A few things - that decision didn't come from JAG lawyers, it came from CAAF. CAAF has civilian lawyers on it, applying military law.
More to the point, any evidence of Lakin's motivation or intent is immaterial because the Rules for Courts-Martial clearly DO NOT make those requisite elements of missing movement. Intent can be a central element of some UCMJ specifications - like murder, for example. It's just not an element for this particular charge.
Secondly, conservative legal philosophy is such that it demands that trial courts follow the law, to include precedent. To do otherwise, is legislating from the bench.
With respect to Lakin's case in particular, it is an unreasonable request because the military - to include LTC Lakin - does not enjoy the prerogative of inspecting the bona fides of its civilian command. There are civilian procedures for that. The Constitution provides NO ROLE for the military in vetting our Presidents, or civilian military leadership, nor any role in an examination of their installation.
Lastly, Watada's case is complicated, but essentially the trial court blew the jury instruction, which was tricky because of Watadas assertion of an affirmative defense. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the MJ's instruction was indeed defective, and whether or not that defect constituted reversible error. If it were not for the attachment of double jeopardy (again, controversially), Watada would have been retried and again, easily convicted.
Watada didn't walk on the merits. He walked on a technical error of the military judge.
“Secondly, conservative legal philosophy is such that it demands that trial courts follow the law, to include precedent. To do otherwise, is legislating from the bench.”
Precident IS NOT law, it is interpretation....and it can be a bad interpretation that should be disrequarded. Bad precident is bad precident...it is NOT conservative(except in semantics) to maintain bad precident.
You seem to keep dodging the realty that the JAG Corps is not well thought of by regular officers. IF it keeps losing its credibility with those it is supposed to protect...it will go away. Once again, I point out it is the members of the court...line officers...that have to decide guilt or innocence.
I cannot believe that someone would be so assinine to expect a POTUS to prove to the people he governs that he is truly eligible. This is a NEW precident that needs to be set, that even the most insignificant citizen can have standing to challenge what MAY be wrong. Personally, I don’t think the BC shows anything damning about the current POTUS (like born in Kenya), but it may have something to impeach his credibility. However, be that as it may, LTC Latkin’s desire to have the POTUS purported to be the son of a non citizen to provide full disclosure on his past is NOT unreasonable. We have no ROYALTY in this country. IF I have to show my BC on many occasions, then so should the POTUS. It is a No duh situation. IF as a former JAG Corps type, you cannot grasp this...you make my point for me.