I would love to ask Capt Watada, seeings as the government dropped the charges against him and his courtmartial was in mistrail.
However, the case is distinctly different in that the war in Iraw was lawful. The question regarding the eligibility of the President is an entirely different matter.
Watada didn't believe that the war was lawful. In his opinion it was illegal and he believed that by agreeing to participate in it he was liable for being prosecuted for war crimes. So where is it really different? Watade believed the war was unlawful, Rhodes believes the commander-in-chief is illegitimate. In both cases you have officers taking it upon themselves what orders are to be obeyed and what are not. Why is it OK for one and not for the other?