8 ms·

Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US citizens?

AlotOfReading 2y ago
The current president has previously spoken of it multiple times [0, 1] and has already authorized domestic military deployments, albeit not against citizens [2]. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-enemy-from-within-election-day/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-enemy... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/24/trump-military-president-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/24/trump-mi... [2] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/27/here-are-all-units-now-deployed-border-trumps-immigration-crackdown.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/27/here-are-all-...
- crimsonnoodle58 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - derektank 2y ago
    National guard members are subject to the restrictions imposed by Posse Comitatus when on Title 10 orders. National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG. Putting active duty military members on Title 10 orders, such those of the 82nd Airborne Division which reporting indicates Trump also wanted to use in 2020, would also be an obvious violation of Posse Comitatus if those troops were used to arrest, surveil, or otherwise control protestors. Active duty troops may perform in a supporting function for domestic law enforcement, such as by providing engineering, logistics, or communications to law enforcement, which is what US troops do when they're on the border (or when they are supporting counter-smuggling operations).
    - michaelt 2y ago
      If the Roman Senate's law says the army can't cross the Rubicon river, and anyone who does lead an army across will be executed - then that's the law. But if an army actually crosses the Rubicon? Turns out that law doesn't count for much when the other guy has an army, and all the senators have to flee the country. Then the guy with the army is in charge. He can retrospectively legalise his actions, grant himself a pardon, and fill recently-vacated positions of power with allies who'll sign it all off. So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.
      - Hasu 2y ago
        You are making an important and fatal mistake: you are confusing law and power. Caesar's civil war was illegal under the laws of the Roman Republic. Caesar successfully took power, so there was no one to enforce those laws, but he did break them, and ultimately, the Republic. As far as I know Caesar never even bothered legitimizing his war or self-pardoning - he didn't need to, he won and the Senate made him dictator for life. > So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all. This is very important: only if they win will their illegal actions go without punishment, and winning is not guaranteed. There is a reason we generally prefer the rule of law to the rule of power.
        eszed 2y ago
        I don't think michaelt was confused; I think he was making the exact point that you are.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      It's probably a common blindspot for people on HN to think in technical terms like this of what is and isn't permitted. But it comes down to people who are armed and emotional.
      - psunavy03 2y ago
        I'm sorry, you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities? This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities Yes, I'm saying that given the right circumstances what is legal on paper does not matter in the real world. > This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes. I have never served but I have read history books. This isn't a pure hypothetical: these things have happened before, there are examples going back as far as you would like. My sibling comment even expanded on one of these. > I'm sorry If you're sorry then I think it would have been possible to edit your comment not to have the tone of personal insult.
        darkerside 2y ago
        I think it took the tone of an insult partly because "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult to our military leadership. There's probably nothing more important to being a great military leader than the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations. I would guess there is a point of pride in doing that which was being assailed in your comment.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult Care to explain how having weapons or emotions is insulting? Everyone serving in the military is a human and humans have emotions. There's no shame in that and I think it requires quite a mean spirited mis-reading of what I said to take that from it. > the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations I think we're in agreement, you just have a different idea of what it means to be emotional. The desire to maintain a cool head in the face of horror is based in emotion. The effect of keeping a cool head might be exactly the reason why the technicalities of legality break down. All that said we also have to remember that not everyone serving is a "great military leader" and that's also part of the point at hand.
    - User23 2y ago
      The Insurrection Act[1] is still in force. The President can legally suspend Posse Comitatus with a simple proclamation and then he can use federalized Guard or regular troops to enforce law as he pleases. Article II and Congress have invested absolutely vast powers in the Presidency. The main check on their exercise is not Congress, or the Judiciary, or even the Deep State, but rather just traditions. Unfortunately, both parties have been attenuating those traditions for many administrations. I don't think we're going to see the US government morph, Roman style, into a new form of government that's only nominally a republic. I think it's already happened quite some time ago. And just like in ancient Rome, most people have no idea it happened, because it will continue to use the same legal structure, just applied in new and interesting ways. What we're seeing now is the struggle between two factions of the elites over who controls this new system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > National guard members are subject to the restrictions imposed by Posse Comitatus when on Title 10 orders. True. > National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG. False. Posse Comitatus (18 USC Sec. 1385) does not prohibit the military (including the National Guard when called into federal service) from being used for domestic law enforcement, it prohibits that from being directed by those without specific authority in the Constituton or act of Congress to do so. The Insurrection Act provides authority to the President to do so, either at the request of state governments (10 USC Sec. 251) or on his own unilateral determination of necessity (10 USC Sec. 252, 253).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - refurb 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aredox 2y ago
      It gets downvoted because it tries to minimize or justify clear threats of using military force under exagerated pretense.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor. So Trump wanting to deploy the National Guard to stop his imagined election day interference, or to deal with rioters, would fall under the same rules as if he were to try to deploy the US Army for those tasks.
      - refurb 2y ago
        > It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor. But Trump provided zero details about how he might use the military. Zero. He didn't say "i don't care about Posse Comitatus Act" or "I will personally deploy them as the Commander in Chief". This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!" Assuming Trump will break the law when he nothing in his comments suggested he would AND he has legal channels with which to do it (send a formal request to a govenor), is not a reasonable nor logical thought process. I don't recall the same hysteria when Obama said he was going to deploy troops to the Mexico border for law enforcement because of cartel violence. https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying_national_guard_to_u_s_mexico_border https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying... He even said he will "continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border." Whatever is necessary?!? Doesn't he know it's illegal for the President to deploy US troops inside the US? Amazing how the media gives him a pass and is happy to explain how he'll do it all legally, but Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    The parent asked a question and I answered as neutrally as possible. I welcome suggestions on how I could have been even more colorlessly neutral, but I suspect that phrases like "radical left lunatics" would be counterproductive to that neutrality even in quotation.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Illegal and he can stuff "radical left lunatics" rhetorics cause it just makes it more plain he is about to abuse power.
  - Erem 2y ago
    According to Trumps longest serving chief of staff, John Kelly, he regularly needed to be talked down from using the military on citizens: > Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump was repeatedly told dating back to his first year in office why he should not use the U.S. military against Americans and the limits on his authority to do so. Mr. Trump nevertheless continued while in office to push the issue and claim that he did have the authority to take such actions, Mr. Kelly said. From his Oct 2024 interview with NYT: https://web.archive.org/web/20250213113815/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html https://web.archive.org/web/20250213113815/https://www.nytim...
  - scotty79 2y ago
    > 1 was to stop the rioting around George Floyd where there was significant damange to public and private property, again the national guard was suggested That's deploying military inside US against its citizens. You just argue it might be a good idea.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    So then 0 and 1 would indeed satisfy "using the US military against US citizens". (When the National Guard is under the command of the federal government, rather than state governor, they are, obligation- and restriction-wise, the same as the US military.)
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Damage to public / private property is normal in a riot, that's where riot police comes in - who are, on paper, experts in nonviolent / nonlethal crowd control and de-escalation. Deploying the National Guard would have been an unnecessary escalation. I do wish either riot police or the National Guard was deployed on Jan 6th though. But neither Trump nor anyone in the chain of command with that authority did, which only emphasizes how it was orchestrated and intentional.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    I found it helpful to have that one line summary without following the link. Upvoted because it provide more context, not because I agree these are good reason.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    I don't see how that changes anything. Especially since in practice "rioting" tends to mean "a protest that the police or those in power don't like". All of those situations still have the problems associated with deploying the military against civilians: The military isn't trained to carry out appropriate law enforcement. It compromises trust in and support for the military. It tends to be used disproportionately against the left rather than the right. It is easily abused to suppress dissent. Etc.
    - slowmovintarget 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - marcosdumay 2y ago
        > Rioting is rioting and not protesting. This doesn't seem to hold well in practice. > The moment protestors cross over to vandalism and violence, they're rioters and not mere protesters. And this seem to be usually applied collectively (in obvious opposition to basic human rights) in practice. Often in cases where the violence wasn't done by the protesters and even in cases where the violence was against the protesters. Also, police has a really shitty history of capturing and holding into account the actual violent people. They usually go free for turning the next protest violent too. And both happen again and again, all over the world.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > Often in cases where the violence wasn't done by the protesters and even in cases where the violence was against the protesters. Also very possible that the state actors are the ones beginning the violence which is well documented to have happened during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
      - tfigueroa 2y ago
        The point still stands that the choice of response should be appropriate, and there are several choices between inaction and deployment of the military.
  - hansihe 2y ago
    It's worth noting that when Trump says "radical left lunatics" he means mainstream democrats like Kamala Harris. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/25/trump-blasts-harris-as-radical-in-first-rally-since-bidens-exit https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/25/trump-blasts-harris...
    - prododev 2y ago
      Who, it should be noted, is not a leftist. Let alone a radical leftist.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > radical left lunatics Coming from a government who qualifies everybody they don't like as “radical left” it's not reassuring at all…
    - tomrod 2y ago
      For decades, a certain set of neoreactionaries have called me a radical leftist. Usually because I would note their ideas miss all kinds of unintended consequences. Hilariously, I was early in the tea party stuff until it was clearly coopted by the Ted Cruz types. I've consistently been a centrist libertarian for decades. If a person feels I am a radical leftist, I am confident they are working from a skewed worldview. We have had a social contract since the 1930s to take care of each other through taxes. Like it or hate it, to change this requires the legislature. Current gutting is based on executive action, lawlessly, capturing rents, quashing regulatory enforcement for a certain Mr. Musk and buddies, and otherwise capturing the function of the state and government, to the benefit of cronies. This is antithetical to liberty and freedom.
  - saghm 2y ago
    > 0 was talking about stopping Election Day interference from "radical left lunatics", and he suggested the national guard first Oh good, no government has ever tried to justify authoritarian policies via scapegoating their political opponents as being "radical" and requiring force to suppress. Thanks for clearing that up!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deadbabe 2y ago
[flagged]
- drunkpotato 2y ago
  Yes, that was evil. If your point is that both Obama and Trump are criminals who deserve imprisonment rather than full throated defense and endorsement, I am in complete agreement.
- watwut 2y ago
  And Clinton had emails server which makes her same as DOGE secrets wise. Or something.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  I for one am in favor of arresting and trying US leaders committing (war) crimes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gadders 2y ago
[flagged]
- wat10000 2y ago
  Gotta love the current climate. Any time Trump says something terrible, you're guaranteed to find his supporters simultaneously arguing that he never said it and that it's a good thing that he said it.
  - breckenedge 2y ago
    Heh we had simultaneous protests by Trump supporters in 2020 to both “Stop the count!” and “Count the votes!” to either stop or continue counting mail-in ballots in different states. Among his ardent supporters, there is no truth except force.
- cjfd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - RandomTisk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ipython 2y ago
      https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ - doesn't look like "walking through" the building to me. Source: I chaperoned a school group through the Capitol back in 2017 or so, and our tour did not look like this. not to mention the brazen attempts to pressure states, specifically Georgia, to "find" enough votes to change the election outcome: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffens... https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/02/15/read-full-transcript-donald-trumps-call-brad-raffensperger/ https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/02/15/read-full-transc...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 2y ago
The flagged subthread doing some whataboutery with drone strikes actually has a point that is relevant here; the War on Terror provided an erosion of rule of law, both in terms of normalized militarisation of society and in keeping places like Guantanamo Bay (US territory where US law basically doesn't apply) open. The threatened immigration sweeps and the talk of removing birthright citizenship tie into this. If the troops are reluctant to be deployed against US citizens, simply make the people you want to deploy them against not US citizens any more.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  Yeah this is my fear -- when we remove birthright citizenship, then suddenly you have to prove that your bloodline back to the Nth degree were citizens, or you have to prove yourself by some other way. So if someone or some group disagrees with what he is doing, he can simply add a requirement for citizenship that they can't meet and then they're not citizens. The whole point of birthright citizenship is to create a clear, unambiguous means of testing if someone is a citizen so that people cannot be disenfranchised easily even by a hostile executive. If you can produce a birth certificate, you are a citizen end of discussion. As someone who disagrees with what is happening, my biggest fear is that myself, my son, or my family could be declared "not a citizen" and forcibly removed to some other country where we are also not citizens under a new system. This is not a good thing for the US.
  - leptons 2y ago
    HR22, the "SAVE act" is removing the birth certificate from viable documents for millions of people who have changed their names. If the person who changed their name does not get an updated birth certificate (most don't, like women after they marry and take their husbands last name), then they can no longer vote. This is many millions of regular naturally born citizens in the US. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr22/BILLS-119hr22ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr22/BILLS-119hr22ih.pdf
ipython 2y ago
He came damn close in his first term. I remember watching the Twitter video on June 1, 2020 - see the video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-helicopters-hover-low-over-protesters-in-washington-84223557542 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-helicopters-hover-low-ov... to see how low the helicopters were flying and the rotor wash was clearly intended to intimidate the protesters. https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/let-the-generals-speak-retired-officer-dissent-and-the-june-2020-george-floyd-protests/ https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/let-the-generals-speak-ret... > In May 2020, protests emerged in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, as well as other incidents of police brutality against African Americans. In these protests there was in some cases significant property destruction and looting. In response, more than 20 states and the District of Columbia activated the National Guard to assist in stabilizing the situation. > By June 1 Trump was reportedly ready to send 10,000 regular military troops to the streets — forces usually used in external conflict. He threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed him to deploy the troops without the governors’ permission. Active-duty troops were brought to the Washington, D.C., area, including some from the immediate response force brigade of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. For a few days it looked like Trump might send in the troops, precipitating the retired officer commentary detailed below. Ultimately the president did not invoke the Insurrection Act and the troops were sent home. It wasn't just Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes... https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/helicopters-over-dc-protesters-broke-regulations-while-commander-was-driving-home-dc-guard-concludes/169704/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/helicopters-over-d... https://media.defense.gov/2021/May/27/2002730396/-1/-1/1/DODIG%20REPORT%20NO.%202021-089.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2021/May/27/2002730396/-1/-1/1/DOD... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soldiers-disciplined-helicopters-hovering-blm-protesters-dc/story?id=77066526 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soldiers-disciplined-helicop... https://web.archive.org/web/20230607212142/https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-use-medical-helicopter-target-protesters https://web.archive.org/web/20230607212142/https://casebook.... https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-06-02/military-begins-staging-around-washington-to-quell-george-floyd-protests https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-06-0...

The current president has previously spoken of it multiple times [0, 1] and has already authorized domestic military deployments, albeit not against citizens [2]. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-enemy-from-within-election-day/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-enemy... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/24/trump-military-president-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/24/trump-mi... [2] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/27/here-are-all-units-now-deployed-border-trumps-immigration-crackdown.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/27/here-are-all-...

crimsonnoodle58 2y ago
[flagged]
- derektank 2y ago
  National guard members are subject to the restrictions imposed by Posse Comitatus when on Title 10 orders. National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG. Putting active duty military members on Title 10 orders, such those of the 82nd Airborne Division which reporting indicates Trump also wanted to use in 2020, would also be an obvious violation of Posse Comitatus if those troops were used to arrest, surveil, or otherwise control protestors. Active duty troops may perform in a supporting function for domestic law enforcement, such as by providing engineering, logistics, or communications to law enforcement, which is what US troops do when they're on the border (or when they are supporting counter-smuggling operations).
  - michaelt 2y ago
    If the Roman Senate's law says the army can't cross the Rubicon river, and anyone who does lead an army across will be executed - then that's the law. But if an army actually crosses the Rubicon? Turns out that law doesn't count for much when the other guy has an army, and all the senators have to flee the country. Then the guy with the army is in charge. He can retrospectively legalise his actions, grant himself a pardon, and fill recently-vacated positions of power with allies who'll sign it all off. So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.
    - Hasu 2y ago
      You are making an important and fatal mistake: you are confusing law and power. Caesar's civil war was illegal under the laws of the Roman Republic. Caesar successfully took power, so there was no one to enforce those laws, but he did break them, and ultimately, the Republic. As far as I know Caesar never even bothered legitimizing his war or self-pardoning - he didn't need to, he won and the Senate made him dictator for life. > So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all. This is very important: only if they win will their illegal actions go without punishment, and winning is not guaranteed. There is a reason we generally prefer the rule of law to the rule of power.
      - eszed 2y ago
        I don't think michaelt was confused; I think he was making the exact point that you are.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    It's probably a common blindspot for people on HN to think in technical terms like this of what is and isn't permitted. But it comes down to people who are armed and emotional.
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      I'm sorry, you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities? This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities Yes, I'm saying that given the right circumstances what is legal on paper does not matter in the real world. > This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes. I have never served but I have read history books. This isn't a pure hypothetical: these things have happened before, there are examples going back as far as you would like. My sibling comment even expanded on one of these. > I'm sorry If you're sorry then I think it would have been possible to edit your comment not to have the tone of personal insult.
        darkerside 2y ago
        I think it took the tone of an insult partly because "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult to our military leadership. There's probably nothing more important to being a great military leader than the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations. I would guess there is a point of pride in doing that which was being assailed in your comment.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult Care to explain how having weapons or emotions is insulting? Everyone serving in the military is a human and humans have emotions. There's no shame in that and I think it requires quite a mean spirited mis-reading of what I said to take that from it. > the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations I think we're in agreement, you just have a different idea of what it means to be emotional. The desire to maintain a cool head in the face of horror is based in emotion. The effect of keeping a cool head might be exactly the reason why the technicalities of legality break down. All that said we also have to remember that not everyone serving is a "great military leader" and that's also part of the point at hand.
  - User23 2y ago
    The Insurrection Act[1] is still in force. The President can legally suspend Posse Comitatus with a simple proclamation and then he can use federalized Guard or regular troops to enforce law as he pleases. Article II and Congress have invested absolutely vast powers in the Presidency. The main check on their exercise is not Congress, or the Judiciary, or even the Deep State, but rather just traditions. Unfortunately, both parties have been attenuating those traditions for many administrations. I don't think we're going to see the US government morph, Roman style, into a new form of government that's only nominally a republic. I think it's already happened quite some time ago. And just like in ancient Rome, most people have no idea it happened, because it will continue to use the same legal structure, just applied in new and interesting ways. What we're seeing now is the struggle between two factions of the elites over who controls this new system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > National guard members are subject to the restrictions imposed by Posse Comitatus when on Title 10 orders. True. > National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG. False. Posse Comitatus (18 USC Sec. 1385) does not prohibit the military (including the National Guard when called into federal service) from being used for domestic law enforcement, it prohibits that from being directed by those without specific authority in the Constituton or act of Congress to do so. The Insurrection Act provides authority to the President to do so, either at the request of state governments (10 USC Sec. 251) or on his own unilateral determination of necessity (10 USC Sec. 252, 253).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aredox 2y ago
    It gets downvoted because it tries to minimize or justify clear threats of using military force under exagerated pretense.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor. So Trump wanting to deploy the National Guard to stop his imagined election day interference, or to deal with rioters, would fall under the same rules as if he were to try to deploy the US Army for those tasks.
    - refurb 2y ago
      > It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor. But Trump provided zero details about how he might use the military. Zero. He didn't say "i don't care about Posse Comitatus Act" or "I will personally deploy them as the Commander in Chief". This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!" Assuming Trump will break the law when he nothing in his comments suggested he would AND he has legal channels with which to do it (send a formal request to a govenor), is not a reasonable nor logical thought process. I don't recall the same hysteria when Obama said he was going to deploy troops to the Mexico border for law enforcement because of cartel violence. https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying_national_guard_to_u_s_mexico_border https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying... He even said he will "continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border." Whatever is necessary?!? Doesn't he know it's illegal for the President to deploy US troops inside the US? Amazing how the media gives him a pass and is happy to explain how he'll do it all legally, but Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  The parent asked a question and I answered as neutrally as possible. I welcome suggestions on how I could have been even more colorlessly neutral, but I suspect that phrases like "radical left lunatics" would be counterproductive to that neutrality even in quotation.
- watwut 2y ago
  Illegal and he can stuff "radical left lunatics" rhetorics cause it just makes it more plain he is about to abuse power.
- Erem 2y ago
  According to Trumps longest serving chief of staff, John Kelly, he regularly needed to be talked down from using the military on citizens: > Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump was repeatedly told dating back to his first year in office why he should not use the U.S. military against Americans and the limits on his authority to do so. Mr. Trump nevertheless continued while in office to push the issue and claim that he did have the authority to take such actions, Mr. Kelly said. From his Oct 2024 interview with NYT: https://web.archive.org/web/20250213113815/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html https://web.archive.org/web/20250213113815/https://www.nytim...
- scotty79 2y ago
  > 1 was to stop the rioting around George Floyd where there was significant damange to public and private property, again the national guard was suggested That's deploying military inside US against its citizens. You just argue it might be a good idea.
- kelnos 2y ago
  So then 0 and 1 would indeed satisfy "using the US military against US citizens". (When the National Guard is under the command of the federal government, rather than state governor, they are, obligation- and restriction-wise, the same as the US military.)
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Damage to public / private property is normal in a riot, that's where riot police comes in - who are, on paper, experts in nonviolent / nonlethal crowd control and de-escalation. Deploying the National Guard would have been an unnecessary escalation. I do wish either riot police or the National Guard was deployed on Jan 6th though. But neither Trump nor anyone in the chain of command with that authority did, which only emphasizes how it was orchestrated and intentional.
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  I found it helpful to have that one line summary without following the link. Upvoted because it provide more context, not because I agree these are good reason.
- harimau777 2y ago
  I don't see how that changes anything. Especially since in practice "rioting" tends to mean "a protest that the police or those in power don't like". All of those situations still have the problems associated with deploying the military against civilians: The military isn't trained to carry out appropriate law enforcement. It compromises trust in and support for the military. It tends to be used disproportionately against the left rather than the right. It is easily abused to suppress dissent. Etc.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      > Rioting is rioting and not protesting. This doesn't seem to hold well in practice. > The moment protestors cross over to vandalism and violence, they're rioters and not mere protesters. And this seem to be usually applied collectively (in obvious opposition to basic human rights) in practice. Often in cases where the violence wasn't done by the protesters and even in cases where the violence was against the protesters. Also, police has a really shitty history of capturing and holding into account the actual violent people. They usually go free for turning the next protest violent too. And both happen again and again, all over the world.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        > Often in cases where the violence wasn't done by the protesters and even in cases where the violence was against the protesters. Also very possible that the state actors are the ones beginning the violence which is well documented to have happened during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
    - tfigueroa 2y ago
      The point still stands that the choice of response should be appropriate, and there are several choices between inaction and deployment of the military.
- hansihe 2y ago
  It's worth noting that when Trump says "radical left lunatics" he means mainstream democrats like Kamala Harris. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/25/trump-blasts-harris-as-radical-in-first-rally-since-bidens-exit https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/25/trump-blasts-harris...
  - prododev 2y ago
    Who, it should be noted, is not a leftist. Let alone a radical leftist.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > radical left lunatics Coming from a government who qualifies everybody they don't like as “radical left” it's not reassuring at all…
  - tomrod 2y ago
    For decades, a certain set of neoreactionaries have called me a radical leftist. Usually because I would note their ideas miss all kinds of unintended consequences. Hilariously, I was early in the tea party stuff until it was clearly coopted by the Ted Cruz types. I've consistently been a centrist libertarian for decades. If a person feels I am a radical leftist, I am confident they are working from a skewed worldview. We have had a social contract since the 1930s to take care of each other through taxes. Like it or hate it, to change this requires the legislature. Current gutting is based on executive action, lawlessly, capturing rents, quashing regulatory enforcement for a certain Mr. Musk and buddies, and otherwise capturing the function of the state and government, to the benefit of cronies. This is antithetical to liberty and freedom.
- saghm 2y ago
  > 0 was talking about stopping Election Day interference from "radical left lunatics", and he suggested the national guard first Oh good, no government has ever tried to justify authoritarian policies via scapegoating their political opponents as being "radical" and requiring force to suppress. Thanks for clearing that up!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deadbabe 2y ago

[flagged]

drunkpotato 2y ago
Yes, that was evil. If your point is that both Obama and Trump are criminals who deserve imprisonment rather than full throated defense and endorsement, I am in complete agreement.
watwut 2y ago
And Clinton had emails server which makes her same as DOGE secrets wise. Or something.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I for one am in favor of arresting and trying US leaders committing (war) crimes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gadders 2y ago

[flagged]

wat10000 2y ago
Gotta love the current climate. Any time Trump says something terrible, you're guaranteed to find his supporters simultaneously arguing that he never said it and that it's a good thing that he said it.
- breckenedge 2y ago
  Heh we had simultaneous protests by Trump supporters in 2020 to both “Stop the count!” and “Count the votes!” to either stop or continue counting mail-in ballots in different states. Among his ardent supporters, there is no truth except force.
cjfd 2y ago
[flagged]
- RandomTisk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ipython 2y ago
    https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ - doesn't look like "walking through" the building to me. Source: I chaperoned a school group through the Capitol back in 2017 or so, and our tour did not look like this. not to mention the brazen attempts to pressure states, specifically Georgia, to "find" enough votes to change the election outcome: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffens... https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/02/15/read-full-transcript-donald-trumps-call-brad-raffensperger/ https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/02/15/read-full-transc...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 2y ago

The flagged subthread doing some whataboutery with drone strikes actually has a point that is relevant here; the War on Terror provided an erosion of rule of law, both in terms of normalized militarisation of society and in keeping places like Guantanamo Bay (US territory where US law basically doesn't apply) open. The threatened immigration sweeps and the talk of removing birthright citizenship tie into this. If the troops are reluctant to be deployed against US citizens, simply make the people you want to deploy them against not US citizens any more.

throwway120385 2y ago
Yeah this is my fear -- when we remove birthright citizenship, then suddenly you have to prove that your bloodline back to the Nth degree were citizens, or you have to prove yourself by some other way. So if someone or some group disagrees with what he is doing, he can simply add a requirement for citizenship that they can't meet and then they're not citizens. The whole point of birthright citizenship is to create a clear, unambiguous means of testing if someone is a citizen so that people cannot be disenfranchised easily even by a hostile executive. If you can produce a birth certificate, you are a citizen end of discussion. As someone who disagrees with what is happening, my biggest fear is that myself, my son, or my family could be declared "not a citizen" and forcibly removed to some other country where we are also not citizens under a new system. This is not a good thing for the US.
- leptons 2y ago
  HR22, the "SAVE act" is removing the birth certificate from viable documents for millions of people who have changed their names. If the person who changed their name does not get an updated birth certificate (most don't, like women after they marry and take their husbands last name), then they can no longer vote. This is many millions of regular naturally born citizens in the US. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr22/BILLS-119hr22ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr22/BILLS-119hr22ih.pdf

ipython 2y ago

He came damn close in his first term. I remember watching the Twitter video on June 1, 2020 - see the video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-helicopters-hover-low-over-protesters-in-washington-84223557542 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-helicopters-hover-low-ov... to see how low the helicopters were flying and the rotor wash was clearly intended to intimidate the protesters. https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/let-the-generals-speak-retired-officer-dissent-and-the-june-2020-george-floyd-protests/ https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/let-the-generals-speak-ret... > In May 2020, protests emerged in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, as well as other incidents of police brutality against African Americans. In these protests there was in some cases significant property destruction and looting. In response, more than 20 states and the District of Columbia activated the National Guard to assist in stabilizing the situation. > By June 1 Trump was reportedly ready to send 10,000 regular military troops to the streets — forces usually used in external conflict. He threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed him to deploy the troops without the governors’ permission. Active-duty troops were brought to the Washington, D.C., area, including some from the immediate response force brigade of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. For a few days it looked like Trump might send in the troops, precipitating the retired officer commentary detailed below. Ultimately the president did not invoke the Insurrection Act and the troops were sent home. It wasn't just Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes... https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/helicopters-over-dc-protesters-broke-regulations-while-commander-was-driving-home-dc-guard-concludes/169704/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/helicopters-over-d... https://media.defense.gov/2021/May/27/2002730396/-1/-1/1/DODIG%20REPORT%20NO.%202021-089.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2021/May/27/2002730396/-1/-1/1/DOD... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soldiers-disciplined-helicopters-hovering-blm-protesters-dc/story?id=77066526 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soldiers-disciplined-helicop... https://web.archive.org/web/20230607212142/https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-use-medical-helicopter-target-protesters https://web.archive.org/web/20230607212142/https://casebook.... https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-06-02/military-begins-staging-around-washington-to-quell-george-floyd-protests https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-06-0...