I just noticed something *interesting* in the Military Oath of Office..

[Ghost in the Machine]

According to http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm , this is the current oath for enlisted men:

"The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, 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. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)." (emphasis mine)

and this is the wording to the Officer's oath:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)(emphasis mine)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Notice that nowhere in the Officer's oath does it mention obeying the President. They swear (or affirm) that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Couldn't this be used in a defense for someone like Lt. Watada and others who refuse to deploy? The basis of the arguement could be that "Iraq did not attack our Constitution, or anything else for that matter. George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove & Condoleeza Rice attacked our Constitution, usurped our elections and Democratic process and staged a coup that took over our Government and way of life". <<<------(my words... maybe a good attorney or wordsmith could phrase it better)

Could this have any possibilty of gaining any ground or is it just wishful thinking and fantasy on my part?

Ghost

Edited to get all the words to the Officer's oath.

[Sgent]

1. not sure I understand

"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."

Seems to be fairly clear.

The order to go to Iraq is a legal order, so I don't see any loophole.

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. That's for *enlisted* men. The Officer's oath is different...

I just fixed the Officer's Oath. I didn't notice that part of it was missing.

[KelleyKramer]

4. He's not talking about that one...

He is talking about the officers oath, that one does not have anything about the president in it

Its highlighted in BOLD in case you missed it

[Breeze54]

3. From what I just read...

Officers take an oath to defend the constitution and all three branches including the president.
Or rather it's implied in the oath that they will obey all three branches to the best of their ability.

The Oath of Office
A Historical Guide to Moral Leadership

Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF

Lieutenant Colonel Keskel provides a brief historical background for the oath, followed
by an examination of its specific wording and the ways it has changed over time.
His insightful analysis will help military officers fully understand the moral implications of their actions.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html

[Igel]

5. What are the duties of an officer?

The problem is that you're arguing from silence: It's not in the oath, so it's not required, either by other regulation or by inclusion in something that *is* required. It's not an explicit requirement, to be sure; but implicit serves just as well.

I'd also note that the Uniform Code of Military Justice isn't in the officer's oath. Can we assume that means that they're exempt from following it? I don't think so.