To: roaddog727
So she previously felt unable to obey illegal orders from an illegal chain of command ... but now she’s fine following them, for some reason? Something tells me she’s not as principled as you.
57 posted on
09/16/2009 10:29:36 AM PDT by
IntolerantOfTreason
(The Republican Party - the Anti-Constitution party when it comes to Section 1, Article 2)
To: IntolerantOfTreason
It goes back to Geneva Convention protections in a combat zone.
61 posted on
09/16/2009 10:33:25 AM PDT by
roaddog727
(It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
To: IntolerantOfTreason
So she previously felt unable to obey illegal orders from an illegal chain of command ... but now she’s fine following them, for some reason? Something tells me she’s not as principled as you. She did her duty to determine if her CIC is legitimate. Judge Land just said that he is the legitimate CIC. Therefore Judge Land is now on the hook and he will face a higher court that will hold him accountable for his decision today.
104 posted on
09/16/2009 11:04:37 AM PDT by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: IntolerantOfTreason
So she previously felt unable to obey illegal orders from an illegal chain of command ... but now she’s fine following them, for some reason? She did not want to take the legal risk of deploying to a war zone under unlawful orders, but she has her duty as well. She'll be doing it. I'm sure any solider, Marine, airman or sailor she patches up won't give a hoot about the circumstances leading to her being there.
193 posted on
09/16/2009 2:46:52 PM PDT by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson