7 ms·
Joint Chiefs remind U.S. forces that they defend the constitution
- mc32 6y agoWhy do they feel that have to remind the armed forces of this? Do they think there is a conspiracy among leadership or rank and file? Even if there were, a memorandum is not going to stop it. Oh, geez guys and gals, they told us to stop! This is just PR and ingratiating themselves before the next budget.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- waiseristy 6y agoThere was significant ex-military presence at the riot. The woman shot was a 14 year Air-force vet. You can see how this could send mixed messages to US civilians and the enlisted
- MichaelApproved 6y agoOne of the guys who brought in zip tie hand cuffs was also a military vet.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- devwastaken 6y agoThere's a number of people that believe the military is going to be used by trump to overthrow the election results and instate a trump government. Otherwise known as the made up q 'conspiracy'. Sadly people I know believe this, and there are military personnel whom also believe it. Therefore it's nice that the joint chiefs declare a position, even if they shouldnt have to.
- busterarm 6y agoYou have to realize that people on both ends of the spectrum believe in these same crazy conspiracies. Otherwise this wouldn't be news. There were articles from left-bias organizations over the weekend fearmongering about enlisted Trump supporters. Believing in dumb bullshit takes _ALL_ kinds.
- peteretep 6y ago> Do they think there is a conspiracy among leadership or rank and file? I mean that’s a pretty safe assumption in any organisation of 1.3m people. There’s also no harm in any organisation of that size in reminding people explicitly what their orders are, in no uncertain terms.
- mc32 6y agoI mean sure. But that was true under any administration with that many enlisted and career service people [as evidenced by base shootings, for example]. Bush directly caused more damage sending troops into Iraq for example. Did the JC make a fuss after that debacle? The other is a conspiracy that is neatly attributed to DJT as if he ordered people into the Capitol. (We're attributing intent) We don't have to presume intent on Bush's part, history informs us not with attributions or guesses, but with evidence.
- peteretep 6y agoI really don't think you need to bring DJT into this. There are clearly and unambiguously some active-duty people who seem to be unclear about where their duty lies, and this is an unambiguous statement to them about where the military expects them to be.
- mc32 6y agoTrue, kooks do exist there, no doubt about it. But this statement will do nothing to change their minds (if they had any plans --which I doubt any would be that stupid, but then we have had base shootings, so...)
- peteretep 6y ago> But this statement will do nothing to change their minds On this point we disagree. I think most soldiers want to be good, loyal soldiers. DJT is Commander in Chief, and I think he has given them some seriously mixed messages of what that would entail, and may give further mixed messages in the next few days. This explicit, unambiguous statement of where a soldier's duties lie is important.
- SubiculumCode 6y ago1)If Trump gave an illegal order, the Joint Chiefs are reminding leadership and rank and file of their true allegiance and duty. 2)Unambiguously leadership on core principles is not a PR stunt.
- bostonsre 6y agoWhat happened in Washington hasn't happened since the war of 1812 when the British took over the city. To me, it's reassuring to know that the people responsible for defending this country have a calm steady hand and that they will not put up with bullshit anti constitutional behavior. They won't support a tyrant and they will ensure that a transition of power happens no matter what.
- mc32 6y agoDidn’t DJT have to go to a secure location at the whitehouse when protesters breached the security perimeter of the WH this summer?
- grzm 6y agoAccording to two articles I perused, there were protestors at the Whitehouse and there were altercations with the police and security at and with the barriers, but no breach from what I read: - https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bu... - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/trump-protests-george-floyd.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/trump-protest...
- bilegeek 6y agoMany far-right organizations encourage their members to join the military whilst keeping their affiliations secret, mainly for training and spying. However, I'm sure they would love to sow disarray in the military if it meant achieving their coup. They wouldn't even need a majority of the military to be Nazis; just enough to sow confusion, draw attention and influence decisions.
- acjohnson55 6y agoBecause Donald Trump is unambiguously the commander-in-chief until either Biden takes office on Jan 20 at noon or he is removed from office. Until that time, Trump can issue military orders that do not abet the peaceful transition of power. This move matters, because it is important that members of the armed forces be able to distinguish between lawful orders, which they must obey, even if they do not like them, and unlawful orders, which they must not obey.
- mc32 6y agoIt's not that simple. A president can't just say "invade Cuba!" and it gets done in Today's world (maybe it was the case in the 1800s). Advisors and the Military (and Congress) have to concur that it's within reason do do such a thing.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoThis is the letter of the law and regulations as they stand, but hopelessly naive as to how actual military command is handled. The military deployed a previously unused weapon on the president’s command without any consultation. This responsibility has been largely delegated from congress to the executive’s discretion (with review) for nearly two decades. Reminding active service members that their oath is to the constitution, not the executive, at this moment is prudent.
- acjohnson55 6y agoInvading Cuba without Congressional approval would be a clear violation of the Constitution. But I think it's very dangerous to assume that institutions have the internal integrity to shrug off abuse of power because of their rules and norms.
- admiralspoo 6y agoSomeone remind Pelosi https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-coup-of-pelosis-own-11610148740 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-coup-of-pelosis-own-116101487...
- etherealmachine 6y agoNote that that's an opinion piece and it doesn't appear the author has actually read the U.S. Constitution. Section 8 says: "The Congress shall have Power To... make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" The use of nuclear weapons is clearly covered by that clause and several others giving Congress the power to regulate the military, whereas the Executive has the authority to execute those duly regulated rules.
- SubiculumCode 6y agoThe oath to the Constitution and not to any President or general is an incredibly important feature of our military that should never be underestimated or undermined. I salute the Joint Chiefs to holding true to their patriot and solemn duty.
- jtdev 6y agoWho tf would downvote that??
- bostonsre 6y agoIt's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing. I'm sure they don't hear it enough, but thank you if any members read this.
- MichaelApproved 6y agoAt the same time, it’s pretty scary that things got so bad, the armed forces had to weigh in on a political matter.
- systemvoltage 6y ago> "things got so bad". We had an assault on the Capitol. What could be possibly worse?
- parrellel 6y agoThe loons could have been about two minutes faster through the doors. That'd have been much worse. The joint chiefs could have been sympathetic with Trump, and then we'd be in Junta-land.
- systemvoltage 6y agoDamn, that's absolutely terrifying.
- rayiner 6y agoYes, incredible to read this. My family left Bangladesh when it was being run by a military government. We are so fortunate to have the military we do. Its not an idea or a principle or a law. It’s culture. It’s a norm that has been socialized into members of the military, especially the leadership, for hundreds of years. I live in Annapolis now by the Naval Academy and it’s quite a joy to see each new cohort of naval officers carry on the tradition.
- refurb 6y ago
- vlovich123 6y agoIs this the first time something like this has happened? Also, does anyone read these parts as contradictory & likely a lie? > U.S. officials said Milley had not commented on last week’s events because he wanted to stay out of politics. > The silence was in sharp contrast to June, when Milley made a controversial walk to a church with Trump after law enforcement officers backed by National Guard troops used tear-inducing chemicals and rubber bullets to clear the area of peaceful protesters. Is it possible perhaps that the Joint Chiefs were seeing how the insurrection played out before picking sides? What would this situation had looked like if the rioters had murdered a bunch of congresspeople? Would the Joint Chiefs be saying "it's a national emergency and Trump must stay President to calm things down"? I know there's a tendency to valorize the military leadership, but given how politicized the general environment is (& even moreso with Trump's known penchant for selecting for yes-men), is it really that absurd to think about whether they're doing some professional fence-sitting rather than trying to avoid polarization? It doesn't take that much to come out right away and say "an attack on the capitol is unacceptable & anyone involved will be punished. We will have more to say once we take in the totality of what has happened"
- systemvoltage 6y agoMike Milley apologized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4JaQMxbC3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4JaQMxbC3c Just before the election, he reminded Trump administration that all this nonsense is not going to dwell anywhere in the military: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMaI1Hg8dl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMaI1Hg8dl8
- vlovich123 6y agoThe imagery of that photo op is more powerful than the apology that wasn't heard by as many people. Actions need to line up with words. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though. Thanks for the context.
- systemvoltage 6y agoActions did line with words dude.
- acjohnson55 6y agoI think they're saying a) Do not commit crimes as a serviceperson, no matter who orders them b) Anything that disrupts the transition of power is a crime c) At 12:00p on January 20, Joe Biden is the commander-in-chief, not Donald Trump I pray it works, because it could get really ugly if Donald Trump attempts to give orders to defend what he claims to be his stolen second term.
- etrabroline 6y agoNo one alive when that constitution was written thought abortions should be legal. (I support them by the way) And yet without any amendment, it was discovered that actually the constitution had forbade state laws against abortions that whole time! This constitution stopped being meaningful a long time ago. Reminding the troops of this (most of whom are young christian men) is probably a bad idea.
- redisman 6y agoCool. When are we going to enforce the no politics rules again?
- waiseristy 6y agoYou should have enough karma to downvote and flag this post if you think it goes against the rules. We can't expect the poor HN mods to enforce the rules 24/7 Aaaannnnd it's gone front the front page, that was quick
- SubiculumCode 6y agoThere are politics of the normal sort, then there re politics of the sort that transcend the normal. If for example, Trump declared war on China, I for one would hope that HN would put up a discussion thread so that smarter than average individuals meet to discuss important issues.
- bmarquez 6y agoBasically what happens for very important non-technology news, is that users flag the post off the page (which is intended behavior according to the admins.) Then dang picks a post to resurrect and focus discussion on. I believe the last time this happened was when the US presidential election results came in.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI cannot fathom how “military oath to constitution” is politics, but a zillion articles about tech companies deplatforming fascists as a “free speech” issue isn’t. Edit: okay assbutts. Downvote all you want but anyone want to actually use words to say why a military oath to the constitution is “politics”? Thought not.
- redisman 6y agoI’m tired of both and the discussion is devolving like all political chatter online
- philistine 6y agoI am flabbergasted that they mentioned Biden being the 46th president. This implies that the joint chiefs of staff do not believe Trump will be removed before inauguration when it is very much a political discussion right now. Is it reasonable to suspect Trump will stay on until inauguration? Sure. But Trump could have a stroke and straight up die tonight, making Pence president for a week. It’s fascinating to me why they didn’t simply say Biden will become our next president.
- systemvoltage 6y agoEven if Pence is taking over Trump as President, the number doesn't increment. It doesn't imply anything.
- philistine 6y agoWhen JFK died, did Johnson not increment the count? That’s what I’m saying here. No one can be 100% sure Trump will be alive next week.
- tzs 6y agoThe number incremented when Ford took over when Nixon resigned. Why do you think it would not increment if Pence took over the remainder of Trump’s term?
- systemvoltage 6y agoI unfortunately am not able to find the source. Basically, there were provisions for resigning vs. impeachment. Nixon resigned before impeachment. Trying to scour wikipedia over this. I'll comment here if I find the source.
- tzs 6y agoFor completeness another interesting case is Grover Cleveland. He served two terms, but they were not consecutive. Some lists count him as both 22nd and 24th, and some count him as just 22nd.
- optimalsolver 6y agoThis reminds me of something I've always wondered: Why isn't the United States, unlike the Roman Empire before it, constantly plagued by ambitious generals swaying large fractions of the military to their cause and trying for ultimate power? For the Romans, this was particularly a problem for legions stationed in far-flung corners of the empire like Syria and Britain. So why do US forces in, say, South Korea or Germany never declare allegiance to their local commanders rather than the State?
- seibelj 6y agoOne reason is that civilians have ultimate authority over the armed forces, although generals have become President many times. Another is that there is so much money to be made in the military and the surrounding defense contractors, and in the modern day glory with violence and conquering is less pleasurable than big houses and luxury cars.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoThere were concerns about some elements of what you're talking about with some WW2 generals. For example, MacArthur was at one point considered too popular for it to be politically feasible to fire him, after his insubordination during the Korean War. In general, I suspect this change stems from a few things. One is that generals do not lead soldiers into combat as directly any more. Another is that soldiers no longer stand to personally profit from combat or war -- there is no taking of booty, raping and pillaging are at the very least heavily frowned upon, etc. And another thing is that combat actions are less frequent these days, so any given soldier has a shorter sequence of experiences and victories with a given commander. But I'm not an expert historian. These are just some guesses.
- rayiner 6y agoIt’s the same reason you don’t have to pay a bribe to have a phone line installed. American culture and socialization.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sillysaurusx 6y agoI have a hard time reading this as anything but PR, as a sibling commenter pointed out. There is zero chance that the military will stage a coup. None. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to ask members of the military themselves what their feelings are on this. The military is under the command of the civilian government. There's no protocol for them to act alone. I don't understand why we insist on telling each other these ghost stories about a potential takeover. It really doesn't matter if there were a few ex-military people in the march on the capitol, either. They're not military leaders.
- alphabettsy 6y agoI have a hard time believing you read it. The letter is a message to those in uniform reminding them that they are to protect to constitution. Considering the police, military and ex-military involved in the Capitol violence it seems reasonable.
- kumarvvr 6y agoThe military, like the police is a different beast, in America or otherwise. The troops are conditioned to follow orders. That is why, the troops are always gauged and defended on the basis of the orders and their faithful execution of the orders, no matter how horrific they are. Troops are punished for not following orders. Those in the administrative side of the army, they are punished for orders and decisions. So, to subvert the military, you don't have to control the whole of it, just the leadership. In the present case of America, the military is under the full command of trump. He holds all power and that power is absolute. Unfortunately, he is a fascist moron with dreams of authoritarian rule. These statements from the military are essentially telling him, the military will take a decision when push comes to shove, and that decision by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be on the understanding of law, and their oath to the constitution, even though they are bound to follow the orders of the president
- eyelidlessness 6y agoThey’re not worried about a military coup, they’re worried about a civilian coup by the civilian who commands the military.
- jamesarthur9 6y agoIf U.S. forces defended the constitution, they would have stopped the confirmation of a fraudulent election.
- wombatmobile 6y ago> We know from documents and writings of the time that the founders didn’t agree on the Constitution before, during, and after it was written. They couldn’t even agree on whether it should be written, with many fighting against it on principle. The debates were harsh and sometimes violent, nearly tearing the country apart before it had been fully established. https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/the-vague-and-ambiguous-us-constitution/ https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/the-vag...
- cmurf 6y agoRelated. The military has a hate group problem. But it doesn't know how bad it's gotten. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/military-right-wing-extremism-457861 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/military-right-wing...
- kumarvvr 6y agoThat the worlds foremost democratic power, one that project and lectures the world on the principles of democracy and rule of law, has to have this done is astounding itself. Obama's warnings were so spot on. He foresaw the assault on institutions and warned that ideas carried by the Republican party and supported by them will tear the country apart. And it happened in less than 4 years of trump rule. Make no mistake, the country is torn apart for sure. Radical and in-human ideas have caught on and will become mainstream. The republic is on the road to crash and burn because the rot is spreading into regular public discourse, and so far, the democrats are losing. It will not be long before a charismatic one, with deep seated ideas, sugar coated with good intentions will take power and slowly work the system from within. Heck, trump did it overtly, and Republicans are still defending him. To put it raw, the republicans are defending the idea that violent seditious insurrection activities and storming of the capitol do not warrant a strong punishment. Its a sad coming decade for America, and the rest of the world.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoI don’t get where’re you’re coming from pinning this all on Trump & Republicans. He’s a symptom of the complete bed-shitting incompetence of Democrats. Hillary Clinton pioneered the idea of blaming election fraud on loss and illegitimate elections.
- waterhouse 6y agoTo me, the electoral college is the resolution of the whole alleged fraud thing. The electoral voters are the judges. The electoral voters are actually able to vote against how their state voted; they might get voted out for doing so, and in some states they will face legal consequences afterward, but their vote still stands. So even if you think there was a fraud, if you couldn't convince your electoral voter, then that's it. Well, at least that's how it goes in most states. Looking it up: "In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced". I guess one could see exactly which states those are, and calculate the possible effects... it would be nice if the above paragraph applied to all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#Faithless_elector_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#Faithless_el...
- eyelidlessness 6y ago> The electoral voters are actually able to vote against how their state voted They’re actually not. Thanks to a (trump era) SCOTUS ruling, EC votes are now fully regulated by the states.
- waterhouse 6y agoHmm... The article says: "On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in both Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca that states may enforce laws to punish faithless electors." Is that what you mean? That seems like a "may" rather than a "must", and also talks about punishing them afterward rather than about voiding their vote.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoIt means that if states have laws regarding how their electors elect, those laws are the final word.
- wahern 6y agoSCOTUS has said that electors can be punished for not voting according to the rules laid out by the state. I'm not sure to what extent the various remedies available have been settled; that is, what can be done procedurally after a faithless elector casts their vote. AFAIK so far the effect has always been that their vote was counted and certified.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- offby37years 6y agoThis memo contains no new information. It almost certainly confirms multiple vying factions within the military, otherwise why release this.
- dredmorbius 6y agoStatements such as these 1) are meant to reassure 2) are meant as an exceedingly strong caution to servicemembers and 3) aren’t issued unless there’s a question concerning loyalties. Steve Inskeep on NPR reiterated that this is an extraordinary statement.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago> aren’t issued unless there’s a question concerning loyalties Considering the seemingly high number of military veterans among the Capitol mob and the fact that several Capitol police officers have been suspended because of their "friendliness" with the mob, I think there are pretty serious questions on loyalties, indeed.
- knbknb 6y agoI think the US-military leaders prefer to not take orders from a person who has completely lost it and knows no bounds. Moreover these destructive key-decisions would be most likely outrageous and against the interests of the country.
- mbar84 6y agoThis is one of the earliest things I wondered with the Trump presidency. If the order came down to e.g. "Nuke Jina!", would they actually follow that order.