Milley To Face Charges

[WorldWatcher]

Milley will not get a trial.
Say it with me now.

MILITARY TRIBUNAL

UCMJ is what will be used....not some Obama appointed judge or laws written by congress at the last minute. No slick lawyering either. His lawyer will be appointed just like everyone else's.

It's not a civilian matter as if he beat his wife after getting tossed from the military....

Defendants can have civilian lawyers for a Court Martial.

WW

 

[Lockback]

There are many things he can be charged with.

And should be, by God.

 

[Oddball]

He already has a pardon.

WW

Then it looks like the whole pre-emptive autopen pardon thing is going to get adjudicated.

Can't happen soon enough.

 

[The Duke]

Defendants can have civilian lawyers for a Court Martial.

WW

Those civilian lawyers better be military law experts. I would not recommend it.
He better get some JAG defense.

 

[Lockback]

Then it looks like the whole pre-emptive autopen pardon thing is going to get adjudicated.

Can't happen soon enough.

And speaking of traitors ...

 

[Divine Wind]

No matter what...
When in the military, you cannot thumb your nose at the Commander (defy orders) and expect to get away with it.
Not gonna work.

Never has in the past and will not in the future.

Militaries follow orders....or else.

More proof you never served since that is 100% wrong. All American service personnel are obligated to not follow illegal orders regardless who gave them.

This isn't the entire article:

FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders - Military Law Task Force

This FAQ (drafted by members of the MLTF) can also be found in printable PDF format here: Illegal Orders FAQ – 11NOV2025 DoD Instruction 1325.06 permits a servicemember to possess a single copy of this document. FAQs on refusing illegal orders Version 2 – released November 11, 2025 Do I have...

nlgmltf.org

1. Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?
2. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command.
3. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

1. What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?

None of the scenarios below would necessarily involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal.

In the U.S.:

• Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.)
• Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”)

Outside the U.S.:

• attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters.
• attacks on surviving crew or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.
• invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals.
• attack, invasion, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force.
• “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries.
• attempt to annex Greenland or to attack or invade Canada.
• use of nuclear weapons against China or another country.
• Torture or mistreatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees.

International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike. The International Court of Justice has also held that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, although that ruling is not necessarily binding on US courts. Other treaties govern torture, treatment of detainees, stopping and boarding of vessels in international waters, etc.

1. What are some of the reasons and ways that an order might be illegal?

For deployments within the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits use of the military for policing. However, the Administration is developing ways around this law. In addition, the Insurrection Act gives the President the authority to use the military in certain circumstances to suppress any, “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that he or she determines is in violation of federal law. These legal technicalities make it difficult to tell if an order to deploy against U.S. residents is illegal.

For deployments outside the United States, the first question becomes whether such a deployment is itself illegal. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to war is legally questionable. In the examples above, Congress has not declared war. The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. However, no US military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war and no court has found any of those illegal or unconstitutional as Presidential powers have expanded considerably over the years. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S. or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful and the question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

Once deployed, the key is figuring out what a “patently illegal” order is. Prior legal cases suggest that this means any order to commit atrocities. For example, Lieutenant Calley serving in Vietnam was court-martialed for carrying out orders to kill unarmed women and children. A soldier in the Korean War was given an order to rape and steal which was found to be illegal. Under the UCMJ, murder is illegal but killing is not. And, under military rules, a military judge at a court-martial decides whether an order is legal. It is up to the individual servicemember to decide if an order to shoot unarmed civilians should be followed or is “patently illegal.”

 

[JohnDB]

More proof you never served since that is 100% wrong. All American service personnel are obligated to not follow illegal orders regardless who gave them.

This isn't the entire article:

FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders - Military Law Task Force

This FAQ (drafted by members of the MLTF) can also be found in printable PDF format here: Illegal Orders FAQ – 11NOV2025 DoD Instruction 1325.06 permits a servicemember to possess a single copy of this document. FAQs on refusing illegal orders Version 2 – released November 11, 2025 Do I have...

nlgmltf.org

1. Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?
2. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command.
3. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

1. What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?

None of the scenarios below would necessarily involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal.

In the U.S.:

• Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.)
• Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”)

Outside the U.S.:

• attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters.
• attacks on surviving crew or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.
• invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals.
• attack, invasion, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force.
• “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries.
• attempt to annex Greenland or to attack or invade Canada.
• use of nuclear weapons against China or another country.
• Torture or mistreatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees.

International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike. The International Court of Justice has also held that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, although that ruling is not necessarily binding on US courts. Other treaties govern torture, treatment of detainees, stopping and boarding of vessels in international waters, etc.

1. What are some of the reasons and ways that an order might be illegal?

For deployments within the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits use of the military for policing. However, the Administration is developing ways around this law. In addition, the Insurrection Act gives the President the authority to use the military in certain circumstances to suppress any, “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that he or she determines is in violation of federal law. These legal technicalities make it difficult to tell if an order to deploy against U.S. residents is illegal.

For deployments outside the United States, the first question becomes whether such a deployment is itself illegal. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to war is legally questionable. In the examples above, Congress has not declared war. The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. However, no US military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war and no court has found any of those illegal or unconstitutional as Presidential powers have expanded considerably over the years. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S. or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful and the question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

Once deployed, the key is figuring out what a “patently illegal” order is. Prior legal cases suggest that this means any order to commit atrocities. For example, Lieutenant Calley serving in Vietnam was court-martialed for carrying out orders to kill unarmed women and children. A soldier in the Korean War was given an order to rape and steal which was found to be illegal. Under the UCMJ, murder is illegal but killing is not. And, under military rules, a military judge at a court-martial decides whether an order is legal. It is up to the individual servicemember to decide if an order to shoot unarmed civilians should be followed or is “patently illegal.”

He wasn't ignoring illegal orders....

He was giving away secret intelligence and an oath of fidelity to another country if I remember correctly. Also did something else that I cannot remember at the moment....

Those things will get anyone else in the military shot.
Why not Milley?

 

[Lockback]

He wasn't ignoring illegal orders....

He was giving away secret intelligence and an oath of fidelity to another country if I remember correctly. Also did something else that I cannot remember at the moment....

Those things will get anyone else in the military shot.
Why not Milley?

Precisely.
Notice how quickly The Usual Suspects are dodging the real issue here.

 

[Oddball]

More proof you never served since that is 100% wrong. All American service personnel are obligated to not follow illegal orders regardless who gave them.

This isn't the entire article:

FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders - Military Law Task Force

This FAQ (drafted by members of the MLTF) can also be found in printable PDF format here: Illegal Orders FAQ – 11NOV2025 DoD Instruction 1325.06 permits a servicemember to possess a single copy of this document. FAQs on refusing illegal orders Version 2 – released November 11, 2025 Do I have...

nlgmltf.org

1. Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?
2. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command.
3. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means. The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

1. What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?

None of the scenarios below would necessarily involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal.

In the U.S.:

• Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.)
• Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”)

Outside the U.S.:

• attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters.
• attacks on surviving crew or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.
• invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals.
• attack, invasion, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force.
• “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries.
• attempt to annex Greenland or to attack or invade Canada.
• use of nuclear weapons against China or another country.
• Torture or mistreatment of civilians, prisoners of war, or other detainees.

International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike. The International Court of Justice has also held that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, although that ruling is not necessarily binding on US courts. Other treaties govern torture, treatment of detainees, stopping and boarding of vessels in international waters, etc.

1. What are some of the reasons and ways that an order might be illegal?

For deployments within the United States, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits use of the military for policing. However, the Administration is developing ways around this law. In addition, the Insurrection Act gives the President the authority to use the military in certain circumstances to suppress any, “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that he or she determines is in violation of federal law. These legal technicalities make it difficult to tell if an order to deploy against U.S. residents is illegal.

For deployments outside the United States, the first question becomes whether such a deployment is itself illegal. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to war is legally questionable. In the examples above, Congress has not declared war. The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. However, no US military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war and no court has found any of those illegal or unconstitutional as Presidential powers have expanded considerably over the years. As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S. or is preparing an imminent attack. However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful and the question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

Once deployed, the key is figuring out what a “patently illegal” order is. Prior legal cases suggest that this means any order to commit atrocities. For example, Lieutenant Calley serving in Vietnam was court-martialed for carrying out orders to kill unarmed women and children. A soldier in the Korean War was given an order to rape and steal which was found to be illegal. Under the UCMJ, murder is illegal but killing is not. And, under military rules, a military judge at a court-martial decides whether an order is legal. It is up to the individual servicemember to decide if an order to shoot unarmed civilians should be followed or is “patently illegal.”

Text brick of irrelevancy.

He proactively called the nation's biggest political and military adversary, over and above the head of the CiC.

Gross insubordination, if not outright treason.

 

[JohnDB]

Precisely.
Notice how quickly The Usual Suspects are dodging the real issue here.

Now getting a successful charge of treason?
Probably not.
Charges of collusion with the enemy, speaking dishonorable about superiors or civilian commanders, espionage, or something else like this are VERY LIKELY.

Especially with the whole autopen scandal.
At this point with the autopen scandal even KBJ needs to be concerned although it would provide relief for the rest of SCOTUS...and if the issue was brought before them....I don't see her surviving.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Looks like we are going to charge a military General with Treason.
To be fair....this isn't some shadowy investigation with questionable evidence....this is a result of public statements and documented facts. There is zero question as to what exactly happened.,..no one is denying or refuting the facts.

He did nothing treasonable. It was be dismissed for not meeting the elements of the charge and for vindictive prosecution.

He will skate scot free and maked oodles and boodles of cash on a speaking tour.

 

[Oddball]

He did nothing treasonable. It was be dismissed for not meeting the elements of the charge and for vindictive prosecution.

 

[JohnDB]

Text brick of irrelevancy.

He proactively called the nation's biggest political and military adversary, over and above the head of the CiC.

Gross insubordination, if not outright treason.

Cannot call the CiC derogatory names no matter if appropriate, proven in court or not.
Respectful at all times especially for officers.

 

[Divine Wind]

He wasn't ignoring illegal orders....

He was giving away secret intelligence and an oath of fidelity to another country if I remember correctly. Also did something else that I cannot remember at the moment....

Those things will get anyone else in the military shot.
Why not Milley?

Isn't that what the trial is about?....if it goes to trial and isn't tossed out like all the other Trump revenge charges.

 

[JohnDB]

Isn't that what the trial is about?....if it goes to trial and isn't tossed out like all the other Trump revenge charges.

You was on a different subject of illegal orders.....

We were not.

 

[Divine Wind]

You was on a different subject of illegal orders.....

We were not.

We?

Milley is being charged with trumped up charges and it will never go to trial.

 

[JohnDB]

Trump is likely not gonna let this stuff go....

Having the last word is big doings for him.....

And if the redistricting works out for him the way everyone believes.....

 

[jacksonlamb]

View attachment 1253379

 

[jacksonlamb]

View attachment 1253381


Trump is likely not gonna let this stuff go....

Having the last word is big doings for him.....

And if the redistricting works out for him the way everyone believes.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Those civilian lawyers better be military law experts. I would not recommend it.
He better get some JAG defense.

They are.

They are former JAG with more experience then your average JAG.

They concentrate on courts while your average JAG fills multiple rolls including base legal support, civil law, contract and procurement law, headship position where they are not in court, etc.

WW