Did Milley Do the Right Thing?

[esmith]

I am not in the military so I would not need to understand. Milley probably does. He was worried about Trump making illegal orders.

Being worried is not within the perview of determining whether an order is leagal or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being worried is not within the perview of determining whether an order is leagal or not.

Just as I am not qualified to make such claims, neither are you. Even if you were "in the military". This appears to be a decision far beyond any level that you achieved.

 

[metis]

I guess a question I would have is why would anyone in their right mind who was or is in the U.S. military even think about supporting a man who cozies up to Putin, says that he believes Putin over our own intelligence that includes those connected with the military, says he knows more than all the generals, tries to overthrow the 2020 election, etc., etc.? Seems more like someone who actually is basically anti-American.

 

[Stevicus]

Just for clarification, did Milley state that Trump actually did order a nuclear strike on China and they refused the order? Was Trump really threatening to nuke China?

I remember Reagan's open mike "joke" about launching the missiles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for clarification, did Milley state that Trump actually did order a nuclear strike on China and they refused the order? Was Trump really threatening to nuke China?

I remember Reagan's open mike "joke" about launching the missiles.

It was only a precautionary measure in case Trump went all Dr. Strangelove on us. In a call from Pelosi to Milley that may have inspired this action Pelosi said "You know he is crazy" to which Milley ultimately said that he agreed with everything that she brought up. At any rate we were lucky in this instance. No harm, no foul, is my verdict.

 

[esmith]

Just as I am not qualified to make such claims, neither are you. Even if you were "in the military". This appears to be a decision far beyond any level that you achieved.

Decision yes, understand of the articles of the UCMJ no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Decision yes, understand of the articles of the UCMJ no.

Tell me if you really understand it then why have you not supported any of your claims here? When one only makes claims but refuses to support them it looks like they are just blowing smoke.

 

[esmith]

Tell me if you really understand it then why have you not supported any of your claims here? When one only makes claims but refuses to support them it looks like they are just blowing smoke.

What claims?
The only claim that I seemed to have made was that being worried is not within the preview of determing if an order is a lawful or unlawful order.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is from CNN, and you may respond after reading it:

Washington (CNN)Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to "Peril," a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and veteran Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.

Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.'
Milley worried that Trump could 'go rogue,' the authors write.
"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.

In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon's war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood... -- Woodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took secret action to protect nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics

The whole article is well worth the read, btw.

No four star general , from my experience, gets 'deeply shaken' by someone having a tantrum.

Either it's a plug for the book to sell, or there's more to it than a Rouge Donald Trump.

Trump can't just walk over and press the nuke button. I hope no one is that naive to think Trump alone, all by himself, can launch a nuclear strike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What claims?
The only claim that I seemed to have made was that being worried is not within the preview of determing if an order is a lawful or unlawful order.

If you thought that he was "just worried" then you were not paying attention. The man was certifiable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I guess a question I would have is why would anyone in their right mind who was or is in the U.S. military even think about supporting a man who cozies up to Putin, says that he believes Putin over our own intelligence that includes those connected with the military, says he knows more than all the generals, tries to overthrow the 2020 election, etc., etc.? Seems more like someone who actually is basically anti-American.

I dunno about 'cozy'. Bear in mind we always had a dialog with the Kremlin. Even at the height of the USSR in the deepest part of the cold war.

 

[esmith]

If you thought that he was "just worried" then you were not paying attention. The man was certifiable.

So you now have a degree in psychiatry. How nice.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[wellwisher]

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Delusion scam run by the Democrats, which worked their base into a frenzy of paranoia all for nothing. In the end none of the criminals; spying worse than Watergate went to jail or were fired. Only innocent props; people, used by the swamp to promote the credibility of their scam went to jail.

If Milley was part of the swamp he would know his treasonous actions will not be punished anymore than Schiff being punished for his crimes with classified information. Voter fraud appears to have had the same protections in place.

 

[Laika]

I guess a question I would have is why would anyone in their right mind who was or is in the U.S. military even think about supporting a man who cozies up to Putin, says that he believes Putin over our own intelligence that includes those connected with the military, says he knows more than all the generals, tries to overthrow the 2020 election, etc., etc.? Seems more like someone who actually is basically anti-American.

If you are in the US army, your job is to follow (legal) orders even if you disagree with them. Soldiers who voted Democrat had to serve under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Two Bushes, just the same as Soldiers who voted Republican served under Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. You serve the nation and protect the Constitution, rather than a political party.

Trump was the constitutionally legitimate President of the United States and the commander in chief. So you are supposed to follow his orders even if you disagree with them (and yes, even if its going to get you killed).

This idea of the political neutrality of the Army isn’t universal however. If you go to the People’s Republic of China, the Army is subordinate to the Communist Party based on the principle that as “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, so “the party commands the gun.” (Even so “the gun must never command the party” and China would not accept a military coup or dictatorship by the Peoples’ Liberation Army because it has its own understanding of civilian control).

But in the US, the army is meant to be neutral regardless of the party of the commander in chief. If somehow America elected a nazi, or a communist as President, you’re still meant to follow their orders because that is what an oath to uphold the constitution requires. (at least that’s the theory but it probably would start to break down then).

However, because of the “just following orders” defence used by Nazis in World War Two, the Americans changed the rules a bit. if your commanding officer (including the President) gives an illegal order, you are supposed to refuse. Milley is operating in this grey area where he is preparing to refuse an illegal order and has a reasonable expectation of one being given by Trump. But its just deeply uncomfortable territory that the system was so broken that the highest ranking military officer was prepared to refuse the Presidents order as the only remaining remedy if Trump tried to start a war or ordered US forces to deploy on the streets. The 25th Amendment and Impeachment were supposed to stop it ever getting this far but they weren’t effective.

Had Trump pushed it, it would gave resulted in an unprecedented constitutional crisis as you have two conflicting sources of authority: the constitutional obligation for the military to follow orders given by the President and the military’s obligation to reject illegal orders. There would simply have been no legal or constitutional way to settle it except by a military coup (or counter-coup).

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you now have a degree in psychiatry. How nice.

Reality fail. It does not take a degree in psychiatry to realize that. Are you bound and determined to only prove that you are incorrect here?

 

[Aštra’el]

It is no secret that I have great respect for President Trump.

I have significant respect for General Milley as well. I do not approve of certain things about him, but there is no denying that the man has lived a seriously epic life and a prestigious military career, and has accomplished far more than most here in America can ever dream of, and I am inclined to trust his leadership decisions.

“Did Milley do the right thing?” I do not understand the question. This is is not about “right” or “wrong”, whatever that means. This is about “lawful” or “unlawful”. If it is found that his actions were unlawful, he will face the consequences, possibly severe consequences. If not, he will continue to live as he has lived. I approve of the outcome either way.

 

[Stevicus]

If you are in the US army, your job is to follow (legal) orders even if you disagree with them. Soldiers who voted Democrat had to serve under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Two Bushes, just the same as Soldiers who voted Republican served under Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. You serve the nation and protect the Constitution, rather than a political party.

Trump was the constitutionally legitimate President of the United States and the commander in chief. So you are supposed to follow his orders even if you disagree with them (and yes, even if its going to get you killed).

This idea of the political neutrality of the Army isn’t universal however. If you go to the People’s Republic of China, the Army is subordinate to the Communist Party based on the principle that as “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, so “the party commands the gun.” (Even so “the gun must never command the party” and China would not accept a military coup or dictatorship by the Peoples’ Liberation Army because it has its own understanding of civilian control).

But in the US, the army is meant to be neutral regardless of the party of the commander in chief. If somehow America elected a nazi, or a communist as President, you’re still meant to follow their orders because that is what an oath to uphold the constitution requires. (at least that’s the theory but it probably would start to break down then).

However, because of the “just following orders” defence used by Nazis in World War Two, the Americans changed the rules a bit. if your commanding officer (including the President) gives an illegal order, you are supposed to refuse. Milley is operating in this grey area where he is preparing to refuse an illegal order and has a reasonable expectation of one being given by Trump. But its just deeply uncomfortable territory that the system was so broken that the highest ranking military officer was prepared to refuse the Presidents order as the only remaining remedy if Trump tried to start a war or ordered US forces to deploy on the streets. The 25th Amendment and Impeachment were supposed to stop it ever getting this far but they weren’t effective.

Had Trump pushed it, it would gave resulted in an unprecedented constitutional crisis as you have two conflicting sources of authority: the constitutional obligation for the military to follow orders given by the President and the military’s obligation to reject illegal orders. There would simply have been no legal or constitutional way to settle it except by a military coup (or counter-coup).

I've always wondered about the idea of an "illegal order," especially (as you mention) when considering the fact that the "just following orders" defense used by the Nazis was rejected by the tribunal at Nuremberg. However, from the Nazis' point of view, they were following the laws of their own country and the government which passed those laws. A key difference, though, was that all the Germans serving in the armed forces and government services were required to take an oath to Hitler, so in their eyes, Hitler's word was law. (Führerprinzip - Wikipedia)

Of course, we don't have that in the U.S., and the very idea is absolutely unconscionable in our political culture. Even the idea of the "imperial presidency" is one that many Americans are uncomfortable with.

I think the Nuremberg trials demonstrated that there are higher moral principles which might override the distinctions between "legal" and "illegal." That's one question which I've seen raised occasionally in our legal system, in that they care more about what is "legal or illegal" then about whether it's "right or wrong."

The president's authority is somewhat broad, not just in what he can order the military to do, but in his declaration of what's what in terms of foreign policy. He can decide which nations are "rogue" or which ones are threats to U.S. interests. Deciding what U.S. interests are and what truly constitutes a "threat" are political decisions which are theoretically outside the purview of the military. Theoretically, the military may not know why the president would order a nuclear strike, but they're supposed to assume that "he must have a valid reason." Whether it's legal or not would have to be examined later, by other civilian authorities, to determine whether there really was a valid threat which would justify a nuclear attack. Of course, by then, it would really be too late.

So, if the president ordered a strike on China, then it might technically be "legal," yet still very "wrong."

"Right vs. Wrong" should always take precedence over "Legal vs. Illegal." If an order is wrong, then it should be disobeyed, even if it is legal. If a law is wrong, then it's the cop's duty to not enforce it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've always wondered about the idea of an "illegal order," especially (as you mention) when considering the fact that the "just following orders" defense used by the Nazis was rejected by the tribunal at Nuremberg. However, from the Nazis' point of view, they were following the laws of their own country and the government which passed those laws. A key difference, though, was that all the Germans serving in the armed forces and government services were required to take an oath to Hitler, so in their eyes, Hitler's word was law. (Führerprinzip - Wikipedia)

Of course, we don't have that in the U.S., and the very idea is absolutely unconscionable in our political culture. Even the idea of the "imperial presidency" is one that many Americans are uncomfortable with.

I think the Nuremberg trials demonstrated that there are higher moral principles which might override the distinctions between "legal" and "illegal." That's one question which I've seen raised occasionally in our legal system, in that they care more about what is "legal or illegal" then about whether it's "right or wrong."

The president's authority is somewhat broad, not just in what he can order the military to do, but in his declaration of what's what in terms of foreign policy. He can decide which nations are "rogue" or which ones are threats to U.S. interests. Deciding what U.S. interests are and what truly constitutes a "threat" are political decisions which are theoretically outside the purview of the military. Theoretically, the military may not know why the president would order a nuclear strike, but they're supposed to assume that "he must have a valid reason." Whether it's legal or not would have to be examined later, by other civilian authorities, to determine whether there really was a valid threat which would justify a nuclear attack. Of course, by then, it would really be too late.

So, if the president ordered a strike on China, then it might technically be "legal," yet still very "wrong."

"Right vs. Wrong" should always take precedence over "Legal vs. Illegal." If an order is wrong, then it should be disobeyed, even if it is legal. If a law is wrong, then it's the cop's duty to not enforce it.

In the Nuremburg trials the orders given to soldiers were "legal", in Germany. They found that soldiers need to meet a higher level of responsibility than just what is legal and lawful in one's own country. I can think of what would almost certainly be an illegal order in the U.S. military. If your Sergeant ordered you to kill a fellow solider that was sitting there, no weapons, just sitting there shooting the breeze, that would surely qualify as an illegal order and if a man followed it he would have no excuse. It appears that the soldiers were ready to react if Trump ordered an illegal nuclear strike on China. And though the President has wide ranging power a nuclear strike on a country that had not attacked us would almost certainly qualify as an illegal attack in the US as well.

 

[esmith]

.

So, if the president ordered a strike on China, then it might technically be "legal," yet still very "wrong."

"Right vs. Wrong" should always take precedence over "Legal vs. Illegal." If an order is wrong, then it should be disobeyed, even if it is legal. If a law is wrong, then it's the cop's duty to not enforce it.

Who is to decide if it is right or wrong?
What one must consider, as far as the military goes, is it legal order. However, by disobeying a order one puts themselvs in a postion of violating article 92 of the UCMJ....Failuer to Obey a Order. It would be up to a military judge to determine if the order was "lawful" if one is tried before a Court Martial.