That's the same oath all the military torturers took, right? And the same one that Cheney swore (or affirmed)? Who says he would order the torture again?

If you'll torture for that oath then you'll commit voter fraud for that oath, and commit murder and other felonies for that oath. You'll do anything so long as you can justify it with your consequentialist ethics.

Glad to know where you stand.

Or rather don't stand, since your ethics allow you to break that oath to prevent greater violence. And you get to decide which is greater. Which is why the death of thousands in 2001 justify the torture of innocent people now. Our employed and elected torturers got to decide which of those was the greater violence, without making that information public, as it was clear to them that that was the right choice with the information they had.

No, adhering to the oath excludes torture or other violence that isn't the best choice to prevent greater violence. I haven't yet seen a 9/11 related case where the details justified torture. Clearly our "employed and elected torturers" flouted their oaths.

My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.

Let me get this straight. Your oath prevents you from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, no matter what violence you might be able to prevent by doing so, or the lives you might save (it's a violation of the 21st Amendment to take that moonshine across the state line to use an emergency anesthesia for a backwoods accident where the person needs an amputation), but you believe there may be times where your oath would let you torture someone, in violation of national laws and international treaties?

That's messed up.

And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?

Oliver North was photogenically insistent that selling arms to Iran, in violation of US law, in order to fund the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinista government, was part of his oath. The enemy had become "liberal politicians, gutless judges and left-handed journalists" says one biography.

I'm pretty sure he believes his ethics are "rock solid" and oath unbroken. How am I to tell if it's broken?

My oath doesn't prevent me from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, in whatever hypothetical case in which that would do the greater good, no matter how unlikely. My oath is to my interpretation of the Constitution, its spirit, and not its literal wording. Where my interpretation differs from the wording, the wording should change. For example, if the document allowed slavery, it should be changed to disallow slavery. If the document allows <insert evil here>, it should be changed to disallow <that evil>, or that allowance should be stricken.

> And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?

Just as obvious as that, except for those lacking empathy, is that some things are wrong. You needn't prove they're wrong, you need only believe they are. Do you have to seek others' say-so to tell whether it's okay to kick a toddler in the face?

Oliver North flouted his oath, because his actions didn't serve the greater good. Simply consult your own conscience to tell whether ones' oath is broken.