Ah, the short memory of the Nuremburg trials... “you must obey all orders” was the NAZI legal defense and was not a defense. Following illegal orders were grounds for the death penalty when the orders were illegal.
So are we to deny our troops the right to challenge orders in an orderly fashion? IF they are illegal orders, they will be punished, but there is no way to tell if they are legal without a challenge procedure.
Don’t think I’d want to serve in a military like that.
You must submit!
An order to deploy is not illegal.
If Lakin has evidence that Obama was born outside the US, he needs to present it - but it wouldn’t excuse his refusal to deploy. The deployment would still exist under Biden, or McCain. It is funded by the US Congress.
But Obama will be assumed to be President. The courts will not consider this to be a challenge of Obama’s eligibility. The question will be ignored, and punishment given. Lakin is a nut job.
And therein lies the key to the Nuremburg defense that birthers like to tout as precedent.
There is no way for our military to know if Obama is in fact ineligible or that any orders issued by him through his appointed officers are illegal.
However, the Nazi soldiers had a moral obligation to humanity to refuse their orders because those orders were clearly crimes against humanity. There is no gray, only black and white, when it comes to following an order to march millions of Jews into gas chambers. There is no comparison between these two situations.
Now, if Obama were to order a nuclear attack on Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, wherever, you might have a case.
The first duty of a soldier is obedience, and without this there can be neither discipline nor efficiency in an army. If every subordinate officer and soldier were at liberty to question the legality of the orders of the commander, and obey them or not as they may consider them valid or invalid, the camp would be turned into a debating school, where the precious moment for action would be wasted in wordy conflicts between the advocates of conflicting opinions. McCall v. McDowell, 1 Abb. 212 (Cir. Ct. D. California 1867)