rat

For a soldier, sailor, marine or airmen, it's pretty shameful to voice one's negative opinions about orders except within their own chain of command. Many of you haven't lived in military environments to the degree you'd understand the word discipline and how valuable it is. Kerry was not only a sailor, but an officer, a leadership position with the ability to influence those under his command. His duty as an officer (especially a junior one) is to follow his legal orders, and have his men do the same. While he may disagree with those orders, he should have brought any legitimate doubts to his superiors and voiced them in private. Kerry wasn't given illegal orders. Publicly commenting on his orders and his situation--both of which were legally binding via his commission as naval officer--during the war in a negative fashion as an officer sets an example for the sailors and marines below him to question a legal authority. Breaking down discipline in Vietnam further than it already was is not something he should be proud of. Discipline in war saves lives. Intetionally aiding the breakdown of discipline is intentionally contributing to the risk of the men who were there.

We're not talking protesters here. We're talking a commissioned officer in the United States Navy. His actions are ruled by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the United States Constitution. If his chain of command had wanted to, they could have levied various charges regarding dissension and other things. It's a credit to their character that they did not.

__________________