15 ms·
What Is The Insurrection Act?
- bra-ket 6y agothis act and some military involvement is overdue, besides shopping malls and mom & pop shops these "protesters" already started looting trains and fedex trucks and whatnot, and your home might well be next if they are not stopped https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/guq917/all_aboard_hitting_a_train_in_chicago_crazy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/guq9...
- montagg 6y agoEvery situation where the police arrive has become violent. It’s not the protestors that escalate. The presence of the authorities has created this situation. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I don’t believe the police want to do this, but they are so on edge, and there are so many people taking advantage of the situation to throw sparks on kerosene, that the best thing the authorities can do is pull away and let peaceful protests continue. But we instead have only the most linear thought directed at this problem. People, crime, force. Understanding the systems involved, the real motivations, is beyond our leaders and many people assessing these situations. Right now, two blocks west and four blocks south from where I am, is a national guard tank. I am less safe than if it weren’t there, because it’s just another bomb that can explode, like every police officer in Los Angeles tonight, tomorrow, the day after. That’s the situation. It’s not a video game where you right click and apply force. People do things for reasons, and until our leaders understand that and how to work with it to de-escalate, there will only be more blood.
- bra-ket 6y agowhat peaceful protests are you talking about, it's mostly violent mob that uses a thin layer of idealistic youth in front singing kumbaya to divert attention, while the rest are stealing and looting in the back alley, not giving a damn about causes
- nicbou 6y agoThat was a good article. It answered the question in the title in plain English, without taking any unnecessary detours. It was prefaced by a clear GDPR notice that let me access the website without any fuss. I wish the internet was always like that.
- jimbob45 6y agoNPR, while often blatantly biased, usually has the best _______ 101 stories in my experience.
- 082349872349872 6y agoFrom what I have seen, peering over from the continent these past 3 years, top US military officers are both less racist[1] than the general populace and more reflective[2] than the current administration. [1] Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria: "If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you can't treat someone from another gender, whether that's a man or a woman, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you demean someone in any way, then you need to get out. And if you can't treat someone from another race, or different color skin, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out." [2] witness the USN response when Trump tweeted they should fire on sight on the NEDAJA: we retain the right to self-defense. I wish you all the best of luck and hope you all live your lives and do wonderful things. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/ https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting...
- 082349872349872 6y agoin further evidence for [2]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-pentagon/u-s-defense-secretary-says-he-doesnt-support-invoking-insurrection-act-idUSKBN23A2BD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protes...
- kyuudou 6y agoIt's a fancier way of saying "read you the Riot act" which will take a while
- ghouse 6y agoSo, Trump now believes this is a rebellion? Didn't he say just yesterday it was a terrorist organization?
- shreyansj 6y agoYou assume he can tell the difference between a rebel and a terrorist. /s
- xeromal 6y agoTo be fare, rebels can be terrorists. I'd say the IRA was rebellious and terroristic in how they operated. They also managed to get what they wanted too.
- objclxt 6y agoThe IRA and its various splinter groups wanted a united Ireland. I’m not sure you can really say they got entirely what they demanded.
- mikedilger 6y ago"Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order." is the first sentence of the Wikipedia page for Rebellion. Irrespective of the primary intent of the civil unrest [1], failing to disperse after being ordered to is an act of insurrection. I express no opinion as to whether insurrection is called for or not, just that technically it seems to be such. [1] some people say 'protests', others say 'riots', I'm hoping 'civil unrest' is neutral but I'd happily take correction if it is not.
- asplake 6y agoHmmm. Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government. Not sure “failing to disperse” really qualifies
- Izkata 6y ago> some people say 'protests', others say 'riots' Both are happening at the same time in similar places. Plenty of people are using the correct term for the group they mean, which others are twisting to conflate into one mass group. Don't fall into the same trap.
- voiper1 6y ago>The act was last invoked in 1992 to quell the Los Angeles riots after the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a black man So history is repeating itself?
- masonic 6y agoNo, 1992 was the combined weight of genuine systemic racism in policing combined with the de facto jury nullification by an artificially selected venue and favorable jury pool. When injustice is systemic and protected, there is no hope of change. That's not the general case anymore. This case is a freak accident. The method to subdue isn't obviously racially motivated and historically is applied without regard to race. Why nobody in supervision acted after 44 uses resulted in loss of conciousness is the mystery; the 45th turned out fatal. But I don't think this officer is getting any kid glove treatment like Simi Valley provided. Ultimately, the Bush (41) DOJ successfully prosecuted Koon and Powell on Federal civil rights charges. Justice was delayed but not wholly denied.
- pjc50 6y agoIt's a continuous line from slavery to the KKK to MLK to Rodney King to the present day.
- gremlinsinc 6y agoDon't forget the Tulsa bombing aka the Bombing of "Black Wallstreet". I only recently learned of this and was floored.
- m-p-3 6y agoI'm not a US citizen, I wasn't aware the Tulsa bombing happened, I thought this was only a fictional event that happened at the beginning of the Watchmen TV series. That's horrifying..
- gremlinsinc 6y agoyeah it was pretty damn horrible. We've done some crazy shit to our own people, and those who aren't...and probably more human rights violations from USA and Colonists than all other countries combined. I mean Columbus murdered like 5-10 million native americans alone and sold countless young girls and others as slaves... Hell the whole world could probably end systemic racism if they helped USA (a big culture leader) do it first.
- jeffdavis 6y agoThe fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge. I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. The Second Amendment is there, in part, to avoid the need for a standing military at all, because standing armies have a tendancy to be turned on the people. Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force. A bit better organization could have put that into effect in Minneapolis.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y agoThere is still the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military for domestic purposes.
- cryptonector 6y agoThe PCA has an explicit exception for use in accordance with the Insurrection Act. FYI.
- cryptonector 6y ago> The fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge. I don't think there is any question about the constitutionality of the Act. I don't think there was any question about the constitutionality of the act in 1992 either. There might be a question about a particular application of it, however. > I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says Congress gets to deal with insurrection: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Well, the Insurrection Act, passed a mere 20 years after the Constitution was written, before the last founder President, does exactly what the bit of the Constitution I quoted says. There had been revolts within Washington's presidency, which he himself put down in the field (not from his residence or office). > Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force. There was no police in 1787, or in 1807 for that matter. There was also no standing army. The militia was all there was, and the militia was just armed citizens. Certainly, many believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to make feasible a revolt / tyranny difficult to impose, so in that sense you're right, but there was no police in 1807.
- yalogin 6y agoI will not be surprised if he didn't know anything about the Insurrection Act and was saying all of this as act of bravado without any thought. In seriousness, does this statement count as the proclamation/warning referred to in the article?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- billme 6y agoThe way the US legal system works is if the US Attorney General tells the US President an act is legal, regardless of if it is, until the Supreme Court or Congress act, the President is free to do as the US Attorney General said. Under the US Constitution, The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, to not follow a direct order would be a likely be a crime for anyone within the military. Trumps statements counted as a proclamation, if the US Attorney General said they did.
- alextheparrot 6y agoI would be a bit more tempered regarding the not following an order part. There’s long established cases in US law that doesn’t mean the person obeying the order is free, if the order was not lawful. United States vs Keenan being one example — soldiers need to obey lawful orders, but obeying unlawful orders puts them at risk of criminal prosecution.
- billme 6y agoHence “likely” - it’s impossible to tell what might happen.
- montagg 6y agoThe point is that an order to siege an American city would not be unlawful, under the Insurrection Act, because there are parts of the Act that give a lot of discretion to the President about when to use force. That siege order could be legal. At that point, disobeying has to be a moral act, and the law isn’t a concern anymore. I say this living in an apartment about three blocks from a tank in Los Angeles.
- billme 6y agoAppears likely Trump’s public statements today were the proclamation, and if it was not, one will be made shortly — after that, it is only matter of time before Trump deploys the military. Photo in the story, taken late today, is of Trump with the highest-ranking military officer in the US Armed Forces (on the right) - and the US Attorney General (on the left). Trump intentionally left the White House to force his way through the protesters.