No. When I took the oath it was to defend the Constitution. But I also swore to well and faithfully discharge the duties of an officer in the U.S. Navy. So how does violating half a dozen articles of the UCMJ square with that?
If these active/reserve serving officers have reservations, based on information they believe to require an answer, they would be derelict by not asking the question-they can only ask the question by court action; there is no provision for the UCMJ to ask the question-as the president is NOT subject to it.
Then would you agree that Ehren Watada was correct in questioning the Constitutionality of the war in Iraq and refusing to deploy as ordered? And that any other officer with similar reservations has a similar duty to refuse to deploy? If not why not?
The folks you mentioned refused orders, they did not ask the question in legitimate venues-they had a purpose of evasion for which they were dealt with.
Not at all. Watada and New and all the rest have all claimed that they weren't against serving and defending the country. That their refusal is not for the purpose of avoiding service, but to avoid what they all claimed to be illegal orders. So where are their positions different from Cook and Rhodes?
The purity of intent that both Cook and Rhodes claim is no different than those professed by Watada and all the rest. If the stands that Rhodes and Cook are taking are to be saluted then I don't see how you can condemn any other officer or enlisted who refused to obey orders for what they claim are moral or legal reasons as well.
If Captain Rhodes wants to pursue her suit through the courts then she's free to do so, accepting a commission doesn't deny her that right. But while she's holding an army commission then she's duty bound to obey the orders she's given. If she feels that she can't do that then the only honorable position open to her is to resign.
Watada simply missed movement-he did not file any case to support his claim, he simply avoided movement. I agree that that was his choice, only problem he made it indefensible-Cook would have had a leg to stand on if the orders were not revoked BEFORE his case was heard-and he missed movement or failed to report.... Cases are no where near the same issue.
Watada and New apparently failed to make the case in court before being in violation of the UCMJ. They hoped the military would blush- oops, not so easy (unlike Cook's case, I think).
I strongly support the exercise of conscience-and encourage other officers and troops to do so-but they must know the dance AND the consequences. I support CO status-with reservations in most cases.
Inferring that officers should seek redress through the courts after resigning? That is silly-you would have no standing outside the military in view of the questions being asked? Their issue is based on their service, not apart from it.
She is duty bound to execute faithfully the office (you cannot dictate what that means-she must figure it out!), again you seek “blindly follow orders” where it does NOT exist!
If she fails, refer to my quote.... I executed orders knowing that those orders would likely put myself and my men in danger-indeed they did. I long ago accepted the concept that my duty was of necessity a dangerous endeavor; but for that I am a better man. I saw others not survive the burden of responsibilty-good men all. We must agree to disagree on this issue, I suppose. Fair winds and following seas!