If she was correctly applying military law then she should have referenced ii under the elements of lawfulness for Article 90. That is about the legal authorization the officer has for making the specific order. That is the only place I can see where an order to deploy to Iran (absent authorization from a valid POTUS), for instance, would be shown to be unlawful.
By ignoring that she’s actually claiming that combat deployment orders to a foreign country are independent of authorization from “the President” (the only person legally authorized to decide whether and how to use force in the war on terrorism).
Unless any brigade commander could lawfully decide to invade Iran even if no valid POTUS authorized it, Lind MUST be applying military law wrongly.
“If she was correctly applying military law then she should have referenced ii under the elements of lawfulness for Article 90”
How do you know that this is correct?
Have you tested this idea?