The elements of lawfulness for Article 90, ii, totally justifies Lakin’s defense, as do the elements of lawfulness for Article 92. Lind conveniently left out those parts in order to say the Presidential authorization is “irrelevant”, even though the elements of lawfulness make about 3 different allusions to the lawfulness depending on Constitutionality and authorization.
Lind relies on Congress giving authority, but when you look at the authority Congress gives for the routine chain of command, they make the authorization for the whole thing dependend on Presidential approval, when combat forces are involved. So even the sources Lind cites make the authority to deploy troops dependent on Presidential approval - without which both ARticle 90 and Article 92 say the order is not lawful.
All the actual documents that Lind could cite say that Lakin’s defense is valid because it is not only relevant to the lawfulness of the orders but actually CRITICAL to the lawfulness.
That's your opinion. You are mistaken. Rather than acknowledge an error, or even the possibility that someone might honestly have another opinion, you want to demonize anyone that doesn't buy into your theories.