Watada's commissioning comes with moral rights

Lt. Ehren Watada did not "enlist" in the Army; he earned and received a commission. It doesn't seem like much, but rest assured there is a very important distinction between them.

The difference between an enlisted soldier and a commissioned officer is in the oaths the two take prior to entering service. There is a clause in the oath of enlistment that reads, "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me." In contrast, the oath of commissioning contains no such clause. The reason for this is because a commissioned officer is legally bound by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to obey the officers over them, but he or she is not morally bound. Enlisted members are not afforded this.

Officers are entrusted with the awesome responsibility of making decisions and are therefore expected to exercise sound judgment when choosing which orders they are not going to obey. Refusing to obey an order is not something that should be entered into lightly.

This is the reason Lt. Watada's decision to refuse his deployment orders have gotten him the attention that it has: because he's exercising his moral right as a commissioned officer in the United States Army to refuse to obey what he considers to be an unlawful order.

Cory Newell

Senior, Drama/Army ROTC

Watada's refusal well-founded

You've failed miserably in your editorial regarding Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy to Iraq. The simple fact you misrepresented: Watada is not a conscientious objector, i.e., not opposed to military service as such. He has stated he'd deploy to Afghanistan.

Watada's reasoning is clear. By enlisting, he swore to defend the Constitution and what it stands for, not to mindlessly enter military servitude. Like any soldier, he has the right, indeed the obligation, to refuse unlawful orders. In addition, like most international law experts, world leaders and the world's public, Lt. Watada, after careful consideration, concluded that the war against Iraq, based on proven lies, is an illegal war of aggression, neither sanctioned internationally nor necessary for defense. It is therefore the "ultimate war crime." Soldiers participating in war crimes cannot escape culpability by claiming to have "followed orders." All this is known as the Nuremberg Principles.

It is telling that the military tribunal is set on preventing him from making the illegality of the war his defense's centerpiece. The condescension of Watada's "mama" was also off base, since she's but one of many who are protesting his silencing and demanding justice.

Christoph Giebel

Faculty, International Studies/ History

Students deserve a decent principal

Of course the accused principal caught exposing himself ("A matter of principle: Should the principal get canned?") should be fired. Communities look to these authorities as role models and leaders and they should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. Not only is it their job to instill academic knowledge in young minds, but capability and behavior as a member of society are also important.

Although he is being punished through his misdemeanor charge, shouldn't there also be reverberations professionally for conducting himself inappropriately? Kissing girls or throwing rocks at recess are probably met with more wrath and consequence. A principal with experience in society should understand the inexcusable inappropriateness of exposing himself.

Arguing that the crime has nothing to do with children or his job is a stretch. What a principal or teacher does on their own time, like any one else, is their business.

Nevertheless, if I were a parent I would never want my child to be under his authority. I would expect my tax dollars to be funding schools that taught students to uphold the law, teaching them how to act as individuals in society while providing academic education. It is not only a legal issue but also a moral one.

Kelsey Gray

Sophomore, Communications