[DesertRhino]

“Lakin is charged with missing movement and refusing to obey the orders of his”

He is arguing that the orders are being give by someone with no legal standing to give them. They are saying he has no standing to question whether the orders were lawful.

The Presiding officer is nothing but a coward,, covering for Obama.

[verity]

You are parroting absolute nonsense.

[Non-Sequitur]

He is arguing that the orders are being give by someone with no legal standing to give them. They are saying he has no standing to question whether the orders were lawful.

And yet he offered nothing to support his claim that his brigade commander's orders are illegal. He had the chance to present a defense against that and he didn't even try.

[rxsid]

That’s right. His (Lakin’s) direct C.O. could not give him a legal order to deploy to the war in Afghanistan, because the order given to him (Lakin’s C.O.) originated with the (alleged) Commander in Chief of the armed forces to deploy troops to that war....who is a usurper and therefore not Constitutionally eligible to order troops to war.

[El Gato]

They are saying he has no standing to question whether the orders were lawful.

Not quite, they are saying the lawfulness of the order giver doesn't matter as far as the lawfullness of the order. I don't agree. It's possible that the trial judge won't agree either. I hope that is the case. It would be entertaining watching the prosecution appeal a ruling by the trial judge that the eligibility of the order giver does matter.