Or, perhaps she means what she says; [and now] any order presumed to be lawful *is* lawful — thereby making any request for clarification of the lawfulness of orders tantamount to refusing those orders... perhaps she is TRYING to set up a Catch-22 situation such that the very act of questioning the legitimacy of orders is, in itself, punishable.
That would be a VERY, VERY bad thing indeed; but it is necessary for keeping the military in-line until they suddenly find themselves not with questionable orders but orders which are blatantly contraconstitutional; perhaps those that fear martial-law imposed on the US are not wrong at all.
{Martial law itself not being contra-constitutional; but look at the TSA and the 4th Amendment and try to argue that martial law imposed for any significant length of time will not be used to violate the Constitution.}
PS — We’ve seen something similar to this “presumed to be lawful” recently from our congress; do you remember “deem & pass”?
“deem & pass”
That was where they tried to sidestep voting on Obamacare, I think.
Yup, we are in for some exciting times. Stay armed and stay safe.