“I think the conflict between our views regards what it means that the SecDef must have the approval of the President. What you cited was statute. When the words “shall” or “must” are used in statutes it is an imperative. So the SecDef is not legally allowed to do the things described in that section without first having the approval of the President. The authority for the SecDef to do those things is legally dependent on the approval of a valid President.
So the statute itself makes the authority for the chain of command to deploy troops totally dependent on the approval of the President. How, then, can Judge Lind say that the approval of a valid President is “irrelevant” to whether one particular link in the chain of command (brigade commanders) had the authority to issue combat force deployment orders?
She talks about Congress having authority over the military - but the authority Congress gave the SecDef is expressly dependent on a valid President’s approval, and the authority for the chain of command within the military structure is dependent on the approval of the SecDef. So Congress’ oversight of the military does not CONTRADICT or SUPERSEDE the President as the source for authority down the chain of command; it actually codifies it - at least in regard to combat authorization, which is what is at issue with Lakin’s deployment orders.”
1. Have you served in the US militry?
2. Do you know what a TO&E is?
3. Have you ever administered a chain of command, and/or delegation of authority system in an organization?
4. Have you studied or practiced military law? Civilian law?
5. In actual practice, do you believe the Sec. Def. calls the President, before signing every memo, document, order, etc.—to determine that the President, in micro-detail, approves that action?
Too bad this once fine soldier, got bad advice, acted upon his own mistakes, and blew his military career.
FYI I predict if a poll were conducted of active duty military personell, it would come down very hard on Lakin.
IMO playing games like this, in the military during war is NOT the appropriate venue to determine a constitutional and political question.
Appeal to authority. A logical fallacy.
There are many decisions that can be made independent of the President signing off on it.
The use of force is not one of them. Buckeye Texan posted the law which allows the SecDef to send combat orders down the chain of command, and it requires the plan for deployments and the assignment of force to be approved by the President.
Presidential authorization for THESE SPECIFIC ORDERS are critial to the lawfulness of deployment orders, according to Article 90, Article 92, the Authorization for the Use of Force, and the law which gives general authorization to the SecDef to administer the Presidential use of force. Anything Lind could legitimately cite would have that stipulation right there. She can’t avoid it, except by blatant, willful neglect of what is actually in the legal documents to which she is supposed to be bound.