I did it for eleven years, it really isn't that hard to do.
I'll start out with the basics, in boot camp a drill instructor gave an order that would have marched my platoon into a wall, were we supposed to march into the wall?
Of course not, it was a lesson in questioning orders, there are always orders that MUST be questioned as well as those that CANNOT be, what makes The American armed forces different from all other nations is that we are trained to think and act on our own even if that means disobeying orders especially illegal ones.
Quite honestly it is why we are feared around the world, there is a certain unpredictability to Americans that no other country has.
What is pretty sad is that you would strip that away from anyone that serves for the sake of Obama.
Agreed. However, I would suggest that such training to questions orders applies to any orders given with the military itself. Obama is the civilian commander of the military. The military is not in a position and should not be in a position to question orders from their civilian commander unless those orders are clearly illegal under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For me, therein lies the heart of the argument where Lakin is concerned. Lakin had no evidentiary proof and no court ruling stipulating that Obama is ineligible. Therefore, his orders were not clearly illegal. Our system of justice does not require the accused to prove himself innocent of the charges/accusations. So by making a baseless accusation about the CIC, Lakin himself became the accused in a court martial. The court martial's purpose is not to prove Lakin's accusation correct.
If Lakin had solid, evidentiary proof of Obama's ineligibility, I could accept his decision to question his orders. And he likely would not have been court martialed for following the proper channels as he did. I believe the issue would have been resolved through the chain of command. The Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of Defense would have reviewed the evidence and submitted it to the U.S. Congress for investigation. The Secretary could have either sent Lakin to Afghanistan pending the outcome of the Congressional investigation or revoked Lakin's orders.
As it happened, Lakin had no proof of his accusation and therefore was required to obey his orders. To me, it's that simple.
OK, so what orders MUST be questioned and what order CANNOT be questioned?
What you say makes so much sense. When I look at what we accomplished in Iraq, for instance, the word that comes to mind in regards to our troops is “competent”. They are trained well, so they can function well. They have to be able to sort out conflicting signals, different levels of orders, laws, regulations, etc. They can’t be stupid. And they can’t have unworkable requirements such as to be unthinking robots.
Distinguishing between lawful and unlawful orders is a must. Standard operating procedure, like a mental firewall that is always running in the background so it will observe when something is wrong. If that firewall is only supposed to be turned on part of the time, then who could be faulted for doing something criminal when ordered to do so, since maybe their firewall just happened to be off then?
Know what I mean? Is this the way people are trained - to constantly have that mental firewall, constantly evaluating the orders they receive and obeying the ones they should obey?
Just out of curiosity, how is a person supposed to respond when a drill sergeant orders them to march into a wall?