I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken about courts-martials. I reviewed all transcripts of all general courts-martials. The transcript is a record of the trial, not appellate review as you stated.
When one considers the obstacles one faces to one's career when given what appears to be an illegal order, the best advice superiors can give is "do it" and then challenge it later. The reasoning is, because the military is based on hierarchical rank, when one refuses an order--that in itself is illegal.
Whether the order was illegal is determined at a later date.
So, sir, I believe you to be badly mistaken about the practical aspects of being a subordinate in the unenviable position of disobeying a superior officer's order, especially if the subordinate is a career military person.
If you have experience in the field, beyond civilian supervisory roles, perhaps it was so long ago, you may have forgotten exactly what it means to disobey an order. The consequences are swift and the entire rank of officers are brought to bear on the disobeying soldier--even if the complaint is justified and is certified illegal long after the act of disobeying.
But this argument brings us far afield from where we started--a discussion about the aptness of CEO Solms picking someone as his Number Two and Chief of Staff, who carries the baggage Gen. Patton does.
He may work out fine or he may cause needless distraction at a time when it is not wanted, nor needed. He was fired from his job for a real offense--several, it appears. And when thousands sign the request he be fired, one might consider where there is smoke, there is fire.
My argument is based on Wave's precarious position. The last thing Wave shareholders need is a fellow put in a position of power who has a reputation for intimidation and cover-up.
I'm not sure what your argument is based on. Mine is on experience in and out of the military.
