Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took top-secret action to protect nuclear weapons

Would you have been proud to have voted for Trump if he had launched a nuclear attack alone?

 

I've answered this once. The War Powers Act does not specify nuclear weapons, but refers too all hostilities. The think tank you are quoting is particularly dedicated to nuclear weapon control.

 

No President likes to give-up power to another branch, which is exactly what the War Powers Act of 1973 does. Nixon tried to veto it and the veto was overridden by Congress. Reagan ignored it in El Salvador, but suffered no consequences. Clinton ignored it in Kosovo. Obama, in Libya, had to revert to NATO commitments and the original Congressional AUF issued by Congress following 9/11, authorizing U.S. forces against terrorism.
Nevertheless, it stands as law and states there are only three ways a President may deploy U.S. forces abroad (which would certainly include a nuclear weapon first strike): 1) a Congressional Declaration of War; 2) A Congressional Authorization of Force Resolution; or 3) Presidential "emergency powers" IN RESPONSE to an attack on the United State, its territories or possessions, or U.S. forces. Any Presidential order for a nuclear first strike without provocation would be an illegal order. This is what General Milley was explaining to his Chinese counterpart, to Speak of the House Nancy Pelosi and to the officers of the National Military Control Center.

 

Unlike you I don't believe that the president can blow up the entire world on a whim. Unlike you I'm life affirming. You can follow rules to the ridiculous extreme of suicide/genocide which is what you are suggesting. You are a slave to rules but rules in this case can lead to certain destruction of most of life on the planet. Once again I don't believe a president can blow up civilization on a whim but you do! The President would be questioned and asked to show proof of immediate danger to the U.S. If he couldn’t he would be halted by members of the chain of command who would demand proof of immediate imminent destruction of the U.S. by one of our foes. Not everyone in the chain of command is into suicide/genocide.

If a (A president tried sending nukes for purely frivolous reasons) and members of the chain of command saved us from suicide/genocide they would be heroes and you would be screaming how they were wrong for not letting a president destroy all life as we know it for purely frivolous reasons. What would you do? You would probably demand that the president should go back and send those nukes. You have no idea of the complete absurdity of your position.

 

The truth is Trump demanded Pence somehow block the Senate’s certification of Biden's presidency when Pence had no constitutional right to do that.

The truth is Trump told his insurrectionists/ terrorists to "stop the steal" at the very moment the Senate was certifying Biden's presidency and praised his shyster lawyer Giuliani after he screamed to the insurrectionists/terrorist "this is trial by combat”.

The facts are Trump is still claiming that he is the legitimate president even though according to the constitution and the U.S. senate he is dead wrong. He is sewing discord and undermining our elections.

Trump is nuts and could care less that he is undermining our democracy and the election process.

 

And?

 

Interesting that you have not been penalized for calling a poster a liar.

 

I think it more probable than not that he was a go-between the Oath Keepers (many of whom are under investigation and/or have been charged with conspiracy) who broke into the Capitol Building and the White House. Was there someone else on the WH staff, who then conveyed prior knowledge of the break-in plan to Trump? Probably. But, I think it highly probable that Trump was aware of the Capitol break-in plan. If that's the case and he failed to act to stop it, he becomes a co-conspirator.

 

Don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up.

I mean it is a legal fact that the party that holds 48% of the votes is irrelevant for purposes of the 25th amendment. Therefore you bringing it up as if it matters required addressing, else it be taken as a point well received. Again: Don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up

If you haven't noticed, I address your points in order and use reference language, exactly as one might in court when responding to various points made on cross or opposing direct examination. Gosh, I wonder why I do it that way?
You used the term underhanded 1 time. Use your context clues. I believe in you.

You think the party would've survived kicking out the guy who won the primary? And you consider yourself a highly rational thinker?

Yes I don't think you'll find any argument from me that he stirred up a mob full of idiots as his main base, and other elements of the party were dragged along for the ride or didn't vote or voted 3rd party, similar to how the dems like to run campaigns. Its more about feelings than facts, posturing, popular appeal rather than any actual policy aim that is sensical or achievable etc. Way polarized, which was only helped along by the current left's habit of the "either with us or against us and a nazi" philosophy. You willingly helped him stake out his positions and drove people toward him, like beaters on a quail hunt. It was like watching a car accident from the sidewalk with two drivers who were equally at fault, each making the most foolish decision possible in sequence, each vehemently .

A cheap shot defined: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...act of deliberate,Learn More About cheap shot


1: an act of deliberate roughness against a defenseless opponent especially in a contact sport; taking cheap shots at the quarterback
2: a critical statement that takes unfair advantage of a known weakness of the target

so you have a decision to make: Is Joe a "defenseless opponent" or am I taking unfair advantage of a known weakness IE that he does indeed have dementia in either case and pointing out that this condition either 1) is beating up on a disabled person or 2) since it makes one question whether the person may competently handle their own affairs, much less those of the nation, something I am intimately familiar with in my practise of law as I have had to decline to craft documents for certain clients before because of such issues, is somehow unfair.

So which is it? I'm willing to respond to either more fully after you decide, but generally speaking: Its not being mean spirited, its pointing out that people with dementia struggle to handle their own affairs and are incompetent to hold nuclear codes. Please, do not dissemble here, it is most annoying.

"due process" refers to a court proceeding involving 1) notice and 2) the right to be heard. We're doing that, that doesn't mean as with any other person I do not form opinions in real time based upon information to hand, subject to change based upon new information. Honestly you just seem to not understand the terms. Recall our discussion about intelligent people who don't normally interface with the law not knowing what they're doing?

Pleb: In this case referring to any person not directly handling the case as an officer of the court cloaked in the majesty of the law. As to there being more of them: yes, that's what pleb tends to imply in context, but I don't see how that matters. I'm referring to not being a professional handling the case and instead being a person watching with popcorn for my own amusement, not voting. If you mean to imply a good 90% of the electorate disgust me with their foolishness and should have the franchise removed from them as they are a clear and present danger to the entire nation, then sure but I don't see how that advances the discussion here.

 

You've misread my posts. There is no obsession with Donald Trump. There is willful lack of concern about Trump’s insanity on the part of some. You are not concerned about the fact that Trump lead an insurrectionist’s movement at the Capitol where he praised his lawyer Giuliani for claiming that this is "Trial by combat” at the same moment the Senate was in the process of certifying Biden's presidency. Trump lead his insurrectionists by claiming "Stop the Steal" at the precise moment that the Senate was certifying Biden's presidency. Trump was acting like a lunatic completely out of his mind. He demanded that his vice-president stop the Senate from certifying the election in front of the insurrectionists on stage. Pence had no constitutional ability to do this and yet Trump demanded it anyway. Trump was totally out of his mind at that time and this only a small part of his bizarre sick outbursts after realizing he lost the election. Your failure to grasp Trump's sickness does not mean obsession on my part. Whether Milley was overly concerned about a very f'd up president or not will as you say be a matter of judgement. You seek to limit the debate to only that which fits your criteria but you fail to grasp the notion of free speech and open ideas on this forum. We don’t know what Milley said or how he said it exactly. We know that Military leaders from different countries communicate with each other and if these communications settle tensions or prevent all out nuclear destruction for purely frivolous reasons then I’m all for it.

 

That's all anyone has is the misunderstood quote from his book. So, at the minimum, we should read the book, or at least page #129, as Woodward recommends.

 

You really should put your comments directly within the quoted text. When you say 'don't want to talk about it' I'm not sure what point in my comment
you are referring to. Here's how you do that. You inject the quote tags, closed tag first, open tag next ( for continuity ) and write your comment between, as follows.

No, but they would have demonstrated they have integrity, and sometimes you just have to do the right thing for the country,

Cool

You couldn't resist that little dig, eh? But, not sure what specific comparison you are making.

My what a lofty perch you occupy -- how cavalierly you toss off such broad stroke generalities which are just sentiments, not much substance there, really

Ditto above.

Really? You had to resort to a dictionary?
#2, writ large.

And, by the way, 'cheap shot' is really a loose term, was it really necessary
to lawyer it so? It's kinda overkill, wouldn't you say?

He has a stutter. As a person born with a stutter who spent his life, similar to Joe, overcoming it but noting that shards of it can kick in from time to time, especially under pressure, whereupon partisan hacks who won't give him the benefit of the doubt or do their homework are grossly unfair by doing so, I resent your characterization.

And yes, it's a cheap shot. Really, you, and everyone like you who makes the same cheap shot, should be ashamed.

Legal terms can be used as metaphors, eh? So, 'due process and all that', would translate as:

I'm merely suggesting that you, as an attorney, should be better than those who are so quick to jump on the treason bandwagon with scant evidence.

I took it to mean 'common folks'.

So, it begs the question. Did you vote for Trump or Biden, or neither at the top of the ticket?

 

It's released now, as I understand it.

But, he has a right, as CotJCoS, to be in the loop. That is all he wanted.

 

You're logic is hard to follow.
Whereas Clinton stated one time in an interview that she thought the election was unfair this is purely a false equivalency/propaganda. Trump has been running around f the country for several months ranting that the election was false and that he is the true winner and pretending Biden will have his certification as president removed. He's a lunatic who told his followers to 'Stop the steel' while the Senate was certifying Biden’s presidency at that very moment and praised his craphole attorney for shouting this is 'Trial by combat' on the insurrectionist stage while the Senate was at that very moment certifying Biden’s presidency. Trump insanely demanded that his vice president stop the senate from doing its constitutional duty in front of his insurrectionists on stage. Trump is purely nuts and has been nuts since day 1 of his presidency.

 

I really do not care what you'd like. I thought that was somewhat obvious.

Sure they can just destroy themselves because you don't like the idiot. Because that seems reasonable.

Little dig? Not sure what I'm comparing it to? As stated: I'm 3rd party, so its expected I'm going to talk **** about the other 2 IE point out their failings and foibles. The dems run emotionally charged campaigns, the pubs usually stick with national pride and status quo is best can't let those crazed hippies win. Trump certainly flipped the script there, you can't deny that even if he's a piece of ****.

I mean we're speaking in broad generalities, not making a scientific study of it. Again you seem to think that I should care for where you move the goalposts to. Its silly.

Again: Why should I care where you would like the goalposts to be? Its my opinion based upon observation from a non-partisan standpoint as I didn't vote for either camp. You did. Perhaps you might consider your bias for a moment and reel yourself back in.

Is there a better way to show the definition of a term?

He has spoken publicly for years and only now seems to stumble everywhere, get lost wandering out of airforce one away from the residence like he doesn't know where the **** he is, doesn't know the names of world leaders he talks to etc. That's not a stutter. That's dementia. Come off it.

As stated: here I am sitting in the cheap seats with you plebs, so I get to make a decision based on what is to hand and wait for new information.

As stated more than once now: I VOTED 3rd PARTY AND NOT FOR EITHER CAMP. I HAVE CAPSLOCKED THIS BECAUSE YOU DON"T SEEM TO READ WHAT I WRITE AND I MUST ASSUME ITS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TROUBLE WITH YOUR VISION.

 

I have explained the law and the Constitution to you and stone. Your phony stories about Trump being deraigned are of no bearing. Milley had no authority to do what he did. If you believe the military is not under civilian command and can circumvent and usurp the authority of the civilian control and the Commander in Chief, nothing I can say to that, that's banana republic stuff.

 

NO he does NOT. By LAW he does not. The CJCS by LAW has NO command or control authority, any he exerts is OUTSIDE his authority.

Do you think the CJCS commands the military or something?

 

So what not only have you done that but numerous times. This was always uneccesary repitition but you think the more you repeat something the very repition lends creedance to what you are sayin

.
I've explained on several posts what makes Trump sick by detailing his actions. Not once have you challenged the very actions that prove him highly sick and unstable. Perhaps the fact that you supported and voted for an unstable/mentally disturbed president has go you miffed?

I've never said I believe the military is not under civilian control and you will not find a quote where I've said so. Your entire "if" statement is putting words in my mouth that I've never said or implied even remotely. . You should check your anger before you post. My argument has been simple and you've not responded to it even once. So why are you posting me if you chose not to respond to my central point? Rules are useful up to a point. But even the best of rules can be used in a self destructive manner when taken to a logical extreme. When they reinforce suicide/ genocide from a president who is unstable and mentally sick I.E. a Trump who might use nuclear weapons unprovoked and purely out of anger then humans must and will override the rules. It's really quite simple and reasonable.

 

He doesn't have dementia. You're grossly exaggerating ( I could cherry pick a number of videos of Trump fumbling, saying stupid **** and you're not saying Trump has dementia. ). Like I said, I worked with dementia patients, and there is no way in hell Biden has it.

Libertarians are wacko. Pull out of all foreign bases, kill all entitlements. That's wacko. Reform is smart, but what libertarians want is wack. However, legalizing drugs and victimless crimes I support, on that they got it right.

Arrogance is not a merit worthy argument.

Sorry I didn't recall you writing you voted third party. Chill out.

 

He is one of the advisors to the president. Advisors are not in the chain of command.

But, if someone is going to push a nuke button, especially Trump, who is ****ing crazy, I'd want someone like Milley to be in the loop.

 

Its a general left wing lie.

 

LOL, conspiracy theory.

 

He is prohibited BY LAW from having operational authority over armed forces and has no "right" to "be in the loop".

 

With hindsight we now know it was Milley who was crazy for thinking Trump would launch a nuke or initiate an attack against China.

 

Gina Haspel, the CIA director under Trump, also said he was crazy.

Another to add to the endless list of traitors.