"I, LT Ehren Watada (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant 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." That is the oath that LT Watada took when he volunteered to serve this country as an Officer in the Army. The duties of his office requires him to obey the orders of those appointed over him. That means that short of being given an order to commit a crime, he is required to obey those orders including his order to deploy to Iraq. What most of his supporters fail to recognize is that the question regarding the war with Iraq is not legal question but a political question. The war is legal until the Congress exerts its Constitutional authority and stops this war. Until that happens all Military Officers are duty bound and Constitutionally bound to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and civilian authority. To have it any other way sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Military Officers have to obey the civilian leadership or resign their commissions and dissent as civilians. Do you really want the military that decides that it knows what is best for the country and acts on it; or a military controlled by an elected civilian political authority? As for throwing around the term traitor; Section Three of the Constitution defines treason: "Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." LT Watada has not levied war against the US, nor has he adhered to them and nor do I believe that exercising his Constitutionally protected right to dissent is giving aid and comfort (to the enemies). He is not a traitor. He has, however, violated rules, regulations and the UCMJ.

Well said! But the question of whether he should be punished is separate from the question of whether he did an honorable thing. If you really believe that this war is illegitimate (or even misguided/run badly/etc.), then it is fair to support Lt. Watada's actions as an example of civil disobedience. He should be punished for breaking the law, but he should also be heralded for his courage to take a nonviolent, but effective stand for a worthy cause.

He is not a traitor.

He publicly disagreed with George Bush. THAT alone makes him a TRAITOR of the highest order.

Perhaps Lt Watada is LEGALLY wrong in the U.S. military's court of "justice", but he appears to be ETHICALLY right!
If your commanding officer tells you to shoot women and children and you do it, you may be LEGALLY correct, but how can you live with yourself, assuming you have some notion of ethics?

In my mind, ETHICS trumps LAW (which represents the majority or the politically powerful).  In WW2 Germany, it was the "law" to exterminate people (incl women & children) because they were members of an ethnic group.  Should ethics not trump law?