Posted on 07/02/2002 12:17:33 PM PDT by varina davis
Huh? Methinks you are blowing smoke (or, swilling beer, perhaps?). No one has to obey an unlawful order. In fact, every member of the military is drilled on that fact during "Law of War" briefings. Michael New correctly ascertained that he was being asked to carry out an unlawful order. He paid the price, but true patriots usually do.
P.S. Military bearing generally refers to the way one carries himself (i.e., appearance), and not behaviour. Hence a sloppy soldier could obey an order while a "squared-away" soldier could commit mutiny. The issue is not bearing, it is conduct -- and New refused to violate his conscience. (Guess you never heard of folks the Tuskeegee Airmen and their refusal to obey orders regarding segregation, which is celebrated as courageous by the same folks who busted New.)
Perhaps you can help us understand what an unlawful order is then. And then tell us how he could be punished for disobeying an unlawful order. Perhaps it wasn't unlawful?
Selective morals , the new "morality" ..if it feels good do it........oaths only count for other people.... it's fine as long as it's me..etc etc etc...
Rules are for the other guy
Commander, you may not like New. You may not agree with his stand. As his commander, it would be your obligation to punish him according to UCMJ. However, your use of your (delegated) authority to inflict emotional pain above and beyond any required military justice does not, in my estimation, speak to your credit.
I respect New as a patriot. I also respect you, as a senior officer. In this matter, I side with New. Again: what do you do with the Tuskeegee Airmen, and their refusal to follow orders regarding segregation? Bet you would call them heroes. Well I call New a hero. The UN and the US Constitutional are not capable of being harmonized. Care to disprove me, using the Constitution. (Remember, the oath is to defend the Constitution, correct?)
hee hee :)
Um, I think the question was to another poster and it went something like 'show us how it was an unlawful order'. Follow the pecking order.
Why set up a false dichotomy? No one in here is calling Col Higgins scum; nor is Michael New.
On the other hand, I think it is sad that Col Higgins is wearing the blue UN beret in this photo. I think he was far too fine a patriot to have had to submit to wearing that disgusting light blue emblem of an organization that has continually shown nothing but contempt for our national sovereignty and our Constitutional principles (chief among them the right to keep and bear arms).
What is it about the UN that you find so compelling? We have no business putting our armed forces under UN commanders, flags, or patches. Care to refute me from the Constitution?
Ouch. Ya cut me to the quick on that one. Although not a loud-muothed east-coast druggie-laaw-ya, I'm guilty of being a loud-mouthed southern Ozark cow-raisin' telecom tech (quasi-)libertarian. Quasi because I split the ticket and vote Constitution Party and LP. I only vote republicratic when there is no other choice. I've never voted for a democan in my life.
However, THIS libertarian understands the miltary completely and does not fall for the peacenik claptrap of the Harry Browns and Justin Raimondo's (sp?) of the LP. There are quite a few hawk LP members. I know because I've spoken with many. Of course, most are either prior service like myself, or have family members who served.
Unfortunately, there are too many libertarian-liberal pundits (for lack of a better word) speaking for the party and not enough libertarian-conservatives speaking.
Politics aside, nice to meet cha brother!
RLTW!
Semper Suo
Pecking order? Last time I checked, this was an open forum, or, at least as open as Jim Rob permits it to be (which is pretty damn open).
Fire at will.
You have no command, you're retired, thank God. {;o)~
What would I do with the Tuskeegee Airmen. I would listen to their position with courtesy and respect, and then court martial them because regardless of what I felt about a lawful order, it is still a lawful order.
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder!
I think VA was just trying to tell you that people that live in glass houses can not judge other peoples house keeping ..theirs is always on display!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.