[yldstrk]

bull hockey

you never presume they are valid

you are supposed to question any order you think may be illegal

[tired_old_conservative]

The nature of an unlawful order is well established in military law. It requires someone to order you top do something you know is illegal, and you better be dang sure about that since the burden of proof on that point is yours. Orders are presumptively assumed to be legal.

There's nothing illegal in the orders Lakin was given. And one person's factless suspicions about the President of the United States do not render all orders unlawful.

[xzins]

bull hockey backatcha

Orders are presumed to be legal. It is the NATURE of the order that calls one to question its legality. There is nothing that calls into question orders to deploy to the location of an ongoing, Congressionally approved, combat operation. They had been being issued for Afghanistan since 2002 and are based on Congressional action on 19 Sep 2001 that fully approved that combat operation.

There is nothing about orders like these through the normal chain of command that is remotely unethical.

Moreover, this war and its approval and its ongoing operation PRECEDES the presidency of Barack Obama.

For Pete’s sake, man, we have our own precious troops in the field needing food, ammo, fire support, and service support (to include medical).

Would you just abandon them there and go about your whimsical way?

You can look back over my posts and see that no one has argued for the military to take it easy on Lakin, because, at least, he thought he was doing good. There was nothing malicious about his missing movement; it was based on principle. I’m fully in favor of simply letting him retire and depart.

That doesn’t mean I think we should abandon troops in the field.