Thanks for the kind words. I’ve never been told I should go to DU before; I imagine that’s sort of like telling somebody to go to hell... lol.
Seems like this poster doesn’t grasp the whole point of what is being argued: Lakin disobeyed an order but it was not a LAWFUL order, according to the expressed definitions in Article 92’s elements. I don’t know how to make the argument any clearer; wish I did.
Or this person grasps it and wants to change the subject by calling me and other people trolls. I guess if I’m a “troll” in his estimation I’m in good company; always happy to be with people who look for genuine facts and then analyze them with integrity. There are a lot of people I respect even though I don’t initially (or sometimes ever) agree with them; their steel sharpens mine, and that’s what I want. I will weigh into the mix any genuine facts somebody presents.
Lind threw into the mix the role of Congress with the military. Well, if she really wants to get onto that subject, she should look at Congress’ role of declaring war, which in this case took the form of authorizing the use of force - delegating that authority to “the President” alone, for him to use sole discretion. The use of force ABSOLUTELY depends on a valid POTUS deciding it, according to Lind’s own argument about the role of Congress.
Unfortunately for you and, more importantly, for LTC Lakin you are wrong. The orders were lawful and the Court Martial on 14 Dec will make that point clear. Your flawed interpretation of the UCMJ, the Constitution, and most other legal and military points won't count for much in the final analysis.