He reports to Lindsey Graham, since McCain is gone.
Posted on 12/19/2020 4:50:21 PM PST by bitt
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army chief of staff Gen. James McConville released a statement Friday saying they will not participate in a martial law order following the stolen election.
This came after General Michael Flynn suggested President Trump should order the US military to help seize the Dominion voting machines used in this year’s fraudulent election for testing.
Newsmax reported:
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s Newsmax TV remarks on President Donald Trump weighing “martial law” and “military capabilities” amid election fraud has forced U.S. Army leaders to issue a statement Friday rejecting that consideration.
“There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election,” Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army chief of staff Gen. James McConville wrote in a joint statement Friday.
The statement echoed one by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley before the election.
So we find the US Army generals exercising:
The Jeff Sessions theory of governance, that once in position, the personal responsibility for, and duty to, protect and defend our democratic-republic and its foundations . . . may be abandoned.
Thus, generals recuse themselves by way of a list of Things That They Will Not Do!
While their duty requires that the foundation of:
Lawful vote procedures including:
- the voter must be an American citizen
- the voter must be lawfully registered
- only lawful ballots are to be counted
for examples, are to be preserved.
Because, there is no democratic-republic form preserved, without the integrity of the voting for duly-elected representation.
Hence, the US Army generals are in violation of their oath, and betraying their duty, and acting to subvert the authority of our Constitution and the protection of our democratic-republic.
All such generals should be fired immediately.
A classic case of misdirection. The real question is whether the military has a role in suppressing insurrection that is being perpetrated by coordinated violations of election laws when ordered to intervene by the Commander in Chief of the country’s armed forces. That it does have such a role to play is beyond dispute by anyone who knows what the hell they’re talking about!
Well then, I guess that means more chow mein in the chow halls.. hope that woks for you, Generalissimo.
I wonder if they all personally shave their chests or do their aides do it for them?
perhaps having eunuchs (or the next best thing) in charge of the military is worth a shot.. No .. wait, been there done that,, ol’ Roma.
Or hang!
It's what Marshall Dillon used to enforce. :-)
Thank you for pointing out the spelling/labeling error...
see comment #30
Where is the statement? Prove it... Hoft, Axios, etc.
Why?
They will just be back on January 20.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/releases/
Official Defense Department statements and announcements.
Here today gone tomorrow! There are lots of capable, talented patriots who will gladly take their places and do the job.
You will do what you are told to do by your Commander in Chief, If you do not comply you will be replaced in disgrace.
Milley revealed himself a while back, with the apology for going for a walk with President Trump during the Biden Riots.
When anyone writes “Marshal” Law or “Marshall” Law instead of Martial, I immediately disregard anything else they might say
There is no meaning to their statement, if that’s all it is. There is and will be no “transfer of power”. So what the $?!!?#
It’s not their decision to make. They can however be easily fired.
And I should have added, President Trump is the CiC. It’s not their decision what the mil does or does not do.
Only losers say that Trump will not be president Jan. 20. He won, Bitem tried to steal it, and that’s the facts.
The Politco BOD is the only source for this statement.
I just want to know because there are a lot of references in here to international matters before we can make a decision. And I want to make sure that the United States military, I understand and I know you do, that we are not dependent on a NATO resolution or a U.N. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security of the United States.
Now secretary Penetta, in your remarks you talk about, we are working first to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join European Union and Arab League and imposing sanctions. And then you note that China and Russia have repeatedly blocked U.N. Security Council from taking action. Are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was in our interest to do so, if the U.N. Security Council did not agree?
Secretary Panetta:
When it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, then obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in Libya.
Senator Sessions:
Now, some for legal basis, we’re worried about international legal basis, but nobody worried about the fundamental constitutional legal basis that this congress has over war. We were not asked in stunningly direct violation of War Powers Act whether or not you believe it is constitutional, it certainly didn’t comply with it. We spent our time worrying the U.N., the Arab League, NATO, and too little time in my opinion worrying about the elected representatives of the United States.
Do you think you can act without congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?
Secretary Panetta:
No, again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we want to get permission from congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.
Senator Sessions:
Well, I’m almost breathless about that, because what I heard you say here is, we’re going to seek international approval and then we will come and tell congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval. I want to just say to you, that’s a big, wouldn’t you agree, you served in the congress, wouldn’t you agree that that would be pretty breathtaking to the average American. So would you like to clarify that.
Secretary Panetta:
But I’ve also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents who has always reserved to right to defend this country if necessary.
Senator Sessions:
But you, before we do this, you would seek permission from international authorities?
Secretary Panetta:
If we’re working with international coalition, we are working with NATO, we would want to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. All of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis to act.
Senator Sessions:
On what legal basis are you looking for? What entity?
Secretary Panetta:
Well obviously, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one, if we develop an international coalition beyond NATO, then obviously some kind of U.N. Security resolution …
Senator Sessions:
A coalition of, so your saying NATO would give you a legal basis and an ad hock coalition of nations would provide a legal basis.
Secretary Panetta:
If we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we need to make that justified. We can’t just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act.
Senator Sessions:
Who are you asking for the legal basis from?
Secretary Panetta:
Obviously if the U.N. passed a security resolution as it did in Libya, we would do that, if NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, then we would rely on that. So we have options here if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.