The right to have witnesses is so critical. Somebody once said that a person doesn’t have a right to bring up all kinds of stuff that doesn’t pertain to the charges. When a witness is brought forward at trial and questions are asked that are irrelevant the opposing counsel can object. You don’t stop a witness from appearing because there may be irrelevant questions asked.
This whole farce of a court-martial hinges on Lind ignoring the elements of Article 92, which say that an order is lawful if it is not contrary to the Constitution or laws and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority. Lind said an order is INFERRED to be “lawful” if it must be obeyed. That’s not what the actual law says, and she knows it.
To say that an order that may be inferred to be lawful must be obeyed is exactly the same thing [implementationally] as saying "any order which is not illegal on-its-face must be obeyed; there can be no questioning or confirmation-requests to the validity of any order."
The underlined part lies at the heart of the matter and, sadly, is ignored by our judicial system. In fact, our judicial system is trained not to read the actual law; this is what case-law and precedence is all about. It is nothing more than the judiciary playing the children's game Telephone with your rights & liberties.