Major Stefan Frederick Cook, USAR - conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (Re-post)

(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

The following story was originally published on July 16, 2009.

In a shameful example of a military officer crossing the boundary between duty and personal politics, Army reservist Major Stefan F. Cook has clearly dishonored his profession to the detriment of the good order and discipline of the armed forces of the United States and put the life of a U.S. soldier in jeopardy.

The claim
In a story reported in the Ledger-Enquirer by Lily Gordon, Maj. Cook claims he cannot deploy to Afghanistan or lawfully follow the orders of President Barack Obama because he believes the President was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief. In short, Major Cook is a "birther." The so-called "birthers" continue to claim that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen in spite of numerous failed court challenges and two years of vetting during the 2008 presidential election. It appears that Maj. Cook has allowed an extremist right-wing political agenda to cloud his judgment. The last time I checked, military officers did not have the authority to invalidate the results of the Electoral College. There is a name for places where this type of behavior is allowed to occur, "military dictatorships." But wait, there's more! Maj. Cook, a reservist, volunteered to go to on active duty and serve in Afghanistan on May 8,2009, according to Lt. CoI. Maria Quon, an Army Public Affairs Officer at the Army's Human Resource Command in St. Louis.

The facts
Maj. Cook's orders were publish on June 9, 2009 and according to Lt. CoI. Quon., Cook himself could have requested that his orders be canceled at any time prior to entering active duty. Lt. CoI. Quon stressed that Maj. Cook did not need to seek a court order to avoid going on active duty or serving in Afghanistan since he had requested to serve voluntarily and was not being forced to deploy. According to Lt. CoI. Quon, Maj. Cook did not follow the normal protocol to rescind his request for active duty and pointed out that Maj. Cook volunteered for duty well after President Obama took the oath of office and became commander-in¬chief.

The agenda
There was absolutely no requirement for Maj. Cook to go on active duty or serve in Afghanistan. It was completely unnecessary for Maj. Cook to go to a federal district court seeking relief from a situation which he himself created. It seems blatantly obvious that Maj. Cook never intended to execute the orders that he requested, and was in fact seeking to advance a civilian political agenda at the expense of the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The crimes
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-chiefs 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. Service members 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. service members 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.

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."