The motivation isn't the issue here. In all three cases the defendant refused to obey an order or orders. Lakin is saying that the order was unlawful because Obama is ineligible to be president. The other two officers said their orders were unlawful because the war was illegal. In all three cases the officer decided on their own that the order was unlawful and all three cited the Constitution as the basis for their decision. The question is the same in all three cases - was the order lawful? The answer in all three cases is 'Yes.'
If the ORDER GIVER is NOT legit, the orders themselves can not possibly be. Don’t continue to mask over the obvious. This affects every miliatry person from recruits to generals and admirals.
The obvious is that Lakin refused to obey an order from three of his superior officers, saying such orders were invalid. Huet-Vaughn and Watada refused to obey orders from their superiors, saying that such orders were invalid. If an officer can decide on their own what orders are valid and what are not then why did Huet-Vaughn and Watada deserve court martial?
I repeat There was no question that GW Bush was the LEGITIMATE Commander in Chief. Therefore, their charges of disobeying LAWFUL orders stands. But if the CiC is NOT a legitimate Commander in Chief, has offered NO proof that he is, has resisted all efforts to prove his eligibility to ISSUE orders to the military, the whole military is under the control of a DOMESTIC ENEMY. And NONE of the orders are lawful. Got it? You can't get there from where you are. You just can't.