A test of what? A soldier's ability to decide what orders they will follow and what they will not? That question has been decided before in numerous court martials.
Unless he is allowed a complete defense, to include compeling the POTUS to release information to the court, then justice has not been served and doubt remains.
In 1991 Army reserve Captain Dr. Yolanda Huet-Vaughan refused to deploy to Desert Storm as ordered, contending that the war was illegal. At her court martial she was denied the opportunity to subpoena evidence and present a defense that put the legality of the war on trial and was convicted of desertion and sent to Leavenworth. In 2006 First Lieutenant Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iran with his unit, saying that the war was illegal and doing so would open him up to war crimes charges. At his court martial he was also denied the opportunity to put the war on trial and he too was convicted. Are you prepared to state that in both these cases since the defendant was not allowed to present a 'complete defense' that justice was not served and doubt about the legality of both wars remain?
IF he gets a trully fair and impartial trial with all evidence considered, and is convicted...the precident is set.
Sorry, the precedent for following orders had been set by the Huett-Vaughan case, the Watada case, and the Michael New court martial. There is nothing new here other than Lakin's motivation for refusing to obey the lawful orders of his superiors.
Try to stick to the relevant facts...
Nice try but Lakin has already completed a tour of Afghanistan. http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/who-is-ltc-terry-lakin.html That makes it obvious your “illegal war” comparison is just not valid. I also think you me en Iraq not Iran for Watada proposed deployment.
“Sorry, the precedent for following orders had been set by the Huett-Vaughan case, the Watada case, and the Michael New court martial. There is nothing new here other than Lakin’s motivation for refusing to obey the lawful orders of his superiors.”
I disagree. There is a world of difference between questioning the “legality” of a war and the legitimacy of the the POTUS. BTW - Watada has walked...partly because the current POTUS won’t pursue a further trial.
Also, there is a world of difference between examining documents that support or cast doubt on the constitutional legitimacy of a POTUS and determining if a war is illegal.
Although, I do see you point in principle and do concede my personal bias may be affecting my judgement.