What if he is found not guilty? (I would vote not guilty.) Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?
Remember, in a court-martial, it only takes two thirds to convict, not a unanimous decision like in the civilian world. You have a better chance of being crowned king or queen of England, than Lakin has at trial.
Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?"
Whatever "it" means, "it" is the reason why at least three 0-6's are going to vote to convict. You see, Lakin will be tried by a jury of his peers, that means 0-6 or above - the very people that have the most invested in order and discipline. If Lakin doesn't have to obey the orders of his command, then their own subordinates don't have to obey their orders. Field and general grade office don't often invite chaos into the ranks. It's for this reason that I think there's a reasonable chance Lakin will really get punished at sentencing. I don't think he'll get more than 6-months confinement, but that possibility does exist.
It's my personal experience that jury panes - especially field-grade jury panels are VERY tough on the accused when one of the charges is Failure to Obey.
I think it's a moot point. He has been charged with an act, missing movement, that he has admitted to in multiple media. I know people here want to believe he has a justifiable reason, but no military court is going to accept that. So he's going to be found guilty.
It's an interesting point you raise, however. By Lakin's theory, any order he himself has given since Obama was inaugurated has been unlawful. It's basically self-negation of the armed services, which are established and set up to preclude that outcome, as the judge explained to Lakin's attorney. Non-sequitur is right--whatever one thinks of Lakin's cause, he has chosen the wrong vehicle to try and advance it.