public perception of Cook on TV wearing an army uniform, most of the usages are accompanied by the info that he lost. That has some pacifying effect on other enlisted folks and the general public.He's being portrayed as a loser who has already had his day in (civilian) court and lost.Without that "lost" descriptive, he'd be in trouble very, very quickly with the DOD.Cook ignorance of the UCMJ needs to be addressed in a transparent fasion IMO.It has nothing to do with him "winning" or "losing", it has to do with the fact that he is all bass ackwards on, well, everything. In the past 48 hours he's already been crushed. I suspect an even bigger hammer is going to fall.I don't applaud other people's misfortune, but he brought this upon himself. Any officer that acts in a manner contrary to good order and discipline does not deserve to be an officer. I suspect his commission will be pulled. I am just not sure if that requires charges or any UCMJ proceedings. I suspect it does, since such action is detrimental. Any soldier would have the right to contest it. Cook has no legs to stand on though.He has 21 years of Reserve service. I bet that someone will strongly recommend to him that he retires and cuts all ties with the service (normally one goes into the Retired Reserves upon retirement from the US Reserve forces, it ups your retirement pay at age 60 by a little bit. However one may choose to completely sever all ties) and fade away.......

editorkorir
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:51 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#574

Post by editorkorir »



"Cook did not ask not to be sent to Afghanistan...



Editor, you missed the double negative.OK. not ask not, sorry. The entire post by the person at Ed's suggested the Army didn't give Cook the choice to deploy or not. It's still flawed logic.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Cook v. Good: Orly's GA Military Case

#575

Post by nbc »



Mutiny for a Bounty?



The case of Maj. Cook gives thoughtful, well-intentioned conservatives a chance to separate themselves from the right-wing extremists in their midst. It’s time for Senate Minority Leader,Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Ranking Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain (R-AZ), and the rest of the republican Members of Congress to stand up against the actions of Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR and insist that he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



As for Orly Taitz, I’ll let the content of her website which prominently solicits funds on its home page speak for itself. That said, you can rest assured that I will not be one of her “pay pals.”



Post Reply

Return to “Orly Taitz”