The exclusionary rule forbids the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, and is used to exclude not judge the illegally obtained evidence, but anything later derived or discovered from it. There are exceptions to these rules.
While I understand the analogy to a chain of orders, I've never heard of it being directly applicable. It's about evidence, not about the substance of an element of the offense.
Again, if military courts (up to their ultimate appellate court, the US Supreme Court) are going to let the Kenyan argument in, then they would have to let in every other argument as well: it's Bush's illegal war; it's the UN and therefore unconstitutional; I'm not medically fit to deploy; I'm going to get PTSD; my sergeant is mean to me; etc.; all of which have continually been upheld as NOT relevant in a refusal to deploy case. On sentencing, maybe, but not on the merits. Even on sentencing, the underlying issue would not be litigated - just that the accused/defendant would get to explain why he refused to deploy.
Don't construe anything in this post as being either for or against the Kenyan/birther/etc movement(s). I'm just saying that Doc has made some poor choices.
