Replies

That is the critical question and both Lind and NS know it. If the orders had been for Lakin to deploy for combat operations to Iran every one of us would be asking “WHO ORDERED TROOPS TO IRAN?” Particularly we’d be asking if either Congress declared war, thereby authorizing the military itself to use force, or whether “the President” had - the only person that SJ Res 23 authorizes to decide when, where, and how to use force in the war on terrorism.

Because those are the only 2 entities which have Constitutional authority to use force against other countries.

Lind acknowledged that authority flows from the Constitution through Congress. But she conveniently ignores the fact that the use of force - such as ordering a surge that results in deploying additional forces - was delegated by Congress to “the President” alone. That means that “the President” is the critical, pivotal issue regarding whether brigade commanders are lawfully authorized to deploy combat forces.

If the orders were to deploy to Iran we would all IMMEDIATELY ask the same question that Lakin is asking now, and for the same reason: brigade commanders cannot lawfully give combat orders if combat has not been authorized by either Congress or the CINC.

I’ve asked the military “experts” and the anti-Lakin folks to tell me what would make it unlawful, according to the MCM, for brigade commanders right now to issue deployment orders for combat forces to Iran. NOBODY would even address my very earnest question. The discussion just died. I’ve asked it over on the UCMJ site and here. I got mockery and statements that the question was absurd but beyond that, no real answers.

So I - busy, uneducated, low-life housewife that I am - looked it up myself, and found that brigade commanders are commissioned officers and that Article 90 gives the criteria for what orders of theirs are “lawful”. I found that they can’t lawfully order somebody to do their dry-cleaning because that violates iv. And I found that they can’t lawfully order something they are not authorized to order.

Lakin was charged with an Article 92 violation. The orders specifically mentioned are not general orders or regulations; they are specific orders, addressed specifically to him. So Article 92(1) wouldn’t apply, as I had thought it did. Article 92(2) would apply - EXCEPT that orders from a superior commissioned officer are outside the scope of Article 92(2). Those orders are covered under Article 90, and that is the only Article that can be used to charge someone who disobeys those orders.

The military purposely used Article 92(2) to charge Lakin in order to try to skirt the criteria for lawfulness that applies to orders from superior commissioned officers. That tells me that they KNOW that ii of those criteria is the crux of this whole issue - as would be the case if the deployment orders had been to Iran.

The folks over at the UCMJ blog - Sullivan and the others - wouldn’t address my question about orders to Iran because they knew Lakin was charged under the wrong article and if they showed me what criteria apply to the Iran scenario it would show how Lakin SHOULD HAVE been charged - and that the issue of authorization by the President is the crux of the whole issue, not “irrelevant”.

This whole process is as crooked as they come. The military is deliberately violating everything that matters. And the precedents they are setting right now could be used to say that any “superior commissioned officer” can issue combat deployments wherever they will independently of “the President”.

The retired military folks were concerned that if presidential eligibility is ruled on by this corrupt court-martial it would set a dangerous precedent. I hate to say it, but it also sets a dangerous precedent if the court is allowed to say that the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of combat orders from a superior commissioned officer.

No matter how you look at it, there are dangerous precedents being set. The people who think they will save Obama by abandoning the whole philosophy of “chain of command” and SJ Res 23’s authorization to only “the President” to decide to use force in the war on terror are being INCREDIBLY short-sighted.

If Lind’s judgment is allowed to stand, then any commissioned officer can deploy combat troops to foreign countries at their own choosing. All because Lind chose to cut off the chain of command at the head - to make orders down the line totally independent of whether there IS a head (CINC) and whether the head authorized combat operations.

We REALLY don’t want to go this route.