“Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.”
This is all we are asking for, thanks for making my case.”
Actually that doesn't make your case, but if it makes you happy to believe a military judge is going to be dancing this far afield to discern an unlawful order, enjoy your delusion at poor Mr. Lakin’s expense.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness
of an order is a question of law to be determined
by the military judge.
(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned
officer issuing the order must have authority
to give such an order. Authorization may be
based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.
(iv) Relationship to military duty. The order
must relate to military duty, which includes all activities
reasonably necessary to accomplish a military
mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline,
and usefulness of members of a command and
directly connected with the maintenance of good order
in the service. The order may not, without such
a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights
or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s
conscience, religion, or personal philosophy
cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise
lawful order. Disobedience of an order which
has for its sole object the attainment of some private
end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing
the penalty for an offense which it is expected
the accused may commit, is not punishable
under this article.
(v)Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the
statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving
the order.
Looks like there might be some wiggle room there for the defense team. Especially (III)