Replies

The judge ignored 4 legally-binding references which all agreed that the lawfulness of the orders depends on legal authorization, which for combat deployments must come through the President:

1) Article 90 (ii under “lawfulness”),

2) Article 92 (must not be contrary to the Constitution or laws, and must not be given by someone acting beyond their authority),

3) the Authorization for the Use of Force (AUOF, which gives sole authority to use force in the War on Terrorism to “the President”) and

4) the statute (I’d have to look up that reference; sorry) which authorizes the SecDef to implement combat deployments and movements WITH APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT.

So while generically citing the authority of Congress, Lind ignored 4 different places where Congress makes the lawfulness of combat deployment orders ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on the President.

Is there anything that forbids a military judge from making rulings that are contrary to the law, or can she make stuff up wholesale as she goes along? What accountability is there when a judge ignores 4 pieces of actual legislation which contradict her ruling on what the legal requirements are?

Also - I referenced this before but received no response. In cases where the sole issue is whether the person giving the order actually holds the position to be able to give the order, the judge does not necessarily have the authority to rule on the lawfulness of the orders, according to a footnote on p 160 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf )

What determines whether the judge has that authority? From what I read elsewhere, it seemed that the salient issue is whether that is the ONLY defense the accused has - in which case the defense of “unlawful orders” is an issue of fact, not of law - and must therefore be decided by vote of the members of the court-martial jury, not by any one person (either the judge or the president/chairman of the jury). I need to find that reference again to make sure I understood it correctly, and hopefully others can clarify this point as well.

I know, you keep repeating the same talking point, ad nauseum. It's much like a broken record.

Why do you think that Lakin's counsel - a man with over 25-years of practical military legal experience - stipulated that Lind was right on the law?

Lind took judicial notice that Obama was sworn into office, ergo Obama IS the President of the United States. It is not the pleasure of the military, to especially include the military legal system, to examine Obama for defects in his authority to wield the power in the office that he so clearly holds; Just like - as New centrally held - it's NOT within the purview of the military and its members to determine of the Commander-in-Chief is acting Constitutionally.

This is why Lakin affirmed under penalty of perjury that the orders he received were lawful.

Always, always consider the examples set by George Washington. As Commanding General Washington once gave a direct order to General Lee to attack, instead Lee ordered his men to retreat. This was at the Battle of Monmouth in central Jersey, in the heat of the summer.

The Wikipedia entry for General Lee continues:

He retreated directly into Washington and his troops, who were advancing, and Washington dressed him down publicly. Lee responded with "inappropriate language" (insubordination), was arrested, and shortly thereafter court-martialed. Lee was found guilty, and he was relieved of command for a period of one year.
It is not clear that Lee had made a bad strategic decision: he believed himself outnumbered (which he in fact was: British commander Sir Henry Clinton had 10,000 troops to Lee's 5,440), and that a retreat was reasonable. However, he disobeyed his orders, and he publicly expressed disrespect to his Commander-in-Chief. Furthermore, Washington had wanted to test the abilities of Lee's troops, since they were among the first to be trained in European tactics by Baron von Steuben.
Lee tried to get Congress to overturn the court-martial's verdict [but that effort failed]

General Lee's acts FAR worse than Colonel Lakin's could ever be construed to have been, yet General Lee got off light in comparison to Colonel Lakin.

General Lee was relieved of command for a year but continued to serve.

Is there anything that forbids a military judge from making rulings that are contrary to the law, or can she make stuff up wholesale as she goes along? What accountability is there when a judge ignores 4 pieces of actual legislation which contradict her ruling on what the legal requirements are?

As you well know, IANAL, so I may be spewing misinformation on this one because I haven't researched it. But ... a judge must interpret the law. So her decision was an interpretation of applicable law. No, judges may not make up their own law. If she is guilty of doing so, her decision on the law will be reversed upon appeal. Accountabilty for errant judical rulings is addressed when a higher court reviews the lower court's ruling(s).

One of the attorneys on the Sanity Squad will correct my errors if necessary.

Is there anything that forbids a military judge from making rulings that are contrary to the law, or can she make stuff up wholesale as she goes along? What accountability is there when a judge ignores 4 pieces of actual legislation which contradict her ruling on what the legal requirements are?

As you well know, IANAL, so I may be spewing misinformation on this one because I haven't researched it. But ... a judge must interpret the law. So her decision was an interpretation of applicable law. No, judges may not make up their own law. If she is guilty of doing so, her decision on the law will be reversed upon appeal. Accountabilty for errant judical rulings is addressed when a higher court reviews the lower court's ruling(s).

One of the attorneys on the Sanity Squad will correct my errors if necessary.