Replies

"Can you tell me (as in prove), or him, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the orders he's receiving are lawful? "

Orders are presumptively legal. If you had ever served, you might know that.

There is nothing illegal about an order to deploy. Again, this isn't complicated. Any officer, to especially include any line or legal officer could have told Lakin that. Unfortunately, he's a medical officer who has been given some incompetent legal advice, or he has refused competent legal advice all to make an political point. Either way, he's not the kind of officer the military wants or needs - one that compromises mission integrity for his own personal whims.

Orders are presumptively legal.
So you can't prove whether they were or not. And yet you've already tried and convicted this man.
If you had ever served, you might know that.
There you go presuming again. I did serve, in the Navy.

There is nothing illegal about an order to deploy.
If the orders weren't issued under the proper authority there is.

You've sure got a lot of supposition and assumptions in your argument.

Orders are presumptively legal. If you had ever served, you might know that.

There is nothing illegal about an order to deploy. Again, this isn’t complicated. Any officer, to especially include any line or legal officer could have told Lakin that. Unfortunately, he’s a medical officer who has been given some incompetent legal advice, or he has refused competent legal advice all to make an political point. Either way, he’s not the kind of officer the military wants or needs - one that compromises mission integrity for his own personal whims.

OldDeckHand is right. The “proof” is in the legal doctrine known as “de facto officer.” That doctrine clearly states that validity is conferred upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.
In the Supreme Court of the United States case of Norton v Shelby County (118 U.S. 425, 1886) the court held that “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.”