Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
OK, this amounts to Treason.........

#21

It's about time to get the gallows out and make examples of some of these people. We need our military back if we are to remain the superpower that is America.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 07:47 AM by The Real Marty. Edited 1 time in total.)

From the article:

"The two journalists wrote that Milley “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.”"

In my opinion, if Milley really thought that, then it is was his duty to try to make sure the President didn't do anything crazy. 

Now, was that treasonous?  Here is what the Constitution says: 

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It doesn't seem to meet that definition of "treason."  But it's certainly worth discussion.

(09-15-2021, 07:43 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: It's about time to get the gallows out and make examples of some of these people. We need our military back if we are to remain the superpower that is America.

Go read up on the Nuremberg Trials.  All those Nazi generals said they were just following orders.
Reply

#23

(09-15-2021, 07:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: From the article:

"The two journalists wrote that Milley “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.”"

In my opinion, if Milley really thought that, then it is was his duty to try to make sure the President didn't do anything crazy. 

Now, was that treasonous?  Here is what the Constitution says: 

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It doesn't seem to meet that definition of "treason."  But it's certainly worth discussion.

(09-15-2021, 07:43 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: It's about time to get the gallows out and make examples of some of these people. We need our military back if we are to remain the superpower that is America.

Go read up on the Nuremberg Trials.  All those Nazi generals said they were just following orders.

The content of the article holds no merit. The left impeached Trump for having a bad hair day. They would have 25th him if anyone could prove he was as mentally unfit as the left claim, but he isn't,  and they couldn't.  

There is a good chance Milley cross dresses under his uniform and he should be court marshaled and tried. These are not the type of leaders we need in our military and trust me, you don't want to find that out when it is too late.
Reply

#24
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 08:42 AM by Lucky2Last.)

(09-15-2021, 05:51 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: The report I saw said that the United States learned that China thought Trump was about to order an attack on China.  Milley called his Chinese counterpart and told him we were not about to attack China.  Milley was trying to calm them down and prevent a very dangerous situation. 

Now, if Milley intervened in the chain of command in order to prevent Trump launching a nuclear strike in the waning day of his Presidency, that may or may not be treason, but I think that was the responsible thing to do.  If I really thought the President was not mentally stable, and could possibly launch a nuclear strike, I think if I were a brave enough, I would commit treason at that point.  

Absolute adherence to the chain of command was an excuse German generals used in the Nuremberg trials to justify committing genocide.  "I was only following orders."

This is different than what I read. I have no problems if the Chinese general was concerned and called Milley. I think that would be responsible. However, it seems like he took it upon himself to call, which is absurd. Without the call from Trump to actually launch a nuke or a command to attack China, this is 100% speculation from a subordinate. It's ridiculous on it's face. And, when you add the phone call, it is borderline treasonous. Generals don't get to presume they know what the President is going to do.

(09-14-2021, 11:19 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(09-14-2021, 10:31 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: At the behest of the President. You are taking the 2 biggest players who were in a proxy war for decades and comparing it to a general that was on the phone with China about an order that never even came through. Your absurdity knows no bounds.

The order to nuke Moscow never came through either, sphincter sniffer.

What President ordered Moscow to be nuked? Both the US and Russia did not want a nuclear war. They were in constant contact about many of their actions because they were involved in multiple proxy wars. No general that I know of made a call, on their own accord, to Russia in an attempt to undermine a President. Please show me this piece of history. You can't even follow your own reasoning. 
(09-14-2021, 11:19 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(09-14-2021, 10:31 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: At the behest of the President. You are taking the 2 biggest players who were in a proxy war for decades and comparing it to a general that was on the phone with China about an order that never even came through. Your absurdity knows no bounds.

The order to nuke Moscow never came through either, sphincter sniffer.

Reply

#25
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 08:44 AM by KingIngram052787. Edited 1 time in total.)

The definition of treason is stupid, we give our enemies aid and comfort all of the time. Look at the Taliban right now, we're literally giving them aid and comfort at this very moment.

As far as the article with Milley and Trump, needs more information, but I tend to agree with most posters who say that reinforcing command is one thing, but initiating a call to China on his own seems suspect.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#26

Yeah, I started digging into the topic a bit and was surprised how little there was on the topic. I know the founding fathers were succinct, but that definition is wanting. Regardless, I don't like what I saw from Milley there. He had no reason to call China for something so speculative.
Reply

#27

(09-15-2021, 07:36 AM)EricC85 Wrote: I don’t know anything about military chain of command, but as a civilian in the outside, generals calling foreign nationals and claiming advanced warning on military actions seems treasonous to me.

Or is it now acceptable anytime some general disagrees with a President to work to undermine his or her authority with foreign nations. Screw it won’t matter for long the house of cards is coming down soon enough.

That is exactly treason.  As I said before, IF what is being reported is true the general needs to face a court martial.  His job is to be the senior military advisor to The President.

The other part that is disturbing is that the general basically attempted a coup.  The President is his boss and he basically tried to undermine him.

Finally, regarding the nonsense about some kind of nuclear strike or not, General Milley would have very little to do with that.  Also The President can not order a strike on his own.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#28

(09-15-2021, 08:47 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Yeah, I started digging into the topic a bit and was surprised how little there was on the topic. I know the founding fathers were succinct, but that definition is wanting. Regardless, I don't like what I saw from Milley there. He had no reason to call China for something so speculative.
It's weird that this is leaking. Look at the words being used. Everything that is said applies more to Biden. Now the MSM is responding that Milley is a hero and did everything right to stop a president not mentally there. Milley was even said to say he would remove Trump.

Does that sound like it now gives the military the go ahead to remove the idiot now?

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Reply

#29
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 09:23 AM by The Real Marty. Edited 2 times in total.)

So, my question would be, is there any scenario you can see where morality overrides duty as a military officer to follow the chain of command? 

Obviously, the answer is yes, because I know that if you guys were in the military and the President told you to go out and round up Jews and kill them, you would not obey that.  But would that be treason?  Yes, that is an extreme example, but it did happen in Germany. 

So there are cases where your duty as a moral human being overrides your duty as a military officer.  The question is, where do we draw the line?  In some cases, morality demands that you commit treason.  Right?  So how does one make that decision?  This is not a simple question, no matter how much you guys want it to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing Milley put on trial over this, as long as the trial is public and televised.  It would be the most interesting trial in years.  Because it would delve into questions of morality vs duty, not to mention what was going on in the White House at the time.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#30

(09-15-2021, 09:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: So, my question would be, is there any scenario you can see where morality overrides duty as a military officer to follow the chain of command? 

Obviously, the answer is yes, because I know that if you guys were in the military and the President told you to go out and round up Jews and kill them, you would not obey that.  But would that be treason?  Yes, that is an extreme example, but it did happen in Germany. 

On the other hand, you have the Seven Days in May scenario, where Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tried to carry out a military coup based on his own assumptions of what was good for the people of the United States and the rest of the world. 

So there are cases where your duty as a moral human being overrides your duty as a military officer.  The question is, where do we draw the line?  In some cases, morality demands that you commit treason.  Right?  So how does one make that decision?  This is not a simple question, no matter how much you guys want it to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing Milley put on trial over this, as long as the trial is public and televised.  It would be the most interesting trial in years.  Because it would delve into questions of morality vs duty, not to mention what was going on in the White House at the time.

There are Constitutional and civilian provisions for dealing with an unstable President and Milly subverted those provisions in favor of collaboration with a foreign adversary. This was not a "finger on the button" scenario in any sense of the phrase and Milly's actions in this circumstance, the only one that bears consideration at the moment, were treasonous.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#31

(09-15-2021, 09:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: So, my question would be, is there any scenario you can see where morality overrides duty as a military officer to follow the chain of command? 

Obviously, the answer is yes, because I know that if you guys were in the military and the President told you to go out and round up Jews and kill them, you would not obey that.  But would that be treason?  Yes, that is an extreme example, but it did happen in Germany. 

So there are cases where your duty as a moral human being overrides your duty as a military officer.  The question is, where do we draw the line?  In some cases, morality demands that you commit treason.  Right?  So how does one make that decision?  This is not a simple question, no matter how much you guys want it to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing Milley put on trial over this, as long as the trial is public and televised.  It would be the most interesting trial in years.  Because it would delve into questions of morality vs duty, not to mention what was going on in the White House at the time.

No.  If he doesn't like something that his boss tells him he can step down from his position.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#32

(09-15-2021, 10:08 AM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(09-15-2021, 09:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: So, my question would be, is there any scenario you can see where morality overrides duty as a military officer to follow the chain of command? 

Obviously, the answer is yes, because I know that if you guys were in the military and the President told you to go out and round up Jews and kill them, you would not obey that.  But would that be treason?  Yes, that is an extreme example, but it did happen in Germany. 

So there are cases where your duty as a moral human being overrides your duty as a military officer.  The question is, where do we draw the line?  In some cases, morality demands that you commit treason.  Right?  So how does one make that decision?  This is not a simple question, no matter how much you guys want it to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing Milley put on trial over this, as long as the trial is public and televised.  It would be the most interesting trial in years.  Because it would delve into questions of morality vs duty, not to mention what was going on in the White House at the time.

No.  If he doesn't like something that his boss tells him he can step down from his position.

So if Biden is in the War Room this afternoon and tells Milly to nuke Dubuque, Iowa he should just resign? Nah, in that scenario I think the officer would be correct to refuse the order and take the President into custody. There are limits dictated by the circumstances, but in the case in question Milly was pretty clearly in the wrong.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#33
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 10:25 AM by Jagwired. Edited 1 time in total.)

Milley's actions were driven by his own paranoia. He is guilty of several UCMJ article violations. Court martial is the only recourse.
Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#34

It is humorous pretending we are cool with pudding for brains Joe Biden making a war time decision.
Reply

#35

(09-15-2021, 10:36 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: It is humorous pretending we are cool with pudding for brains Joe Biden making a war time decision.

Let's be clear, Susan Rice is the real POTUS. Biden is her puppet
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

#36
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021, 12:15 PM by Lucky2Last.)

(09-15-2021, 10:24 AM)Jagwired Wrote: Milley's actions were driven by his own paranoia.  He is guilty of several UCMJ article violations. Court martial is the only recourse.

Exactly. Again, had he been contacted by the Chinese general and he assuaged his concerns, that is an entirely different story. But to call him on his own accord? Get out of here. My opinion changes if, and only if, Trump had actually commanded him to do something irresponsible. That did not happen. Milley should be punished. Generals should never act on what they THINK the person is going to do based on their own paranoia.

Combine this with his absolutely butchered withdrawal of Afghanistan... this dude is not fit for his command.
Reply

#37

(09-15-2021, 09:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: So, my question would be, is there any scenario you can see where morality overrides duty as a military officer to follow the chain of command? 

Obviously, the answer is yes, because I know that if you guys were in the military and the President told you to go out and round up Jews and kill them, you would not obey that.  But would that be treason?  Yes, that is an extreme example, but it did happen in Germany. 

So there are cases where your duty as a moral human being overrides your duty as a military officer.  The question is, where do we draw the line?  In some cases, morality demands that you commit treason.  Right?  So how does one make that decision?  This is not a simple question, no matter how much you guys want it to be.

I wouldn't mind seeing Milley put on trial over this, as long as the trial is public and televised.  It would be the most interesting trial in years.  Because it would delve into questions of morality vs duty, not to mention what was going on in the White House at the time.

The only orders you can refuse are ones that are not lawful. There are clear rules for that. If you don't want to follow a lawful order, you can step down.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#38

I think it would be totally within his rights to deny the president the authority to invade another country as a pretext to stay in office. That didn't happen, though. So, the dude needs to be tried.
Reply

#39

I don't think anyone is going to be brought up on treason charges.. This is our government we're talking about. They play hate each other on TV, but unless you're Trump, they all have each other's back..


[Image: ezgif-5-b2a80726c8.gif]
Reply

#40

(09-15-2021, 12:56 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I think it would be totally within his rights to deny the president the authority to invade another country as a pretext to stay in office. That didn't happen, though. So, the dude needs to be tried.

President can't declare war. War would be the only way to stay in office. If attacked by another country, he could take the US into war but not on his own. If it was a lawful order, it is not in his right to deny the president. Congress could remove the president if something like that happened. This was a coup that he was saying Trump was trying to do.

What the left can't see is this is setting it clearly to remove Biden and dems from their illegal actions. There would need to be military leadership willing but it is clearly an option now.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!