Soldier Claims Obama isn't Legal. Deployment Orders revoked

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BrookM**

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

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His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.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.

"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.

"[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.

G-SUS tap-dancing Christ on a burning life raft..

**Frazzled**

**BrookM**

My thoughts exactly, especially the "We won!" part.

**warpcrafter**

I demand details! This is the first I've heard of this. Wasn't he born in Hawaii? His mother is from Kansas, and regardless of any question of his father's immigration status, that should be enough by itself.

**Frazzled**

Under the Constitution the president has to be native born. We don't cotton to no dern ferners.

There are conflicting reports that this was dismissed by a fed court as moot now (I believe a retired 2 star general tried to be added to the suit).

Be awfully funny if the aluminium hat people were right on one after all.

**BrookM**

Well of course he's a legal Yankee, otherwise he couldn't be prez in the first place. The CIA, NSA and FBI may be movie villains but at least they do proper background checks. Amirite?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only reason that guy is calling that is because the prick doesn't want to go.

**Frazzled**

BrookM wrote:Well of course he's a legal Yankee, otherwise he couldn't be prez in the first place. The CIA, NSA and FBI may be movie villains but at least they do proper background checks. Amirite?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only reason that guy is calling that is because the prick doesn't want to go.

You're not getting it Brook. Thats the argument being made. If Obama is not a native born son, so the legal argument goes, he can't be President. As such his orders of deployment are null and void.

The argument has been floating around for a bit. Surprising that they didn't drop the hammer on him, but instead released him...

**barlio**

Yeah and it worked, but then again people get away dumb stuff all the time.

**BrookM**

Land of the grand opportunities indeed.

**Kilkrazy**

I suppose if President Clinton had ordered the major to rape seven boys and girls to death and post pictures on the internet, it would have been a legal order.

**Frazzled**

Simialr cases trying to stop Obama from being sworn in were denied or postponed. Its a cute conspiracy theory, this just gives it some legs unfortunately.

**BrookM**

So this could escalate?

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:I suppose if President Clinton had ordered the major to rape seven boys and girls to death and post pictures on the internet, it would have been a legal order.

No, and come on KK not funny. Under the code soldiers are only supposed to obey lawfully written orders. Jarheads obey the loudest (or quietest) sergeants

After 40 years, Dadman still couldn't talk above a hoarse whisper...

Escalate? To an extent. Others could argue the same thing. I'd imagine if more tried it they would Dishonorably Discharged getting aggressive up to enjoying the Leavenworth Hilton.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:The argument has been floating around for a bit. Surprising that they didn't drop the hammer on him, but instead released him...

Someone in the military already tried this and they did drop the hammer on him. Being an Officer the consequences are far worse as well.

Calling shenanigans on this. Something is not right about this story.

**Frazzled**

As noted a later story denotes a fed court denied hearing it, saying the case was now moot due to no cause of action.

**Valhallan42nd**

Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen Jus sanguinis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

**barlio**

BrookM wrote:So this could escalate?

Could? Yes
Will it? IMHO (and as a layperson regarding the law) I believe that his lawyer is really, really good and found some teenie, tiny crack and managed to sneak their client through. I bet it will be tried again by another soldier, but they will fail. Won't be an Epic Fail, but a fail regardless. I think this guy got lucky.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen jus sanguis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

Yeah, but McCain is a honkey so he doesn't count </sarcasm>

**BrookM**

I'm guessing his lawyer must have a massive ass then to pull that off.

**Frazzled**

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen jus sanguis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

McCain was born on US turf at the time-the Panama Canal was previously declared US territory for these purposes. Obama couldn't make that claim. He was either born in the US or he wasn't. Hawaii says hang loose! er um that he has a birth certificate from being born there. The theory gets murky that the report is fake in some manner.

by murky I mean the Frazzled BS detector hits 140 decibels at that point and I have to fight laughing.

**Typeline**

Who really cares if he is from here? Not like half the wars we've fought in recent history were 'legal'. Most were some kind of technicality and just ended up being called conflicts.

**BrookM**

Can't we just throw that Major in the Gulf of Tonkin and call it a day?

**Kilkrazy**

I exaggerated for effect, to demonstrate the difference between orders being legal, and coming from a legal authority.

BTW we are trying to get a public enquiry going in the UK to see if Gulf War 2 was legal.

There was a lot of concern from our military at the time, so much so that the top brass insisted on written confirmation from the Solicitor General.

I don't suppose anything will result, as the Establishment is usually pretty good at kicking such balls into the long grass. But it does show that the topic of legal wars is not just a bugbear of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Back on topic though... It would seem to be very easy to prove or disprove Obama's birth status using social security records. I find it difficult to suppose that the Republicans would not have worried that bone to death if there was any meat on it.

The issue of Obama's orders being from a legal authority surely cannot be doubted by a person with mental capacity.

**avantgarde**

If you dig a little, the guy requested to be deployed, then when ordered he refused and made it about Obama.

Huffington Post wrote:The Army has revoked the deployment orders for a soldier who said he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because (he believes) Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.

Because he's a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can "ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty," a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html

**Frazzled**

It matters if he was eligible to be President or not Typeline. If he's not eligibe HE'S NOT THE PRESIDENT.
If it were true it would be a big damn deal. However, as noted (SO SEBBIE/DOGMA STAY OFF MY BACK) there's a birth certificate as being born in Hawaii so freakin enough said. While hawaii is in a different, and cooler, state of mind, they are still part of the US.

**dietrich**

There was chatter on talk radio today, and allegedly, Obama hasn't released his long-form birth certificate.

Obama has two choices:
1. Deny it. Even if he produces documents, the conspriacy theorists will claim they're false, and then you have the same issue all over again.
2. Ignore it until it goes away.

The rightwing is full of hypocrites. If someone had done this with Bush (under claims that he was a draft-dodger or some such), the right would have a field day on that person. Considering the Chief Justice of the US swore Obama in, that's good enough for me.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:As noted a later story denotes a fed court denied hearing it, saying the case was now moot due to no cause of action.

The case was dismissed because the military revoked the orders before the trial began, thus there was no reason to fight the orders. Either they had already planned to rescind the orders or they just didn't feel like putting up with the insanity and cost of a trial that the defendant would have lost. By now I would imagine the argument is almost classified as a frivolous suit.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen Jus sanguinis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

Actually that is not true at all. McCain was born on American soil overseas (a military base). If you were born in Botswana outside of US soil you would have to jump through some hoops to prove it. Also, jus soli jus sanguinus is usually the standard for 'Natural Born Citizen' as the US uses a bit of both and not one to exclusion of the other.

**dogma**

Even if he was born out-of-country he may still be entitled to hereditary citizenship, which would jive with the Constitutional clause in question.

Section 1, of Article 2 wrote:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Edit: Per Wikipedia

There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth.

**Ahtman**

The problem, as is often the case, is that they never defined 'Natural Born Citizen' in the Constitution. This leads to all sorts of chicanery. We aren't talking about layman use here but a specific legal definition. They also threw in the 'or' there which drives legal scholars up a wall as well.

Edit: Per Wikipedia

There is an asymmetry in the way children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, are treated. Children born abroad to unmarried American mothers are automatically considered natural-born citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the US for a continuous period of at least one year, anytime prior to the birth.

Of course they can gain citizenship but there are steps they would have to go through that would not normally be needed if they were born on US soil (in country, military base, or embassy, ect). It also would depend if one favors the jus soli aspect when defining 'Natural Born Citizen', or feel they both are needed to meet the requirement. There is a legal difference between being a 'Citizen' and a "Natural Born Citizen'. This is what is causing the trouble. Sure he is a citizen, but some don't think he meets the legal definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'. Others are of course just butthurt conservatives mad about losing an election and thus creating conspiracies.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

Valhallan42nd wrote:Even if he was born in Botswana, he is a natural born citizen Jus sanguinis, by blood.

McCain, for instance, wasn't born in the US, but there was no hue and cry over that.

The President must be native born, on American soil or a US military base or embassy which are technically American soil while the land is leased to the US Government. The law was a little different when Obama was born. The mother also had to be a certain age if she did not bear the child on American soil and the father was not an American citizen. McCain meet the requirements, both for his mother, father, location and age of the mother.

That is where the problem may be.

She was not old enough for him to derive citizenship from her alone if she was under the age limit, not on American soil and the father was not an American citizen.

That is why there is a big question mark about the original certificate from that time frame which had those fields listed on them vs the copy of an updated form which Obama had shown which is a later form, not from when he was born and that copy has no areas on it listing all the required data.

And it is a very big deal in the military. We take our oaths based upon the constitution and those LEGAL officers over us.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:
Of course they can gain citizenship but there are steps they would have to go through that would not normally be needed if they were born on US soil (in country, military base, or embassy, ect).

But would they be affirming their birthright citizenship, or actively becoming new citizens of the United States?

Ahtman wrote:
It also would depend if one favors the jus soli aspect when defining 'Natural Born Citizen', or feel they both are needed to meet the requirement.

Yeah, the whole 'birthers' thing.