"Treason?" Topic

link

Yep, and capital punishment should be meted out, after a brief but fair courtmartial for his crime(s).

This kind of lunacy cannot be permitted to continue in our armed forces.

Obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the officers appointed over me.

Of course, this could be just talk.

But I doubt it.

And every officer who swore him a oath should get charged as well.

A regular Alexander Haig. Must of thought he was in charge!

How is this not the textbook definition of treason?

Definitely treason. It is actually very worrying – if the US needs to actually go to a serious war it might not be able to rely on its generals to execute it

Not paying $40 USD to read the article.

Gorgrat +1 🎖

Not paying $40 USD USD to read the article.

Yeah … WDF ! 🤬

He should be fired. Here's an article from The Federalist:
link

Which is sadly, what wackmole9 (no offense) doesn't get.

The President is the guy the American people said was their commander in chief. Displace that, no matter how bad you think the present guy is, and you have a dictatorship.

Now, take it a step further and have generals giving top level military information to the other side?

You've just raised its level to treason as an executable offense.

I'm not sure I believe this, because Milley is the type who says whatever enters his head without bothering to run it by the cerebrum, but even so, just for saying that he should be relieved and forced into retirement.

Just read the article and this is insane behaviour for a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff especially this part:

"General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise,"

That would have resulted in lots of dead Americans.

Milley also ordered senior military officers to review protocols for nuclear weapons, reminding each while the president could give the order, Milley had to be involved in the process.

And this would've potentially resulted in the destruction of the USA whilst China survived unscathed!

Well that was must be something taught to the military in woke, CRT, etc., training ? Tell your enemy what you're going too. I'm sure would not agree with this. If he was not dead of course.

Maybe not treason, but gross insubordination and flaunting our tradition of civilian leadership. He COULD have made the same point by resigning and explaining why publicly. What a despicable man.

"Treason?"

Oh, when I saw the thread title I thought it was in regard to the administration continuing to give foreign aid to Afghanistan. You know, because our former enemies, the Taliban, are "business like and professional" and will be sure to get the money to the people who really need it.🤮

Yep this is treason. Also a terrifying violation of civilian control of the military

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world we're just all grateful to learn that during the last 4 years there was at least someone mature, sane and rationale watching the red button. You guys have what, the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal on the planet?! Control of it worries even your allies.

Scary time the last 4 years. You should realise even your closest allies felt distinctly uncertain and uncomfortable through that crazy period.

How is this not the textbook definition of treason?

Because this is the textbook definition of treason:

18 US Code §2381 – Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 USD; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Guys, guys, guys….Milley did NOT disobey the president. The president did NOT order an attack on China. Milley only reassured his Chinese counterpart that there were no plans to attack China.

Keep in mind that to an authoritarian, communist government democracy's lack of order is fightening. Put yourself in China's shoes; it would be easy for them to think the worst. Milley assured them there were no plans to attack, but he also warned them that they needed to be careful because a small incident could escalate.

This talk of treason is only valid if Trump ordered an attack and Milley refused…did not happen.

But, damn, look at the outrage on this social media site!

Scary time the last 4 years. You should realise even your closest allies felt distinctly uncertain and uncomfortable through that crazy period.

Nothing scary about massive economic growth, energy independence, and no new wars.

What is scary is that our intel agencies are now saying AQ will be back in Afghanistan and fully functioning in less than two years from now. We are no longer energy independent and rely once again on oil from the Middle East. So nice try with your not so veiled insult.

Milley only reassured his Chinese counterpart that there were no plans to attack China.

According to report, Miley said he would forewarn the Chinese in case the US decided to attack!

That's not telling the opponent you're not going to attack, that's literally telling them if you do attack you're going to tell them so they can get prepared.

That would get lots of Americans killed either in a Chinese pre-emptive attack or due to Chinese mobilising defences.

link

Pelosi too.

link

"If this account is true, Milley's conduct, while perhaps not rising to the constitutional level of treason, is about the worst of which any military man could be accused. It would certainly require termination, and there likely is a provision of the federal code under which criminal charges could be brought.

But is it true? I haven't seen any comment by Milley on Woodward's allegations, but Ric Grenell is skeptical:

(twitter here)

Grenell is right that Woodward's track record is poor. Remember his purported deathbed interview of Bill Casey?

Still, Milley has done nothing to merit a vote of confidence, and as noted above, I haven't seen that he has even denied Woodward's charge. I am highly skeptical that Milley could have done anything so shameful, but investigation is warranted."

"Treason" is very strictly defined by the Constitution. And for very good reason.
In the past, Kings of England had used the term "treason" very broadly to execute those who disagreed about Policy.
Maybe by the lights of Henry VIII, or Charles I, Milley committed "treason", but not by the light of the Constitution. Absolutely not.
Milley had very real and serious reservations about The Former Guy. He was also aware that the Chinese were on high alert, fearing that The Former Guy was deranged. In their regime, that possibility did not exist. Maybe.

Milley assured his Chinese counterpart that there would be no last minute Wag the Dog scenario. He also reminded the men in charge of launching nukes that although The Former Guy had the ultimate word, that he was part of the chain.
Can anyone please explain why the US would or should launch nukes vs China in the aftermath of Jan 6? Enlighten me.

In the oath that all members of the armed services, they swear to obey any commands. EXCEPT IF THEY BELIEVE THEM TO BE ILLEGAL.

I believe that Milley did the right thing. But I also believe that honor should compel him to resign, "For the Good of the Service".

It's also evident that any and all of the above who are calling his acts treasonous have little or no respect for the Constitution.
That's a bit strange considering that they seem to wear the Constitution, or at least the 2nd Amendment, on their sleeves or their hearts.
Curious.
But maybe they only care about the 2nd Amendment.

javelin 98

Good, so you see why this situation is treasonous, and no AUSA worth his salt would have any trouble getting a conviction, provided that the allegation is true, and not just Milley being a conceited , and running his mouth off the rails, which I personally believe is equally likely.

EXCEPT IF THEY BELIEVE THEM TO BE ILLEGAL.

Yep, except the US Constitution and legal, policy and procedural frameworks are so full of holes that pretty much most things can be construed as legal or illegal depending on the perception of the individual.

For example US forces are still in Syria under the authority originally issued for operations against ISIS but both Republican and Democratic Congressmen have expressed concern at the legal status of the US presence in that country.

link

Thus a US soldier/officer could refuse to serve in Syria depending on how they perceive the legal status.

This uncertainty is a deliberately designed part of the system. It's part of an overall muddying of the waters in the west designed to reduce political responsibility, accountability and transparency.

"I'm just recalling that the FBI went after Gen. Flynn for a phone call with the Russian ambassador. The claim was they Flynn may have violated the Logan Act by carrying out his own foreign policy. Granted the Logan Act has never really been enforced, but does that same scrutiny apply here?"

Flynn's call was perfectly okay, and maybe this one is too, but we seem to have two standards.

John, once you open that bottle, you can never get the genii back inside. And it is a wicked spirit.

Ah, General Flynn.
His defenders claim that he only pled guilty to get his son off the hook.
Ever since I heard that, I wondered why his son was ON the hook?

Some of you guys don't know who the chain of command includes and who it doesn't when it comes to nukes. The NCA, National Command Authority, is made up of two people, the President and the Secretary of Defense. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an "advisor" to the President and is only in an administrative chain of command of the military. Gen Miley does not have any "combatant command" authority. In other words he would be bypassed and the launch order would go from the NCA to the Commander of USSTRATCOM then on down.

Well, it's a Good Thing we didn't have to test it, isn't it?

I still want to see the people calling this "treason" to step up and tell us all why you don't respect the Constitution.
Beuler? Beuler?

John, did you ever wonder why the FBI policy is not to record their interviews?

The FBI excels at finding crimes that they created.

bjporter, yes, exactly. They are thugs for the establishment.

Yeah, sure.

If a member of one of the uniformed services is given
an order which he/she believes to be UNLAWFUL, he/she
is within his/her rights to refuse to carry it out.

At least, that's how it was in 1965. And don't ask how
I can be so sure.

John, that's a straw man and you know it. Setting aside the nuke part of the discussion for a moment, he, if accounts are true, told the Chinese that he'd warn them ahead of time in case of attack (not necessarily nuclear attack). That meets the giving aid part of what javelin98 so kindly quoted (but apparently didn't read?) and is what can be argued here.

How does thinking that act rises to the level of treason ‘not respect the constitution?' You made the statement, didn't explain why it made sense somehow in your head and then demanded people explain themselves.

It seems that the duty is for you to explain your own statement before demanding anything of anyone else. No one here owes you what you seem to think they do.

Simply not liking or trusting the resident previous to the current one isn't a justifiable excuse. Had that person made an order to nuke China (which is on its face an insane assertion- that is as crazy a fantasy as the Qanon loons and outside of some fever dreams on the left complete silliness), Miley would still been out of the chain of command, though would have been hailed as a hero for inserting himself in that situation had it happened.

However, what he did do -as the above fantasy never happened- was go to a foreign power, well outside the chain of command, not to mention the State Department, whose job it is to communicate with foreign powers, and offer to warn them if there was military action against them (allegedly).

Explain to me, if that is true, how that ‘respects the Constitution.'

If he didn't do this and old Bob is just trying to sell books, then Mr. Milley has the right to sue. If he did what was alleged, that is unconscionable and the harbinger of general staff doing whatever they want in the future, regardless of what their constitutionally mandated civilian masters order them to do. To any military man, he ‘broke the faith and traditions of the US Military.'

The remedy for a bad order is refusal, then resignation and the filing of charges. Mr. Milley knows this. Mr. Milley could have demanded public courts martial to make clear any dangers he felt Americans should be aware of. Billy Mitchell did that and was hailed a hero in his time. If what is alleged is true, Mr. Milley simply went rogue against a civilian leader he despised, even though he swore an oath to follow his orders, hoping to keep his plum position and hedging his bets in case the previous guy won.

Again, if this is all turns out to be crap, then my apologies to Mr. Milley.

Straw man? Seriously?
As Sean Hannity would whine, "Why do you hate the Constitution?"

It also appears he was conspiring the nuclear stuff with Nancy Pelosi…in which case where do the general's loyalties lie – the US constitution or the Democratic Party.

Also on John's assertion about "refusing an illegal order," well Trump never made any orders did he? Milley acted off his own initiative.

He literally talked to the enemy and short circuited the country's nuclear deterrent chain of command because he didn't like his boss.

link

Yep, he contacted the Chinese twice, alleged that he would intervene on their behalf and NOT follow the CiC's orders if he chose to attack, AND would warn them if he did, which by Constitutional law Trump is permitted to do.

Also, Milley asked subordinates to pledge an oath of loyalty to him, which is doubly ironic, since this is exactly what the leftists are/were accusing Trump of doing.

AND would warn them if he did, which by Constitutional law Trump is permitted to do.

Why? Just because he felt like it, and wanted to Wag the Dog?
Whatever happened to Congress having the sole authority to declare war? I admit that they have been gutless since 1945, not wishing to assume responsibility for that, but that's a different question for another day.
No. Trump is/was NOT permitted to just heave nukes at China, just because… things were closing in.
Milley was acting RESPONSIBLY, assuring the Chinese that a "deranged lunatic" would not be launching a nuclear attack. They were honestly afraid he would.
I'm not sure I would like to lose 100,000,000 Americans and/or 135,000,000 Chinese just so The Former Guy (who I voted for….) could hold on to office.

I ask again. Why do you hate the Constitution?

John,

Trump never launched a war against China nor is there any evidence he had intentions to do so.

I'm probably the biggest socialist* on this board but even I can see that much!

If this is true, the general acted completely out of line and compromised the chain of command and in the long term this could be damaging to domestic stability as people latch on to the US idea of democracy being compromised.

The Chinese thought he would, and Milley had to reassure them.
The Guns of August.

Who knows what the Chinese thought – we have no evidence of their internal communiques.

Indeed there was no reports of Chinese mobilisation at the time so they probably weren't really that concerned.

And General Milley doesn't report to the Chinese. They are at best a "competitor" and at worst the enemy.

What ever threat existed was in Milley's head.

Note the US just pulled out of Afghanistan and never consulted allies.

So why should American generals consult their enemies because they don't like their boss?

No they weren't John, and your assertion is just silly.

Presidents are able to declare war, and take military action. Congress has ceded a lot of their power to the Presidents, like it or not.

The REAL worry is the current guy, who has anger management problems, demonstrated dementia, and has the nuclear football now, which makes him a real, clear and present danger.

His predecessor did not, despite ALL the false propaganda and wild assertions against him by ardent, radical foes.

If the Chinese were REALLY concerned they would have spoken up in the media and said so. Sure, they hated Trump since he's the FIRST American to hold them accountable for ALL of their bad deeds, so they were thrilled when he lost.

An American "general" (hopefully soon to be a disgraced ex-general soon, like later today), putting the Chinese first is NOT acceptable.

If the Chi-coms caught one of their guys doing that, they'd go Kim Jong Un on his ass, and execute him on national TV with a ZSU-23/4's quad 23mm cannons.

My guess is they'd make watching it mandatory for ALL 100% of their population, and make it a Pay per View event, since they are true capitalists now.

Presidents are able to declare war…

Absolutely 100% wrong.
Article one, Section 8, clause 11.

link

Nowhere is the President given the power or authority to "declare war".

Why do you hate the Constitution?

If the Chinese were REALLY concerned they would have spoken up in the media and said so.

Oh, really?

Where are you getting that John?

I love the US Constitution, but nice try at the misdirection there.

"The extent to which this clause limits the President's ability to use military force without Congress's affirmative approval remains highly contested".

"In modern times, however, Presidents have used military force without formal declarations or express consent from Congress on multiple occasions. For example, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into combat in Korea; President Reagan ordered the use of military force in, among other places, Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush directed an invasion of Panama to topple the government of Manual Noriega; and President Obama used air strikes to support the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Some commentators argue that, whatever the original meaning of the Declare War Clause, these episodes (among others) establish a modern practice that allows the President considerable independent power to use military force".

"The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it".

link
"

Presidents routinely commit troops to combat without any declaration from Congress and have since the start. John knows that.

Yep, the last time the US Congress declared war was in 1941. Since then US forces have been engaged in all sorts of conflicts all over the world: Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and our "longest war" Afghanistan. It's become complete intellectual fantasy to still think that US Presidents are some how contained from going to war without a declaration from Congress. Anyway don't liberals like to say the Constitution is a living breathing document, so they of all people shouldn't care.

Anyway, getting back to nukes. I find it amazing that some of you think that any US President has the ability to simply launch nukes all by himself.