Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Thread Reader)   The most rational take on the Milley call. No he shouldn't resign or be fired, but he did set a precedent and that's going to be an issue with a non-insane president   (threadreaderapp.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, IPv4, Classless Inter-Domain Routing, Subnetwork, Military, Naval War College, Donald Trump, policy of the Naval War College, military professors  
•       •       •

2584 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2021 at 9:42 AM (11 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



162 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-09-15 9:04:24 AM  
He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.
 
2021-09-15 9:06:29 AM  
My guess is that now this is out, he'll end up taking retirement at a reduced rank. And that will be the right choice.

But he still did the right thing, making him heroic.
 
2021-09-15 9:09:49 AM  
Something like this went down with Nixon as well if I recall.

No, I wasn't there.
 
2021-09-15 9:15:10 AM  
There was a two-week period between the insurrection and the inauguration where it wasn't clear who was actually in charge of the federal government, although Trump could still have issued orders to the military. I'm fine with what Milley did here given the circumstances.

Milley wearing battle gear to a protest-stomping is why his ass should be out the door.
 
2021-09-15 9:16:22 AM  

NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.


You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.
 
2021-09-15 9:25:48 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.


Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.
 
2021-09-15 9:33:20 AM  
Maybe we should not elect psychopaths, so we don't have to test our institutions like that.

Just a thought
 
2021-09-15 9:42:00 AM  
He didn't set precedent, he was following one set by James Schlesinger in 1974.
 
2021-09-15 9:43:16 AM  

NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.


He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
 
2021-09-15 9:43:46 AM  
Not a single order from this guy should classified as a legal order:

static.seattletimes.comView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 9:44:05 AM  
"Civilian control of the military" does not mean "the military must do whatever the civilians ask, immediately and without question".

If line troopers can recognize and refuse to carry out illegal orders than so can officers.
 
2021-09-15 9:44:46 AM  
We got all of this information from a political gossip novel, right?
 
2021-09-15 9:44:50 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.


Very much false. Every soldier has a duty to refuse to carry out illegal orders.
 
2021-09-15 9:45:29 AM  
That's not how precedent works.

Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. That in no way justifies extraordinary measures under ordinary circumstances.
 
2021-09-15 9:45:42 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.


You think soldiers don't have a duty to refuse an illegal order?
 
2021-09-15 9:46:12 AM  

Gubbo: What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.


What you're failing to grasp is that will happen no matter what we do to General Milley.

If the wrong person gets into that position, we're f*cked anyway because as you noticed during the reign of Trump, our rules and laws only matter if people give a f*ck enough to follow them.

If a lunatic ever did become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we literally have nothing to stop him.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

So, what Gen. Milley did was brave and in the best interest of America. How he did it? Doesn't really matter at all.
 
2021-09-15 9:46:43 AM  
 
2021-09-15 9:46:56 AM  
I'm only as smart as journalists allow me to be, but it seems clear that he was reminding people of existing procedure, not changing it.
 
2021-09-15 9:47:47 AM  
Also, let's remember that Milley didn't say "refuse orders from the President". He said "make sure the President isn't bypassing the chain of command".
 
2021-09-15 9:48:02 AM  
Maybe we need more restrictions around who the fark can be POTUS instead of just anyone over 35. Maybe passing a psych evaluation, a civics test, actually having to pass a background check for TS clearance, and not pressuring people to allow his family to have clearance after they failed a background check.

You know, rational things for the person in charge of the farking country.
 
2021-09-15 9:48:41 AM  

recondite cetacean: I'm only as smart as journalists allow me to be, but it seems clear that he was reminding people of existing procedure, not changing it.


That was my take as well. He was ensuring he remained in the chain of command, not side stepping it.
 
2021-09-15 9:49:40 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.


Seems like some that should be set up in procedure and codified Into a law.

(My guess there is a procedure already,, but it is classified so all we get to do is armchair QB with out all pertinent information)
 
2021-09-15 9:50:57 AM  

OhioUGrad: Maybe we need more restrictions around who the fark can be POTUS instead of just anyone over 35. Maybe passing a psych evaluation, a civics test, actually having to pass a background check for TS clearance, and not pressuring people to allow his family to have clearance after they failed a background check.

You know, rational things for the person in charge of the farking country.


Totally. There haven't been any historical problems around format and grading with tests to exercise basic rights. Also, placing the entire determination of who's allowed to be President in the hands of the national security apparatus is a great idea that could never possibly backfire.
 
2021-09-15 9:51:34 AM  

DORMAMU: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

Seems like some that should be set up in procedure and codified Into a law.

(My guess there is a procedure already,, but it is classified so all we get to do is armchair QB with out all pertinent information)


Because having some rule written down somewhere won't stop the "wrong general"
 
2021-09-15 9:52:08 AM  

NateAsbestos: Maybe we should not elect psychopaths, so we don't have to test our institutions like that.

Just a thought


Republicans like that type of president as long as they are hurting the "right" people.
 
2021-09-15 9:52:21 AM  
And lets not forget that anything Trump did after the election was going to be without any consequence.  Why impeach a president who could/would/did commit illegal actions after being tossed out of office by the voters but before the actual handoff.

American exceptionliaistic bullshiat of Peaceful transitions of power being a corner stone of the Western Democracy.  Well that counter is now Zero.  Maybe in 2025 you'll be able to up that counter to 1 again.
 
2021-09-15 9:53:03 AM  
Stanislav Petrov set a disturbing precedent, too.
 
2021-09-15 9:53:31 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.


Yes.  Absolutely anything is acceptable if the alternative is nuclear war.
 
2021-09-15 9:55:40 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.


I think Milley should be fired. He can still be a hero.
 
2021-09-15 9:56:01 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

You think soldiers don't have a duty to refuse an illegal order?


Would this have been an illegal order.

The president has the sole responsibility to launch nuclear weapons.
 
2021-09-15 9:56:49 AM  

Phil McKraken: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

I think Milley should be fired. He can still be a hero.


Why should he be fired exactly?
 
2021-09-15 9:57:10 AM  

Gubbo: cameroncrazy1984: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

You think soldiers don't have a duty to refuse an illegal order?

Would this have been an illegal order.

The president has the sole responsibility to launch nuclear weapons.


If he did it outside the chain of command absolutely that's illegal
 
2021-09-15 9:57:49 AM  

DORMAMU: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

Seems like some that should be set up in procedure and codified Into a law.

(My guess there is a procedure already,, but it is classified so all we get to do is armchair QB with out all pertinent information)


My very loose understanding is that there's really nothing in place because before nukes it wasn't an issue, and after nukes, you kind of wanted some flex in the system just in case.

Which is all stupid but since when did stuff from the cold war ever have to make sense.
 
2021-09-15 9:58:25 AM  
What's the problem? Orders go from the CiC through the chain of command to the people who carry them out. Officers follow orders but they are also not robots. Miley wanted to make sure no one got around him in the chain to get things done that he would find objectionable. Or that orders weren't gonna come from some lackey adviser, that's not in the chain of command, because the president was too much of a pussy to give his own illegal order. If Miley, after due consideration, refused to pass down a legitimate, or illegitimate order, I believe the Commander in Chief can fire him. Then, the orders just pass down the more streamlined chain. But the speed bump gives pause for other officers to consider if we are in a farked up situation. Nothing about this seems any different from how things have always been, other than Miley felt it necessary to *remind* everyone how things are supposed to be because the stupid republican trash elected and enabled someone like Trump.
 
2021-09-15 10:01:25 AM  
Gubbo:
The president has the sole responsibility to launch nuclear weapons.

"To launch", yes. Here we are talking about "Not to launch".
 
2021-09-15 10:02:48 AM  
he did set a precedent and that's going to be an issue with a non-insane president


Meaning what exactly?  Non-insane presidents don't do insane things, so there would be nothing to interdict.


A rouge Republican general starting a war behind the president's back?  (they sure in the hell aren't going to stop one) Maybe?  But that's not the same thing either.
 
2021-09-15 10:03:15 AM  

Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.


The chain of command and control needs modified.  It should be impossible for one single person to ever authorize the use of nuclear weapons, and damn hard for even a group to be able to.
 
2021-09-15 10:03:30 AM  
I remember around and after 1/6 people here on fark were half-joking about the Evil Shouty Yam of Hate and Chaos wanting to start a nuclear war as punishment on the US for not re-electing him or to stay in power or w/e. I guess Milley had the same thoughts in mind, or he's a lurker here on fark.
 
2021-09-15 10:03:36 AM  
No soldier has a duty to follow an illegal order. Milley felt that Trump was insane. For the GOP to raise a stink about Milley they first have to arrive at a clear understanding of Trump's sanity.

Sure. Let's do that.
 
2021-09-15 10:03:45 AM  
The only acceptable precedent for those in a position to do so, in all nations, is to prevent nuclear attacks at any cost. Anyone arguing otherwise needs to be fed their own genitals. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
 
2021-09-15 10:04:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Phil McKraken: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

I think Milley should be fired. He can still be a hero.

Why should he be fired exactly?


He should be fired for undermining the authority of his elected boss. Maybe "insubordination" is the right word.
 
2021-09-15 10:04:53 AM  

qorkfiend: "Civilian control of the military" does not mean "the military must do whatever the civilians ask, immediately and without question".

If line troopers can recognize and refuse to carry out illegal orders than so can officers.


Agreed. The issue here is that he didn't refuse an order. He pre-emptively arranged to make an order impossible to give.

Right call, wrong execution.
 
2021-09-15 10:06:18 AM  

Phil McKraken: cameroncrazy1984: Phil McKraken: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

I think Milley should be fired. He can still be a hero.

Why should he be fired exactly?

He should be fired for undermining the authority of his elected boss. Maybe "insubordination" is the right word.


In what way did he do that? The elected boss does not have the ability to issue an illegal order outside of the chain of command. How can you undermine an authority that doesn't exist?
 
2021-09-15 10:08:22 AM  

qorkfiend: Also, let's remember that Milley didn't say "refuse orders from the President". He said "make sure the President isn't bypassing the chain of command".


The thing is, the chain of command is pretty much whatever the President says it is.

That's the issue here: If the President is insane, and the cabinet won't remove him, he can pretty much do what he wants, especially in short term military actions.

And the fact that nuclear war is a thing means there's no way to prevent this.  You can't require a bunch of meetings and shiat to respond to the missiles flying.  You have to give the authority to one person who can act quickly.  Of course, by doing so, you kind of assume that said person isn't insane.
 
2021-09-15 10:09:20 AM  
Milley should hang period.
 
2021-09-15 10:10:49 AM  
Let's take these two together:

qorkfiend: "Civilian control of the military" does not mean "the military must do whatever the civilians ask, immediately and without question".

If line troopers can recognize and refuse to carry out illegal orders than so can officers.


And

NewportBarGuy: Gubbo: What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

What you're failing to grasp is that will happen no matter what we do to General Milley.

If the wrong person gets into that position, we're f*cked anyway because as you noticed during the reign of Trump, our rules and laws only matter if people give a f*ck enough to follow them.

If a lunatic ever did become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we literally have nothing to stop him.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

So, what Gen. Milley did was brave and in the best interest of America. How he did it? Doesn't really matter at all.


I think it is ENTIRELY proper that a general, recognizing that the Commander-In-Chief is not acting in a way that generates confidence in his mental acuity and decision-making capabilities, tells his officers that there will be no circumvention of the chain of command, and that he, the commanding officer in the chain between them and the President, will be involved in any decision regarding the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. This is NOT General Milley telling his subordinates "I don't care what the President says, we are not nuking anybody between now and January 20." However, if Trump did roll out of bed on January 19th with the idea that a President in time of war cannot be forced to resign regardless of the certified election results and wanted to nuke Beijing so that he could "stay in power" as a wartime president, thanks to Steve Bannon drunk-dialing him at 3AM with that idea, I would want a general who would say No. I think most people here would, except for the hardcore Trumpers.

I think what we're all worried about is some Trumper taking the Joint Chiefs job and a Democratic President coming to him or her with (and here's some Kiefer Sutherland 24-level BS here, but run with me a sec) incontrovertible evidence that Jum Jong Un woke up on the wrong side of the bad and was warming up a missile for Honolulu launching in two hours, with video footage in real time, and a nuclear strike on the launch site was absolutely essential to stop the missile, and the Trumper tells the President "you only won because of election fraud, and you're not the President, and I don't take orders from you, and Hawai'ians aren't real Americans, because have you seen them, so screw them." Or the Chairman deciding that Wednesday was a good day to nuke Pyongyang and starts the launch orders, and someone asks to speak to the President, and the Chairman says, "these ARE orders from the President ARE YOU QUESTIONING ME?!?!?!" At which point the people UNDER him should say No until they can verify the order from the President.

The second poster is right - laws only function when everyone agrees to follow them. With Trump, we had a President AND a bunch of people he hired (Pompeo, Ross, etc) who had lived their lives above or outside the reach of law and thought they were kings from money, and that their every idea and pronouncement was right because it came out of their heads and mouths, and nobody THEY hired would say No to them, because it was selfish narcissists all the way down. It's on the rest of us to enforce the law, even against our superiors, and take the hit if we have to. Milley knew this, and he knows the potential consequences. And if this is in Woodward's book, then Milley wants it known. No general is not a politician.

If Trump had succeeded in filling every link in the chain of command with syncophants (and he tried), this would be a different conversation. But he didn't. And it's up to Us to make sure nobody like Trump gets another shot at that job again.
 
2021-09-15 10:11:14 AM  

qorkfiend: DORMAMU: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

Only because no civilian was in control.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was mentally unstable.  The cabinet wouldn't throw him out, so it was up to Milley to determine if orders were safe and legitimate.

He has no authority to do that. Or, has questionable authority to do that.

You're seeing doing the wrong thing for a good reason as an absolute win.

What happens when it's some general who does the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

Seems like some that should be set up in procedure and codified Into a law.

(My guess there is a procedure already,, but it is classified so all we get to do is armchair QB with out all pertinent information)

Because having some rule written down somewhere won't stop the "wrong general"


Actually quite true...

But then nothing can really 100% full garuntee anything.

You do what you can.

Laws and even the constitution are just ideal suggestions on a piece of paper that can be ignored on a whim if you break it down.
 
2021-09-15 10:12:51 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-15 10:14:15 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Phil McKraken: cameroncrazy1984: Phil McKraken: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

I think Milley should be fired. He can still be a hero.

Why should he be fired exactly?

He should be fired for undermining the authority of his elected boss. Maybe "insubordination" is the right word.

In what way did he do that? The elected boss does not have the ability to issue an illegal order outside of the chain of command. How can you undermine an authority that doesn't exist?


Milley was conducting diplomacy without his superior's knowledge. I'm pretty sure the President is the ultimate diplomat in our system.
 
2021-09-15 10:14:54 AM  

Great_Milenko: Gubbo: NM Volunteer: He set a good precedent because the Cabinet wouldn't invoke the 25th.  Actually make arrangements and stand by to block bad actions.  Tiny Dick Daughterfarker was a domestic threat to the USA, regardless of whatever title or elected position he held, and Milley was just doing his job.

You think it's a good precedent?

It might have been the right thing, but it's outside all chains of civilian command and control and is dangerous.

The chain of command and control needs modified.  It should be impossible for one single person to ever authorize the use of nuclear weapons, and damn hard for even a group to be able to.


The single authority was conceived as a response if the soviets did a first strike.

Originally you would have a few minutes to decide whether or not to enact MAD.  If you delayed... your response capabilitt.would be severely diminished if not crippled.  Same thinking to why the US maintained enough nukes to nuke the whole planet multiple times over.
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.