Have you heard the joke about the grave and gathering threat to American democracy? Kinda sorta funny it was, three, four years ago--our Comedian-in-Chief claiming America faced utter peril from a tinpot despot with chemical weapons long past their expiration date. Now, 40 months, 2,500 dead US soldiers and unknowable thousands of dead Iraqi civilians later, the joke's not so funny anymore. And it should now be fully apparent to all that the dire danger these past few years to American democracy--as embodied in the US Constitution--has been coming not from Baghdad but rather from, of all places, Washington D.C., by way of the White House.

Just ask Ehren Watada, the US Army 1st Lieutenant from Fort Lewis, now famous for his June 22 refusal to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the Iraq war is illegal. For taking that stand, Watada is getting well-deserved high praise from many civil society folks for truly fulfilling the primary duty of all US military personnel: namely, supporting and defending our Constitution from enemies both foreign and--war supporters take note--domestic. But also as a consequence, in keeping with the twisted nature of the so-called War on Terror, Watada now faces a general court-martial.

On July 5 the Army formally charged Watada with violating three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: one count of missing movement (Article 87), two counts of contempt towards officials (Article 88)--specifically, contempt towards George W. Bush--and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer (Article 133). If convicted of all charges, Watada faces a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.

Such harsh punishment, if carried out, would paint a shameful picture of our military's current priorities, considering Watada's own explanation for his decision. Watada has made it explicitly clear that he considers his refusal to deploy to Iraq to be consistent with his oath of office. On June 22 Watada told the media he could no longer participate in an "illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. My oath of office is to protect and defend America's laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath."

More to the present point, concerning George W. Bush's Iraq policy, Watada has said: "It violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act that limits the President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit."

Indeed, the US occupation of Iraq is unquestionably illegal according to Article VI of the US Constitution. Article VI states that all international laws and treaties to which the United States is a signatory count among the highest laws of our land. Among these are the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles. Bush has flagrantly violated all of these. Most importantly, Bush's war against Iraq is illegal because it violates the UN Charter.

Nevertheless, the crucial role of the US Constitution in the Ehren Watada story seems to have gone AWOL in the rhetoric of war supporters, who have predictably piled on Watada in the media and blogosphere, calling him a coward, a traitor or worse. More than one recent letter-to-the-editor has attempted to shame Watada for alleged dereliction of duty--all without once mentioning our Constitution. It's worth citing here the US military's Oath of Enlistment in full, as it appears at www.army.mil/CMH/faq/oaths.htm:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Note carefully what comes before allegiance to the POTUS in this oath: namely, allegiance to--yes--the US Constitution. "[A]gainst all enemies, foreign and domestic"--emphasis added. Who most qualifies these days as a domestic enemy, par excellence, of the US Constitution? Perhaps we should rephrase the question: When is the US military finally going to invade the White House and yank George W. Bush and Dick Cheney out of their respective spider holes?

Bush and the power brokers he represents have mounted an unprecedented assault on our Constitution, not only by carrying out the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but also on many other fronts, including warrantless wiretapping of American citizens; attacks against the independence of our media and our Judicial and Legislative branches; defiance of the representational power of Congress by means of his signing statements (750 and counting); and suppression of dissent within the Executive branch itself.

It's worth noting in this light that when the US president is inaugurated he makes only one promise explicitly. The Framers of our Constitution singled out one thing that the president must defend: the US Constitution itself. It's worth citing here the president's own oath of office, as decreed in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In this light, there's a painfully obvious reason why George W. Bush has been crowned Miserable Failure by Google-bombers: Bush has miserably failed to fulfill his oath of office. There's the essential problem. So what's an essential solution that's doable for We the People? Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation, put it succinctly in a recent entry in The Nation's blog:

"It is clear that the American Constitution is in grave danger. It is time to make the defense of the Constitution a national theme for all candidates in this year's electoral contests. ... Hence our call to all patriots to put the issue before the public in this November's elections and ask of all candidates, 'Do you accept or condemn the President's assault on our Constitution?'"

This strategy is especially worth considering for antiwar voters in Washington state, where we're facing the miserable prospect that Sen. Maria Cantwell might sail into an easy re-election come November, despite well-deserved criticism over her own shameful participation in a particularly grievous assault upon our Constitution which transpired in October 2002, when Congress surrendered its power to declare war to the President, thereby enabling the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

For those of us in Washington state's antiwar community who haven't yet sold our souls for $8K a month (there are still many thousands of us, Maria--do the math), reframing the 2006 Congressional elections from their current status as a referendum on the Iraq occupation to a referendum on the defense of the US Constitution against its domestic enemies might be the best strategy for restoring sanity to our federal government. Even as the situation in Iraq descends into chaos, Sen. Cantwell still refuses to answer the crucial question of why she continues to support the Iraq occupation. So let's collectively put a new question to her. To repeat Ms. vanden Heuvel:

"Do you accept or condemn the President's assault on our Constitution?"

And if Cantwell claims to condemn that assault, our next question to her should be: "What are you going to do about it?"

Anyone who swears to defend our Constitution and reneges on that promise should be removed from office, with no exceptions. That includes military officers, judges, justices, members of Congress--all the way to the very top of the US government.

So why is Ehren Watada now facing time in prison, but not George W. Bush?