NationStates

Washington Resistance Army wrote:The copium from some in this thread is unreal. I know it's hard to accept that you're living in a borderline failed state at this point but that's just the reality of things nowadays. We're not the shining city on the hill that leads the world in almost every field anymore, we're the collapsing downtrodden slum where the masses are continuing to get poorer while our political institutions implode and collapse to the point of uselessness.

What’s with the world is doomed! DOOOMED! talk? California recall results?

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:

Immortan Khan wrote:It's also worth noting that Milley didn't simply strengthen procedure, he flat out told the other officers to ignore any orders from above unless he signed off on them.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html

That's how it works tho. Orders to launch nukes pass from the President down through the Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's just him reinforcing how it legally works, not usurping power.

Their job is to confirm such an order came from up top, not stop it. Further, if the President were to directly go to them and order them to do it, thereby bypassing Milley, then they would still have to obey said order. Milley told them to ignore such orders.

Look, I really do not care. I'm just running on the assumption that the Americans ITT would prefer maximizing their chances on holding onto their current form of government. I don't care if America remains a republic, I don't care if it turns into an autocracy.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:The copium from some in this thread is unreal. I know it's hard to accept that you're living in a borderline failed state at this point but that's just the reality of things nowadays. We're not the shining city on the hill that leads the world in almost every field anymore, we're the collapsing downtrodden slum where the masses are continuing to get poorer while our political institutions implode and collapse to the point of uselessness.

What’s with the world is doomed! DOOOMED! talk? California recall results?

Watching January 6th unfold live on TV, and then seeing many Republicans slowly morph from their initial state of outrage into insurrection apologia was the final nail in the coffin for me.

Immortan Khan wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:That's how it works tho. Orders to launch nukes pass from the President down through the Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's just him reinforcing how it legally works, not usurping power.

Their job is to confirm such an order came from up top, not stop it. Further, if the President were to directly go to them and order them to do it, thereby bypassing Milley, then they would still have to obey said order. Milley told them to ignore such orders.

Look, I really do not care. I'm just running on the assumption that the Americans ITT would prefer maximizing their chances on holding onto their current form of government. I don't care if America remains a republic, I don't care if it turns into an autocracy.

I'm pretty sure that's mandated. As in, no, the president can't bypass the chain of command.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:The copium from some in this thread is unreal. I know it's hard to accept that you're living in a borderline failed state at this point but that's just the reality of things nowadays. We're not the shining city on the hill that leads the world in almost every field anymore, we're the collapsing downtrodden slum where the masses are continuing to get poorer while our political institutions implode and collapse to the point of uselessness.

Somewhat reminds me of this book I'm reading about the The General Crisis on how some were writing that humanity had never had it better when a lot of indicators were showing that things were increasingly getting worse and more unstable (which was true).

We're already seeing some similar things as well. Average age of marriage is about the same now as it was in the mid-17th century in a number of regions. Declining average height. Fewer children. Increased levels of debt and debt absconding. Rise of more autocratic and centralized regimes. Rise in superstition and conspiracy theories. Climate change. While our cities may not be burning like theirs were, our forests and grasslands certainly are.

It may not be repeat, but it does rhyme.

Kanadorika wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Military officers are routinely punished for disobeying orders they believed to be unethical. The point of the military is for those above to command and those below to obey. The Nuremberg defense is indeed not a legal defense for war crimes, that doesn't change that disobeying orders is a felony.

The point of the military isn't to mindlessly obey orders. It's to protect the constitution and people of the United States. There is a duty to follow through with this, even if it means disobeying an order from the president.

Otherwise the president could simply have the army march through congress and seize power and nobody from within could dare question it.

So where in the Constitution does it say the military gets to unilaterally decide what the constitution says?

The Gateway Pundit reports:

(The Congresswoman wrote on Instagram earlier that "many elected officials regularly attend due to our responsibilities in keeping cultural institutions open to the public," and that "if you live in the NYC area you can go to the Met [Gala]... for as little $ as you like.")

Antipatros wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
What’s with the world is doomed! DOOOMED! talk? California recall results?

Watching January 6th unfold live on TV, and then seeing many Republicans slowly morph from their initial state of outrage into insurrection apologia was the final nail in the coffin for me.

Well? Ask yourself this? Did 45 make them that way? Or….where they always that way and 45 only enabled them to be that outspoken about their hate?

I am more concerned this proud to be ignorant stance……

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:

Immortan Khan wrote:Their job is to confirm such an order came from up top, not stop it. Further, if the President were to directly go to them and order them to do it, thereby bypassing Milley, then they would still have to obey said order. Milley told them to ignore such orders.

Look, I really do not care. I'm just running on the assumption that the Americans ITT would prefer maximizing their chances on holding onto their current form of government. I don't care if America remains a republic, I don't care if it turns into an autocracy.

I'm pretty sure that's mandated. As in, no, the president can't bypass the chain of command.

He can actually. The President as plenary power over the military. If the President wanted to, they could take direct control over planning military strategy.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:The copium from some in this thread is unreal. I know it's hard to accept that you're living in a borderline failed state at this point but that's just the reality of things nowadays. We're not the shining city on the hill that leads the world in almost every field anymore, we're the collapsing downtrodden slum where the masses are continuing to get poorer while our political institutions implode and collapse to the point of uselessness.

What’s with the world is doomed! DOOOMED! talk?

Because it is.

Tinhampton wrote:The Gateway Pundit reports:

Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wore a dress adorned with the words “tax the rich” to the $30,000 per ticket Met Gala on Monday evening.

On Tuesday morning, an ethics complaint was filed against her for it by the government watchdog American Accountability Foundation (AAF).

The AAF said that Ocasio-Cortez violated House Ethics rules by accepting “an impermissible gift” of the highly coveted tickets.

“Specifically, we believe Representative Ocasio-Cortez has violated clause 5 of Rule XXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives (commonly known as the Gift Rule) by accepting admission to the Met Gala, an event whose per seat costs is reported to range from $35,000 to $50,000, without having a permissible exemption to allow the acceptance of the lavish gift,” American Accountability Foundation President Tom Jones wrote in the complaint.

“If Representative Occasio-Cortez has used campaign funds to pay for this ticket, she has also violated FEC prohibitions on campaign funds being used for entertainment purposes,” the complaint continued

(The Congresswoman wrote on Instagram earlier that "many elected officials regularly attend due to our responsibilities in keeping cultural institutions open to the public," and that "if you live in the NYC area you can go to the Met [Gala]... for as little $ as you like.")

I like their bio on Twitter:

Conducting non-partisan conservative research so Americans can hold their leaders accountable

???

Well, all this debate points to many problems :

1. How can a single person have the authority to order, alone, the end of the world ?
2. Why have such a long "lame duck" period, where a defeated president is still in power, able to sabotage, unleash his frustration and anger, ... ? Here in France we have... one week before the second turn of elections and the new president assuming office.
3. How did the numerous mechanisms in the Constitution to remove an unfit president (Electoral College, Impeachment, 25th Amendment) fail so badly ? Shouldn't it point to a need to change all that ?

Those are the real questions. That the military, in situation where the normal mechanisms already failed, and where a crazy defeated man was at real risk of ending the world they were right to step in and say "hrm, no". Exactly like Stanislav Petrov was right to say "hrm, no". That doesn't mean I condemn military seizing power, but there is a huge difference between the military seizing power and them refusing to carry out a clearly abusive order from a lame duck president.

Punished UMN wrote:

Kanadorika wrote:The point of the military isn't to mindlessly obey orders. It's to protect the constitution and people of the United States. There is a duty to follow through with this, even if it means disobeying an order from the president.

Otherwise the president could simply have the army march through congress and seize power and nobody from within could dare question it.

So where in the Constitution does it say the military gets to unilaterally decide what the constitution says?

The oath every single servicemember takes upon joining the military makes it pretty clear that allegiance lies in the Constitution, not the President. The President is commander in chief, but only so far as he is not blatantly disregarding constitutional process.

Don't forget Lieutenant Calley was still convicted for murder and court martialed even though he testified he was following orders given to him by his superior to massacre Vietnamese.

Committing warcrimes because a superior told you to still makes you a war criminal.

Poster wondering why the rest of the world simply isn't French.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Antipatros wrote:Watching January 6th unfold live on TV, and then seeing many Republicans slowly morph from their initial state of outrage into insurrection apologia was the final nail in the coffin for me.

Well? Ask yourself this? Did 45 make them that way? Or….where they always that way and 45 only enabled them to be that outspoken about their hate?

I am more concerned this proud to be ignorant stance……

As a president and a leader he conferred legitimacy and specifically whipped people up through lies and deceit.

Latent if not growing insurrection still needs a degree of legitimacy and approval before they feel empowered to act, he gave it to them in spades.

Immortan Khan wrote:Poster wondering why the rest of the world simply isn't French.

Hrm, no, there are lots of things broken here too. But seen from here, there are many things which really seem broken in US politics, like the very long delay (almost 3 months) between elections and the new president getting into office, leaving a defeated and potentially bitter/mad/angry president able to wreck havoc for long.

Immortan Khan wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I'm pretty sure that's mandated. As in, no, the president can't bypass the chain of command.

He can actually. The President as plenary power over the military. If the President wanted to, they could take direct control over planning military strategy.

No they can't. For one, the president has to identify themselves using their launch codes to military officials. And military officials have the right and duty to refuse illegal orders.

Kilobugya wrote:Well, all this debate points to many problems :

1. How can a single person have the authority to order, alone, the end of the world ?
2. Why have such a long "lame duck" period, where a defeated president is still in power, able to sabotage, unleash his frustration and anger, ... ? Here in France we have... one week before the second turn of elections and the new president assuming office.
3. How did the numerous mechanisms in the Constitution to remove an unfit president (Electoral College, Impeachment, 25th Amendment) fail so badly ? Shouldn't it point to a need to change all that ?

Those are the real questions. That the military, in situation where the normal mechanisms already failed, and where a crazy defeated man was at real risk of ending the world they were right to step in and say "hrm, no". Exactly like Stanislav Petrov was right to say "hrm, no". That doesn't mean I condemn military seizing power, but there is a huge difference between the military seizing power and them refusing to carry out a clearly abusive order from a lame duck president.

1) Because it doesn’t work that way. A President can’t simply wake up “I’m depressed! Fuck it! Launch all missiles.
2) Are you refering to the qanon march thing? Doesn’t work that way:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN2AB2AX

3) Unfit sure. The problem? It has to be shown he is incapable which 45 really didn’t do or…..his people were good at covering it up. Should it be tightened? Probably; not sure I would like psyc-evals being used as a political tool to replace a President who simply annoys us. That’s for the elections and 45 didn’t get re-elected….

Kilobugya wrote:Well, all this debate points to many problems :

1. How can a single person have the authority to order, alone, the end of the world ?
2. Why have such a long "lame duck" period, where a defeated president is still in power, able to sabotage, unleash his frustration and anger, ... ? Here in France we have... one week before the second turn of elections and the new president assuming office.
3. How did the numerous mechanisms in the Constitution to remove an unfit president (Electoral College, Impeachment, 25th Amendment) fail so badly ? Shouldn't it point to a need to change all that ?

Those are the real questions. That the military, in situation where the normal mechanisms already failed, and where a crazy defeated man was at real risk of ending the world they were right to step in and say "hrm, no". Exactly like Stanislav Petrov was right to say "hrm, no". That doesn't mean I condemn military seizing power, but there is a huge difference between the military seizing power and them refusing to carry out a clearly abusive order from a lame duck president.

1. One person really shouldn't have that authority. I'm not really sure know why we treat Presidents as enlightened monarchs when it comes to national security, for some reason.

2. I think that that's probably due to institutional and legal inertia more than anything. Our Constitution is very old and is difficult to change, especially in today's political environment. We decided to clean up the election/succession process a little bit with the 20th and 25th Amendments. The lame duck period used to be even longer.

3. Extreme political polarization and the cowardice of many of our leaders prevented these measures from being taken.

Above all, I think there is a baseline assumption by many that the President is inherently responsible, rational, or reasonable. Our founding fathers regarded a strong executive with an inherent degree of suspicion, but much of the legal framework that we've built on top of the Constitution over time is way too trusting of the President, in my opinion.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Antipatros wrote:Watching January 6th unfold live on TV, and then seeing many Republicans slowly morph from their initial state of outrage into insurrection apologia was the final nail in the coffin for me.

Well? Ask yourself this? Did 45 make them that way? Or….where they always that way and 45 only enabled them to be that outspoken about their hate?

I am more concerned this proud to be ignorant stance……

I think that this process of radicalization among some on the right has been occurring for a long time. 45 just turned the heat up to 11.

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:

Immortan Khan wrote:He can actually. The President as plenary power over the military. If the President wanted to, they could take direct control over planning military strategy.

No they can't.

Oh yes they can. If POTUS wanted to, they could personally lead the army into battle and that's what Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

POTUS has unilateral power to order nuclear strikes. It's not illegal for them to order them. The basis might be batshit insane, but they have the power to launch them unilaterally.

Kanadorika wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:So where in the Constitution does it say the military gets to unilaterally decide what the constitution says?

The oath every single servicemember takes upon joining the military makes it pretty clear that allegiance lies in the Constitution, not the President. The President is commander in chief, but only so far as he is not blatantly disregarding constitutional process.

Don't forget Lieutenant Calley was still convicted for murder and court martialed even though he testified he was following orders given to him by his superior to massacre Vietnamese.

Committing warcrimes because a superior told you to still makes you a war criminal.

Yeah, and more American servicemen have been convicted for disobeying orders that were illegal than have been convicted of war crimes they were ordered to do. You're missing the point either way: the military isn't the institution that decides if an order is constitutional or not. They're not supposed to decide on the exception, that's the job of the courts.

Immortan Khan wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:No they can't.

Oh yes they can. If POTUS wanted to, they could personally lead the army into battle and that's what Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

POTUS has unilateral power to order nuclear strikes. It's not illegal for them to order them. The basis might be batshit insane, but they have the power to launch them unilaterally.

I think this is a semantic issue here. Unilateral in the sense that they have the necessary and sufficient power to order one, but not so in the sense that there aren't other components of the government and military involved as well.

Kilobugya wrote:

Immortan Khan wrote:Poster wondering why the rest of the world simply isn't French.

Hrm, no, there are lots of things broken here too. But seen from here, there are many things which really seem broken in US politics, like the very long delay (almost 3 months) between elections and the new president getting into office, leaving a defeated and potentially bitter/mad/angry president able to wreck havoc for long.

Because it's set out in the Constitution which stems from the fact that the US is a huge country and Cabinets had members taken from all sectors of life who could, and often were, spread out across it. No offense, but this is something that a lot of W. Europeans forget - just how damn huge countries like the US are geographically. It took time to send out offers, get notification on acceptance or refusal, have them get to Washington, etc. Nowadays it also helps considering the absolute massive amount of issues that any incoming POTUS has to deal with. The status of all the domestic issues, the foreign issues, so on need to be digested and properly understood. Then the last bit is also just, well, tradition.

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:

Immortan Khan wrote:Oh yes they can. If POTUS wanted to, they could personally lead the army into battle and that's what Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

POTUS has unilateral power to order nuclear strikes. It's not illegal for them to order them. The basis might be batshit insane, but they have the power to launch them unilaterally.

I think this is a semantic issue here. Unilateral in the sense that they have the necessary and sufficient power to order one, but not so in the sense that there aren't other components of the government and military involved as well.

The War Powers Act essentially did away with that. Obama didn't need congressional approval to go to war with Libya, for example.

Immortan Khan wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:No they can't.

Oh yes they can. If POTUS wanted to, they could personally lead the army into battle and that's what Washington did during the Whiskey Rebellion.

POTUS has unilateral power to order nuclear strikes. It's not illegal for them to order them. The basis might be batshit insane, but they have the power to launch them unilaterally.

You make it sound like he can do whatever he wants. A large part sure. He still has to do the dance of ordering things which doesn’t violate the realms of Congress.

He isn’t going to lead troops into battle. People aren’t going to allow it.

He may want to order a nuke strike; he doesn’t have the ability to do it just because. The are protocols in place. If the country was in danger….sure….. Being pissed at China? Sorry.