Lakin has a right to a fair hearing on whether he committed the crimes he was accused of. He was accused of several things, including the failure to obey the LAWFUL order to show up for deployment to Afghanistan.
Lind’s job was to determine whether the orders he refused to obey were lawful orders. Deployment to combat in a foreign country is only lawful if it meets the conditions set forth in Congress’ authorization to use force in foreign countries. The one condition they gave was that it had to be the decision of THE PRESIDENT.
Lind could claim that Lakin had to obey the order even if it wasn’t lawful, on the grounds of the de facto officer doctrine. But her first order of business was to take what was set before her - the claim that he had failed to obey 2 LAWFUL orders. I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn’t, and Lind did not distinguish between the two, even though the terms of the Authorization to Use Force are explicit in their demand that it be approved by the President. The lawfulness explicitly depends on the approval of the President, and the military’s regulations say that all orders down the chain of command must be in compliance with the US Constitution and the legal authorizations. Lind totally blew that off. Deliberately.
” I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn’t...”
__
OK, well I’m glad that we at least agree that Lakin was guilty of a crime.
I happen to disagree with your opinion that deployment-related orders fall under a different analysis, and obviously Col. Lind does too. Here’s what she said about that:
“The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II are alleged to be authorized by LTC William Judd, COL Gordon Roberts, and COL Peter M. McHugh, respectively. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether they are authorized to issue the orders charged.”
As I believe we agreed earlier, if the officers giving the orders are authorized to do so, and the orders don’t involve the commission of a crime, the orders are lawful.
” I have agreed that the one (to show up at hsi office) was lawful. The other (to show up for deployment to Afghanistan) wasn’t...”
__
OK, well I’m glad that we at least agree that Lakin was guilty of a crime.
I happen to disagree with your opinion that deployment-related orders fall under a different analysis, and obviously Col. Lind does too. Here’s what she said about that:
“The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II are alleged to be authorized by LTC William Judd, COL Gordon Roberts, and COL Peter M. McHugh, respectively. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether they are authorized to issue the orders charged.”
As I believe we agreed earlier, if the officers giving the orders are authorized to do so, and the orders don’t involve the commission of a crime, the orders are lawful.