Lakin did NOT disobey because he disagreed with Obama’s politics. He disobeyed because the orders were not lawful.
The same reason that you disobeyed the order you disobeyed. You were allowed to explain yourself, it was seen that the order was not lawful, and you were vindicated.
Why should Lakin not also at least have that chance to be vindicated? Judge Lind said that if an order has to be obeyed it is “lawful”. Using that standard you could well have had a very different outcome.
I don’t know the specifics of your case but if you got an order from a higher-up and then a conflicting order from an officer of lower rank than the higher-up, you could be required to follow the order of the lower officer because you had no way of knowing whether or not the higher officer had conferred with the lower one and modified the order. If Lind’s standard was used, it wouldn’t matter whether the order you received was in conflict with some higher authority. It was not criminal so you were required to obey it; it was lawful, and you’re in the brig.
There, but for the grace of God and a military with some semblance of integrity, would you have gone.
Would you deny Lakin the same grace of God and a military with some semblance of integrity? Remember the parable of the unforgiving servant, who was forgiven millions and then went and put somebody else in debtor’s prison for owing him hundreds. It’s not exactly the same, but to deny somebody else the same protections that you yourself benefited from just doesn’t seem right.