Her rationale was poor. Her claim is that Congress and the SecDef 'share' authority for the military, as if that somehow substitutes for the presidential authority that is Constitutionally and statutorily specified. It also ignores that the SecDef is statutorily under the direction of the president. None of these bodies, for example, has the independent authority to authorize a military surge. Since two of the charges against Lakin were specifically related to Operation Enduring Freedom, there is a direct link to the statutory authority of the president. Of course, Lind did NOT want the jury to hear this in court.
“Her rationale was poor.”
__
Well, her rationale was documented and supported by citations to the Constitution and to law.
Care to document yours? Maybe your legal acumen is as sharp as that of the Chief Judge of the Army’s 1st Judicial Circuit.
Well then, I'm sure Lakin has nothing to fear.
Legal reasoning like that is what got Lakin into the mess he was in. Lakin, while under oath, has already acknowledged the orders were lawful. This is all water well-under the proverbial bridge.
Exactly, and very well said.