NationStates Jolt Archive

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/officer-faces-court-martial-for-refusing/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Don't be surprised if the "They Should Have Refused to Obey Unlawful Orders" excuse heaped on grunts who fry over civilian abuse or murder while their superiors fly scot free is conveniently ignored or disputed this time about.

After all, he's probably a Liberal Al Qaeda sympathizer right?

:rolleyes:

Britain has already had a case on this. The officer lost as for him to win would have required that the court martial conclude that the war in iraq was illegal and there is no way the govt of either the UK or the US would ever do that.

In retrospect, though, there may have been one ominous note in the praise heaped on him in his various military fitness reports: he was cited as having an “insatiable appetite for knowledge.”
Interestingly, in many armies, an observation such as this would be the end of a man's career, or even life.

He is lucky to get away with less, but it should be noted that the treatment of individuals such as this in institutions such as the military, is consistent across all cultures and ideologies. Where conformity is the rule, an open mind is a question mark over one's suitability.

Interestingly, in many armies, an observation such as this would be the end of a man's career, or even life.

He is lucky to get away with less, but it should be noted that the treatment of individuals such as this in institutions such as the military, is consistent across all cultures and ideologies. Where conformity is the rule, an open mind is a question mark over one's suitability.

That would explain a lot of the posts and views on NS General.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/officer-faces-court-martial-for-refusing/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Don't be surprised if the "They Should Have Refused to Obey Unlawful Orders" excuse heaped on grunts who fry over civilian abuse or murder while their superiors fly scot free is conveniently ignored or disputed this time about.

After all, he's probably a Liberal Al Qaeda sympathizer right?

:rolleyes:
It doesn't matter one whit. The guy joined of his own free will, became an officer of his own fee will, and then decided he didn't want to go to war. He should be prosecuted to the absolute limit of the law.

Interestingly, in many armies, an observation such as this would be the end of a man's career, or even life.

He is lucky to get away with less, but it should be noted that the treatment of individuals such as this in institutions such as the military, is consistent across all cultures and ideologies. Where conformity is the rule, an open mind is a question mark over one's suitability.
It's not in the American Army, particularly where officers are concerned. Indeed, officers are expected to question things ... right up to the point where the senior officer with responsibility for making the decision says, "This is what we're going to do." At which point, everyone shuts up and implements the orders as if the decision had been their own.

In the event that a junior officer questions the legality of his superior officer's decision, he is expected to so note in writing, and request to be relieved of his current responsibilities until such time as a final determination is made.

It doesn't matter one whit. The guy joined of his own free will, became an officer of his own fee will, and then decided he didn't want to go to war. He should be prosecuted to the absolute limit of the law.

He decided not to follow an order he believed was unethical, not to not go to war. He infact volunteered to go the afghanistan instead.

He signed up to fight, he should go. Regardless. Good thing he lost.

It doesn't matter one whit. The guy joined of his own free will, became an officer of his own fee will, and then decided he didn't want to go to war. He should be prosecuted to the absolute limit of the law.

Signed up freely, became an officer freely, why can't he leave freely??

From an economic perspective this man is clearly an exemplary person who has the foundation for a career doing anything he chooses to do.

His record would indicate that he has provided a service to the military consummate with his pay, no loss there. Now his trial and jailing would cost the government again while recieving no benefit in return.

He is an employee and has terminated his contract of employment, let him go.

He volunteered to be in the military, and part of the deal is that he has to follow the orders he is given. If he does not follow those orders, he knows that there will be consequences. He may not like the war, but he knew what he was doing when he volunteered.

Signed up freely, became an officer freely, why can't he leave freely??

From an economic perspective this man is clearly an exemplary person who has the foundation for a career doing anything he chooses to do.

His record would indicate that he has provided a service to the military consummate with his pay, no loss there. Now his trial and jailing would cost the government again while recieving no benefit in return.

He is an employee and has terminated his contract of employment, let him go.

He made an oath and commitment to the military, and signed a contract. If you were a contracted employee in the civilian world, and you breached your contract, you would be sued. The military punishes breach of contract with a court martial and imprisonment.

It all boils down to this: Is the order to deploy in Iraq lawful?

I believe it is. I believe he has no right to refuse an unlawful order as he made an oath to follow all lawful orders during his term of service. He cannot pick and choose based on his opinion. His only defense in this situation wouldbe to prove that the Iraq War is an unlawful war and the United States Military is in Iraq unlawfully. That's a mighty tall order.

I think he's screwed. I also think he's earned his screwing by breaking his oath.

Signed up freely, became an officer freely, why can't he leave freely??

From an economic perspective this man is clearly an exemplary person who has the foundation for a career doing anything he chooses to do.

His record would indicate that he has provided a service to the military consummate with his pay, no loss there. Now his trial and jailing would cost the government again while recieving no benefit in return.

He is an employee and has terminated his contract of employment, let him go.

Because the nature of the military. Things get hairy, guys die, and EVERYONE wants to packup and leave. Can't let that happen.

He made an oath and commitment to the military, and signed a contract. If you were a contracted employee in the civilian world, and you breached your contract, you would be sued. The military punishes breach of contract with a court martial and imprisonment.

Yup.

I'm not even sure how this is news. They've been talking about it here in Hawaii for over a month. He understands he will be court-martialed and thrown in the brig, and he's willing to accept the already-known punishment for failure to deploy. He's not the first and he damn sure won't be the last. It's not news anymore. The end.

I'm not even sure how this is news. They've been talking about it here in Hawaii for over a month. He understands he will be court-martialed and thrown in the brig, and he's willing to accept the already-known punishment for failure to deploy. He's not the first and he damn sure won't be the last. It's not news anymore. The end.

+1.

There have been COs since the Rev' War.

+1.

There have been COs since the Rev' War.

Yeah, but Conscientious Objectors at least have some moral (and these days, legal) standing. This guy is not a CO; if he was, he couldn't have been a line officer.

This guy has decided not to fight because he doesn't like the decision made by his civilian superiors - and that just isn't, and can't be, his call.

In some ways, I'd prefer to see him charged with Cowardice in the Face. Then he'd get what was really coming to him.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/officer-faces-court-martial-for-refusing/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Don't be surprised if the "They Should Have Refused to Obey Unlawful Orders" excuse heaped on grunts who fry over civilian abuse or murder while their superiors fly scot free is conveniently ignored or disputed this time about.

After all, he's probably a Liberal Al Qaeda sympathizer right?

:rolleyes:

Good. He should be charged. Bastard.

It doesn't matter one whit. The guy joined of his own free will, became an officer of his own fee will, and then decided he didn't want to go to war. He should be prosecuted to the absolute limit of the law.

Here here!

He decided not to follow an order he believed was unethical, not to not go to war. He infact volunteered to go the afghanistan instead.

You do not decide where you are going to go. You go where you are told to go.

You do not decide where you are going to go. You go where you are told to go.

And if you have readup and believe the order to be illegal you should follow it anyway?

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/officer-faces-court-martial-for-refusing/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Don't be surprised if the "They Should Have Refused to Obey Unlawful Orders" excuse heaped on grunts who fry over civilian abuse or murder while their superiors fly scot free is conveniently ignored or disputed this time about.

After all, he's probably a Liberal Al Qaeda sympathizer right?

:rolleyes:
He certainly needs to find a new profession. Good thing that we didn't find out about his "honor and dignity" at some more critical time.

OTH is the right answer.

I have no doubts that he is going to get the maximum penalty that the US Army can dish out for something like this. It's an attack on the fundamental control and discipline of military service. I think they mentioned several times in the article that an army can't function if people get to pick and choose where and if they want to deploy.

Had we not lived in kinder, gentler times, his commanding officer would have simply shot him, asked "Is there anyone else that doesn't want to go to Iraq?", and that would have been the end of it.

And if you have readup and believe the order to be illegal you should follow it anyway?

He has his orders to deploy to Iraq. That is not an Illegal order by any stretches of the imagination. This bastard deserves what he gets. Hopefully he gets the maximum penalty on top of a dishonorable discharge.

And if you have readup and believe the order to be illegal you should follow it anyway?
One should be prepared for the consequences of disobeying an order. This is real life, there aren't any do-overs or free passes.

Had we not lived in kinder, gentler times, his commanding officer would have simply shot him, asked "Is there anyone else that doesn't want to go to Iraq?", and that would have been the end of it.
I would say that one doesn't do that to a fellow officer. On the other hand, one doesn't often see his fellow officers trying to avoid their duty, either.

And if you have readup and believe the order to be illegal you should follow it anyway?

Yes. It is part of the oath you swore when you entered the military.

The idea that you have a right to disobey an illegal order is a fallacy. You can inform your superior officer that you believe the order is illegal, and you can put that in writing before or aftter the fact (depending on whether you are in the field or not), but if the order is confirmed, you must obey it.

Legally, questioning the order gets you off the hook. The responsibility then lies with the officer who gave the order.

Besides which, an order is illegal only if it contravenes the UCMJ for Americans, or equivalent military law in other countries. There was certainly nothing illegal about this guy's mobilisation order.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/officer-faces-court-martial-for-refusing/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Don't be surprised if the "They Should Have Refused to Obey Unlawful Orders" excuse heaped on grunts who fry over civilian abuse or murder while their superiors fly scot free is conveniently ignored or disputed this time about.

After all, he's probably a Liberal Al Qaeda sympathizer right?

:rolleyes:
Unfortunately this guy will lose, even though his cause is a good one. IMHO, the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral.

The good thing about the publicity generated by stories such as this one is that many others who are thinking about enlisting, will take a good second look at what they might be getting themselves into.

He has his orders to deploy to Iraq. That is not an Illegal order by any stretches of the imagination.

In your opinion. I think we'll definatly be disagreeing on the legality of an unwarranted invasion of a soveriegn nation.

This bastard deserves what he gets. Hopefully he gets the maximum penalty on top of a dishonorable discharge.

Or a medal, it depends on your point of view.

Unfortunately this guy will lose, even though his cause is a good one. IMHO, the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral.

Luckily for you, we do not have to take your word for anything nor are you deciding this. This bastard deserves everything he gets.

The good thing about the publicity generated by stories such as this one is that many others who are thinking about enlisting, will take a good second look at what they might be getting themselves into.

Funny thing is, its not all that public. It didn't even make the news out here.

One should be prepared for the consequences of disobeying an order. This is real life, there aren't any do-overs or free passes.

If he wasn't then he wouldn't have done it in the first place. He would have accepted the non-combat post offered to him as an alternative.

Yes. It is part of the oath you swore when you entered the military.

The idea that you have a right to disobey an illegal order is a fallacy. You can inform your superior officer that you believe the order is illegal, and you can put that in writing before or aftter the fact (depending on whether you are in the field or not), but if the order is confirmed, you must obey it.

Legally, questioning the order gets you off the hook. The responsibility then lies with the officer who gave the order.

Besides which, an order is illegal only if it contravenes the UCMJ for Americans, or equivalent military law in other countries. There was certainly nothing illegal about this guy's mobilisation order.

So you just accept it and continue in a way you consider to be morally wrong?

Dom't know aobut the US system but in the UK an officer is required to question and disobey an order which is wrong, he must then prove it is wrong which is what this guy is doing now.

If he wasn't then he wouldn't have done it in the first place. He would have accepted the non-combat post offered to him as an alternative.

He turned down a non-combatant post? He does deserve this then.

So you just accept it and continue in a way you consider to be morally wrong?

Dom't know aobut the US system but in the UK an officer is required to question and disobey an order which is wrong, he must then prove it is wrong which is what this guy is doing now.

And he doesn't even have a leg to stand on so it is rather pointless.

Luckily for you, we do not have to take your word for anything nor are you deciding this. This bastard deserves everything he gets.

The man makes a conscientious decision and he's a bastard? He may not have made the right decision in thinking he could refuse an order for mobilization, but he hardly deserves that kind of vitriol to be leveled at him.

Funny thing is, its not all that public. It didn't even make the news out here.

It's been running the news services online and on a few local channels around here. Maybe if a big stink is raised, it'll get bigger press, but it seems to be pretty public already to me.

The man makes a conscientious decision and he's a bastard? He may not have made the right decision in thinking he could refuse an order for mobilization, but he hardly deserves that kind of vitriol to be leveled at him.

Failure to obey a lawful order most definitely deserves it. He should get the max and a dishonorable and when he gets that dishonorable, its going to hurt him and he'll deserve it too.

The man makes a conscientious decision and he's a bastard? He may not have made the right decision in thinking he could refuse an order for mobilization, but he hardly deserves that kind of vitriol to be leveled at him.


To anyone who's been in the military, this kind of behaviour smacks of both cowardice and a failure to support your fellow troops. There really is nothing worse.

To anyone who's been in the military, this kind of behaviour smacks of both cowardice and a failure to support your fellow troops. There really is nothing worse.

You got that straight. To bad these people can't be shot.

From the Army itself (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr01/MarApr01/david.pdf):

Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 916(d) fleshes
out this concept only slightly. The rule states that
superior orders are a defense "unless the accused
knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary
sense and understanding would have known
the orders to be unlawful." US Army Field Manual
(FM) 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, contains similar
language.46 In other words, unless soldiers know
an order is illegal or should know it is illegal, they
may safely follow it. Indeed, R.C.M. 916(d) specifically
states that unless the accused knew or should
have known of the order's illegality, "[a]n act performed
pursuant to an unlawful order is excused."47

Lt. Watada doesn't know for a fact that the war is illegal because no court has determined that it is or is not, no matter how much he "read up on it." According to the Rules of Court Martial, that would be his only defense for obeying an illegal order and since it is invalid, negates his justification for disobeying what he thinks is an illegal order.
He recognizes this (as I hope some of you do who didn't before) and is willing to accept the consequences. The end.

He turned down a non-combatant post? He does deserve this then.

You really have your head up your arse sometimes.

I'll spell it out in simple terms; He refused to go to Iraq on a combat assignment as he believed the war was wrong, his CO then offered him a non-combat post, he refused it saying that it wasn't the combat that bothered him but the whole war. He then voluntered for a combat post in afghanistan.

To anyone who's been in the military, this kind of behaviour smacks of both cowardice and a failure to support your fellow troops. There really is nothing worse.

I don't know if I would call it cowardice. Actually, it takes incredible courage to stand up for what one believes in. It's just in this case, he is going to get the worst of what the Army can dish out for such things and life will go on.

To anyone who's been in the military, this kind of behaviour smacks of both cowardice and a failure to support your fellow troops. There really is nothing worse.
As someone who is in the military now, I say there are lots of things worse. "Cowardice and failure to support" just mean you throw that person away and make do without him/her. S/He becomes a non-issue.

You really have your head up your arse sometimes.

I'll spell it out in simple terms; He refused to go to Iraq on a combat assignment as he believed the war was wrong, his CO then offered him a non-combat post, he refused it saying that it wasn't the combat that bothered him but the whole war. He then voluntered for a combat post in afghanistan.

And what has been stated is that YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GO! This bastard is only a lieutenant. He has no power.

Luckily for you, we do not have to take your word for anything nor are you deciding this.
How is that lucky for me? :rolleyes:

This bastard deserves everything he gets.
At least he has served his country and was willing to go to Afghanistan. Does your God agree with you on this matter?

Funny thing is, its not all that public. It didn't even make the news out here.
I guess the New York Times and AOL News is not very mainstream huh? :p

As someone who is in the military now, I say there are lots of things worse. "Cowardice and failure to support" just mean you throw that person away and make do without him/her. S/He becomes a non-issue.


Well, you're a lot more forgiving than I am. I just hope you never have to rely on someone like this at the wrong time.

At least he has served his country and was willing to go to Afghanistan.

I don't care. He was told to go to Iraq and not to Afghanistan. You do not decide what your orders are. That is done by people who are much higher up the chain of command than this bastard of a lieutenant.

I guess the New York Times and AOL News is not very mainstream huh? :p

The same Times that are closing a printing press and laying people off because they are in financial trouble?

As someone who is in the military now, I say there are lots of things worse. "Cowardice and failure to support" just mean you throw that person away and make do without him/her. S/He becomes a non-issue.
That's about what it amounts to. The best thing for the Army to do is make this swift and painful. OTOH, the Lt's best option is to draw it out as long as possible and make a media circus out of it.

And what has been stated is that YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GO! This bastard is only a lieutenant. He has no power.

Have you ever been in a situation even remotely like his? Having to make a decision where you have to break your word and endure the vitriol of a nation just to stand up for what you believe in?

The man has courage by the bucket load and should never have to be lambasted by people like you who have never been in the military.

Well, you're a lot more forgiving than I am. I just hope you never have to rely on someone like this at the wrong time.
Yeah, me too, but fucknuggets like him don't come out of nowhere, and his decision wasn't as big a surprise as the news makes it out to be. If someone is unreliable and liable to leave his buddies stranded with their dicks in the dirt, we know it in advance and we'll have contingencies that deal without them.

That being said, I'm being paid to defend freedom for all Americans, including him. He is free to make his decision as long as he is willing to accept the consequences, which he is. For me not to support it would make me a hypocrite.

Have you ever been in a situation even remotely like his? Having to make a decision where you have to break your word and endure the vitriol of a nation just to stand up for what you believe in?

In the military? No but in other situations, yes I have. I always kept my word and did as I'm told. I didn't disobey authority for i would have gotten in just as much trouble.

The man has courage by the bucket load and should never have to be lambasted by people like you who have never been in the military.

I just been around it for the last 23 years and have served in the Auxillary of the USAF so yea. I can. I know what the rules are. I know what the regs say. This bastard deserves the court martial, the dishonorable, and brig time.

Have you ever been in a situation even remotely like his? Having to make a decision where you have to break your word and endure the vitriol of a nation just to stand up for what you believe in?

The man has courage by the bucket load and should never have to be lambasted by people like you who have never been in the military.
Let's not give too much credit to courage right away. There are a lot of factors that could account for this. I've seen my troops do similar things just to avoid mess duty, or a stint in the barracks. I had one Gunny that didn't want to leave town on a major deployment because his side job was doing so well. I had another PFC that decided to desert over an argument with a girlfriend.

Maybe the Crazy Cindy disease has infected this young man and he will feel compelled to camp out in front of a President's homoe, or go on a bus tour in the wake of Jane Fonda.

That's about what it amounts to. The best thing for the Army to do is make this swift and painful. OTOH, the Lt's best option is to draw it out as long as possible and make a media circus out of it.
I'm pretty sure that's his and his daddy's intent. (His daddy is Bob Watada, a former executive director of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, which is why it's been such big news in Hawaii.)

By the way (just for background purposes), Bob Watada chose not to fight in the Vietnam War after his brother died during the Korean War.

The guy joined of his own free will, became an officer of his own fee will, and then decided he didn't want to go to war.

Which war?

Which war?

The war he was ordered to go to.

The war he was ordered to go to.

And what war was that, specifically?

Yeah, me too, but fucknuggets like him don't come out of nowhere, and his decision wasn't as big a surprise as the news makes it out to be. If someone is unreliable and liable to leave his buddies stranded with their dicks in the dirt, we know it in advance and we'll have contingencies that deal without them.

That being said, I'm being paid to defend freedom for all Americans, including him. He is free to make his decision as long as he is willing to accept the consequences, which he is. For me not to support it would make me a hypocrite.

That's fair. I guess I'm a little biased; when I was in the Marines we didn't have much of this sort of trouble.

Mind you, I suspect part of that may have been because I spent almost all of my time in on embassy duty, not combat patrols.

And what war was that, specifically?

Either you are being sarcastic or haven't read the thread. Which is it?

In the military? No but in other situations, yes I have. I always kept my word and did as I'm told. I didn't disobey authority for i would have gotten in just as much trouble.

So you haven't the conviction to stand up for your beliefs?

I just been around it for the last 23 years and have served in the Auxillary of the USAF so yea. I can. I know what the rules are. I know what the regs say. This bastard deserves the court martial, the dishonorable, and brig time.

Oh sorry, I thought your add prevented you from joining the military.

That's fair. I guess I'm a little biased; when I was in the Marines we didn't have much of this sort of trouble.

Mind you, I suspect part of that may have been because I spent almost all of my time in on embassy duty, not combat patrols.
And some gunny woulda probably already aired out his head for him. :D

Either you are being sarcastic or haven't read the thread. Which is it?

With whom is the USA at war?

So you haven't the conviction to stand up for your beliefs?

Done somethings under protest but that's about it.

[Oh sorry, I thought your add prevented you from joining the military.

Since you do not know what the Auxillary of the USAF is, it is Civil Air Patrol. It is a CIVILIAN organization.

Interestingly, in many armies, an observation such as this would be the end of a man's career, or even life.

He is lucky to get away with less, but it should be noted that the treatment of individuals such as this in institutions such as the military, is consistent across all cultures and ideologies. Where conformity is the rule, an open mind is a question mark over one's suitability.
Well, I'm a soldier in the US Army, so lets see here.

1) He volunteered to join, and he controls how long he is in for. No matter what, he should have already known he would end up deploying, he can't plead ignorance.

2) An appetite for knowledge is a good thing in our military, don't think they want mindless automatons. They need creative soldiers who can improvise in the unique battlefield we fight on today.

3) MOST IMPORTANT. He was not given an illegal order. As a soldier and an officer in the US Army his duty is to follow orders to the best of his ability, and to provide a good example for the enlisted men. Claiming he disagrees with the war does not mean he was given an illegal order. He joined the military voluntarily, and he is bound by contract to obey the chain of command, his Commander in Chief, and since the war was approved by Congress, he has no leg to stand on. He deserves the strictest punishment available, and needs to be taught an example. And if he is a Lt., he hasn't been in long enough to make a judgement like he did.

That's fair. I guess I'm a little biased; when I was in the Marines we didn't have much of this sort of trouble.

Mind you, I suspect part of that may have been because I spent almost all of my time in on embassy duty, not combat patrols.
Time for a sidebar. I believe all you MSG guys go to the same school, right? There were a couple of MSG grads guarding something or other when I at Quantico for The Big Suck, that's The Basic School, for all you non-Marine Officers. Anyhow, these guys got the bright idea to practice quick drawing their 1911s. The practice ended in a trip to the hospital, as one of the guards shot himself in the foot.

Anyway, except for Mr. Lonetree, I've got quite a bit of respect for the jobs that MSGs do and the way they carry themselves. There's nothing better than seeing a Marine at an embassy and knowing that if you start hollering "American citizen in distress", you'll get his help.

Either you are being sarcastic or haven't read the thread. Which is it?
I think it may have to do with the fact that only Congress can declare war and since they haven't that makes this war technically not a war. Like the Korean "police action" and the Vietnam "conflict."

Extra-super-ultra-nitpicky if it was the intent.

Since you do not know what the Auxillary of the USAF is, it is Civil Air Patrol. It is a CIVILIAN organization.

So you haven't been in the military, why imply that you have?

I'm pretty sure that's his and his daddy's intent. (His daddy is Bob Watada, a former executive director of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, which is why it's been such big news in Hawaii.)

By the way (just for background purposes), Bob Watada chose not to fight in the Vietnam War after his brother died during the Korean War.

Well, that would be consistent at least. Still, no matter how brave anyone thinks it is, it's still stupid. It's like a very brave snowball running off to quench the flames of hell. Has about as much of a chance of success too.

The man has courage by the bucket load and should never have to be lambasted by people like you who have never been in the military.
That's fine, but people who ARE in the military ARE going to lambast him

So you haven't been in the military, why imply that you have?

1) I said I have been around it for 23 years.

2) I said I served in the Auxillary of the USAF

I didn't say I served in the military nor did I imply it.

That's fine, but people who ARE in the military ARE going to lambast him

And while I may not agree with you, you have at least earned that right.

Well, that would be consistent at least. Still, no matter how brave anyone thinks it is, it's still stupid. It's like a very brave snowball running off to quench the flames of hell. Has about as much of a chance of success too.
HAHAHA! (Sorry, I got a funny look from my roommate over the big belly laugh I got from this. Hilarious, but true.)

I didn't say I served in the military nor did I imply it.
Yeah, well you cappies are close enough for government work. :) So to speak.

Well, I'm a soldier in the US Army, so lets see here.

1) He volunteered to join, and he controls how long he is in for. No matter what, he should have already known he would end up deploying, he can't plead ignorance.

2) An appetite for knowledge is a good thing in our military, don't think they want mindless automatons. They need creative soldiers who can improvise in the unique battlefield we fight on today.

3) MOST IMPORTANT. He was not given an illegal order. As a soldier and an officer in the US Army his duty is to follow orders to the best of his ability, and to provide a good example for the enlisted men. Claiming he disagrees with the war does not mean he was given an illegal order. He joined the military voluntarily, and he is bound by contract to obey the chain of command, his Commander in Chief, and since the war was approved by Congress, he has no leg to stand on. He deserves the strictest punishment available, and needs to be taught an example. And if he is a Lt., he hasn't been in long enough to make a judgement like he did.
I agree with every thing you said, with the exception of the last sentance. Being a military relative n00b is not a legitimate excuse.

Yeah, well you cappies are close enough for government work. :) So to speak.

Hehe. Thanks. I got all the way up to Cadet Lt. Col. so I was quite proud of that accomplishment.

So you haven't been in the military, why imply that you have?

Keep in mind Good Old Communal Property Corny has made statements in the past that Colin Powell and the retired generals who since came out calling Rumsfeld an obstinate and incompetent jackass didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. He'll talk like he's been sitting just outside Douglas MacArthur's office all his life but he's never tried his damned best to actually join the military.

Perfect candidate for Operation Yellow Elephant.