International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507)

phiwum 15th September 2021 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600287)
OK, when you write this in response to a post support of Milley's actions:



The implication is that they are supportive of a coup.


Secondly, it's not clear that anything illegal happened. According to some reports, he was given permission and later briefed civilian leadership in the Pentagon regarding the call. Even if not, it's not clear to me that it's illegal for a general to reassure a foreign power not to worry about a surprise attack that isn't coming. Had he warned them of an attack that was imminent, these accusations of treasons and coups would make a bit more sense to me.

There's a lot of sense in the distinction you draw. There's a difference between promising to warn and actually warning.

Of course, it's still possible that he wasn't authorized to make such a promise.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

dirtywick 15th September 2021 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 13600290)
There's a lot of sense in the distinction you draw. There's a difference between promising to warn and actually warning.

Of course, it's still possible that he wasn't authorized to make such a promise.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It's possible, but again there are reports that his calls were approved and relayed to civilian leadership in the Pentagon. They didn't appear to have a problem with the calls at the time either.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600257)
Except he didn't. There were a number of high profile cases where the administration got shut down by the courts. Notably, Trump never went against the courts after any such ruling.


LOL! He called the Lt. Gov. of Georgia and tried to get him to just "find" the exact number of votes to give him the state! He pressured the DOJ to declare they found "problems" with the election voting and Barr finally resigned over Trump's meddling. He got away with that and two impeachments for illegal things that he clearly did and GOP knew he did but didn't care! Don't give me this crap that "he didn't".

Quote:

Contrast that with Biden, who admitted his eviction moratorium was unconstitutional but declared he was going to proceed with attempting it anyways.
Um, no. He admitted no such thing. What he said was:

Quote:

“any call for a moratorium based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision is likely to face obstacles.” Still, he said, “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time”
And three SC justices dissented from the majority ruling.

Here's some 'whataboutisms' for you (I'm pre-empting that completely expected rebuttal, so don't bother):

Trump's XO's declared illegal:

Quote:

A Washington Post review shows over 60 adverse rulings against the administration. All administrations lose cases, but experts cannot recall so many losses in such a short time.

Environmental: 19
Immigration: 14
Health Care: 12
Sanctuary Cities: 7
Transgender Military Ban: 5
DACA: 4
Census Citizenship Question: 3
Miscellaneous: 6

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600272)
Nobody knows how you judge anything, and at this point nobody cares.

The constitution is a legal document, and it has considerable say on how we judge the legality of the actions of anyone in government, including Milley.

What does the Constitution say about Milley's action?

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600287)
OK, when you write this in response to a post support of Milley's actions:



The implication is that they are supportive of a coup.

it Implies they are both flexible in the importance of government agents adhering to the rule of law.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600294)
It's possible, but again there are reports that his calls were approved and relayed to civilian leadership in the Pentagon. They didn't appear to have a problem with the calls at the time either.

Were they? Who authorized them? Miller says he didn't and wouldn't.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-should-resign

carlitos 15th September 2021 01:06 PM

We're getting some real stars quoted here. Christopher Miller was Defense Secretary for what - 3 months? In that time, he ordered our forces out of Afghanistan, failed to meet with Biden's team, thereby risking national security during transition, delayed activating the National Guard for hours while white supremacists and MAGA hordes attacked the US Capitol. Such an important voice about the Constitutionality of whatever Milley did. **** that guy.

Ziggurat 15th September 2021 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13600303)
What does the Constitution say about Milley's action?

The constitution makes the President the commander in chief, and gives Congress the power to pass laws governing the structure of the armed forces. Congress has passed laws which dictate the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those laws prohibit the Chairman from exercising command authority. The Chairman's only role is as advisor to the president, he is NOT part of the chain of command. If Milley gave orders to anyone, that is illegal, and the constitution backs that up.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600393)
Were they? Who authorized them? Miller says he didn't and wouldn't.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-should-resign

From your link:
Quote:

The book claims Milley contacted Li after he had reviewed intelligence that suggested Chinese officials believed the United States was planning an attack on China amid military exercises in the South China Sea. The authors of the book also claim Milley contacted Li a second time to reassure him that the U.S. would not make any type of advances or attack China in any form, as Milley promised, "We are 100% steady. Everything’s fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

But Fox News spoke with multiple individuals who were in the room during the two phone calls Milley had with Li. The calls, in October, were coordinated with then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s office.

"They were not secret," a U.S. official told Fox News about the calls, which took place over video teleconference.

Fox News has learned there were about 15 people present for the calls. Sources told Fox News that there were multiple notetakers present, and said the calls were both conducted with full knowledge of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and then-acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller – something Miller denied.
So we have 15 people who were present and sources who say both Esper and Miller knew about them beforehand. And that's from FOX.

Miller was appointed by Trump because he's a sycophantic loyalist. Of course he's now going to deny it.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600402)
The constitution makes the President the commander in chief, and gives Congress the power to pass laws governing the structure of the armed forces. Congress has passed laws which dictate the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those laws prohibit the Chairman from exercising command authority. The Chairman's only role is as advisor to the president, he is NOT part of the chain of command. If Milley gave orders to anyone, that is illegal, and the constitution backs that up.

1. It's the Constitution, not constitution.

2. Milley was not exercising command authority. He was reminding the others what the proper and legal procedure was when it came to the POTUS ordering military strikes and that was for him to be informed as Chairman. Unless China attacked the US or was planning to, there would be no warranted reason for such an order to be issued and would clearly be illegal. Trump already had a history of not following procedure and of being erratic and abusing his powers as POTUS.

jimbob 15th September 2021 01:37 PM

You know what?

If some general decides that actually, it's a bad idea for a dangerously unstable person in a position of power to instigate WWIII in a fit of pique after he's already lost the election and should be preparing an orderly handover of power, then that's fine by me.

Obviously it would be better to have systems in place to prevent such an occurrence, maybe a 25th Amendment, perhaps? But allowing the destruction of civilisation just to make the point that the system lacks sufficient safeguards seems a little extreme to me.

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13600445)
You know what?

If some general decides that actually, it's a bad idea for a dangerously unstable person in a position of power to instigate WWIII in a fit of pique after he's already lost the election and should be preparing an orderly handover of power, then that's fine by me.

Obviously it would be better to have systems in place to prevent such an occurrence, maybe a 25th Amendment, perhaps? But allowing the destruction of civilisation just to make the point that the system lacks sufficient safeguards seems a little extreme to me.

how does someone in that position know the safeguards are inadequate rather than adequate and producing a result they don't like?

jimbob 15th September 2021 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600460)
how does someone in that position know the safeguards are inadequate rather than adequate and producing a result they don't like?

<regrets typing this beforehand>

I'm pretty sure "The Founding Fathers" would not have intended any outgoing president to be able take a course of action that would not only destroy the country as a polity, but also every other country on the globe - simply because the outgoing president was dangerously unstable.

Nuclear war on a whim is a Bad Thing.

sackett 15th September 2021 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600460)
how does someone in that position know the safeguards are inadequate rather than adequate and producing a result they don't like?

Why, they hurry over to your place and humbly implore, "Please, Mr. Robert Subhero, pretty please tell us if these here safety guards is in- or adequate and do they like our results? WE don't know! YOU gots ta TELL us!"

dudalb 15th September 2021 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600402)
The constitution makes the President the commander in chief, and gives Congress the power to pass laws governing the structure of the armed forces. Congress has passed laws which dictate the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those laws prohibit the Chairman from exercising command authority. The Chairman's only role is as advisor to the president, he is NOT part of the chain of command. If Milley gave orders to anyone, that is illegal, and the constitution backs that up.

So having a lunatic as president start World War 3 is just jim dandy with you?

dudalb 15th September 2021 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13600445)
You know what?

If some general decides that actually, it's a bad idea for a dangerously unstable person in a position of power to instigate WWIII in a fit of pique after he's already lost the election and should be preparing an orderly handover of power, then that's fine by me.

Obviously it would be better to have systems in place to prevent such an occurrence, maybe a 25th Amendment, perhaps? But allowing the destruction of civilisation just to make the point that the system lacks sufficient safeguards seems a little extreme to me.

Milley might has just prevented Trump from going full Greg Stillson in "Dead Zone" on us.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13600568)
Milley might has just prevented Trump from going full Greg Stillson in "Dead Zone" on us.

Trump has already gone full Captain Queeg on us.

"Ahh, but the ballots! That's - that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with - geometric logic - that the numbers don't match! And I'd have PRODUCED those numbers if they hadn't pulled the rigged machines! I, I, I know now they were only trying to keep me from winning -

[breaks off in horror, becomes hesitant]

Umm... naturally, I can only cover these things roughly, from - what Sydney and Mr My Pillow have told me... but if I've left anything out... why, you just ask me - specific questions and I'll be - perfectly happy to lie about them... one by one. Can I have two scoops of ice cream now?"

dirtywick 15th September 2021 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600320)
it Implies they are both flexible in the importance of government agents adhering to the rule of law.

Well here I thought you were to explicit to imply anything. Either way, at least we don’t need to pretend it was a coup anymore. It doesn’t even appear anything illegal happened. And by most reports, even the Fox News link helpfully provided by Ziggurat demonstrating that civilian leadership was informed and present for the call, it doesn’t even appear to have been improper.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13600608)
Well here I thought you were to explicit to imply anything. Either way, at least we don’t need to pretend it was a coup anymore. It doesn’t even appear anything illegal happened. And by most reports, even the Fox News link helpfully provided by Ziggurat demonstrating that civilian leadership was informed and present for the call, it doesn’t even appear to have been improper.

Apparently Zig doesn't read his own links past the headlines...but I did.

Craig4 15th September 2021 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13600393)
Were they? Who authorized them? Miller says he didn't and wouldn't.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-should-resign

So he went around Trump and Miller. Who cares? He deescalated a situation with a nuclear power. All that matters is no nukes were launched, process be damned. Milley had everyone reason to believe the pretend SECDEF was engaged in seditious conspiracy. We're talking about nukes. As long as we kept any from being used, it's okay. The ends justify the means.

Stacyhs 15th September 2021 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13600618)
So he went around Trump and Miller. Who cares? He deescalated a situation with a nuclear power. All that matters is no nukes were launched, process be damned. Milley had everyone reason to believe the pretend SECDEF was engaged in seditious conspiracy. We're talking about nukes. As long as we kept any from being used, it's okay. The ends justify the means.

But he didn't go around Miller at all. Miller is lying. Miller was informed as well as DefSec Esper. There were representatives from the State Dept etc.

Nor was Milley telling Gen. Li that he would let him know ahead of time if a military strike was going to happen. The right is taking what he said out of context...gee...shocking, I know. What they are leaving out is the next sentence:

"It's going to be OK. We're not going to have a fight."

Gen.Li says "OK. I take you at your word."

Milley tells Li that if there were going to be a war, there would be a build up just like every war in history. Li would know that, too.

But, man, the GOP usuals are out in force calling for Milley's resignation and calling it treason. It's not. But why let that get in the way of a good ranting point?

BobTheCoward 15th September 2021 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sackett (Post 13600521)
Why, they hurry over to your place and humbly implore, "Please, Mr. Robert Subhero, pretty please tell us if these here safety guards is in- or adequate and do they like our results? WE don't know! YOU gots ta TELL us!"

I have the humility to admit I have no way of answering such a question.

Craig4 16th September 2021 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13600644)
But he didn't go around Miller at all. Miller is lying. Miller was informed as well as DefSec Esper. There were representatives from the State Dept etc.

Nor was Milley telling Gen. Li that he would let him know ahead of time if a military strike was going to happen. The right is taking what he said out of context...gee...shocking, I know. What they are leaving out is the next sentence:

"It's going to be OK. We're not going to have a fight."

Gen.Li says "OK. I take you at your word."

Milley tells Li that if there were going to be a war, there would be a build up just like every war in history. Li would know that, too.

But, man, the GOP usuals are out in force calling for Milley's resignation and calling it treason. It's not. But why let that get in the way of a good ranting point?

I doubt Miller didn't know. However, I wouldn't care if Milley had made an end run around Miller.

Craig4 16th September 2021 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600460)
how does someone in that position know the safeguards are inadequate rather than adequate and producing a result they don't like?

Why take the chance when the result they don't like is the employment of nuclear weapons?

catsmate 16th September 2021 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 13600004)
Wow.

Indeed. Some people just can't accept the unpleasant reality that was the Trump administration.

Stacyhs 16th September 2021 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13600810)
Indeed. Some people just can't accept the unpleasant reality that was the Trump administration.

I was just over on Mark Dice's site with all the Magahatters going on about how dumb Biden supporters are. My god...the misinformation and idiocy was flowing like you wouldn't believe. It was downright scary.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13600808)
Why take the chance when the result they don't like is the employment of nuclear weapons?

The reason to take that chance is you agreed to take that chance by joining an organization that transfers this decision making authority to civilian control. By signing up, you agree to follow all legal, bad orders.


eta: This is like a North Korean general having issue with The unilateral power given to Kim. it's the system you signed up for

TragicMonkey 16th September 2021 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600899)
The reason to take that chance is you agreed to take that chance by joining an organization that transfers this decision making authority to civilian control. By signing up, you agree to follow all legal, bad orders.

"I was only following orders" hasn't been an acceptable defense in quite a while.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13600948)
"I was only following orders" hasn't been an acceptable defense in quite a while.

It is an extremely acceptable defense and always has been.

sackett 16th September 2021 07:46 AM

Not with hope but with self-abnegation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600680)
I have the humility to admit I have no way of answering such a question.

I have the abject resignation to tear open my shirt and concede that I will endeavor in the years to come to find a question that you CAN answer.

Craig4 16th September 2021 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600899)
The reason to take that chance is you agreed to take that chance by joining an organization that transfers this decision making authority to civilian control. By signing up, you agree to follow all legal, bad orders.


eta: This is like a North Korean general having issue with The unilateral power given to Kim. it's the system you signed up for

I don't care about any of that. If the end result is that nukes aren't employed it's okay. If you have to circumvent civilian control to avoid a nuclear exchange, that's fine. If he had to lie to the president that's okay. If he had to be insubordinate to Trump, that's fine. It only matters that nukes aren't exchanged.

Craig4 16th September 2021 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600958)
It is an extremely acceptable defense and always has been.

If you have a depraved indifference to human life and our civilization.

Roger Ramjets 16th September 2021 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13600958)
It is an extremely acceptable defense and always has been.

Nope.

Superior orders
Quote:

Article 33, titled "Superior orders and prescription of law", states:
The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

a. The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
b. The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
c. The order was not manifestly unlawful.

For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.
An "order" may come from one's superior at the level of national law. But according to Nuremberg Principle IV, such an order is sometimes "unlawful" according to international law. Such an "unlawful order" presents a legal dilemma from which there is no legal escape:
It's not an 'extremely' acceptable defense to claim you were just following orders. If Trump ordered Milley to nuke California, 'just following orders' would be an extremely risky defense strategy.

Quote:

The reason to take that chance is you agreed to take that chance by joining an organization that transfers this decision making authority to civilian control. By signing up, you agree to follow all legal, bad orders.
Not true. Only the court can decide whether a particular is 'legal', but according to the 1998 Rome Statute you don't have a legal obligation to obey a manifestly unlawful order such as shooting innocent civilians - or even nuking them.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 13601376)
Nope.

Superior orders

It's not an 'extremely' acceptable defense to claim you were just following orders. If Trump ordered Milley to nuke California, 'just following orders' would be an extremely risky defense strategy.

Not true. Only the court can decide whether a particular is 'legal', but according to the 1998 Rome Statute you don't have a legal obligation to obey a manifestly unlawful order such as shooting innocent civilians - or even nuking them.

Through a combination of things such as the Senate not ratifying agreements, the US removing itself as signatories, and US legislation after a treaty instantly nullifying it, the US legal system has a limit of what international law is part of US law.

Craig4 16th September 2021 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13601424)
Through a combination of things such as the Senate not ratifying agreements, the US removing itself as signatories, and US legislation after a treaty instantly nullifying it, the US legal system has a limit of what international law is part of US law.

I suspect such things never entered Milley's mind. I suspect he had a singular goal of not getting into a nuclear exchange.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13601439)
I suspect such things never entered Milley's mind. I suspect he had a singular goal of not getting into a nuclear exchange.

If the general didn't want to implement the philosophy of Juche, then he shouldn't have committed his life to the Korean People's Army.

Craig4 16th September 2021 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13601447)
If the general didn't want to implement the philosophy of Juche, then he shouldn't have committed his life to the Korean People's Army.

Principles don't enter into this.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13601449)
Principles don't enter into this.

Good, because he is a bad person.

Craig4 16th September 2021 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13601451)
Good, because he is a bad person.

As if that matters.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13601453)
As if that matters.

...which is why I said it was good for you. It is fortunate that it is your position.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.