Sorry for the tardy reply. I suppose “necessary” and “unnecessary” is a bit more acceptable to me, but I still have nothing against “unnecessary” wars if the projected costs are outweighed by the projected benefits (and I say that taking all parties into account, in this case Americans, Iraqis, and others who might be affected). After all, one can make a case that American involvement in Europe in WWII was “unnecessary”.

When an individual signs up for the military, he indeed forfeits some rights and accept the possibility of being exposed to combat. That’s contractual and that’s OK.
What I want to point out here is that in that contract, there are duties for the State also.

If someone signs-up as a soldier in an army, he does so under the assumption that the State will act in a certain way… i.e. engaging only in just and lawful conflicts, etc.

A lot of people are accusing GWB of precisely breaking his contractual duty as Commander-in-Chief, in some sense breaking his oath of office.

Not the main point of the thread…

By unconstitutional, do you mean if the conflict or military action in which he died was unconstitutional?

Did you consider that Casey Sheehan did more than just expose himself to the risk of death in conflicts that the president might engage in in the future.

He specifically reenlisted after the start of this war.

So, he viewed this war as just and chose to be a part of it. I don’t see how there can be anything left of his mother’s moral protection.