[exodus]

To: Coto
Yes, well aren't we all so very lucky to have you around to interpret who has violated their oath and who has not. What about News's oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him? Or doesn't that count?
# 102 by Non-Sequitur
**********************

You don't think that Michael New understood what he meant when he took the oath? Wouldn't he be considered the expert on his loyalties, and what he believed would violate those loyalties?

The oath promises to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of his superiors. The word "and" is an inclusive term. An oath-taker promises to defend and obey, not defend or obey.

If his orders force him to decide which is more important to him, following an illegal order or the Constitution, don't be surprised when a volunteer military man errs on the side of freedom.

[Non-Sequitur]

You don't think that Michael New understood what he meant when he took the oath? Wouldn't he be considered the expert on his loyalties, and what he believed would violate those loyalties?

His position did not give him the authority to decide what is an illegal order and what is not. New made his decision and judged that being ordered to serve with the UN was an illegal order. It turns out he was wrong, it was not an illegal order or a violation of his oath. He took his stand and paid the price for it. IMHO he should shut up and accept the fact that he was wrong and deal with it.