It is up to the commander in chief to establish credibility. You wouldn’t follow orders if your commander was illigitemate. That’;s what nazis do. In the face of a system which has broken down why would ou participate in what is possibly one of the largest frauds in the history of the world.
How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?
“How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?”
__
That’s a good question. But I don’t want to find out when I’m under enemy fire that the soldier standing by my side is not going to shoot back because he believes the President to be ineligible. Neither do I want to learn that, if I am wounded, I will be treated by a less experienced doctor who arrived on short notice because the doctor who was scheduled to deploy had refused to show up at the last minute.
Anyone who doesn’t want to serve under the Commander-in-Chief is free to resign. Those who remain in uniform have an obligation to their buddies to fight by their side and heal their wounds, regardless of their personal beliefs.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is very clear on this point when it states (Article 90) that “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
Even Lakin’s first attorney knew better than to claim that an order to report to one’s commanding officer’s office or to board a plane was anything but an “otherwise lawful order.” (If you’re curious, the preceding paragraphs of Art. 90, which you can find at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm, explain in detail what that means.)
From the military justice point of view, this was an open-and-shut case.
To whom? People voted for him, the Electoral College voted for him, Congress confirmed him, the Chief Justice swore him in. Whose opinion outweighs theirs?
How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?
You can't. You resign.
The thing I don't think you and butter understand is that that what you say should have happened in this case establishes a principle and a precedent for what should happen in every case, like that of the guy in Mr Rogers' squadron. Between the two of you, you're calling for a military where, if the CinC wasn't "properly screened" and hasn't "established credibility," an officer can follow orders and draw a paycheck up until the time they're ordered to get on a plane (or, presumably, into an MRAP or HMMV), at which point they can refuse on the basis that they're not convinced the commander is legitimate. If that's not what you want, then please elucidate the principles that would distinguish Lakin's case from others.