[oneolcop]

Well, you asked for it: You're wrong...for the simple reason that it takes courage to stand up for one's beliefs. If Colonel Roberts chose to support LTC Lakin and refuse to conduct an article 31 hearing (akin to an arraignment in civilian terms), he would cause a crisis in the upper ranks of the military. Then a General Officer, (Col. Roberts boss) would have to decide whether to proffer charges against both LTC Lakin and COL Roberts, the MOH holder. That would be when the real sparks started to fly.

[jwparkerjr]

I disagree, but in the most agreeable manner. If I think a law is unconstitutional then it’s up to me to break the law and fight it out in court. It would not be really helpful if the sheriff declined to arrest me and was suspended or removed from office for failing to do his job. It is not good to take a situation where you are completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and turn it into a situation where there is right and wrong on both sides. It’s much easier to see a test case through the unbelievably contorted path of the courts if you keep it simple. One defendant, one charge. If you add the CO to the mix then we have to cough up money for TWO defense funds.

In theory you are quite correct. But in application additional defendants would make it more complicated.

Either way, I stand behind the Lt. Col. ready to help fund his defense and vote for him if he runs for an office where I have a vote!