The law which LEGALLY defines what constitutes a lawful order is Article 92. It says an order is lawful if it is not contrary to the Constitution or laws and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority.
According to LAW (SJ Res 23) only the President has the authority to decide to use force. If a Constitutional president has not decided to use force, then nobody can use force. Anybody who does is acting beyond their authority.
That means that if the SecDef orders combat deployments without a Constitutional president’s decision to do so, he acts beyond his authority and his order is unlawful. Without a lawful order from the SecDef the joint chiefs would be acting beyond their authority if they gave orders to implement the unlawful order of the SecDef. And on down the line.
I am not talking about whether people have to obey the orders. I am talking about whether they are “lawful” according to the definition of Article 92 - the Article Lakin is accused of violating. That is where you get the definitions that LEGALLY apply to Lakin’s case.
I’ve shown you the LAWS, not the structure. Others have argued on the basis of the structure, and their arguments are worthy. I’m addressing it from the actual laws, and those laws are clear. I showed you the Constitution which gives authority to Congress and the POTUS. I showed you SJ Res 23 where Congress gives the authority to use force to the President alone. You showed me Article 10 of the US Code and then I pointed out that it TWICE says (just in the one section I posted here) that the SecDef implements the decisions of the President and that the President is the head of the chain of command.
Lind wants to argue that Congress somehow allows the chain of command to operate independently of the President. That may or may not be true regarding routine maintenance, but I have shown the laws which clearly state that combat operations are ABSOLUTELY dependent on the authority of the President. Neither you, Lind, nor anybody else has presented laws which contradict or supersede the laws I cited.
I’ve asked you repeatedly for the laws Congress passed saying that the decision to use force can lawfully be made by somebody besides the President. I’m still waiting. You say I’m misinterpreting. What law am I misinterpreting? I’m asking for the LAW which does what you and Lind say has been done. If it’s out there somewhere just point it out.
You highlighted the part saying that the SecDef has authority over the Dept of Defense. The charge nurse has authority over the nurses on the hospital floor but that doesn’t mean that she can write prescriptions. Only the doctor or PA’s are legally authorized to do that. What the charge nurse can do is make sure that the prescriptions written by the proper authorities (doctors and PA’s) are properly dispensed, as ordered, to the patients in the hospital.
Likewise, the SecDef is in charge of getting the DOD to carry out the president’s orders. The SecDef is NOT in charge of making the decisions that only the President, by law, can make. If the SecDef were to “dispense” a prescription that an unqualified impostor posing as a doctor made, that prescription would still be illegal. If the charge nurse doesn’t know the “doctor” is a fake she would order the nurses to dispense it. They, likewise, would dispense it because they didn’t know it was an illegal prescription. And the only way you would ever find out that the prescription was illegal is if somebody along the line said, “Hey, I don’t think this ‘doctor’ is licensed to prescribe this.”
That’s what Lakin did. For that he was charged with refusing to dispense a lawful prescription. The judge says it doesn’t matter whether the doctor qualifies to order that prescription; the prescription is lawful anyway because the charge nurse told the nurse to dispense it.
It’s just screwy. The logic is totally warped. It’s not lawful to fill a prescription that was written by somebody not qualified to prescribe.
You talk about how crippling it would be if the whole chain depended on one link (the top one) which could be crippled at some point and then everything would turn to mush. But that’s why there is a clearly delineated order of succession to the presidency. That is to insure that we always know who is to act as President if that top position in the chain of command would be killed or incapacitated.
The reason it is so important is precisely because the whole chain of command DOES depend on the CINC - if not for everything then at LEAST for the emergency things like combat operations and martial law. If the SecDef could just do everything even if the head was chopped off, then it would not be so critical to have such a long line of succession for the presidency, because the SecDef could do anything the CINC could do and there would thus be no emergency to worry about.
Anyway, have a great time with your grandkids.
Lind's conclusion in the Defense's motion to discovery, paragraph #5.
Any suggestions Lind? Again Lind, the unlawful order in question originated from the White House, and therefore, all orders that support said order, even if "on the face of it", that it appears to be lawful. The order on the face of it doesn't make it lawful. The order has been challenged in your court where you have failed to redress the issue by obfuscation, and where you elect to take the easy way out. Lind, it is your conclusion that is erroneous.
An excerpt from pg 818 of "Military Law and Precedents" by Winthrop:
"...But while a military inferior may be justified in not obeying an order as being unlawful, he will always assume to do so on his own personal responsibility and at his own risk. Even where there may seem to be ample warrant for his act, he will, in justifying, commonly be at a very considerable disadvantage, the presumption being, as a rule, in favor of the legality of the order is an executable mandate, and the facts of the case and reasons for the action being often unknown in part at least to himself and in the possession only of the superior.
In the great majority of cases therefore it is found both safer and wiser for the inferior instead of resisting an apparently arbitrary authority, to accept the alternative of obeying even to his own detriment, thus also placing himself in the most favorable position for obtain redress in the future.
On the other had, should injury to a third person, or damage to the United States, result from the execution of an order by a subordinate, the plea that he acted simply in obedience to the mandate of his proper superior will be favored at military law, and a court-martial will almost invariably justify and protect an accused who has been exposed to prosecution by reason of his unquestioning fidelity to duty, holding the superior alone responsible."
-end snip-
- - - - - - - -
What is said in this excerpted is a mouthful. In para. 2 of the excerpt, it explains the reason that "on the face of it" why Obama is not challenged by more officers since it is the safest avenue to take to accept his orders other than put yourself at risk, which blows apart the silly argument why other active duty personnel have not come forward to challenge Obama's legality. Through the grapevine we know numerous active duty officers question the Constitutional legality of Obama to hold office and give lawful orders.
And moreover, in para. 3, the officers who take Obama's orders "on the face of it" will be looked on more favorably as they were just following orders.
We know that the Lind has dishonestly and erroneously cut Obama out of chain of command for the follow up deployment orders to a war zone because she said that the Pentagon is where Lakin's order originated, but again we know that is an erroneous judgment.
Furthermore, Lind's court is a miscarriage of justice in an effort to protect a politician who was treated like crowning king when he was elected to be president. And no election overrides or amends the US Constitution, which has been disingenuously and falsely argued on this thread.
LTC Lakin in Lind's court has been cut off from basic jurisprudence of defense rights and so left bare:
"Based on the evidence available, his conviction is certain," Puckett told WND. "He has no affirmative defense for the offenses he committed."
"There is not much left to do" in defense of his client, Puckett said. Lakin's previous defense counsel, Paul Jensen, already "sought discovery of documents, and to introduce evidence and expert witnesses, but the judge shut down all those efforts."
And from the Greeley Gazette article,
Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!
An absolute miscarriage of justice.
