Liberal Forum

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 9:49 am

And people who say that military officers today are required to follow the orders of the President WITHOUT QUESTION are the moral descendants of all those Nazi SS officers and concentration camp guards who followed the orders of THEIR president and gassed millions of innocent Jews.

Even ENLISTED personnel, who take an oath to follow the orders of the president must ensure that those orders are lawful before following them.

Commissioned Officers have an even more personal path of introspection and discernment. Their oath is to the Constitution alone, and if they feel that the President, or even any officer senior to them, has given them an order that endangers the Constitution in any way, they are bound by their oath of office to NOT follow that order.

Officers today are chink lovers...throw them the **** out now

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 9:38 am

we can't agree on anything.  

Enlisted personnel take an oath of ENLISTMENT to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over them. but only if those orders comport with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.... i.e., they don't have to comply with an unlawful order.  

Officers take an oath of OFFICE to support and defend the Constitution.  period.  Our oath makes no mention of the president or the UCMJ which gives officers the latitude to individually determine whether following any particular order would in fact support or defend the Constitution - OR NOT - and act accordingly.  Any officer who disobeyed a rogue president's order to launch a preemptive nuclear strike would have an easy time beating a treason charge at court-martial simply by showing that his intent was virtuous and not treasonous and was only designed to support and defend the Constitution.  A Trump-ordered post-January 6th strike against China would be a textbook example.

So MORON PIECE OF ****, tell us what the CONSTITUTION says about WHO is the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of ALL MILITARY??

Oh that's right, to DISOBEY A DIRECT ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT IS GROUNDS FOR COURT MARTIAL, ****!! And you are saying that a LAWFUL ORDER to bomb an ENEMY IS "unlawful"??? Trust me, ****, that is what the PRESIDENT has the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO if he chooses and your **** is, well, PURE AND UNADULTERATED ****!!

GO **** YOURSELF YELLOW CHICKEN **** COWARD to answer this question!!

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 9:38 am

we can't agree on anything.  

Enlisted personnel take an oath of ENLISTMENT to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over them. but only if those orders comport with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.... i.e., they don't have to comply with an unlawful order.  

Officers take an oath of OFFICE to support and defend the Constitution.  period.  Our oath makes no mention of the president or the UCMJ which gives officers the latitude to individually determine whether following any particular order would in fact support or defend the Constitution - OR NOT - and act accordingly.  Any officer who disobeyed a rogue president's order to launch a preemptive nuclear strike would have an easy time beating a treason charge at court-martial simply by showing that his intent was virtuous and not treasonous and was only designed to support and defend the Constitution.  A Trump-ordered post-January 6th strike against China would be a textbook example.

More ****!  Your eyes must be turning brown by now after spewing so much **** like this!

You've yet to explain where the Constitution allows anyone in the military to override the President's foreign policy, and to secretly contact the enemy promising to warn them in advance if an attack was coming.  That's because you CAN'T, AND TAKING SUCH AN ACTION IS TREASON!

We certainly don't need a dope like YOU deciding for the country when a sitting, duly elected President has become rogue or provided even a scrap of evidence that the President committed ANY act that could possibly be deemed unconstitutional to conclude such a treasonous act as Milley committed is justifiable!

Milley deserves to be hung, and I'd have no problem watching a disloyal and seditionist punk like you swing alongside of him!
 

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 9:26 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 9:26 am

Enlisted personnel were strongly supportive of Trump.  Officers, not so much, even in 2016.  By 2020 he had lost a lot of support within the officer ranks, and who the hell am I to know what anyone thinks in the military?  I am just a man who spent a quarter of a century in uniform and who keeps in close touch with scores and scores of former, classmates and shipmates, a large chunk of whom spent as much time or more than that in uniform themselves.  

Here... educate yourself, or, as I suspect, you won't read any of these links because willful ignorance is your preferred look.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... n-of-duty/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -military/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opin ... itary.html
https://www.yahoo.com/video/why-780-ret ... 28356.html

Oh really?  You've been in close touch with more than 50% of officers in the military to make such a stupid claim that the majority WHO VOTED FOR HIM wouldn't support an order given by President Trump?  If I had to guess, your friends still in the military are probably the same kind of liberals who care NOTHING about the Constitution as you!

And you're right, for once!  I wouldn't waste a second of my time looking at links from your left-wing radical fake news sources, especially when the demented idiot you voted for has been directing his subordinates to proffer LIES ABOUT TRUMP as virtually every Democrat did, just like the phony "51 former intelligence agents" that Biden lined up to lie for him about the Hunter laptop, as subject you greatly fear is going to land Biden in an impeachment trial!

You're a gullible, left-wing fool and a liar, and you should be ashamed to admit your support of treason against my country!
 

Zeets2 » 29 Sep 2023, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 11:07 am

More ****!  Your eyes must be turning brown by now after spewing so much **** like this!

You've yet to explain where the Constitution allows anyone in the military to override the President's foreign policy, and to secretly contact the enemy promising to warn them in advance if an attack was coming.  That's because you CAN'T, AND TAKING SUCH AN ACTION IS TREASON!

We certainly don't need a dope like YOU deciding for the country when a sitting, duly elected President has become rogue or provided even a scrap of evidence that the President committed ANY act that could possibly be deemed unconstitutional to conclude such a treasonous act as Milley committed is justifiable!

Milley deserves to be hung, and I'd have no problem watching a disloyal and seditionist punk like you swing alongside of him!

I just explained it to you.  In the absence of a declaration of war, or a congressionally authorized use of force resolution, a lame-duck president who had just lost an election and, who had no actual justification for doing so, could not launch a preemptive strike against another nation a mere two weeks before leaving office and NOT be himself considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution and of the United States by the Military officers sworn to protect and defend the document and not the President.  The orders of the President are not inviolate - like the Führer's were.
 

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 11:32 am

I just explained it to you.  In the absence of a declaration of war, or a congressionally authorized use of force resolution, a lame-duck president who had just lost an election and, who had no actual justification for doing so, could not launch a preemptive strike against another nation a mere two weeks before leaving office and NOT be himself considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution and of the United States by the Military officers sworn to protect and defend the document and not the President.  The orders of the President are not inviolate - like the Führer's were.

THE ****** *** MILLEY SHOULD HANG LIKE YOU

Zeets2 » 29 Sep 2023, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 11:25 am

Oh really?  You've been in close touch with more than 50% of officers in the military to make such a stupid claim that the majority WHO VOTED FOR HIM wouldn't support an order given by President Trump?  If I had to guess, your friends still in the military are probably the same kind of liberals who care NOTHING about the Constitution as you!

And you're right, for once!  I wouldn't waste a second of my time looking at links from your left-wing radical fake news sources, especially when the demented idiot you voted for has been directing his subordinates to proffer LIES ABOUT TRUMP as virtually every Democrat did, just like the phony "51 former intelligence agents" that Biden lined up to lie for him about the Hunter laptop, as subject you greatly fear is going to land Biden in an impeachment trial!

You're a gullible, left-wing fool and a liar, and you should be ashamed to admit your support of treason against my country!

First. I never claimed to be in touch with more than 50% of military officers.
Second, I never claimed that the majority of those who voted for him wouldn't support an order given by Trump.

I AM saying that, if the order were not lawful, or if reasonable patriotic military officers believed that, if they were to follow it, it would be to the detriment of the Constitution, then they would not follow it.  Period.  

And I am also saying that an order for an unprovoked, preemptive, world-destabilizing  strike against China issued by a lame-duck president - who had just led a failed insurrection and who had  less than two weeks left before being ushered out of the White House - without a declaration of war or the approval of the use of force by Congress would certainly be considered by many career military personnel to be to the detriment of the Constitution and of the United States and they would be honor and duty bound to refuse to comply with it. 

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 11:50 am

First. I never claimed to be in touch with more than 50% of military officers.
Second, I never claimed that the majority of those who voted for him wouldn't support an order given by Trump.

I AM saying that, if the order were not lawful, or if reasonable patriotic military officers believed that, if they were to follow it, it would be to the detriment of the Constitution, then they would not follow it.  Period.  

And I am also saying that an order for an unprovoked, preemptive, world-destabilizing  strike against China issued by a lame-duck president - who had just led a failed insurrection and who had  less than two weeks left before being ushered out of the White House - without a declaration of war or the approval of the use of force by Congress would certainly be considered by many career military personnel to be to the detriment of the Constitution and of the United States and they would be honor and duty bound to refuse to comply with it.

KEEP SUCKING CHINK DICK YOU **** POS TRAITOR

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 11:32 am

I just explained it to you.  In the absence of a declaration of war, or a congressionally authorized use of force resolution, a lame-duck president who had just lost an election and, who had no actual justification for doing so, could not launch a preemptive strike against another nation a mere two weeks before leaving office and NOT be himself considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution and of the United States by the Military officers sworn to protect and defend the document and not the President.  The orders of the President are not inviolate - like the Führer's were.

You're full of ****.

RebelGator » 29 Sep 2023, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 12:09 pm

You're full of ****.

brilliant, well reasoned retort.  one of your best, Cletis.

[/sarcasm off]

seriously... is that the best you've got?  I gave a pretty well-reasoned post, and you are such a scrotum-sucking MAGA moron, you refuse to give it any credence.

Really weak.

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 11:50 am

First. I never claimed to be in touch with more than 50% of military officers.
Second, I never claimed that the majority of those who voted for him wouldn't support an order given by Trump.

I AM saying that, if the order were not lawful, or if reasonable patriotic military officers believed that, if they were to follow it, it would be to the detriment of the Constitution, then they would not follow it.  Period.  

And I am also saying that an order for an unprovoked, preemptive, world-destabilizing  strike against China issued by a lame-duck president - who had just led a failed insurrection and who had  less than two weeks left before being ushered out of the White House - without a declaration of war or the approval of the use of force by Congress would certainly be considered by many career military personnel to be to the detriment of the Constitution and of the United States and they would be honor and duty bound to refuse to comply with it.

China is our enemy incase you didn’t know this. A general went behind the back of his Commander in Chief, breaking command and taking control of our nuke arsenal and told an enemy general he would warn them of an attack. Use some common sense! That is treason and your insane!
 

Majik » 29 Sep 2023, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 12:37 pm

China is our enemy incase you didn’t know this. A general went behind the back of his Commander in Chief, breaking command and taking control of our nuke arsenal and told an enemy general he would warn them of an attack. Use some common sense! That is treason and your insane!

1.  China is our adversary.  
2. If Trump wanted to fire General Milley for insubordination, he certainly could have.  
3. Milley didn't take control of anything.  
4. Trump was a lame-duck president with less than two weeks left in office who had just proven his disdain for the Constitution by sending a violent lynch mob to the capitol in an effort to disrupt the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.  
5. In order to prove treason, you must prove that the accused had the specific intent to harm the United States.  In this case, it was exactly the opposite

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 9:38 am

we can't agree on anything.  

Enlisted personnel take an oath of ENLISTMENT to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over them. but only if those orders comport with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.... i.e., they don't have to comply with an unlawful order.  

Officers take an oath of OFFICE to support and defend the Constitution.  period.  Our oath makes no mention of the president or the UCMJ which gives officers the latitude to individually determine whether following any particular order would in fact support or defend the Constitution - OR NOT - and act accordingly.  Any officer who disobeyed a rogue president's order to launch a preemptive nuclear strike would have an easy time beating a treason charge at court-martial simply by showing that his intent was virtuous and not treasonous and was only designed to support and defend the Constitution.  A Trump-ordered post-January 6th strike against China would be a textbook example.

No military officer has a right to be in secret contact with foreign powers...especially not consorting with our enemy..
You obviously aren't bright enough to undrestand why.

GHETTOBLASTER » 29 Sep 2023, 12:46 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 12:46 pm

No military officer has a right to be in secret contact with foreign powers...especially not consorting with our enemy..
You obviously aren't bright enough to undrestand why.

The conversation was not "secret" per se, merely unapproved by the CinC.  CJCS talks to heads of foreign militaries all the time, including those of our adversaries.

Milley made a decision to protect the Constitution and the Republic rather than protect the president.  

If Trump wanted to fire him for insubordination, he certainly could have.  

What he did was clearly NOT treason as Milley had no specific intent to harm the US by his actions.

Milley committed treason the **** needs to be in front of a firing squad

Hey ****... how did Milley get his CIB?

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 12:52 pm

The conversation was not "secret" per se, merely unapproved by the CinC.  CJCS talks to heads of foreign militaries all the time, including those of our adversaries.

Milley made a decision to protect the Constitution and the Republic rather than protect the president.  

If Trump wanted to fire him for insubordination, he certainly could have.  

What he did was clearly NOT treason as Milley had no specific intent to harm the US by his actions.

Did the President know about the conversation...?
Consorting with the enemy in secret about our strategic disposition is treason..all day every day.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 29 Sep 2023, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 1:17 pm

Did the President know about the conversation...?
Yes..consorting with the enemy in secret about our strategic disposition is treason..all day every day.

nope.   It was not treason because there was no specific intent to do harm to the US.  Quite the opposite.

Insubordination?  Absolutely. Trump could have fired him for that.  

Treason?  Not a chance.  He was taking steps to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy who had shown his true colors on January 6th when he sent a lynch mob to the capitol to disrupt the constitutionally mandated process for peacefully transferring power.

maineman » 29 Sep 2023, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 1:25 pm

nope.   It was not treason because there was no specific intent to do harm to the US.  Quite the opposite.

Insubordination?  Absolutely. Trump could have fired him for that.  

Treason?  Not a chance.  He was taking steps to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy who had shown his true colors on January 6th when he sent a lynch mob to the capitol to disrupt the constitutionally mandated process for peacefully transferring power.

Miley's specific intent was to give his Chinese Friends an up to date status report about our strategic disposition.
Treason. 
 In the meantime you lied just like any Hysterical Queer Bitch would.....

....when you accused Trump of sending Miley a death threat.
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 29 Sep 2023, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Sep 2023, 1:32 pm

Miley's specific intent was to give his Chinese Friends an up to date status report about our strategic disposition.
Treason.

Wow....you somehow can discern his specific intent?

As an officer, he had a sworn duty to protect the Constitution from a man who had just demonstrated his willingness to contravene it.  

There was no secret strategic plan to nuke China in the early days of January 2021.  Milley just let them know that any sabre rattling by our defeated, butt-hurt, lame-duck president was not to be taken seriously and that he would take steps to ensure that no preemptive strikes would occur.  He said nothing of our strategic disposition.