Replies

He’s faced with disobeying a lawful order. Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23. So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

It’s absolutely relevant. I’m saying if you say the President is really irrelevant to determining the lawfulness of brigade commanders’ deployment orders, then put your money where your mouth is, and say it would be irrelevant in a DIFFERENT situation where deployment orders are given that are not authorized by the President.

If somebody was charged with disobeying the lawful orders to invade Iran (or provide support for combat operations in Iran), would Lind say it didn’t matter whether or not the President had authorized the use of force in Iran?

And more importantly, what part of the MCM would be used to decide whether orders to invade Iran were indeed “lawful” orders or not? If somebody was charged with that the military would have to presume that the order was lawful, and the soldier would have to prove that the order wasn’t lawful. Correct? Exactly what in the Article 92 portion of the MCM would provide the legal basis for saying that invading Iran without the President’s order to do so is “unlawful”?

Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23.

It is.

So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

And I'm pointing out that it's an idiotic question since Lakin's brigade commander did not order him to invade Iran or anywhere else. He ordered Lakin to report to him in his office. Please try and stay in the real world.

I’m saying if you say the President is really irrelevant to determining the lawfulness of brigade commanders’ deployment orders, then put your money where your mouth is, and say it would be irrelevant in a DIFFERENT situation where deployment orders are given that are not authorized by the President.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that Lakin was ordered to report to his brigade commander's office, not deploy? Which makes your odd-ball scenario completely irrelevant.

He’s faced with disobeying a lawful order. Lind says it is totally irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders whether the President has chosen to use force in Afghanistan, as required by SJ Res 23. So I’m asking if that would also be the case if Lakin’s commanders had ordered him to go to Iran without a President choosing to use force in Iran.

Just to be clear. SJ Res. 23 is irrelevant to the orders given by Obama as commander in chief to be carried out. The joint resolution is only a backing - an authorization to use force - from Congress to the Executive to make war in Afghanistan. It is not a forced requirement, or is it an order that compels the Executive to carry out those orders. That decision solely rests with the president to make war and to give war deployment orders . You won't get any confirmation from that idiot NS.

What should not be relevant to this case to the extent which is Lind's main concern is to protect Obama. She has denied Lakin of due process by the rail-roading in her kangaroo court by disregarding Article 46 and rule 701 of the Manual for Court Martial: