precedent n: something said or done that may serve to justify further words or acts of the same or similar kind
I truly hope, for the sake of strength in our US Armed Forces the proper precedent is set from the outcome of 2LT Watada's trial... based solely on his missing moving/refusing a lawful order to deploy with his Unit.
I don't know all the facts, nor do I know 2LT Watada. I do know young men & women are training right now at the same military installation from which that lieutenant is assigned. The same military installation where my son completed Warrior Forge last summer, as well as where I'm presently assigned to patch up the critically ill.
I don't know exactly the premise on which 2LT Watada claims justifies his right to choose Afganistan, but refused deployment with his Unit to Iraq. I do know as a Company Grade Officer one does not have the right to refuse deployment. I hope that 2LT Watada is not abusing his moral dispensation bestowed upon all those that take the officer's oath. The significant difference between the officer's oath & enlisted oath is the omission of the promise to obey in the officer's oath.
However, officers [under the UCMJ] are legally bound to obey as are enlisted. Officers are entrusted with the enormous responsibility of knowing when not to obey... for the betterment of his Soldier's, rather than for personal gain. Officers are expected to make sound judgments, which in some cases [rarely] requires not obeying orders that are not in the best interest of the Army at that moment. IMHO, his refusal to deploy to Iraq was NOT based on the betterment of the Army, but for his personal safety and fear. Yet, again I don't know this person. I do know officers cannot inflexibly follow rules for their own sake, especially using the banner of this war is wrong.
I cannot choose the CSH to which I wish to deploy with OCONUS. For that matter, I cannot refuse to give treatment to a detainee. This would be chaos if the military started to cater [supply what is wanted] to Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, etc. in fear of losing cooperation. Due to the special moral expectation and authority, officer's personal & professional conduct must remain above disgrace.
IMHO, it is disgrace for an officer [especially Company Grade] to abuse their moral authority and must never forget they are still legally & morally held accountable for their actions. Second Lieutenant Watada's commanding officer had no alternative but to bring up charges based on the UCMJ.
In this time of GWOT, I say no thank you 2LT Watada and pray the wrong precedent is not set when this is all said & done.
I truly hope, for the sake of strength in our US Armed Forces the proper precedent is set from the outcome of 2LT Watada's trial... based solely on his missing moving/refusing a lawful order to deploy with his Unit.
I don't know all the facts, nor do I know 2LT Watada. I do know young men & women are training right now at the same military installation from which that lieutenant is assigned. The same military installation where my son completed Warrior Forge last summer, as well as where I'm presently assigned to patch up the critically ill.
I don't know exactly the premise on which 2LT Watada claims justifies his right to choose Afganistan, but refused deployment with his Unit to Iraq. I do know as a Company Grade Officer one does not have the right to refuse deployment. I hope that 2LT Watada is not abusing his moral dispensation bestowed upon all those that take the officer's oath. The significant difference between the officer's oath & enlisted oath is the omission of the promise to obey in the officer's oath.
However, officers [under the UCMJ] are legally bound to obey as are enlisted. Officers are entrusted with the enormous responsibility of knowing when not to obey... for the betterment of his Soldier's, rather than for personal gain. Officers are expected to make sound judgments, which in some cases [rarely] requires not obeying orders that are not in the best interest of the Army at that moment. IMHO, his refusal to deploy to Iraq was NOT based on the betterment of the Army, but for his personal safety and fear. Yet, again I don't know this person. I do know officers cannot inflexibly follow rules for their own sake, especially using the banner of this war is wrong.
I cannot choose the CSH to which I wish to deploy with OCONUS. For that matter, I cannot refuse to give treatment to a detainee. This would be chaos if the military started to cater [supply what is wanted] to Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, etc. in fear of losing cooperation. Due to the special moral expectation and authority, officer's personal & professional conduct must remain above disgrace.
IMHO, it is disgrace for an officer [especially Company Grade] to abuse their moral authority and must never forget they are still legally & morally held accountable for their actions. Second Lieutenant Watada's commanding officer had no alternative but to bring up charges based on the UCMJ.
In this time of GWOT, I say no thank you 2LT Watada and pray the wrong precedent is not set when this is all said & done.