US military adviser resigns after Trump's photo op at church
By: David Choi (Business Insider)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- A former principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy has resigned from the Defense Department's science board.
- James Miller's reasoning centered on President Donald Trump's visit Monday to St. John's Church, where protesters were cleared with tear gas so that he could pose with a Bible for photographs.
- Defense Secretary Mark Esper was also present during the visit.
- "You may not have been able to stop President Trump from directing this appalling use of force, but you could have chosen to oppose it," Miller wrote to Esper in his resignation letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post. "Instead, you visibly supported it."
A Department of Defense adviser has resigned, effective immediately, from the military's science board, citing what he believed to be a violation of conduct from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.
In his resignation letter to Esper, which was obtained by The Washington Post, James Miller Jr., who served as the US undersecretary of defense for policy from 2012 to 2014, recalled that he swore an oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and "to bear true faith and allegiance to the same," similar to what the defense secretary had done before he took office.
"On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath," Miller wrote to Esper.
Miller's reasoning centered on President Donald Trump's visit Monday to St. John's Church in Washington, DC, where peaceful protesters were cleared with tear gas so that he could pose with a Bible for photographs.
Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop, described the scene to CNN and The Washington Post as an "abuse of sacred symbols" amid a "a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and everything that our churches stand for."
Budde told The Post that she "was not given even a courtesy call" that authorities would be clearing the area "with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop."
Esper, along with US Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also present during the visit.
"Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op," Miller wrote. "You then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church for that photo."
"You may not have been able to stop President Trump from directing this appalling use of force, but you could have chosen to oppose it," Miller added. "Instead, you visibly supported it."
In his letter, Miller also queried Esper on where he believed the Constitution's limits were in relation to his duties.
"You must have thought long and hard about where that line should be drawn," Miller wrote. "I must now ask: If last night's blatant violations do not cross the line for you, what will?"
"Unfortunately, it appears there may be few if any lines that President Trump is not willing to cross, so you will probably be faced with this terrible question again in the coming days," he added. "You may be asked to take, or to direct the men and women serving in the US military to take, actions that further undermine the Constitution and harm Americans."
Esper has said he was unaware of where he was going with the entourage on Monday.
"I thought I was going to do two things: to see some damage and to talk to the troops," he said in an NBC News interview.
"I didn't know where I was going," he added. "I wanted to see how much damage actually happened."
Miller served on the military's Defense Science Board, which describes itself on its website as a group of retired senior officials who are "best equipped to tackle the Department's challenges in acquisition, cyber, communication technology, and weapons of mass destruction."
He was awarded the Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the Defense Department's highest honorary award for civilians, four times in his career, according to his biography from the Center for a New American Security think tank.
"I wish you the best, in very difficult times," Miller said at the end of his letter. "The sanctity of the US Constitution, and the lives of Americans, may depend on your choices."
More:Mark EsperDonald TrumpGeorge FloydJames Miller
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
deleted
Very impressive letter, and I do believe Esper is embarrassed.
Remember what Rick Wilson has been saying for years "Everything Trump Touches Dies" .
Esper's reputation just died, if Trump hadnt killed it already.
Kudos to Mr. Miller.
Donald Trump stood in front of St. John's Church after curfew. The protesters were supposed to have dispersed and cleared the street by the time Trump stood in front of St. John's Church.
Enforcing a curfew is not a matter of conscience. Either the protesters comply with the curfew and voluntarily leave or the curfew is enforced by law enforcement using crowd control methods.
Nerm, curfew was to begin at 7:00 pm. The attack began shortly before 6:30, and it was a total sucker-punch. The crowd wasn't even given a perfunctory, "Curfew begins at 7:00 pm, so please start clearing the area.", before the attack began.
Also the church didn't even know this was going to happen. They had a staging area in the church courtyard that had water to hand out and a first aid area and an eyewash area.
They were forced out and didn't have time to take all their supplies with them.
The protesters tuned violent about 6:30 when they tried to grab officers weapons and were throwing dangerous projectiles.
"According to Tuesday's statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, "became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers' weapons."
"Protests in Lafayette Park began to turn violent at 6:33 p.m., according to the USSP. President Trump delivered his remarks at 6:43 p.m. according to a transcript of his address found on the White House website."
The crowd was to be dispersed and street cleared by 7:00 pm; not by 7:01 pm. Trump stood in front of St. John's Church after curfew. None of the protesters were supposed to be on the street when Trump stood in front of the church.
Whether or not an announcement was made the curfew was not a guideline, the curfew was a hard line. Trump was kicking the backsides of law enforcement to do their jobs and enforce the curfew.
The church didn't need to know. Trump did not enter the church; Trump stood on the sidewalk. Trump stood in a public space that was supposed to be cleared of protesters by 7:00 pm.
The church could have provided sanctuary but even sanctuary wouldn't have allowed protesters to be on the street after curfew.
So basically you are saying donald is above the law and he and his entourage are allowed out after curfew and no one else?
Do as I say not as I do...
He used military police for it. I had read a statement that the local police were not involved.
The curfew is not intended to round up peaceful protesters, the curfew is intended to prevent looting.
So it doesn't matter that the church leaders were against this. Only what donald wanted.
He was only doing it to show force.
Any other time there is a curfew, they usually give people time to get home, give warnings and tell them time to go.
None of that happened in this instance.
That turd won't float.
Part of Trump's job is to ensure the law is being enforced. Trump was doing his job by ensuring law enforcement did their job.
And that turd won't float.
All he did this for was a political stunt. To show his power.
No one was rounded up. If the protesters won't comply with curfew voluntarily then it's the job of law enforcement to disperse the protesters using standard crowd control methods.
The protesters impede the ability of law enforcement to address violence, vandalism, looting, and property destruction. That's why the streets must be cleared.
And to show governors and mayors how to enforce a curfew. The stunt was to kick the backsides of law enforcement to enforce curfews.
Trump did enforce the curfew. Why can Trump accomplish that while governors and mayors can't? Maybe Trump knows more about how to protect lives and property than do governors and mayors because that's what he did.
Do you actually think that a complete show of force would quell the masses?
I think if people were cracked down hard on, there would have been more unrest.
The protests would/will die down on their own.
Why act like we should have a police state then out of the same breath condemn other countries for the same.
The world is watching what is being done here, believe me, donald does not come off as any kind of hero.
Didn't the British try that oh about 225 years ago? How'd that work out for them?
That's how Johnson ended the Detroit riots in 67.
Johnson was a dickless ashhole so don't think just because he was a democrat that I love the guy because I don't.
It wasn't right in 1967 and it's not right in 2020
I don't think allowing the thugs to murder and burn the city to the ground would have been a better choice.
So you agree with that racist, dickless, asshole?
Do you want troops to just fire on looters without even a "Halt! Or I'll shoot" order?
That's what Tom Cotton wants. He wants the federal troops to go in to the cities and give "no quarter". Know what that phrase means?
Maybe this round. Let's see what happens going forward. We have three other officers who may or may not be charged in this case. If they aren't, it starts over. If they are, trial results will be the key factor. Then we have the actual trial of the cop that did the killing. If he doesn't get the sentence that some people want, it starts over................and may even if he does.
See where I'm going with this?
Is violence, vandalism, looting, and property destruction a viable form of protest? Conflating peaceful protests and violent protests under the same first amendment protections diminishes the value of that right. The right to protest doesn't include the right to harm others.
The show of force wasn't about quelling the masses. The show of force was about addressing crime. St. John's church was a victim of crime. And Trump showed force to quell crime.
The alternative to a police state is a criminal state. Those using peaceful protests as a means of perpetrating crime are violating the rights of peaceful protesters. Criminals are interfering with the right of people to peacefully assemble and petition their government.
As has been noted, the protests were peaceful. But it has become necessary to disperse those peaceful protesters to allow police to address crime. If there wasn't violence, vandalism, looting, and property destruction then there wouldn't be a need for curfews. The curfews were put in place as a response to violence and not as a response to the protests.
Criminals are taking away people's right to protest, not the police, and not Donald Trump. Trump showed force to quell violent criminals; not to quell the masses or quell the protests. The protesters have placed themselves between law enforcement and criminals engaged in violence.
I think Chauvin should do the state a favor and plead guilty and accept his sentence. However, pleading guilty may actually cause the judge to give him a lighter sentence.
Almost always does. Not so sure with the high profile of this case.
If he somehow gets off, found not guilty, I would think something is wrong too as there is actual video evidence.
Our justice system has been tilted toward the wealthy and well connected for quite some time.
Deal with that bridge when/if it comes.
It is not an either or thing. It is not any absolute. Saying we either have complete peace or complete chaos is just making unfounded proclamations.
I am actually starting to wonder if the riots did not happen would some people even care or take notice.
The fact that you cannot see what donald did to peaceful protesters is odd to me. He did nothing to quell violence. He has been fanning the flames.
The protesters did not put themselves between anyone, the ones bent on destruction did that.
Very true but I'm not so sure, if it comes to that, that many people would be pissed if he got manslaughter instead of 3rd degree murder.
We just have to wait...................................................
The typical response is "here we go again". The cycle has become as predictable as the weather.
The fact that protest has become a means of violence is more troubling. The cycle has become the status quo. Everyone knows the script and everyone knows how it will end.
By now it should become clear that the people are not going to rise up and overthrow their overlords. That would require the people to solve their own problems. The protests are empowering violence. What is the responsibility for the protests to quell that violence?
No one is offering a way to break the cycle. We all know how the cycle will end when it begins.
You know this cycle, like most of the preceding cycles, began with a legitimate call to the police by a victim of a crime. So, how is law enforcement supposed to address crime?
Maybe start by not killing the person...
Nah...too easy/S
Seriously, tho, it's damn good start and what I've seen on TV and social media it looks like cops are about to start policing their own ranks. I also heard a blip on the radio at lunch that the Minneapolis PD was going to be investigated for rights violations going back 10 years.
I saw the vid of where a cop was arresting someone, a protester or looter, I don't know.
The cop actually put his leg down on the mans neck. Doing exactly what started all of this.
The cop with him forcefully moved his leg off of his neck.
I hope so though.
Maybe the change that we need is finally coming
Nope, your 'president' is the turd and indeed - that turd won't float.
True. That's not the appropriate procedure for law enforcement.
But then, if Floyd hadn't tried to commit a crime there wouldn't have been a victim of crime placing a call to police.
It's not a chicken and egg situation. George Floyd had complete control over the situation before the police became involved.
So, how is law enforcement supposed to address crime? George Floyd was in control of the situation from the beginning.
I DIDN'T KNOW DEATH WAS A SUITABLE PUNISHMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER CRIME MR. FLOYD MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED.
How do you know? Do you know that he willfully did anything?
Do you think he printed a fake $20 bill himself? The bill could have come from anywhere.
Not wise to place blame. What if you unknowingly had a fake bill, do you think the action should rise to the consequences received?
It was petty at best.
wow Nerm. I can see we still have a long way to go....
So that's what it was all about? A counterfeit $20?
From what I gather, yep.
Nerm, there was no cause to place weight on Floyd's neck. He was handcuffed and horizontal. Ignoring his pleas to let him breathe and, in the end, suffocating the man is grossly irresponsible and unnecessary.
It does not matter what Floyd did, there was no reason to cause his death.
Granted. George Floyd was murdered. But that doesn't alter the fact that George Floyd was in control of the situation from the beginning. And Floyd wasn't exactly cooperative.
Gaslighting to shift attention elsewhere doesn't address the question of how law enforcement is supposed to address crime. The central question is how law enforcement is supposed to do its job, isn't it?
The protests are about Derek Chauvin doing his job the wrong way. Floyd died so the reason for the protests are obviously valid. But what is the right way to do the job?
Yep, a counterfeit $20 is what all this is about. Counterfeit bills are illegal and passing counterfeit bills is a crime. A counterfeit $20 has caused billions of dollars in property damage and has cost more lives than just George Floyd.
The police received a call from Cap Foods about someone trying to pass a counterfeit bill. Should the police have ignored the call?
Did Floyd know the bill was counterfeit? Doesn't matter. The police still need to question Floyd whether or not Floyd knew the bill was counterfeit. The counterfeit bill is illegal and, at the least, the police needed to question Floyd to try tracing the source of the bill. George Floyd was in control of the situation. Floyd should have understood that the police need to do their job and should have cooperated.
The core question is how should police do the job? The cops needed to question Floyd. Was he arrested? Was an arrest necessary to question Floyd? The cops were going to transport Floyd to a police precinct for questioning. Was that necessary? Police procedure requires that someone being transported in a squad must be handcuffed. Is that necessary? The cops were using their authority to force Floyd to submit to procedures that may or may not have been necessary. Floyd was in control, Floyd could have submitted. But that doesn't answer the questions about how cops are supposed to do their job.
The cops were following procedure up until Floyd was pinned by using a knee on the neck. Was the problem caused by a fucked up cop or by fucked up procedures?
If we don't answer the question about how police are supposed to do their job then the cycle will repeat, as predictably as the weather.
Of course not, but the point is that Floyd should not have been killed; he was face down and handcuffed. It is irrelevant what he did prior because at the time of his death he was no threat.
He did not have to be killed to make him cooperative.
What?
How about avoiding the use of unnecessary deadly practices?
The cop; the individual human being suffocating a subdued human being by focusing his body weight on a few square inches on the murdered man's neck.
Hard line you say? Well then Trump's saggy, fat behind should have been tear-gassed, flash-banged, and arrested.
I've been following these stories pretty cl;osely. And I was surprised to see some significan indications that things are changing.
For starters, I've been seeing more and Republicans speak out abput trump's stupidity-- and incompetant leadership.
And seeing courageous people issuing statements such as this one is certainly a sign that "The Times They Are a Changin":
Former Defense Secretary Mattis breaks silence and tears into Trump: ‘He tries to divide us’
(Referring to the picture of the tank on a Detroit street) You''re kidding. Is that true? If so, there are a hell of a lot of hypocrites around here.
So when Barr claimed credit for giving the order to clear the street he was lying?
At least they didn't get our airports.
I had to scroll all the way back up to see what you were replying to. This is all I have:
You're peddling the nonsense that tRump enforced curfew?
It was Barr that enforced the curfew. He didn't want the POTUS to have to bump elbows with the Great Unwashed Masses.
Like a good consigliere would do . . . with tear gas no less
Maybe CNN and MSDNC did not tell you that it has been confirmed that tear gas was not used.
Well, that's what I heard
Jesus..are you serious? Look at the comment right above the one you replied to, and if you would even look at my post, I copied and pasted the part of post I replied to.
Oops. You are correct, Sir. My apologies
No problem. Apology accepted. Have a good day.
Thank-you. You have a nice day, too
Esper has said he was unaware of where he was going with the entourage on Monday.
Bull to the shit! He is Secretary of Defense, for crying the eff out loud. But if it is true, then he is clearly the kind of man Trump likes having around.
Wonder if this was the guy that leaked a story yesterday, saying donald and his entourage were praising themselves for what they had done.
Shows me that Barr is just as bad as I had thought.
Trump had no problem thanking himself.
And some people still have the thought that he cares about them....
tRump cares about tRump, no one else.
He has to thank himself to make sure that somebody does.
Key word: Domination
Sounds like a tyrant to me
The comments on that article are a HOOT!!!
On a side note, James Corden's father is too cute!
He may not be around after this.
Esper Says Trump Shouldn’t Invoke Insurrection Act to Police Protesters
I don't know. I almost think he is just trying to save face as the pentagon has been accused of being overtly political.
If not he was completely lied to, which should be cause for concern as well.
Rumors out now say he's in deep shit inside the WH. Trump wants him out, but may keep him around for optics until the election.
From day one, Esper had 'expendable' written all over his silly behind.
Another one bites the dust.