Yolanda Huet-Vaughan was a doctor and a captain in the Army reserve. In 1991 she refused to report for duty with her unit for Desert Storm claiming that the war was illegal and orders for her to report were invalid. She was court-martialed for desertion, sentenced to two and a half years in Leavenworth and served part of her sentence before having the balance commuted.
Michael New was an enlisted man who refused to wear the UN patch and beret when his battalion was ordered to deploy with UN forces in Bosnia. He was court martialed, dishonorably discharged, and later spent time in jail for drug dealing.
So, do you support all of them as well for having the courage to decide for themselves what orders are legal and what are not? Should the president in each case - Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 - been obligated to prove to each of these people that their doubts were groundless and that the orders given them were legal? Do you admire them for standing up and taking the heat? Should all of their peers done the same?
It’s a lot harder to make a case that a war is illegal than it is that the president is ineligible. There are only two things that need to be established: Birth to two U.S. citizens and birth in the country.
In their cases, the Military had the burden and apparently met the burden and prevailed.
Yes I admire them for taking a stand. I would not have taken the same position, but that is their choice.
I don't think it is wrong to put the officials to their proof. It may have been wrong to make the moves they did, but having taken those actions, they should follow through.
People are free to screw up their lives if they want to.
None of those have asked me to feel sorry for them, and I don't.