It would take a small book to answer this completely. But, we aren't talking about "war crimes", we're talking about deployment orders. There's nothing remotely "unlawful" about a deployment order. It's like arguing that an order to take out the trash is unlawful. Irrespective of what they're arguing in the request for TRO, they aren't questioning the lawfulness of the order per se (deployment orders could never be considered unlawful, in any way). This captain is questioning the legitimacy of the President - big difference. In other words, she's questioning command authority - not something that's taken lightly by a military that has deep reverence for civilian control of the military. Do you understand the distinction?
Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines don't get to litigate the complexities of domestic politics while serving - questioning the legitimacy is a political question, not a question of an order that could be found to be a "war crime".
Finally, a compounding element is that these deployment orders (like all deployment orders) aren't signed by the President, they're signed by the Secretary of Defense - a man who's been confirmed by the US Senate, twice.
"By your posts(which could be correct, for all I know), the whole military is filled with Adolf Eichmanns waiting to happen, as no officer has any ability to challenge an order as unlawful prior to executing it, without opening themselves up to felony prosecution, though they are told again and again to ignore unlawful orders."
You can, and in fact have an obligation to question unlawful orders. But, you can't question the authority of the chain of command. It may sound like a difference without a distinction, but in fact it's very different. Here's an example...
Order: Shoot the unarmed civilian
Response: I refuse as it's a violation of the UCMJ, Army Field Manual and Article 49 of the Geneva convention to intentionally kill unarmed non-combatants
It's the soldier's duty to refuse that order. It's clearly an unlawful order. Try this one...
Order: Pick up that trash.
Response: Go "f" yourself, I don't recognize your command authority.
Well, let's see. There's certainly nothing against picking up trash in any manual in which I'm familiar, nor is it against the UCMJ, nor is it against the Geneva Convention. Picking up trash, in and of itself - like a deployment order - is inherently a legal order. Assuming the person is in your chain command, it's not your prerogative to argue his command authority. As it's not the prerogative of an officer to challenge the command authority of the President. They can challenge unlawful orders, but not command authority. Does that make sense?
They military has deep reverence for the US Constitution. Officers and enlisted alike have sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If Obama does not have the Constitutional legitimacy to give orders to the troops to engage in warfare are those lawful orders even if they conform the the law of armed conflict or any other order he gives? And if they are not lawful orders from the top of the chain of command to who are just 'following orders' exposes them, the military personnel, to criminal and civil court action? It's an overarching issue that really goes beyond just deployment order.
See post #125 which explains the stuation very well and is quite concise.
If the "trash" is evidence, destroying evidence could be a crime in and of itself.
There are circumstances where "Pick up that trash." is an unlawful order.
Your commander is about to be relieved by higher authority, and knows it. You've heard rumors, but you've not actually seen any orders or been formally advised of the situtation. She tells you to issue a contract to FlyByNight Paving, to repave all the roads on the post, along with the parking lots, motor pools and the post runways. What do you do? What are the ramifications of letting that contract if it turns out that she had no authority to issue that order? If you do let the contract, is the contract itself enforceable by FlyByNight?