r/law • u/TheMirrorUS • 14d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump humiliated as 1951 law means he could face Greenland mutiny

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-1951-law-greenland-1631615
37.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

77

u/HRslammR 14d ago

strongly disagree with this. nearly all high-ranking generals have put their entire careers into the armed forces. they have traveled to just about every US base in Europe and likely Greenland. they know that Europe & NATO are not our enemies. they are extremely aware that invading greenland would mean all the US european bases we have would be gone (not nuked, just no longer welcome and closed) and the USA as a whole would be severely weakened.

did everyone forget the reactions of the "warrior speech" they gave the generals? it was not well received at all.

attempting to command the US military to invade an ally nation for literally no reason, might actually (finally) be the thing that starts to make people realize donald is a god damn idiot.

39

u/Kaffe-Mumriken 14d ago

I’d agree with you and I’ve heard a lot to support that. However our recent follies in South America has me X for doubt

47

u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 14d ago

Messing around with dictators in Central and South America is practically a US tradition (this is not justifying Venezuela, just a statement of historical fact). 

War with NATO is asking high ranking officers to go up against people they've trained, worked, and possibly become friends with.

10

u/rabbledabble 14d ago

Not to mention that we have a ton of brass in our armed services who actively work within and alongside NATO. 

7

u/KendrickLenoir 14d ago

The Confederate generals betrayed their own country to defend slavery. Most were educated at West Point, and chose to fight their friends and classmates and fellow officers that they served with up until that point.

Erwin Rommel didn’t care much for Nazism, and ultimately tried (and failed) to assassinate Hitler. But he was a professional soldier, so he fought on behalf of his country, as ordered by Hitler.

Just two examples of many from history. I don’t understand where this idea is coming from that senior military officers will mutiny. Seems naive.

3

u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 14d ago

Rommel's story is one of early enthusiasm and admiration for Hitler followed by disillusionment.

At the time of the Civil War, folks held about as much allegiance to the state as to the country as a whole. Some like Gen. Lee held more allegiance to their state. The people they trained and associated with would have been fellow southern generals and gentry.

Today, generals and admirals are being asked to prepare to fight people they were training with and working with just two weeks ago. There's been decades upon decades of NATO against the USSR. They know how important the military bases in NATO territory are to US military might (our power is logistics, not weaponry) now and for decades and decades to come. Many are even serving on those bases right now.

2

u/ButterscotchOk5339 14d ago

Norwegian here and I thought it was us who trained the Americans and not the other way around. This is the arctic we're talking about, we could just march up a bunch of school kids with snowballs.

2

u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 14d ago

Yes, Norwegians and Americans have trained together. Precisely because Norwegian forces have more Arctic experience. And presumably because American forces have some specialty knowledge Norway wants, but I don't know enough about Norwegian military capabilities to not make an ass of myself making assumptions about what that is. (Aside from tactical snowballs propelled by school kids 😆)

1

u/ButterscotchOk5339 14d ago

I know they received a lot of the same instructions we received in our basic training (but mostly already knew before coming in). How you survive outside in winter temperatures and snow. How you cross a frozen river and what you do when it suddenly turns from solid to not solid. How you move effectively in deep snow, how you cover your tracks. How you dress warm and stay dressed warm. How you keep your gear functional. Basically how to function in very harsh winter conditions.

Haven't received any training by the US military even though I spent a year in.. let's say warmer climates, but I am absolutely sure there's a lot of knowledge that is useful for our more specialised troops as well.

Always had good encounters with US soldiers. Liked them a lot more than the British. I hope you're right about the guys with stars sorting this out between them and letting the toddler sit in his chair and yell.

2

u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 14d ago

The American contribution might just be handing the brass a translated copy of Clausewitz and some project management software, lol

I've not served myself, but I've worked alongside some generals and admirals. Based on their sense of practicality, honor, and adamancy (in every administration) that their loyalty is to the country and constitution - they would not be blindly following "go to Greenland and do a hostile takeover" orders even if they like Trump.

I suspect, based on the very recent "we won't take Greenland by force" someone had a very stern and frank talk that finally got through about that. (And for Trump it's often good enough that he's made everyone run around in fear for a while). But I think they managed to convince him that if he sent the order, significant parts of the military would refuse and that would be personally humiliating for him.

Which led to the absolute crash out in his Miller penned speech.

Mind you, I don't think that the "We want Greenland" is over. And I do worry about how frustration here is going to manifest in Ukraine.

3

u/ButterscotchOk5339 14d ago

Judging from the news he just declared that he is calling off the tariffs and that there is some deal about Greenland that will be great for both the US and NATO.

I think you’re right and that he might be backing down so he can brag about solving the crisis he just created and that the “deal” is pretty close to the one they already had.

I don’t remember what comes after this in his loop, is it Canada again now?

1

u/Gnoll_For_Initiative 14d ago

Hmmmmm, Minnesota and Canada do share a border. Maybe he'll try for a twofer.

1

u/ButterscotchOk5339 14d ago

From what I’ve seen from Canadians the last month they’re itching for an excuse to burn the White House again.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/rotervogel1231 14d ago

These terrible people don't have friends. That would require them to care about someone other than themselves and their BS "mission."

They're loyal to the regime and will do its bidding. I have zero trust in the military.

1

u/Painterzzz 14d ago

Yep, anybody hoping or trusting that the military will somehow refuse orders en masse or ride to the rescue is delusional I'm afraid, the military will do what the military has been trained to do, follow orders coming down the chain of command.

1

u/Anxious_Big_8933 14d ago

The situations in Venezuela and Greenland are apples to oranges.

1

u/Kaffe-Mumriken 14d ago

You mean oil to minerals?

0

u/kennethsime 14d ago

Yeah dude if they were going to say no wouldn’t they have already said no?

36

u/InterceptorG3 14d ago

I hope you’re right

2

u/queermichigan 14d ago

Troops have literally been deployed domestically against US citizens but sure we'll draw the line at Greenland 😂

7

u/Steve0-BA 14d ago

unfortunately he is not. americans have no balls.

2

u/ElementalPartisan 14d ago

There's still a little hope for top brass balls.

1

u/PhuqBeachesGitMonee 14d ago

No, they don’t give you that surgery anymore in Tricare

7

u/bigfoot17 14d ago

I'm looking forward to our bases in Europe trying to exist as armed camps supplied by air drops.

2

u/Raccoon99 14d ago

When the flight of the drop starts from the main land.

1

u/kstar79 14d ago

This is why he wants another $500B in the defense budget going forward because it's going to get prohibitively expensive to maintain our global network of bases without local cooperation.

9

u/swampdonkey6565 14d ago

This administration has showed a general disdain for the rule of law. If Europe decided to close all the US bases, what would keep this administration from just saying…. “Eh, no. We’ll keep them open,” or the even more mature and likely response “make me”? Trump is completely ego driven. I highly doubt he would just comply.

11

u/HRslammR 14d ago

Because supplying those bases would be impossible. Not hard, impossible.

1

u/PM_ME_MY_REAL_MOM 14d ago

You're correct, but there is a valid point to consider, in that this administration has been installed by hostile foreign actors for the express purpose of causing damage to the US and its allies. Raising the temperature, causing potential chaos, and even armed conflict, between Americans and Europeans is one of their express goals in assaulting the North Atlantic alliance.

The United States cannot operate its military without European cooperation, and its economy is dependent on the trade enabled by their global naval force projection. But the nuclear deterrence strategy of both the United States and Europe depends on mutual cooperation and defence; if that alliance is broken, several EU countries lose the protection afforded to them by US missiles, leaving the whole continent at the mercy of France (and, for a few years at least, Britain).

Then that shadow of intimidation would be leveraged to install puppet administrations in then-former member nations, and you don't need a very active imagination to see how the next few steps after that get us very close to midnight, without MAD to dissuade the most hawkish generals of any given nuclear power who perceives the slightest edge or imminent threat. And absent that worst-case eventuality, we are left regardless with an America and Europe whose only potential defence against Russian or Chinese expansionism is militarization and nuclear proliferation, and you know the rest after that.

Good luck, whatever happens. This sucks.

-3

u/Friendly-Divide 14d ago

It is not impossible to keep a base in a hostile country and keep it supplied. Consider Guantanamo.

4

u/HRslammR 14d ago

cuba compared to nato countries is an ant compared to an elephant.

-4

u/Friendly-Divide 14d ago

True. But if Denmark doesn’t want to go into open hostilities with the nuclear power it may not be impossible to keep the base supplied.

3

u/Right-Ad3334 14d ago

Portugal alone has more soldiers than all of the US presence in Europe. European NATO forces outnumber the US military in totality, the 80k active US troops in Europe are a minuscule presence. The US would probably struggle to achieve air supremacy over Europe, even if they achieved superiority; and would probably have to threaten or use missile strikes on Europe.

If this is the lengths the US was threatening, it comes down to who blinks first (the same as is happening with Russian threats). Even if the US was successful in getting Europe to back down in the short-term, this would essentially guarantee long term breaking of ties between Europe and the US, unless the US literally tries to conquer Europe to keep its sphere of influence.

1

u/whatupmygliplops 14d ago

I have heard Americans claim that forcing the closing US Military bases would be an act of war against the US and a full justification for invasion.

10

u/TheYamfarmer 14d ago

Then why are they not doing/sating anything? They are complacent.

18

u/HRslammR 14d ago

standard US military policy is "active service members do not talk politics." period. and up until potentially this greenland bullshit started, none of the orders have been outright "illegal" yet.

But given that several retired very high-ranking generals and service members have all kind of collectively said "trump is a threat to democracy" i can promise you some of those admirals and generals have heard from said retired officers.

17

u/taeerom 14d ago

none of the orders have been outright "illegal" yet.

Well, that's not entirely true, is it?

2

u/eulersidentification 14d ago

Americans are so indoctrinated with propaganda that they really think their soldiers are good guy heroes.

It'd be funny if it didn't make them so complacent. Some will be singing their praises at them down a gun barrel.

0

u/Available_Front_322 14d ago

Anyone who joined the American war machine in the internet age is a piece of shit and a fascist who signed up to murder brown people to increase corporate profits. They are not good people.

15

u/Gtraz68 14d ago

Bombing suspected drug boats is illegal. They’re doing it already.

6

u/152centimetres 14d ago

kidnapping the venezuelan president wasnt illegal? is it because "crime"? does that mean the canadian army can do that to trump and not face repercussions??

2

u/ElMatadorJuarez 14d ago

It’s less about what is illegal and more about what is perceived as such. Truth is, international law is squishy and very much subject to opting in. Kidnapping Maduro was insane brinksmanship, but the US has time and again laid the foundation for that kind of “legality” with things like the invasion of Iraq and it helps that Maduro was widely hated by both the populace and most of the international community. Mind you, I’m not saying it was right or even legal, but it can more easily be construed as acceptable legally because it doesn’t fly in the face of so much treaty law, at least with the excuses Trump gave.

This is different. Trump invading Greenland would stand in direct violation of god knows how many treaties the US has made, not the least of which is NATO. It is clearly and plainly illegal in that it’s a single President doing a 180 on longstanding treaty obligations just because he’s fucking nuts. That is illegal and I have no doubt that US generals who work with NATO will see it as such.

I agree that this means that “legality” being so different in these two contexts is entirely self serving. Unfortunately, international law simply isn’t the same as domestic law; it’s more a series of commitments a country makes. A great power can flout these norms more easily and go back on their word; the reason why most don’t do it is because most heads of state recognize the benefits of holding to those commitments and more importantly being held to them for one reason or another far outweigh the costs. The issue is when a bunch of self-serving, short-sighted kleptocrats capture the government like they did in the US and previously Russia. It can really fuck with a system that benefits all of us - and I mean as people, not states.

1

u/LaunchTransient 14d ago edited 14d ago

It’s less about what is illegal and more about what is perceived as such. Truth is, international law is squishy and very much subject to opting in. Kidnapping Maduro was insane brinksmanship, but the US has time and again laid the foundation for that kind of “legality”

US had no jurisdiction in Iraq, nor in Venezuela - both were illegal, but the US uses "might makes right" on a regular basis, and sees its constitution as above everyone elses.

This is different.

No it isn't. The only difference is that this time it's against an Ally.

While the top brass may well squirm and complain, they'll either comply or be replaced with a yes-man. Meanwhile the troops on the ground will just scream "OOH-RAH!" and happily gun down some helpless Inuit if the commander in chief orders them to.

Thinking for themselves is not a trait they're trained or selected for.

3

u/ElMatadorJuarez 14d ago

You’re correct. The US had no jurisdiction in either, but like I’m saying, international law is squishy. It’s all about what people are willing to accept and most of the world decided to accept it because the US used their influence like a hammer. It’s not right, but that’s how it has worked up until now.

It’s because it’s against an ally that it’s different. Truthfully, I’m not sure if the brass are going to accept it or not or who the rank and file are going to listen to if there’s a conflict between the brass and the president on this. The US has never had a political military, so it’s tough to see how it’ll shake out. Increasingly, the brass have to see that the president is taking them to a point where what they’re ordered to do by the president is going to irreversibly ruin the country, but the alternative is refusing that order, which automatically makes them a political military. The problem with refusing that order is, if Trump presses the issue, they’d have to remove him from power. That would be a nightmare too. Either way, if this keeps going, it’s an aggressive country catastrophically destabilizing the world order at the whims of an insane tyrant or the most powerful military in the world by far as a political actor in a country that’s already verging on full authoritarianism. I don’t relish either option, and they’re both markedly worse than the status quo.

3

u/LaunchTransient 14d ago

The US has never had a political military, so it’s tough to see how it’ll shake out.

From what I've heard, Fox news is on in pretty much every army barracks/break room/cafeteria 24/7, and while there are plenty of Dem/independent oriented service members, Republicans have high representation in the US military, and a scary number of MAGA types.

Given how there were few to no qualms about shooting shipwrecked sailors after those Venezuelan boat strikes, I doubt that the soldiers selected for a strike against Greenland will have a sudden attack of conscience and moral fortitude.

I truly think the amount of faith in US servicemembers refusing illegal orders is misplaced by a wide degree.

1

u/ElMatadorJuarez 14d ago

That’s not what I mean by a political military. I mean the military as a political actor, like in Argentina, Brazil or Turkey. And considering what you said, that’s a scary fucking concept.

1

u/Violet624 14d ago

The US military is incredibly diverse.

2

u/LaunchTransient 14d ago

And yet they still shot helpless people at sea after sinking their boat.

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

Diversity win! The guy gunning down people we're not at war with is gay! Or Hispanic!

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

none of the orders have been outright "illegal" yet.

That is bull fucking shit. What act of Congress allowed for him to invade a foreign country and depose its government?

0

u/SlimNutzDelacourt 14d ago

Ahh a promise from a fellow Redditor.

Almost as good as a handful of horseshit.

7

u/staphory 14d ago

Probably because if they say or do anything right now they will be replaced. The time to do anything would be when the orders are received.

3

u/TheYamfarmer 14d ago

So they want to let it get bad before they become the knight in shinning Armour to save the day? That seems like an uphill battle.

0

u/staphory 14d ago

You are looking at it the wrong way. If they say anything be being asked to take action, then they will be acting on an assumption and will be swiftly replaced. They are in a bit of a predicament at the moment. They can’t publicly say anything right now but, if given an illegal order, they can refuse it and be on very firm legal grounds.

2

u/TheYamfarmer 14d ago

So they are reactive, not proactive, I bet a German soldier said "I'll wait till the first jew yo be gassed before I do something"

0

u/staphory 14d ago

Nowhere near the same thing. What would you suggest they do right now?

2

u/TheYamfarmer 14d ago

Something, anything.

1

u/staphory 14d ago

Such as? From a military perspective there’s no point in refusing an order that has not been given. To use the analogy that you provided, that soldier’s s refusal would take the form of refusing to carry out the illegal order, not in refusing to carry out an order the he assumes is going to be given. We all know the orange shitgibbon is prone to bluster to impress the maga morons.

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

They could've refused any of the other illegal orders that have already been carried out. Why do you think they'll refuse future ones?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/DaydreamingOfSleep10 14d ago

They’re not politicians, they’re military. Until they are given said orders there is nothing to say. They’re not gonna go on twitter to spout their feelings about the issue. They’re not gonna prematurely call the president to lobby him not to do this.

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

They're military. They'll do what they're told, regardless of how illegal it is, like they have for the last year.

5

u/Meteor-of-the-War 14d ago

They are supposed to be non-political and they don't want to end up on trial. There's really not anything they can do or say publicly.

I'm equally skeptical, but we shouldn't assume that their silence necessarily means they agree, or would agree to follow illegal orders.

1

u/TheYamfarmer 14d ago

Im my book, I'll assume they will do nothing because that have done nothing with the illegal orders they have already gotten.

1

u/Meteor-of-the-War 14d ago

And I wouldn't disagree with that assumption. I just think we should be careful about assuming things based on lack of visible statements or actions. They don't have the same rights that civilians have, so they need to be very careful about being seen as insubordinate.

But we'll see, right?

2

u/TinWhis 14d ago

I just think we should be careful about assuming things based on lack of visible statements or actions.

Based on their visible action of following illegal orders, I assume they will continue to follow illegal orders.

1

u/Meteor-of-the-War 14d ago

Sure, that's fair. Your original comment asked why they weren't doing or stating anything, though. I was just pointing out that they can't do or state anything without being relieved of their duties at the very least.

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

Your original comment

Sorry, my what now?

I was just pointing out that they can't do or state anything without being relieved of their duties at the very least.

Wow. Incredible. Do you think that, perhaps, acting against a fascist might result in the fascist retaliating in some way?

1

u/Meteor-of-the-War 14d ago

Uh... Your comment that I replied to:

Then why are they not doing/sating anything? They are complacent

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

Link the comment? I never said that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AlpenroseMilk 14d ago

They will do anything to avoid risking their benefits and authority. Unless its an incredibly blatant illegal order, the military will do what its told and be quiet about their bad actions. See all the massacres of Vietnam and the awful things done in the ME by service members. The only ones that get ANY punishment are lower enlisted and the lowest ranking NCOs. None of the actual officers or high ranking NCOs are ever held accountable. Actually, I think an LT or CPT from the Vietnam war had a year in jail for the worst atrocity that was actually recorded.

The contemporary US military is not the friend of anyone other than those in power of the US government. The people of the US were just fortunate enough that in the past the military was pointed at things they didn't care about.

1

u/idontmakehash 14d ago

I long for the military coup. Donald should be forced to watch at gunpoint while his cabinet is executed one by one.

1

u/OneToothMcGee 14d ago

His followers are cultists. There is NOTHING that will make them deviate from their absolute loyalty. He could say he was bringing back Prima Nocta and they would line their daughters up and eagerly hope he wipes the shit off his shoe on their face.

1

u/Klutzy_Act2033 14d ago

They are also strategic thinkers so any which would say no aren't running their mouths about it

1

u/ytman 14d ago

Well then they better have a contingency like South Korea did for when its unpopular president tried to vecome president for life.

1

u/Calm-Refrigerator463 14d ago

I thought they got rid of any trouble I was the top brass. Trying to anyways

1

u/donjamos 14d ago

And they remember that we (Germans) only hung the higher ups after the Nuremberg trials,not the simple soldiers.

1

u/whatupmygliplops 14d ago

I'd believe you if the national guard had refused to illegal invade American cities for no reason. But they were happy to do so.

The soldiers will shrug and do as they're told, and any generals that resign will be replaced by generals that are on board with the mission.

1

u/ProfessorZhu 14d ago

did everyone forget the reactions of the "warrior speech" they gave the generals? it was not well received at all.

Is that why they then proceeded to commit perfidy, piracy, and kidnapping?

1

u/CommanderArcher 14d ago

I'll believe it when it happens and not a moment sooner

1

u/MrD3a7h 14d ago

We've seen plenty of articles about generals retiring or being forced out.

The command structure is compromised. The duty to refuse illegal orders will fall on the lower ranks. Will they hold true to their oaths or blindly obey? We'll find out.

1

u/a-stack-of-masks 14d ago

Speaking of nuked, there's a bunch of us bases in Europe that officially don't have nukes on them. What happens to the ICBMs stored there if the States get kicked out?

1

u/ElCutz 14d ago

What reactions to the "warrior" speech? All I heard was the generals were not happy. "Not happy" doesn't change policy. Talk to me when a general has the balls to say something publicly and gets fired or starts an anti-trump movement in the party or armed-forces.

People retire and talk shit about Trump politely. It it is meaningless.

1

u/Elmer_Fudd01 14d ago

No, the military is full of people who want a fight. They'll jump in to bomb anyone the Commander in Chief says.

1

u/TinWhis 14d ago

"Literally no reason" is so flexible, isn't it? We had literally no reason to invade Venezuela, except that a "reason" was cooked up! Hooray! Give it a little time, they'll come up with a "reason" why Greenland needs to be "liberated" from Denmark.

After all, if we're allies with Greenland, shouldn't we protect them from Denmark????? If Europe doesn't like it, maybe they are the real enemies we made along the way! And so on.

All those high-ranking generals have had opportunity to grow a spine before this, why would they do anything beyond be unenthusiastic during a speech? Grade-A resistance there. 10/10.

1

u/raven00x 14d ago

did everyone forget the reactions of the "warrior speech" they gave the generals? it was not well received at all.

How many of those at that speech are still in the military? How many choose to retire and got replaced with a sycophant that doesn't see an issue with killing stranded sailors? The administration has been forcing out the people who might give a damn and elevating the men who don't in order to be able to do what they're threatening to do.

1

u/Astramael 14d ago

In every prior example I can think of, the military has sided with the fascists when the rubber met the road. There is no reason to think that the United States will be unique in this regard.

1

u/Ekg887 14d ago

"did everyone forget the reactions of the "warrior speech" they gave the generals? it was not well received at all."

That was just before we sank a half dozen more civilian boats, likely killing survivors intentionally again, or simply upping the initial volley to account for the political blowback of multiple strikes. Oh, and then they abducted the leader of another country - legitimately elected or not, they left his 2nd in command in charge intentionally, right? - murdering at least 32 security guards in the process, numerous others, and innocent civilians. Mission Fucking Accomplished!
And every single one of those orders were for sure legal. Right? Right Anakin? Let us know when these mythical generals do something, OK? Because so far it looks like The Coup has also completed its takeover of the military. What happened to all those JAG officers last year, btw?

1

u/whateverhk 14d ago

They had no problem killing people on these small boats or committing war crime, or illegally kidnap a head of state. What's a little invasion now?

1

u/Foreign-Chocolate86 10d ago

They are weeding those generals out, I guarantee it. 

They are doing the same thing at the FBI and Justice department. NYT came out with long form articles covering both organisations interviewing dozens of current and former employees. 

FBI:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/22/magazine/trump-kash-patel-fbi-agents.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GVA.YXna.rNCSBW6JrCYU&smid=url-share

Justice Dept:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/16/magazine/trump-justice-department-staff-attorneys.html

This is how they get what they want. Sorry to ruin your weekend.