“They decided all orders ever given (except to murder somebody, maybe - but even those would be lawful at this point) would be lawful even if the originating order/authorization had been given by Joseph Stalin - as long as Stalin had first taken an oath of office.”
__
Maybe you should read Col. Lind’s ruling again. She emphasized the point that the orders Lakin disobeyed came not from the President, but rather from Army officers who were authorized by Congress to give them:
“These Army Regulations provide an independent authority for military officers to issue lawful orders. ... The authority of military officers to issue lawful orders and the concomitant duty of military service members to obey such lawful orders does not depend on whether the President is qualified under the Constitution to hold office.”
and:
“Any suggestion by the defense that the authority of military officers to issue any lawful orders ceases to exist jf a serving President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office is an erroneous view of the law, Similarly, any suggestion by the defense that if a President is found to be unqualified by the Constitution to hold office, service-members have no duty to follow any orders issued by their military superiors is equally erroneous.”
The quotes you gave prove my point: Judge Lind ruled that even if the original authorization for the orders were given by Joseph Stalin, the orders would be “lawful”. If Joseph Stalin had taken an oath of office to be POTUS and ordered combat in Iran (for instance), all the orders down the chain of command would be lawful, according to what Lind ruled. Wouldn’t matter one bit if the decision to engage in combat was made by a foreign enemy combatant.
Right? That’s what she said?