Wednesday, November 26, 2025

The ultimate Catch 22 in the question if the military should obey illegal orders: a corrupted chain of command

 The ultimate Catch 22: What do you do when the whole chain of command is corrupted? The reason the clause was inserted in the Code of Military Justice was in reaction to the Nazi Generals' defense in the Nuremberg trials, which was "they were just following orders", and they were still hanged for their criminal acts. An excellent explainer: Explainer: Can military members refuse orders? - ABC News The one issue not addressed in this is what if the JAGs ( the military law corps) are also controlled by the president, to make the judgment call of what is or is not an illegal order? This is not a hypothetical. The president has already fired the top three JAGs in the Pentagon. How the Pentagon sidelined lawyers while testing the legal limits of military action | CNN Politics

Per Peter Wehner, writing in The Atlantic in October, "firing of the JAGs is just one element of a broader purge of the military, which started at the beginning of Trump’s second term. In February, five former defense secretaries, including JamesMattis, who served under Trump in his first term." Trump’s Plan Is Now Out in the Open - The Atlantic.

Now the FBI has been ordered to interview the 6 who dared remind the military of their rights not to obey illegal orders.FBI interviewing Democrats over ‘illegal orders’ video   It seems like the president plans to issue clearly illegal orders (he did contemplate having the military shoot unarmed protesters iin his first term), The flip side of his demanding the 6 be executed for sedition is that Trump wants the military to obey illegal orders and then resistance would be before the hand picked loyal JAGs? The Constitution is still supreme over the military code of justice....so back to the Supreme Court that Trump considers "his"?

Welcome to the brave new world of Trump's  pretense of  dictatorship.


Monday, November 24, 2025

Ukraine: same song second verse: will it get better or will it get worse

 Trump and Putin are both singing the same songs they have all along, but it truly went off-key this past week when Trump claimed his peace plan turned out to be a suspected translation from Russian and did nothing but repeat what Putin has wanted since Trump and he met in Alaska. Putin's position has never wavered from a nearly complete surrender of Ukraine to him.  Without thinking, rolling off his tongue,  Trump demanded Zelensky accept this surrender or else "Trump says Zelensky can agree to peace plan or ‘fight his little heart out’ and once again implied or left open the question if the US will or will not send them more aid.   

So ticked at Trump even considering the Russian 28 point surrender non-starter, they have revisited the question of tapping into billions of Russian assets held by Belgium and pressuring Belgium to go along. Can Europe save frozen Russian assets from Donald Trump?

Update: 11/27/25 Why even try to negotiate with Putin. It takes him to be willing to give up Ukraine. Instead, Europe and the US should be discussing how to save what is left of Ukraine and guarantee support militarily. Someday Putin will get that message, but at least speak his language...military force. Russia ready to 'fight to the last Ukrainian,' Putin says amid US peace drive

Continuing original post:

Not only should Trump be condemned for singing Putin's tune, but he is opening himself to another bipartisan legislative pushback post Eptsein doc flap as it is believed by observers that Ukraine has a significant number of supporters on both sides of the aisle. 

  I wrote this October 30 after Trump's address to the Israeli parliament, and nothing changed since then, either..  Only in the case of Trump's "acceptance of the Russian wish list", both Europe and the bipartisan Ukraine support in Congress pushed back with a roar and Europe and Zelensky met in Switzerland for an emergency meeting on November 23 and Secretary of State Rubio tried to mute and confuse things.. From my blog post October 30, Trump:  Once again, Trump discussed Ukraine in a very public forum, prefacing his remarks with the usual attempt to excuse his not being able to end the conflict on day one. It is always: he is always claiming that if he, Trump, were president at the time, there would never have been a war. The rest of that sentence should be: it was because Ukraine was absorbed into Russia with his blessing.. The message to Putin would have been from Trump: it is ok, Vladimir, to keep on going to reassemble the boundaries of the old USSR influence, Putin's publicly stated goal, and we would not help stop you.

Update 11/24/2025

How to end the conflict in Ukraine? Tom Friedman's opinion piece in the NY Times over the weekend made a lot of sense.
Freeze forces in place without ceding territory.
Station European/U.S. security forces along ceasefire lines.
Require Russia to pay reparations and remain under sanctions.
Guarantee Ukraine’s path to EU membership.
(My note: Ukraine's revolt against Russian domination began in 2014 with popular street demonstrations fueled by disgust of corruption by Putin's puppet presdient of Ukraine and by a desire to turn west to join the EU)

What is missing is how to get Russia to agree: Russia thinks time is on its side< but the only way to get them to agree is for the WEST, including the US, to give Ukraine the ability to keep the battle line frozen as it is now by providing long-term commitment of military aid.
The main obstacle to this is Trump himself, who puts Russia first, instead of the US, in some very mistaken thought that feeding the Russian beast will somehow stop Russia in its stated goal of conquering all of Ukraine and re-establishing Eastern Europe as its satellites. they dominated in the Cold War.
Note: Friedman leaves out Ukraine's NATO membership but agrees on EU membership. I would think that mutual defense treaties could exist outside of NATO, either with the EU or individually with willing individual partners. The security element is the vital requirement of any peace plan.
European allies disagree with the U.S. proposal to end negotiations over the Ukraine war. Big stumbling blocks: assurances on Ukraine's protection and security against further Russian aggression, and capping Ukraine's military size. Actually, these are more than just stumbling blocks: these are booby trapped, tank-teeth roadblocks. Ukraine had no input or presence in the Russian-US proposal or in the European meeting with the US in Switzerland. European allies disagree with the U.S. proposal to end Ukraine war negotiations. Big stumbling blocks: assurances on Ukraine's protection and security against further Russian aggression, and capping Ukraine's military size. Actually, these are more than just stumbling blocks: these are booby trapped, tank-teeth roadblocks. Ukraine had no input or presence in the Russian-US proposal or in the European meeting with the US in Switzerland. European allies disagree with U.S. proposal to end Ukraine war negotiations, per Fox News.


Sunday, November 23, 2025

Why call the Trumpist control of government a regime, and not an administration

 The demonstratios in DC this weekend were calling for regime change.(Impeach and remove) Why call the Trumpist control of government a regime, and not an administration? The use of the term " regime " is justified.    It is not worthy of the term "administration" because in the past nearly 10 months, what the Trumpists have done to the executive branch is contrary to their role laid out in the Constitution: to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. Instead, it has behaved like a wannabe dictatorship, signing executive orders like they are decrees and to be treated like the laws of the land, refusing to spend money Congress appropriated unless it contributes to a power grab or the Trump ideology. In many instances, even then, the act was unconstitutional... done until some lower court ruled otherwise months after the act was committed. Now, some of these court rulings are awaiting the Trump-friendly, empowering Supreme Court to rule in ways that overturn prior decisions. For example, the Trump regime is sending active duty and naitonal guard troops into citites, gerrymandering to politically advantage while trampleing civil rights provisions of the Constitution, passing sweeping tariffs with a stroke of a autopen that is in the purvue of Congress, ordering thhe Department of Justice to launch investigations into political enemies witthout probable cause, and threatening to invade: Greenland, Venezuela, Nigeria, and anyone else that Trump thinks he can try to look like a bully whileattempting to withdraw from NATO, UN, and any other entity that stands in the Trumpist way in fits of rage or to ivert attention from other negative news., while forcing those in the MAGA orbit who challenge Trumpist policies to resign after threats of violence unleashed by words and withholding campaing money. That kind of behavior is more like dictatorships of Orban or even Putin (gulags are only for brown migrants in the US, though).

Friday, November 21, 2025

excerpts from a post of 11.20 2025 re the issue of whether military must obey illegal orders

From MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Pinch me. Am I hearing the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland or a president in the White House? 

The GOP and Trump went ballistic, claiming that the 6 members of Congress (all with combat or intelligence experience) were encouraging the military to disobey orders, while deceptively leaving out the important words the Congresspeople clearly used "illegal orders'.  .  The flip side of that is does the GOP want the military to carry out illegal orders? Should Trump have required US military to shoot the Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the legs in his first term?In fact, per the military code of justice, those who commit illegal acts can be subject to prosecution. What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders - ABC News

The following italics sections was replicated in a stand alonge posting 11/21/2025

The ultimate Catch 22: What do you do when the whole chain of command is corrupted? The reason the clause was inserted in the Code of Military Justice was in reaction to the Nazi Generals' defense in the Nuremberg trials, which was "they were just following orders", and they were still hanged for their criminal acts.An excellent explainer: Explainer: Can military members refuse orders?  The one issue not addressed in this is what if the JAGs ( the military law core) are also controlled by the presidnt. to make the judgment call of what is or is not an illegal order? This is not a hypothetical. The president has already fired the top three JAGs in the Pentagon. How the Pentagon sidelined lawyers while testing the legal limits of military action | CNN Politics

Now the FBI has been ordered to interview the 6 who dared remind the military of their rights not to obey illegal orders. .FBI interviewing Democrats over ‘illegal orders’ video   It seems like the president plans to issue clearly illegal orders (he did contemplate having  the military shoot unarmed protesters iin his first term), The flip side of his demanding the 6 be executed for sedition is that Trump wants the military to obey illegal orders and then resistance would be before the hand picked loyal JAGs? The Constitution is still supreme over the military code of justice....so back to the Supreme Court that Trump considers "his"?


From my FB posting 11/20/2025: The issue is if military enlisted personnel believe the orders given to them are unconstitutional or against the military code of justice, can they refuse? I found this site, which may be helpful. Basically, obey your commanding officer first and fight it out in court-martial. Usually, the burden is on the officer who gave the order in court-martial proceedings. I recall that Hitler's minions at Nuremberg were hanged, and their defense was "just following orders". Officers have the real burden, and if they disagree with the president's orders, they could resign their commissions. This first came to head when Trump discussed with Gen. Milley ordering the military to shoot the legs out of the black lives matter demonstrators. Milley refused.

Note in the article: when military law, the Universal Code of Military Justice, conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution is the superior law.