Hmmmm, we are not defending the Constitution of the United States in Iraq. If he swore an oath to defend the Constitution, he should have George W in his crosshairs!

Does one still hold to the oath when it conflicts with ones conscience and higher convictions? Are there higher convictions? Or do you consider your oath the highest of all convictions? I question whether it was a good thing that you blindly followed your oath and seemingly ignored your conscience in unjust conflicts.

So the oath is: "…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, …I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…." I don't see how you that entails an oath to "obey the orders of those above you." It seems to me that you're just making an oath to defend the Constitution and a pledge of allegiance to it. How does that translate into an oath to obey (what Watada argues are) illegal orders?

Against all enemies is up for interpretation....as far as I'm concerned, President Bush is the enemy.... Who can tell which ones are the enemy in Iraq....sounds like everybody's getting into the fray these days and the lines of distinction are getting pretty damned hazy. I do not blame anyone for refusing to go into that crazy, insane, horrible situation. Why should the foot soldiers have to lay their lives on the line every day when the one who's telling them to go (President Bush) refused himself to go to Vietnam and hid out in the guard until it was safely over!! How can the American people be so stupid to let a man who has never been in combat, never seen the first day on the ground anywhere near a war zone, order thousands to go and face death?

He did the right thing by standing up to those who abused the Constitution. The war is illegal and he is not violating it since it is evidently a crime and an act perpetrated against humanity and the interest of Americans and the world

one word best describes Lt. Watada. Coward. Perhaps he should have read the fine print BEFORE signing that oath.

No he should not have President Bush in his crosshairs. He should do what he's been ordered to do, which is to deploy to fight a war that isn't concerned with his opinions. He joined voluntarily after Iraq started, he knew full well that he would be deployed wherever he was needed, and when called upon he backed down. Soldiers don't get to choose whom they fight, once their president has deemed them a threat to the country, not without suffering whatever consquences come of it.

I am not in the military, so I don't feel qualified to comment on Watada's decision. At some point, if he is willing to shoulder jail and the scorn of his brothers in arms, that's his choice and I guess I can respect that. If he complains about having to pay the price for his decision, I would have a harder time respecting his decisions. But in any case, I do respect and gratefully thank Lt. Col. Francona, and all other servicemen and women, for their service in protecting our country and the Constitution. I only hope we civilians do as much at home to protect our Constitution from those who would ignore it to pursue the war on terrorism. On a side note, I would be interested in Lt. Col. Francona's thoughts on the public reaction to this unpopular war in comparison to the last truly unpopular war (Vietnam). I hope that servicemen and women realize that the majority who oppose the war do so because they care for the troops, not because the want to undermine them. Not being in harm's way myself, I can only guess how they might feel about it. In any case, thank you all.

In the case of Mr. Watada, here is perhaps a more appropriate excerpt from that same oath: "...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..." There is no part of that oath that allows us to uphold it only when we feel like it.

He swore an oath to obey orders of those appointed above him, I think that is the key issue. As a gulf war combat veteran, I am ashamed of Watada's behavior. We are at war. Agree with the cause? It doesn't matter. You are duty bound. And an officer too? He should be shot as a trader.

Watada does not deserve court martial. He had tried everything including resigning. To put him through court martial would be wrong. Instead, put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice to court martial and to Iraq, they're the ones that wanted a war without a cause anyways.

Somebody hasn't studied their history as the Administration failed to do. Iraq was not our enemy until Mr. Bush made it one. All one has to do is look back on how Rummy and the boys were providing Saddam with his weapons for use against Iran. There was not one single person in Iraq that had hurt or killed an American, until Mr. Bush decided to occupy their country. Service people have a right to refuse to serve in an unjust action otherwise the West would not have been able to try German soldiers after WWII. They too were just following orders, but we condemned them. Besides, Iraq is not a country that was established by the people. It is a creation of the West (England). The only thing that was holding it together was a strong dictator. If Mr. Bush and the boys had learned that piece of history, then they could have seen the results they have now.

Hmmmmm,guess we weren't defending the constitution in nazi germany either.anyone that has taken the oath realizes it's importance and the responsibility that goes with it.it basically says that you will defend the freedom and well being of all americans,including left wing lunatics that sit around bitching all the time.

"Against ALL enemies both foriegn AND DOMESTIC" George Bush is guilty of lying to the American people when he used what he knew to be false facts about the cake in Niger which he refered to in his address to the American people. I served in the Army and Watada IS defending America and our constitution from illegal wars and crimes committed by a DOMESTIC terrorist, namely George Bush AND Dick Cheney! Both traitors to America and our way of life and should be impeached!!

When a so called war is unjust and ill-conceived the soldier should have the option to resign. If what the author of this article saying is true, then every person in US is a soldier because by the constitution every citizen in the country has to defend from its enemies, however, that is not the case. One has to realize what is right and what is wrong here, and follow orders blindly will lead to a quick and swift death which no one will remorse.

"Did I agree with all these operations or commitments? Maybe, maybe not – it did not matter." IT DOES MATTER! You sir are a free man not a mindless killing machine to be pointed in any direction the President or any superior would have you go. If you do not agree with the orders you are given by a superior you have a responsibility to stand up and say so. I realize this action takes courage, conviction and intestinal fortitude that maybe you were lacking in at the time you decided to follow orders you didn't agree with. No soldier officer or enlisted is obligated to follow an illegal order. This is the basis of Lt. Watada's claim that the war in Iraq is illegal. So, in his defense, he is faithfully discharging the duties of his office by defending the constitution of the United States.

This soldier should never enlisted in the military ! This appears to be a courageous act to the war protest movement as was the draft dodgers who ran to Canada in the Vietnam era -- He wanted the "benefits" but refused to do his assigned duties! These acts of "cold feet" should be rewarded with a Dis-honorable discharge and loss of any future benefits! Maybe we can depend on the war protestors to defend this country in the future ?? Not My war - I dont agree with it. ( BS ) Let's support those who past and present defended this country by not rewarding the current group of the emerging "whats in it for me" generation ! May we all live in peace and never have to go to war ever. This is my dream. Is there ever a just war ? I also believe in a draft for all americans (male and Female, rich, poor,black,hispanic,white) May we all participate and appreciate being American's !

Dear Hard Balls it is one thing to do your duty it is another to be a part of an illegal war. I think Mr. Watada is very aware of that. It takes courge to do what Mr. Watada is doing. He has shown that he is not afraid to fight just not willing to be a part of something that in itself is reprihensible. It scares me to think that you think the way you do. What you are saying is that if Bush decided to march on one of our own cities you would do it just because he thinks he is the "decider". At some point a soldier has to realize that his morals and common sense guide his descions as a soldier, as a man and as a human being. To give your life away to every Mad Man who calls himself king well.. I guess you have your own ideas on that. Personnaly the only man I will ever follow blindly is not George bush, aka the decider.

Thanks to Staff Sgt. CDH for providing the more relevant language from the oath. Clearly, Watada did pledge to obey orders. However, this doesn't exactly settle the question of whether he is blameworthy for violating it. I assume we can all agree that there are circumstances under which it is appropriate to break with a previously taken oath. Granted, these will be extreme circumstances only, but it is conceivable. The Nuremberg principles state: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Please note: I AM NOT comparing Bush with Hitler or the US with Nazi Germany. The Nuremberg principles didn't just apply to the Nazis; they apply to everyone everywhere. The point of the above language is in some situations, an officer of the military might be morally required to disobey his orders, regardless of whether or not he had made a previous pledge to obey them. If the orders are blatantly immoral and illegal, his general moral duty as a human being trumps his duty as a soldier. Now, this still leaves open the question of whether Watada's orders were, in fact, immoral and illegal. He argues that they were. My point is just that IF they were, he had not only the moral right but the responsibility to disobey them.

If Watada is a coward, then everyone in US is a coward. I think what Watada did was very brave. He took calculated risk by joining the armed forces. For those of you who thinks that he's a coward, perhaps you want to go to Iraq and die gloriously by getting picked off by a sniper?

If it is true that you "obey the orders of those above you", then there would not be so many young military sitting in prison for obeying orders.

Just like the other commentator has already mentioned, Iraq War's pretext and ongoing reasons are dubious and have nothing to do with the constitution. Your commentary presumes that this is what US doing in Iraq: Defending the Constitution - and that is the actual crux of the reason Watada refused. Your over simplification and assumptions will not cut through this debate at all.

I am a British vet and I fully support Lt Watada. He is a courageous soldier. It was American jurisprudence at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial that stated that 'I was following orders' is not a defense for war criminal acts. Impeach Bush and Cheney! Bush broke the law and Watada is on trial .. The half Colonel that was detailed to try Watada has already shackled him by restricting his defence. The half Colonel has obviously been briefed by his masters as to the results they want. They have to make an example of Watada in case his actions spread. Is this the true face of American justice?

Given that Iraq was not our enemy and that we started this war on false grounds how is Watada disobeying anything in the oath you just posted “…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, …I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same….” One could say Bush is the enemy of the United States as his policies have done great harm to the country. More harm than Saddam Hussein ever did.

For those of you that are confused about the Oath that one takes, I took the liberty of looking this up. Some are confused about the "following of orders" and what consitutes an enemy. I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Does this mean that he has no choice but to follow orders? If he enlisted in the US Armed services, YES, it does. Does this mean that he has to agree with the command decisions made by those above him? NO, it doesn't. The Oath that a serviceman or servicewoman takes outlines the rules that they must follow, it doesn't tell them how or what to think about those rules. That's what makes this the United States of America and not Communist China. In conclusion, there is no sense in ranting about Bush is guilty, or Cheney is guilty or that either of them are the enemy...yadda yadda yadda. This case is about a solider that woke up one day and didn't like the decisions that HE made which put him where HE was at that time. Watada is a fool and should be tried and sentenced for breaking his commitment to his God and his country, period. Hindsight is 20/20, and in his case, I'm sure Watada would rather have not volunteered, however, he did. He will be found guilty because he is guilty...end of case.

I TOTALLY agree with Tom Hutson.Bush/Cheney/ Rice/Rumsfeld and all the others who blindly supported these people and their self serving lies should be impeached and or tried for war crimes as we promoted in Bosnia and elswhere.These idiots are responsible and should be held accounatble for not only every American death buit for every Iraqi's as well.The Iraqi's didn't ask us to do this and still want us out of Iraq. Enough is enough. Impeach and try these common criminals now before they destroy the world with their stupidity

This is NOT about Bush or any other administration official and many of you seem to miss that part. It is not even about Iraq or any other conflict. How sad has society gotten to where it seems acceptable to have no honor or desire to uphold it? Have we really gotten that bad??? Regardless of your stance on the war or the president or even the government, the bottom line is THIS: Lt Watada took the oath mentioned above. He made the commitment to defend the constitution which clearly states that the President commands the Armed Forces which in-turn means he serves under the President. Now, I am sure that he did not enlist in the military just to serve under Bush but maybe more to defend his country and its citizens. Though I commend his willingness to serve in other combat situations, he is needed in Iraq and his refusal to go where he is needed means that he is not upholding his oath, not following the orders he swore to obey, and is (especially with his public statement to the media) insulting to the service and the country. If you don’t agree with the war or any other part of requirements for serving in the Armed Forces, then don’t enlist; no one will hold it against you. If you make the decision to enlist in an all volunteer army, then you need to accept the responsibility of that decision. Any other time in world history, he would be killed for treason and made into an example for others. Fortunately, in a more civilized world, he will get a much less severe punishment. Ultimately, even though I do not totally agree with the events concerning current situations we are in, nor am I a big fan of Bush, he deserves to get punished for his actions. In the end, he will serve his punishment, be dishonorably discharged, and will be able to tell his grand kids about proud he is of what he did and how he got to meet a few Hollywood stars who only gave a damn because for a brief moment he was aligned with their agenda. And in a year from now we (including the people rallying behind him) will say Lt. Watada who???

it takes a man like this officer to stand in front of the tyrant of the white house, and say loud and clear NO to this scam war.

While I am not in favor of the Iraq War, and believe that President Bush's decision to go into this war is perhaps the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, I cannot support the actions of a military officer who can decide to choose when and where to serve. I believe that it would set a dangerous precedent for anyone who can choose which orders to follow. Speaking on a lack of experience because I have never served, I believe that soldiers are not policy makers and they give up certain rights when they take their oaths to serve. There are those that speak of conscience vs. service, and that may be a valid argument, but this has always been the consquences to serving in the military. Soldier follow orders, they are not allowed to question them or people die. If they believe they are doing wrong, then when they get out maybe then they can try to become policy makers and try not repeat past failures.

Blind obidience should never be expected from a person, including a soldier. If an army officer tells you that a bunch of war protesters are enemies of the State and to open fire on them, should a soldier just "follow orders"? At what point does a soldiers concience and personal responsibility take over? It's like the old debate if the soldiers of Nazi Germany were in he wrong when they commited horrible acts as they were just "following orders." While a soldier is expected to defend thier country and follow orders, there is a point where every man, including soldiers, has a moral responsibility to stop and say, "No. This is wrong."

Well said Lt. Col. Francona. Jason Johnson, educate yourself. "...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..." In case you still don't get it, it means you have sworn an oath to follow OUR President and his appointed staff whether you like it or not.

Bush and Cheney and all other liars should be on trail for not telling the truth and then starting an unjust war and NOT Lt. Watada.When is this going to happen?

Think of what our country and military would be like if Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Richard Gere,Janine Garafolo and Michael Moore replaced the Bush cabinet. The Bush team made many mistakes out of impatience to deal a blow back to the 911 terrorists. They should have focused completely on Bin Laden and his followers. It's done. We can't change it now. We also can not tell 3000 American families their sons and daughters died in vain. We must declare victory, congratulate the Iraqi government and pull our troops out of the Middle East completely. As long as we are there, however, Lt. Watada is bound by the oath he took. He made a contract with the military and broke it. He made a contract with his brothers in arms and broke it. He made a contract with the American people and broke it. He must be made to suffer the full legal consequences of his actions so that no other soldier, sailor or Marine follows his terrible lesson

well i was 18 in 1965 . i & everyone i knew didn't want anything to do with nam. after all thru my teen yrs every day on the news were the body bags & assorted bad news.however i didn't burn my draft card.i ENLISTED in the reserves. thankfully i got in just before i would have been drafted. its a tough call. on the 1 hand i swore the oath. if my unit was called up ,i would have gone. its hard to risk your young best yrs of your life literally.especially if you don't believe in the war they want you to fight. i couldn't care less if s. vietnam as it did went commie. so what. give up the good life of a 20 yr old for what & for who. i believed like many others that saddam needed removing. but since we didn't administrate the place like japan or nazi ger. that is 100% pacification. disarm the entirev country . round up those responsible or kill them in battle. we should have been calling the shots as soon as victory was declared. democracy in the mideast =unworkable with arabs. we appoint some puppets & pull their strings & tell them in no uncertain terms we are sparing them to comply with what should have been a formal surrender of the nation. we should have sent 50,000 men & seized the oilfields & undersell opec to the rest of our allies. we'd of been heroes. of course 3 yrs later. it was a hollow empty nothing gained for the american ppl thing. the area is much too volatile for our troops who are not accomplishing anything. haliburton & the bush cheney biz interests gained nobody else . thev crooked contractors & such. like oil & water judeo -christians & muslims don't mix. there's no reason that 1 of them should be residing in this country. just as we don't belong or would want to live there. these ppl are primitive ,violent,untrustworthy ,& disloyal. in a way i don't blame the guy. but he has 0 to say about it. he enlisted .somehow became an officer.noones said how. hes totally out of line. the only way soldiers are kept in line is that they see their buddies & thousands of other in the same spot as themselves. you don't let down the next guy. he should be airdropped over sadr city .he did not keep faith with all those who have gone before .compared to other wars .this is nothing . a battle is fought involving maybe 200 men. what kind of war is that. we've got 130,000 troops. they control nothing . never mind the wasted billions,while those at home ---vets,the disabled are given thimblefulls to live on. its shameful. i have no sympathy for this guy. wrong as keeping our men there is .this man was not under duress when he enlisted or took his commision . he doesn't have any recourse or a leg to stand on. those jerks who've rallied to his cause celebre do it for their own personal agendas. imagine if even 5% of our officers were like him. if there were mass desertions somehow. those ppl wouldn't be lying so safe in their beds tonite. i see the problem as being more internal .they still can't hurt us from there. but huge muslim pop. living here is something else again.we have been invaded without a shot being fired. texas does not have an anglo majority.nyc is populated by more hispanic + other minorites than caucasians. this is the present danger. thats why we need the troops back. this kid will be made an ie. of.but hes very insignificant & should be on the back pages. we need a 5-10 moratorium on immigration. just so the ins can straighten itself out. so the illegals by & large can be ferreted out & sent packing. as far as ths guy goes ,maybe the poster calling him a coward is the most correct. for every combat soldier in a war zone there are 99 men supporting him behind the lines.the story is vague. what is his mos ,branch of the service. what led him to believe he would be sent to the front. or put in harms way.something doesn't ring true here. i'd like more facts. not the media cashing in

I love the response of the liberals to this.So typical from a group that hates our country and our military. The fact of the matter is when you take the oath, you don't have the right to refuse. where would we be today if the "Greatest Generation" had all felt like Penn and Sarandon? We would all be speaking Japanese.......

Well, I trust the military legal process on this. But I don't like the idea that if I'm broke and can't pay my taxes, I may go to jail, but if a military officer objects to do a duty he signed off on, he can weasel out of it. Me and Lt.Watada are about the same age. He signed up after Iraq, I didn't. I stayed home and paid my taxes instead. I'll let the Government throw my money away Iraq, and watch my proxy enlistment on CNN.

Larry A., Officers don't enlist. OBTW, it's not about benefits, duh. My bias; never really appreciated Rick F's remarks. No AF 05 retiree I know has had boots on the ground. Regardless of this, the oath he and I took upon commissioning is a solemn one, but misunderstood by most. The whole "enemies, foreign and domestic" part is to what I refer. I believe you can make a good case that Bush, Cheney, and their sycophants are guilty of numerous unconstitutional acts and therefore are enemies. The sacrifice this youngster is about to make is one us older guys with all the wisdom SHOULD HAVE MADE! Rick, don't be a pompous, self-licking ice cream cone of a man. Stand up and state the obvious, you're one of the angry old farts who sends young men off to stupid wars. I truely believe that the angry pompous know-it-alls should be on the front lines of any new "pre-emptive" wars!

He's not doing anything that his President didn't do! What war? congress failed to do its job, Have congress do their job, declarer war and impeach! I doubt that GWB has ever read the "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I forgot he can't read!

it was not an illegal order where he had the right to refuse..this man is a so called leader and for him to act in this manner is truly pathetic.he joined an all volunteer army after the war had begun.no you just can't resign after you disagree with something if it was like that the majority of the force would have submitted resignation papers along time ago.. bottom line he joined at a time of war he got paid to go to school and earn his commision stating that he would repay the department of defense with his loyalty and service to his country. now he want to get out of it alot of us do not agree with this war i have lost alot of friends to this war but as soldiers and leaders we know what we will be facing everyday and by raising your hand and promising to uphold the rules and regulations you know that one day you will be called upon to go fight in a war as long as you wear the uniform..stop bitching and moaning take your punishment like a man and stop dishonering our brothers and sisters in uniform who paid the ultimate sacrifice

We as Americans had better remember there are evil men in this world wether we like it or not. Ever since the fall of man there has been evil in this world. The sad fact is too many of us try to deny that such thing exist as evil...that's the real state of denial. Unbelief will destroy you.

He is a disgrace to this country, himself and his family. As a volunteer in 2003, he was fully aware of military action in progress. Did he refuse his pay, benefits, or medical care? Probably not.

He is a disgrace to this country, himself and his family. As a volunteer in 2003, he was fully aware of military action in progress. Did he refuse his pay, benefits, or medical care? Probably not.

Robert from Ft. L, You fail to see the sacrifice he's making for you. Writing about "his duty" blah blah blah is about all the sacrifice you will make against the unconstitutional actions of the Pres/VP. What a tough guy?!

We as Americans had better remember there are evil men in this world wether we like it or not. Ever since the fall of man there has been evil in this world. The sad fact is too many of us try to deny that such thing exist as evil...that's the real state of denial. Unbelief will destroy you.

It's amusing to watch the Bush dead-enders on this site talk about "his duty and his oath." Your good buddy George has absolutely no credibility on the whole "service to country" thing given his own abominable record in the Texas Air National Guard. If you haven't been to war or haven't seriously thought about what a "domestic" enemy to the constitution is you should shut up and color when it comes to this particular oath.

Amen. The millitary is not a democracy; you don't get to choose what orders you follow. I hope he gets the maximum punishment for disobeying a Direct Order.

Mr. Watada took the oath of service, did whatever was required to become an officer (at taxpayer's expense, I might add), and now wants to quit after being ordered to deploy? He has made his own bed, and now must lie in it. From everything I have ever read about the oath of service, he has broken the law of this land. He is responsible for any punishment to be meted to him. Period. To Mr. Harley, what was Mr. Watada trading that made him a criminal? To Mr. Murdaugh, you need to realize that many, many people whom you lump together as "left-wing lunatics", are in fact more patriotic than you would ever credit them. Just beacuse someone's opinion is different from yours does not make them your enemy. Let the proper authorities do their jobs. As for the "celebrities" Penn and Sarandon, their opinions are valid, but are not my opinion. Why their opinion means so much more that they get it into print is beyond me. I believe it's just "celebrity envy" on the part of journalists, because I know that any time I hear an opinion from a "celebrity", I immediately ignore it. Journalists would do better to get opinions from average folks on the street, who more often have a much better grasp on the subject at hand than most (including "celebrities"), and whose thought process hasn't been clouded by "celebrity", or whatever it is they take in Hollywood these days. As far as "higher convictions" or "higher authorities", one must weigh those ideals against the oath to be taken, and decide BEFOREHAND which is the greater, not AFTER. By taking the oath of service, Mr. Watada decided that the oath of service was more important, and is therefore beholden to that oath. I hate this war just as much as most citizens of this country do, but I support my troops in service, and do my best to convey that support. I believe that Mr. Watada was wrong to enter the military (based on his convictions), but did so anyway, and now must live up to the expectations of his position. His choice to refuse deployment was his, and he is responsible for the ramifications of his decision. "Git-R-Done" and "Git-M-Home". My thoughts go out every day to you guys trudging through that sandy mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. Come home soon.........

There seems to be much confusion here between a soldier's obligation to obey the orders of the President and the inherent obligation to disobey illegal orders. They apply in two very distinct situations. The oath that officers take upon commissioning is different than an enlistment oath and does not include the portion "obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed above me." Watada swore the following oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." The question in Watada's courtmartial is whether he has well and faithfully discharged the duties of his office. Part of "well and faithfully" discharging your duties as an officer involves obeying lawful regulations and orders. Now's the tricky part, there is very long precedent indicating that the legality of a conflict is determined by Congress NOT an individual officer. It is not LT. Watada's right to decide on his own whether or not to deploy to Iraq. He is certainly allowed to have his own opinion of the conflict, all soldiers are allowed that. But he is not permitted to make a personal decision to not participate. The obligation to disobey illegal orders applies to "jus in bello" issues such as patently obvious war crimes. A soldier has an obligation not to intentionally kill civilians or prisoners even if he is ordered to do so. Referring to the Nuremburg principles we never prosecuted military officers for participating in an illegal war (crimes against peace) but we did prosecute them for obeying illegal orders to commit war crimes. LT. Watada is facing court-martial because he failed to do his duty as an officer and deploy with his soldiers. The legality of the war has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Katrina from Oregon: "Jason Johnson, educate yourself. "...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..." In case you still don't get it, it means you have sworn an oath to follow OUR President and his appointed staff whether you like it or not." Right, and if you read my second comment, you'll see that I fully understand that --- but that wasn't the language quoted by Francona. I was asking how the language he pointed to entailed a pledge to obey orders. Clearly, the part of the pledge you point to does indicate such a pledge. I wasn't disputing that members of the military do in fact take such a pledge; I was just asking a (sincere) question regarding how the language Francona supplied demonstrated that. As for my other point, though, the mere fact that you've taken an oath to do X doesn't mean that it is always right for you to in fact follow the pledge and do X. There are situations --- maybe extraordinary --- which call for doing not X, even in the face of a previously made oath.

Mr. Watada volunteered for the wrong war then changed his mind when he realized like 70% of all other americans that we had been lied to. If enlisted military man and woman are allowed to vote they should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech and dissent

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):