I don’t know I’m wasting my time with you, you pull crap out of the air and state it as fact. You take things completely out of context to bolster your case. Michael New v. US is about a former US soldier who refused to wear the United Nations uniform. The question in that case was can American soldiers be forced to serve a foreign power? Not whether the CIC was eligible to serve as CIC.
You are a noob to FR and a single issue poster, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You are a fraud just like your obumber.
Actually I thought tired_old_conservative posted this, but if the shoe fits wear it.
It’s obvious to anyone who actually reads Deck Hand’s stuff over time that he knows a bit about military law.
New was about (amongst several things) a soldier disobeying an order, and the trial judge's authority to render a decision on the lawfulness of that order. He did, the trial judge ruled the order lawful, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling when it was challenged by New.
Moreover, New tried to argue that the deployment itself was illegal. Again, the trial judge, affirmed by the appellate court, said, "no thanks, that's a political question, not something to be decided by a military court."
The DC Circuit addresses in great detail the presumption of legality of military orders. Their decision includes this paragraph, citing Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting United States v. Calley, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 528, 543, 48 C.M.R. 19, 28 (1973) (quoting Winthrop, at 296-297)),.
"The success of any combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian mission, as well as the personal safety of fellow service members, would be endangered if individual soldiers were permitted to act upon their own interpretation" of constitutional, presidential, congressional or military authority, and orders issued pursuant to such authority."
I'm sorry you're either too obtuse, or intentionally argumentative to acknowledge this fairly elementary legal similarity to Lakin. Anyone with an even remedial understanding of the law and the UCMJ gets it. Rest easy though, you're in good company. Whomever is representing Lakin is giving him HORRIBLE legal advice, if they have indeed recommended that he disobey and challenge his deployment orders. At least Lakin might have some foundation upon which to build his ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.