225

How Trump Is Laying The Groundwork For A Coopted Military, Now And In 2025 (talkingpointsmemo.com)

submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 64 points 11 months ago

And the American people can take it to the bank, that all of us, every single one of us, from private to general, are loyal to that Constitution and will never turn our back on it no matter what,” Milley told CBS. “No matter what the threats, no matter what the humiliation, no matter what.”

That is the part Trump and MAGA don't understand, the military purposely must remain loyal only to the Consitution, not to a political party or individual. Anyone in the military who acts in support of Trump is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, life in prison, or execution. If Trump issues an illegal order like to suppress free speech or free assembly any military member who follows that order would face harsh punishment and a long jail time.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

We also saw the military's Joint Chiefs publicly rebuke Trump in 2020, when they expressed support for BLM protestors' 1st Amendment rights to protest (after Trump wanted to send out the military to stop the protests), and when they make the public statement that Biden won the election and was their Commander in Chief.

[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

As someone who served, that was not my takeaway. They are simultaneously the most politically ignorant and politically adamant. I could see a split, if not a majority backing a candidate who even hints at giving them something.

[-] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I too have my doubts about whether or not America has the stomach to actually punish our service members if they commit treason. We didn't execute the soldiers of the South and we even let them build monuments to their treason.

Americans don't like to punish people in positions of power.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 10 points 11 months ago

Bullshit

Jan 6. The Capitol Building, Congress, and the Vice President were actively under attack from a violent and armed mob. The President was gleefully clapping and refusing to intervene. And the goal of this was to actively subvert the constitution... and lynch (and worse) elected officials.

That was the moment where "The military is loyal to the Constitution" or "The military is honorable" goes out the fucking window. Because they actively sat on their hands and waited to see how things would shake out.

The "Constitution" was at stake and the military chose to let the violent tyrant shoot his shot.

[-] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 27 points 11 months ago

Posse Comitatus Act.

The national guard could have been activated. Who activates the national guard for DC?

The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -2 points 11 months ago

So if a trump-like figure is elected, the military will blindly follow any atrocities they want. Which… should not be a surprise to anyone considering what we did in The Middle East for the better part of two decades.

Yet people still think that The Military won’t get to goose stepping the moment a wannabe dictator tells them to.

Figured it was worth repeating.

Also especially good that we are so happy that the heroic military will sit idly by while a POTUS, who is actively trying to usurp The Constitution, tries to have the second and third in line to the position, murdered.

[-] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 22 points 11 months ago

The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law.

Do you want them to break the rules they’re bound to follow or not? Sounds like you just want to believe whatever fits your viewpoint. The military had no right or responsibility to engage in a civilian law enforcement action on January 6.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which removed the military from regular civil law enforcement, was enacted in response to the abuses resulting from the extensive use of the army in civil law enforcement during the Civil War and the Reconstruction. What you are all bent out of shape about was restricted because it was being abused.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Let's be real, the military is going to intervene next year because its purpose isn't to uphold the Constitution, it's to protect the status quo as it is in every country that has one. When this all pops off into a civil war, they'll take over whether the Posse Comitatus Act is a thing or not.

They're the ones with all the guns, and the ones with the guns make the rules.

[-] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago

[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Proper chain of command is what happened. Which is a good thing. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3787032-dc-national-guard-deployment-wasnt-purposefully-delayed-on-jan-6-final-report-finds/

[+] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So if a trump-like figure is elected, the military will blindly follow any atrocities they want. Which... should not be a surprise to anyone considering what we did in The Middle East for the better part of two decades.

Yet people still think that The Military won't get to goose stepping the moment a wannabe dictator tells them to.

Which is a good thing

[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

I can talk out my ass too about maybes and if. But I tend to care more about the truth.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -4 points 11 months ago

... The truth being that the outgoing POTUS, who has lost the election, has led a violent insurrection against the Capitol Building where the Vice President (second in line) and Speaker of the House (third in line) are with the explicit goal of preventing Congress from upholding the Constitution to formally elect a new President (who, even according to Fox News, has won the election)? And that the military chose to sit on their hands while the POTUS attempted to have the second and third in line murdered so that he could piss on the Constitution and stay in power?

That truth? Because we aren't talking hypotheticals. That is what happened. Unless this is your sneaky way of saying that you think Jan 6 was an Antifa False Flag that was all about finding those e-mails.

[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

As the other person who responded shared, the D.C. National guard is unique. You can whine and insinuate all you want but it doesn't change anything. Just makes you look ignorant.

The Guard aren't cops. They don't get to show up guns blazing without orders. Which is a good thing.
The D.C. Guard was created before there was a local government. There had never been an issue like this for it's 120 years of reporting to the President directly. The Pentagon already reviewed and changed the rules back in 2021.
But on Jan 6th, after realizing a Trump crony had deceived them, Pentagon leadership started going further down the chain to get authorization to act.

I'm not really saying this for you though. It's clear you're being dumb about this instead of reading. But it's here for others who'd like to understand.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The crux of your argument is:

They were legally in the right to allow a violent tyrant to lead an insurrection and attempt to murder the only people who could uphold the Constitution and get him out of office at the end of his term

They thought hard about if they will do that again.

None of which does anything to support the narrative of

the military purposely must remain loyal only to the Consitution, not to a political party or individual. Anyone in the military who acts in support of Trump is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, life in prison, or execution. If Trump issues an illegal order like to suppress free speech or free assembly any military member who follows that order would face harsh punishment and a long jail tim

If you want me to add a bunch of "hash tag, support the troops" in my condemnation of them supporting a violent insurrection against the US Government then sure. I don't want that smoke. But you have no point beyond that.

Because the only difference between our arguments is you are deciding they were heroes for actively not protecting the VPOTUS, Speaker of the House, or the rest of Congress and instead relying on the courage of police officers which... jesus christ how do we still have a country?

[-] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Trump and friends wouldn't directly give an unlawful order that violates the Constitution. That's not their style. I'm guessing what they would do is more like paint themselves as the victim, then have the military intervene to "save" them.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago

What a naive idiot this person is.

every single one of us, from private to general, are loyal to that Constitution and will never turn our back on it no matter what

You had some of your own people storming the capital on Jan 6th, but were meant to believe none of you ever would go against the constitution?

Fucking clowns.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Enlisted men are one thing, officers quite another. And the higher you go, the more their attitude in on the straight and narrow. You're not getting promotioned if you're publicly political.

The rank and file can support Trump (privately) all they like. The sorts who act political are held back or kicked out long before attaining rank.

tl;dr: The American military is extraordinarily proud of being apolitical.

[-] TwattyMctwatterson 4 points 11 months ago

tl;dr: The American military is extraordinarily proud of being apolitical.

If I recall so where the Wehrmacht in the 1930s yet Nazis still rose in the ranks. IDK man I hope you're right, I really do.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Different army, different country, different times.

But yes, let's not act like America is morally proof against such a rise in fascism. Never in life thought I would see what I'm seeing. But here we are.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago

An active-duty U.S. Marine Corps officer was indicted Wednesday for his alleged actions during the January 6 Capitol riot.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-christopher-warnagiris-active-military-indicted

And the higher you go, the more their attitude in on the straight and narrow.

The higher up you go, the more complicit you get in war crimes. These aren’t honourable people defending up top.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 59 points 11 months ago

I’d like to point out that while it should be illegal to turn the US military against citizens of the US- it also should be illegal for a rapist, a traitor, and a twice impeached criminal to become elected.

[-] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

What gets me is that if he had to apply for even a basic security clearance like any other shlub, he would get denied because of his ridiculous web of debt and undue influence, even back in 2015/2016. But he can run for the highest office of the land and have access to the country's most sensitive info if he wins?

[-] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago

That's because the United States government classification system is not a single law like the UK's Official Secrets Act. In the US we use a mixture of Executive orders and 5 or 6 different laws each covering different specific areas.

[-] asterfield@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I’m not well versed in the structure of the american political system.

Did he actually get impeached twice or was it just raised for a vote twice?

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Just to be clear on the definition, "impeached" doesn't mean "removed from office". To say someone was impeached just means that the House held a hearing.

Clinton was impeached even though he wasn't removed and completed his term. Same with Trump, though it happened twice.

Nixon was NOT impeached since he resigned before the house could open hearings.

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

He actually got impeached twice. Never got voted out of office though.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

calls to excise “wokeness” and DEI initiatives from the military work as a way to accuse the armed forces of becoming politicized...

It’s a means of applying pressure on the military, creating an environment on the right where there’s a demand for some kind of policy response, and putting the armed forces on the back foot in the right-wing culture wars. And, it leads towards what Trump and the think tankers plotting his return to power have themselves suggested as the appropriate policy response: coopting the military for domestic use.

.And though the president has nearly no constraints on whether he can invoke the [insurrection] act, Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, told TPM, there has historically been one limit: politics.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

By the time I get through all the response comments, you all have tricked me into just reading the whole article.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Why lay groundwork? As Commander in Chief, can he not simply fire anyone he wants to? He barely needs to offer his supporters an excuse, just call 'em woke and be done with it.

That's my fear, and I have no idea if he's able to be blocked from doing so.

Anyone know more than I?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 11 months ago

The major issue is that it requires a majority in the Senate to confirm officers. He doesn't get to choose replacements.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Here's where I need more info! I understood that the President could fire military officers. But he can't place them? Maybe just the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Am I wrong on the first statement, the last, both?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

Senate approval is needed for any promotion of a military officer. Not sure how much leeway he has to move people around within the same rank.

this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023

225 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2320 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News