get past the automatic reaction, military personnel know that there's another layer to the onion.  The real answer is that Soldiers are required to follow lawful orders.  In point of fact, they are required to refuse unlawful (illegal) orders.  The sticky part lies in telling the difference.  Although all service members receive regular training on military rights, responsibilities, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the average Marine or Soldier or Airman is not an expert on military law.

When in doubt as to the legality of a particular order, the official solution is to consult the chain of command.  Basically, the service member presents the issue to the officer or non-commissioned officer above his or her superior, who is then required to take the matter further up the chain of command until a formal determination of legality can be made.  If the service member's chain of command happens to be the source of the problem, the UCMJ specifies the procedure for taking such disagreements outside and above the member's immediate chain of command.

 Unfortunately, the procedures for redress require hours, days, or even months to work, depending on how far up the chain the problem has to go.  Under conditions of combat, even seconds can be critical.  Five seconds spent pondering the legality of an order may cost human lives, or tip the balance of success in a crucial battle.  This puts military personnel in the unenviable position of having to make life-altering moral and ethical decisions in mere fractions of a second.  I'm proud to say that I think our troops accomplish this nearly-impossible task with extraordinary skill and grace.  With a handful of notable exceptions, our guys get it right most of the time, and they manage to do it under conditions that the rest of us can scarcely imagine.

When he made the decision to disobey his orders, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada wasn't operating under a split-second life-or-death clock, and he wasn't struggling with the pressures of combat.  He had ample time to consider the probable results of his chosen course of action, and plenty of opportunity to decide if he was willing to pay the penalty for his decision to disobey orders.

He would have us believe that his motivations were ethical and legal.  Although I haven't yet heard him utter the words, he appears to regard his violation of military law as an act of civil disobedience.  Maybe it is.  But one of the core tenets of civil disobedience is the willingness to face the repercussions of violating the law.  Anything less is just posturing for the television cameras.

If Watada truly believes he's doing the right thing, that he's making a personal sacrifice for what is right, he should face his punishment with his head held high.  He should wear his incarceration as a badge of honor, as have so many activists who came before him.  Instead, he's jumping through every legal hoop imaginable to avoid the penalties for his actions.

When you break the law, you pay the price, even if the law itself is wrong.  Rosa Parks knew that and accepted it.  Mahatma Gandhi knew it, and he accepted it.  So did Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., and a few hundred thousand other protesters and social activists, most of whom we'll never know by name.

I'm beginning to get the impression that Mr. Watada hopes to shortcut the process.  It seems to me that his plan is to break the law and then skip right past the ramifications to his victory speech.  I'm fairly certain that real life doesn't work that way.

First lieutenant Watada made the conscious decision to let his troops go into battle without him.  If he's going to make a personal sacrifice, it can't just be a token gesture.  It has to be the real thing.  Because the men and women of his unit aren't facing a token threat.  They're putting their lives on the line, and -- unless they log on to YouTube or the antiwar blog sites -- the officer who was sworn to protect and lead them is nowhere to be found.