“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.
And what would that difference be?
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.
Again, that difference is?