Thanks (I think)
Correction: “court martial”.
/Pedantry and nitpicking
Everyone always says this, but here’s what I wonder: how many of that kind of person exists, outside his average citizen voting base? A few prominent media figures? How many people REALLY work for Trump because they believe in him and like him, and not just because they’re afraid of his voters? And how many of those people have their high opinion survive prolonged personal contact with him?
Mattis was the last one with even a shred of honor and decency in the administration. There’s no longer anyone in the administration that I have any confidence values the prosperity and security of America and Americans over their own enrichment and aggrandizement, or (for those fanatics like Pence) Christian Dominionism.
And again, “court-martial” 
Gaudere’s Law strikes again! :D:D
At least I know the plural is “courts-martial”.
Just to add to the friendly pile-on, I agree with Dr Drake that there is a tendency to always interpret posts in light of past posts instead of there actual content.
Why should HurricaneDitka use correct terminology? It’s not like he’s chastising others for using terms in a way he doesn’t like…oh wait.
‘only lawful response’ There’s a law that a Cabinet member can be charged for violating if s/he disregards a President’s legal and direct order?
I’d like to see the cite on this one. I’d have thought such a law would be completely unnecessary, for one thing: under normal circumstances, a Cabinet officer disregarding such an order without resigning would simply be fired, and would then be escorted from the building by Federal police if it came to that. But the police involvement in that situation would be about trespassing, not about disobeying orders.
In shirt, disagreements between a President and a Cabinet member over the policies under the jurisdiction of that Cabinet department are worked out between the President and the Cabinet member. In the extreme situation of irreconcilable disagreements under a normal President, this would come down to the normal ‘resign or be fired’ paradigm.
This is not a normal President, and incidentally the expectation that such a Cabinet member would be fired if s/he failed to resign is clearly out the window with this President. So there’s no reason to assume this particular normal paradigm is operative under Trump. Few of the other normal paradigms continue to be operative; why should we expect this one to still hold?
Failing to carry out lawful orders or issuing instructions in contradiction to or falsely in place of executive direction falls under the general category of insubordination, and depending on the degree of offense (varying from refusal to carry out or convey orders up to the manufacture of false orders or misrepresenting an order for some ulterior motive) may be grounds for dismissal with prejudice or prosecution under pertinent clauses of 18 USC 115 (“Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities”).
This is not how a lawful government works; this is how tinpot dictatorships operate. If you want to live under such a government, there are plenty of nations which offer this kind over ‘governance’, and I welcome you to emigrate to one of them. Please do not advocate for such a “paradigm” in this nation just because you think the lawful process for curtailing or removing a president is too difficult. Blaming Mattis–or anyone else–for not staying in a position where he is in fundamental disagreement with policy and actively subverting legal (even if ethically bankrupt and even unconscionable) orders is like blaming a fireman for your house burning down when you failed to clear a firebreak or install smoke alarms.
Stranger
Mattis probably did the right thing by resigning. He inflicted serious political damage and further undermined the political legitimacy of a terrible Commander in Chief. I’m not in the military, but everything I’ve read about Mad Dog (a name he actually doesn’t care for) Mattis is that he is among the most respected and admired men in the military, from the top brass on down to the boots on the ground. Don’t read Mattis’ letter; read the reality he’s leaving Trump to deal with. Mattis doesn’t really believe that Trump deserves anything other than political death. Notice, too, how his resignation was quickly followed by another important resignation, Brett McGurk. They want Trump to get the fuck out of office. The figured the best way to make that happen was to resign - not privately, but very, very publicly, but resigning in a way that still makes them and their protests credible.
I just read 18 USC 115 (“Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member”). It’s sufficiently off point that I’m guessing there was a typo when you typed the section number.
Well, yeah.
I’m confused about the need for emigrating.
I’m not advocating, I’m being descriptive.
If the fireman shrugs his shoulders and does nothing because there were no smoke alarms, then the fireman gets his share of the blame.
Everyone has to act appropriately in response to the world as it is, rather than the world as it should have been.
US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
This is a bullshit rationalization. You aren’t advocating for “act[ing] appropriately in response to the world as it is,” you are criticizing Mattis for choosing the legitimate action of a very public resignation and rebuke versus remaining in a Cabinet position and pursuing a policy of action outside of the purview of any elected authority. We’ve had that in recent memory in the W. Bush administration with unelected officials driving ill-considered policy outside of public view, and the result was two of the most expensive and pointless wars in history.
If John Kerry had gone off reservation and made some kind of deal with North Korea outside the scope of foreign policy that then-President Obama just because he personally disagreed, would you argue that this is some kind of “appropriate” upsuration of authority? This whole notion that the situation is now different just because the current President has no regard for law or democratic norms, and we should just throw all of that away, too, and climb down in the gutter is the antithesis of legitimacy. The respect for those laws and democratic norms rather than the laws themselves—which are, after all, just words on paper that can be ignored or removed by legislative fiat or nullified by judicial action—is what keeps democracy from just becoming a rabble, and your entire premise is that this has somehow failed because somewhat less than half the voters elected an incompetent clown to the presidency and the institutionalized corruption of GOP congresspeople is so blatant that the only feasible response is a literal palace coup. If this is the government you want to live under, please go find an existing nation to suit you; there are plenty to be found today.
But don’t drag my country into your morass of hopelessness and abandonment of essential principles of lawful governance.
Stranger
I understand your confusion – if thing go on this way it’ll be arriving here soon enough.
A few things.
- Dial back the personal cracks
- While it’s a few posts old, the hijack about ‘abandonment’ and ‘slander’ is hereby over
I hope that’s clear to all.
I would have prefered that he forced Trump to fire him, rather than resign.
In the case that he did resign, I would have prefered that he be a bit less nuanced in his resignation letter that he made public. Rather than, “We don’t see eye to eye” (paraphrased), it should be, “His policies threaten the security of our country, the lives of our troops, and all of our national interests.”
Mattis leaving, and leaving in the way that he did may move some lawmakers over to the anti-trump camp, but will not move many of his supporters. If a highly respected military commander actually points out the danger that Trump’s policies pose to our nation and to our military, then that may actually wake up some of his base to the existential danger that they are currently supporting.
Well, you got your wish, k9bfriender: the President has decided that Mattis didn’t resign, he was fired. He’s tweeted that Mattis is out on January 1, not the end of February that Mattis had proposed to ensure continuity and time for the President to choose a successor.
Trump, Angry Over Mattis’s Rebuke, Removes Him 2 Months Early
And, there’s a little dig in the article about the President’s level of reading comprehension:
A former Boeing executive, Patrick M. Shanahan, is now in charge of the US military.
Northern Piper, either you dropped a word when you quoted the NY Times or they updated after you copied & pasted it. The article says:
(emphasis mine)
Trump’s idea of reading a letter: Reading the first sentence and then skimming the rest of it for his name. That sorta makes it difficult to understand the nuance. To read between the lines, one must first actually read the lines.
That Boeing executive has no military experience, by the way. Just another weakening of America, brought to you by Trump and those who voted for him.