[Yet_Again]

Basically boils down to, “was he ordered to go”, and “did he go”. That’s all the UCMJ requires the prosecution to prove. Any mitigating circumstances aren’t considered until sentencing.

So what you're saying is that all military personnel who disobey unlawful orders will be found guilty of disobeying orders and go to prison...and whether or not the order was unlawful only affects how long the stay there.

[tricksy]

The doctrine that military personnel are not required to obey unlawful orders applies to orders to actively do some unlawful act (e.g. if an officer orders his troops to murder the local civilians, a la the My Lai Massacre, the troops are required to reject that order). It does not provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for an order that is (arguably) technically defective but does not require the performance of an unlawful act.

Obviously, reporting for duty in Afghanistan is not an unlawful act. Lakin would be out of luck even if the Birther foolishness somehow turned out to be true.

[mbynack]

He wasn’t ordered to go by the President; he was ordered to go by his commander who signed his orders. There are specific criteria in the UCMJ for what constitutes a legal order. The “counts” for failure to go are very specific and limited.