I'm asking how you come to believe that you are correct in the real world application and understanding of military law.
I’ve looked at the documents and asked as many questions as I can, the intellectual equivalent of shaking it, smelling it, and tasting it from every direction I can think of. That’s how I arrived at my understanding. I’m very thankful for those who have corrected me where I’ve misunderstood - such as Buckeye Texan who corrected my misunderstanding of how Article 90 and 92 are related.
My understanding is very different from Lind’s.
I put my understanding to the test by putting in the Iran scenario. What comes out of my processing is exactly what the people who ridicule me say about Iran: that if a brigade commander issued combat deployment orders to Iran without a valid President’s approval, the orders would be unlawful under the elements of lawfulness for Article 90, and Lakin would be vindicated for refusing to obey the orders.
When I put the Iran scenario through Lind’s processing, I get the Iran deployment orders being lawful because Congress has partial control of the military, and anybody who disobeyed those orders could not even BRING UP the question of whether the combat operations were approved by a valid President.
So I did my math in full view of everybody and revised as input arose. I tested my formula with a hypothetical story problem and the results showed what all the experts say is the right answer for that story problem.
Then I used Lind’s formula on the same story problem and came up with the exact opposite of what the experts say is the right answer for the Iran story problem.
The experts don’t want to address how Lind’s formula could come up with such a screwy answer in the Iran story problem, if her formula is correct. And they won’t show me how her formula SHOULD be any different for the Iran story problem than for the Afghanistan story problem.
Can you tell I’ve been helping my kids with algebra? lol