Title 10 says that for combat orders the Sec Def must have the approval of the Commander in Chief. Title 10 is precisely the law which shows Judge Denise Lind to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Another thing which shows Denise Lind to be wrong is that actual Authorization For the Use of Force which was passed after 9-11. It authorizes only “the President” to decide what force to use in the pursuit of terrorists and/or those who helped to perpetrate 9-11.
So you’ve got general law (Title 10) and SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION which both say that the President authorizing the use of force is CRITICAL to the lawfulness of the orders.
What statute, then, is Denise Lind relying on to say the exact opposite of what these laws say? What statute did she cite?
She cited the “embarrassment” statute. She didn’t want to make Obama look bad. [/s on the first part, not on the second.]