Is upholding the Constitution as a military oath subjective?

[wuushew]

All wars waged in preemptive fashion are illegal according to the U.N. Charter, which also governs us as a legally recognized treaty obligation. That document and the logical legal course of action are extremely simple to grasp. Military action must be concurrent or follow authorization by the Security Council when a belligerent third party acts. I don't believe the POTUS can ever partially or temporarily void any of these conditions.

Knowing that legally what what Bush proposed in March 2003 was in violation of existing law, why is it not possible to correctly refuse to carry out any aspect of U.S. foreign policy which involves preemption?

The possibility that this situation will again arise with Iran is troubling. Duty to the COTUS is paramount to the immediate well being of soldiers or of following the chain command which leads to the President. As long as free men can think the "just following orders" line is bunk. Of course when the criminal in question sits unmolested by the largely political process of impeachment, doubt is cast on all the legal processes we carry out in this country.


Are treaties grey? If absolutes don't exist what purposes does legalism serve?