Did Milley Do the Right Thing?

[esmith]

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.

As far as Nurembury goes....the winner is always right.
No, you premise that if a President orders a preemtive nuclear strike is illegal is wrong.

 

[Kooky]

As far as Nurembury goes....the winner is always right.

If that is true, then why do so many Americans still believe the US occupations of Vietnam and Afghanistan to be legal and correct, and why does their government still refuse to prosecute suspected perpetrators of war crimes that happened during these?
After all, the US lost both of these wars.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

"Who is to decide if it is right or wrong?"

I think that such questions can be decided by individuals of good conscience. I don't think there's anything magical about being a politician or a general that makes them more moral than a common citizen or foot soldier. In many ways, I think the common people have a more astute and accurate moral compass than most of the bigshots on top. A regime which has to answer to the people would be expected to act much differently than one that has no such accountability.

Milley might ultimately have to face military justice, but since Biden is now commander in chief, wouldn't he have the power to pardon him?

 

[Stevicus]

If that is true, then why do so many Americans still believe the US occupations of Vietnam and Afghanistan to be legal and correct, and why does their government still refuse to prosecute suspected perpetrators of war crimes that happened during these?
After all, the US lost both of these wars.

Americans are not really of one like mind on the issues related to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Technically speaking, since the president and Congress authorized our military actions, then it would be "legal" from that standpoint. However, we're also signatories to various treaties and conventions which outline the conduct of war, treatment of prisoners and civilians, and so forth. There were some military personnel who were tried and prosecuted for war crimes, the most famous of which might be William Calley. However, some might believe that he was just a fall guy for the higher ups who should have been prosecuted.

"Charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."

I think if they prosecuted everything violation that every soldier or sailor did, then it might have disrupted the standard narrative that most of our soldiers were serving honorably and doing their duty, while attributing the atrocities and other war crimes to "a few bad apples." (It's not unlike the government's standard narrative regarding the police.) Our government seems to want to exude a certain "Boy Scout" image which plays well in Peoria, which is why they might tend to minimize any "unpleasantries" or sweep it all under the rug (if they can).

It's true that the U.S. lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and I suppose if the governments of either country chose to do so, they could prosecute American war criminals in absentia, utilizing the legal mechanisms in their own country. Or they could be prosecuted through the World Court or some other international tribunal, which was the case at Nuremberg. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes he did the right thing and I'm grateful for it frankly, but he should be investigated and put on trial. We can't normalise the military undermining civilian control even if it's consequences may be good. This is not normal and no-one should treat it as such.

See more information and extracts from the book below:

They need to make it precedence that one person alone can't authorize a nuke. Trump pushed many Constitutional barriers and boundaries, but ultimately nukes weren't a thing when the Constitution was written. There was no "fail safe" here to keep us safe from Trump.
In this rare case, in this situation, it would be foolish to follow the law and not realize this a very problematic area that must be taken care of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No orders were disobeyed. They were merely ready to if necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as Nurembury goes....the winner is always right.
No, you premise that if a President orders a preemtive nuclear strike is illegal is wrong.

I am almost certain that it is. And why did you ignore my example of an illegal order? Oh, because you can see that if an unhinged President orders a nuclear strike such an order is illegal. Nice.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yes, I agree, and I would think that soldiers who are at least literate and have at least a high school education, as well as a good upbringing and good moral foundation, they would certainly have moral standing in refuse to obey an order to commit murder. They were, at the very least, aware of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention, as well as treaties such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact. I think they knew full well that their only chance of evading any form of prosecution or retribution for their crimes was for Germany to win the war. That's one reason that the whole "just following orders" defense didn't really convince anyone.

It's a good thing our generals and other military personnel take an oath to the Constitution. In Germany, they took an oath to the Führer.

It seems to be an interesting topic in some fictional stories, such as in the opening scene of Wargames where the missile commander thought he was about to kill 20 million people, and he just couldn't bring himself to turn the key to launch the missiles.

Another interesting story was By Dawn's Early Light, which is set in 1990, and the Soviets launched a nuclear strike on America by mistake. The president's helicopter, which was on its way to Andrews to meet with Air Force One, had crashed and the president was presumed killed (however he survived and was taken to a FEMA medical facility).

The VP and rest of the cabinet were also dead or presumed, except for the Secretary of the Interior, who was the only surviving cabinet member and on a fact-finding trip in Louisiana when all this was happening. So, he was considered the president and commander-in-chief at that point. The war had escalated and a Navy admiral was trying to convince to slow things down and try to stop the escalating nuclear exchange, but was still relatively even and only hit direct military targets, not yet the major cities. The new president was concerned about "losing the war" and felt that "winning is everything." The admiral was trying to be polite, but growing impatient with this guy who was clearly not cut out to be making these kinds of decisions. Also at the conference table was Col. Rip Torn, who was also kind of a crazoid, who offered another suggestion to the president, which involved sending all the remaining bombers to Russia on a "grand tour" to bomb all their major cities and installations. The admiral thought it was "madness," and he knew that the Soviets would come in and wipe out our cities as well.

It was at that point that they got communication that the real president was still alive, but injured and blinded, yet still lucid and awake enough to make decisions. They were able to intercept the fake president and give new orders to the bombers and subs to cease hostilities.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go into a whole movie plot, but the overall topic of the president's authority over nuclear weapons and the processes into carrying out presidential orders is kind of fascinating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Who is to decide if it is right or wrong?"

I think that such questions can be decided by individuals of good conscience. I don't think there's anything magical about being a politician or a general that makes them more moral than a common citizen or foot soldier. In many ways, I think the common people have a more astute and accurate moral compass than most of the bigshots on top. A regime which has to answer to the people would be expected to act much differently than one that has no such accountability.

Milley might ultimately have to face military justice, but since Biden is now commander in chief, wouldn't he have the power to pardon him?

And Milley did not even say "We need to disobey the President". What needed to be done was to have a discussion among the military leaders if what he ordered was legal or not in the case of an extreme measure such as ordering a nuclear strike. Even if it came to a military trial I would be willing to bet that he would win his case Once again, no action was taken because none was needed. But when Trump lost he was frothing at the mouth quite often. He was the one responsible for the attempted insurrection and it was only the residual TDS among the right that enable him to get off.

 

[Stevicus]

And Milley did not even say "We need to disobey the President". What needed to be done was to have a discussion among the military leaders if what he ordered was legal or not in the case of an extreme measure such as ordering a nuclear strike. Even if it came to a military trial I would be willing to bet that he would win his case Once again, no action was taken because none was needed. But when Trump lost he was frothing at the mouth quite often. He was the one responsible for the attempted insurrection and it was only the residual TDS among the right that enable him to get off.

I suppose another possible scenario might not necessarily involve China, but North Korea, since that country also has nuclear capabilities which could threaten the U.S. If Trump really was losing it to the point of utter insanity, he might pick on North Korea.

But I don't know if Trump could have gone that far. I think there were some concerns that he could order the military to form some kind of coup, possibly using a pretext of a "fraudulent election." Even that was out of the question, and the military even said so publicly, but you never know if there's some rogue unit or units out there, fanatically devoted to Trump.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose another possible scenario might not necessarily involve China, but North Korea, since that country also has nuclear capabilities which could threaten the U.S. If Trump really was losing it to the point of utter insanity, he might pick on North Korea.

But I don't know if Trump could have gone that far. I think there were some concerns that he could order the military to form some kind of coup, possibly using a pretext of a "fraudulent election." Even that was out of the question, and the military even said so publicly, but you never know if there's some rogue unit or units out there, fanatically devoted to Trump.

He did come close to it but was bucked by people in his own administration. Let me see if I can find a source. Aah, here we go:

Trump Pressed Justice Dept. to Declare Election Results Corrupt, Notes Show

"President Donald J. Trump pressed top Justice Department officials late last year to declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud, so he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results, according to new documents provided to lawmakers."

"“Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me” and to congressional allies, Mr. Donoghue wrote in summarizing Mr. Trump’s response."


"“These handwritten notes show that President Trump directly instructed our nation’s top law enforcement agency to take steps to overturn a free and fair election in the final days of his presidency,” Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said in a statement."

 

[metis]

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.

But not everyone here or internationally knows that, thus some reassurance may well have been in order.

 

[esmith]

"Who is to decide if it is right or wrong?"

As far as an order goes, right or wrong has no bearing as far as the UCMJ goes. Only the legality of the order is considered

I think that such questions can be decided by individuals of good conscience. I don't think there's anything magical about being a politician or a general that makes them more moral than a common citizen or foot soldier. In many ways, I think the common people have a more astute and accurate moral compass than most of the bigshots on top. A regime which has to answer to the people would be expected to act much differently than one that has no such accountability.

As far as the military is concerned if a member fails to follow an order, no matter what they think, they are in the wrong and if brought before a Court Martrial the lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

Milley might ultimately have to face military justice, but since Biden is now commander in chief, wouldn't he have the power to pardon him?

Yes

 

[metis]

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.

That's "avoidance" of my point through the use of "false equivalency". The fact you obviously want to avoid is that Trump praised "strong leaders", such as Putin but also even Saddam Hussein!

Welcome to reality.

 

[Kooky]

Americans are not really of one like mind on the issues related to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Technically speaking, since the president and Congress authorized our military actions, then it would be "legal" from that standpoint. However, we're also signatories to various treaties and conventions which outline the conduct of war, treatment of prisoners and civilians, and so forth. There were some military personnel who were tried and prosecuted for war crimes, the most famous of which might be William Calley. However, some might believe that he was just a fall guy for the higher ups who should have been prosecuted.

"Charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."

I think if they prosecuted everything violation that every soldier or sailor did, then it might have disrupted the standard narrative that most of our soldiers were serving honorably and doing their duty, while attributing the atrocities and other war crimes to "a few bad apples." (It's not unlike the government's standard narrative regarding the police.) Our government seems to want to exude a certain "Boy Scout" image which plays well in Peoria, which is why they might tend to minimize any "unpleasantries" or sweep it all under the rug (if they can).

It's true that the U.S. lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and I suppose if the governments of either country chose to do so, they could prosecute American war criminals in absentia, utilizing the legal mechanisms in their own country. Or they could be prosecuted through the World Court or some other international tribunal, which was the case at Nuremberg. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

My point was that "the winner is always right" is such an uninformed take on the history of international and national law that it is trivial to debunk with even just a surface level knowledge of recent historical facts.

 

[ecco]

Just because some of you think if he did violate the UCMJ

If you think Milley violated some codes or rules or laws, then present the details of those violations and specify how you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think Milley violated some codes or rules or laws, then present the details of those violations and specify how you know.

I searched that topic and found quite a few Trumpista sites that say he did. They even cited the violated codes. Unfortunately they also got the story wrong. Politico does a nice job explaining it:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/16/did-gen-mark-milley-overstep-nuclear-launch-meetin/o

 

[esmith]

If you think Milley violated some codes or rules or laws, then present the details of those violations and specify how you know.

Seems that you have done what many in the MSM have done, and that is take part of what I said and changed the entire meaning of what I said.

Unsure how accurate the book is.
Jennifer Griffin, whose reporting I respect, said the Generl Milley never promised China a head's up in the way described by Costa and Woodward.
If he did what Costa and Woodward wrote,then he, General Milley, should face a General Court Martial.
Just because some of you think if he did violate the UCMJ he did it for the right reason and should not face a General Court Martial are wrong.
Military law is not a "guidance". It makes no differece if you are an E-1 or O-11, if you are accused of violating the UCMJ you are still held accountable to all articles of the UCMJ..

.

Got anything to say now @ecco about your flagrant misrepresentation?

 

[ecco]

If he did what Costa and Woodward wrote,then he, General Milley, should face a General Court Martial.

Just because some of you think if he did violate the UCMJ he did it for the right reason and should not face a General Court Martial are wrong.

Military law is not a "guidance". It makes no differece if you are an E-1 or O-11, if you are accused of violating the UCMJ you are still held accountable to all articles of the UCMJ.
Let's say I kill someone who is in command of a unit who attempts to run in the face of an enemy, which puts others lives in danger, I have violated an article of the UCMJ. If my actions are brought forward I have to face a Court Martial even though I may have saved numerous lives by my actions. Now I may be found not guilty but I still have to face a Court Martial.

If you think Milley violated some codes or rules or laws, then present the details of those violations and specify how you know.

Seems that you have done what many in the MSM have done, and that is take part of what I said and changed the entire meaning of what I said.

The MSM took part of what you said and changed the meaning? I doubt the MSM would have quoted you. Perhaps you meant that I did with your comments what you belive the MSM has done with the comments of some unidentified other people.

Please show specifically how I "changed the entire meaning of what [you] said".

Got anything to say now @ecco about your flagrant misrepresentation?

You wrote "If he did what Costa and Woodward wrote, then he ... should face a General Court Martial."

I asked for specifics of which of his deeds violated which rules/laws/military conventions. You said you had no details. How did I flagrantly misrepresent you? Please do try to be specific.

 

[esmith]

The MSM took part of what you said and changed the meaning? I doubt the MSM would have quoted you. Perhaps you meant that I did with your comments what you belive the MSM has done with the comments of some unidentified other people.

That is correct. I did not intended to imply that the MSM quoted me. What I intended to say was that you took a small section of my sentence and changed it as MSM has done to others in the past.

Please show specifically how I "changed the entire meaning of what [you] said".

Let's take a look at the sentence highlighted in red.
I'm saying that if he violated the UCMJ he still must face a Court Martial even if he thouht he was violating the UCMJ was the right think to do

Unsure how accurate the book is.
Jennifer Griffin, whose reporting I respect, said the Generl Milley never promised China a head's up in the way described by Costa and Woodward.
If he did what Costa and Woodward wrote,then he, General Milley, should face a General Court Martial.
Just because some of you think if he did violate the UCMJ he did it for the right reason and should not face a General Court Martial are wrong..

You wrote "If he did what Costa and Woodward wrote, then he ... should face a General Court Martial."
I asked for specifics of which of his deeds violated which rules/laws/military conventions. You said you had no details. How did I flagrantly misrepresent you? Please do try to be specific.

I have not read the book but reading what CNN wrote. see: Woodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took secret action to protect nuclear weapons - CNNPolitics
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.
I can see that if the above is true there are a few Articles of the UCMJ he violated.
Article 92 Failure to obey and lawful order.
Article 94 Mutiny and Sedition
Article 134 General Article

Now it is possible that I thought you were refering to the highlighted red sentence. If you were not then I retract my accusation that you misquoted me.