5 ms·

Reminder that the authority under which the the US military is deployed against US citizens was intended to be used in exceptional (extreme) circumstances - ost

Reminder that the authority under which the the US military is deployed against US citizens was intended to be used in exceptional (extreme) circumstances - ostensibly because no other options would suffice. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. ref: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insu... This is the heaviest hammer in the toolbox. Deploying it against citizens he doesn't like because he resents their message is a historical display of bad character and is profoundly unethical in a way that the harshest adjectives struggle to reflect.

crises-luff-6b 1y ago
[flagged]
- locopati 1y ago
  Do you approve of the way ICE is going about their business? What I see is Gestapo-like behavior that deserves protest, which is being responded to with unnecessarily violent force by ICE.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > Here's the actual text[1], it's pretty clear. There's nothing in the text that suggests it is appropriate to preemptively deploy US military in response to protests, not even because the administration deems protestors to be enemies. Narratives in support of preemptively deploying the military against protesters are all crafted justifications, each built after the act has been decided on. What's left to for apologists to do is to choose whether to own the methods and intentions or mirror the administration's disingeniousness.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > There's nothing in the text that suggests it is appropriate to preemptively deploy US military in response to protests, not even because the administration deems protestors to be enemies. Would blockading federal offices not qualify under the third condition? > (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
- spacemadness 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - razster 1y ago
    [flagged]
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
That’s the usual dictator and wannabe dictator playbook. Cause a problem, declare a national emergency and from there take over. The military is an excellent tool for that.
koolba 1y ago
[flagged]
- tayo42 1y ago
  They don't want their communities raided, for multiple reasons, like being a victim of misidentification. They're proud of their heritage, and its the reason why they are being targeted.
  - Grum9 1y ago
    [dead]
  - UberFly 1y ago
    They are being targeted for breaking into another country illegally. I'll never understand anyone who thinks it's OK to welcome anyone who's first act in the US is committing a federal crime by breaking in.
    - rocqua 1y ago
      Federal crimes require federal court to establish. Besides, there are also fully legal immigrants being deported.
    - esseph 1y ago
      The US spent a lot of time assassinating democratically elected leaders is South American and Central America for decades, along with tons of psychological warfare and economic sanctions. This, along with bullish economic policies to get them to capitulate to demands of US-homed multinationals (along with plenty of their own internal problems like everywhere else), has caused a problem that has now come home to roost. It wasn't their fault, they were just born in the wrong country. If they can make it here to work and build a better life for themselves, great. Pay taxes. Get ID'd. Done.
    - matsemann 1y ago
      How do you know they're there illegally, when there's no due process? Is it all based on their ethnicity or how do you even determine who's "illegal"?
pyuser583 1y ago
I read somewhere reliable Trump is not invoking the Insurrection Act. I’d cite my source, but can’t find it. I also can’t find anything saying he is invoking it. Do you have any specific source? Edit: I’ve found several sources that make It clear the Insurrection Act had not been invoked. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics/insurrection-act-trump-miller-discussions https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics/insurrection-act-tru... - “Trump officials quietly discuss moves in LA that avoid invoking Insurrection Act, but it’s not off the table”
- brewdad 1y ago
  Then that makes this move illegal. Impeach him now.
  - RajT88 1y ago
    We tried that. Nothing has changed since then - if anything he has consolidated more power. Republicans would have to lose a lot of seats for it to happen. Or, Trump would do something beyond the pale for the GOP. Hard to imagine what would make them change their minds on it. Probably not thousands of dead protesters.
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    I have no knowledge of this area of law, but responsible press are saying he can deploy NG and Marines to defend federal property and employees without anything special.
  - cwsx 1y ago
    Third time's the charm!
plandis 1y ago
According to the military release [1]: > Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area. It seems like Trump has not invoked the insurrection act but instead it’s all under a different federal law. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor, has a write up [2] on Title 10 vs the Insurrection Act and some possible concerns. He posted this about the National guard but given the military release states they are being deployed to assist the nation guard under title 10 it still seems relevant. To quote the TL;DR of his post: > The TL;DR here is that Trump has not (yet) invoked the Insurrection Act, which means that the 2000 additional troops that will soon be brought to bear will not be allowed to engage in ordinary law enforcement activities without violating a different law—the Posse Comitatus Act. All that these troops will be able to do is provide a form of force protection and other logistical support for ICE personnel. Whether that, in turn, leads to further escalation is the bigger issue (and, indeed, may be the very purpose of their deployment). But at least as I’m writing this, we’re not there yet. [1] https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Press-Releases/Article/4210889/usnorthcom-statement-on-additional-military-personnel-in-the-los-angeles-area/ https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Press-Releases/Article/421... [2] https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-california-national https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-californ...
- rocqua 1y ago
  What can a soldier do to protect federal property or personel that is not law enforcement? Manual labor to throw up barriers seems to be the only option. Anything else requires violence, which only law enforcement can do legally I thought. Unless perhaps they intend to 'use self defense'. But intent kinda defeats self defense.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    Seems like they can do what private security would be allowed to do.

crises-luff-6b 1y ago

[flagged]

locopati 1y ago
Do you approve of the way ICE is going about their business? What I see is Gestapo-like behavior that deserves protest, which is being responded to with unnecessarily violent force by ICE.
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> Here's the actual text[1], it's pretty clear. There's nothing in the text that suggests it is appropriate to preemptively deploy US military in response to protests, not even because the administration deems protestors to be enemies. Narratives in support of preemptively deploying the military against protesters are all crafted justifications, each built after the act has been decided on. What's left to for apologists to do is to choose whether to own the methods and intentions or mirror the administration's disingeniousness.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > There's nothing in the text that suggests it is appropriate to preemptively deploy US military in response to protests, not even because the administration deems protestors to be enemies. Would blockading federal offices not qualify under the third condition? > (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
spacemadness 1y ago
[flagged]
- razster 1y ago
  [flagged]

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

That’s the usual dictator and wannabe dictator playbook. Cause a problem, declare a national emergency and from there take over. The military is an excellent tool for that.

koolba 1y ago

[flagged]

tayo42 1y ago
They don't want their communities raided, for multiple reasons, like being a victim of misidentification. They're proud of their heritage, and its the reason why they are being targeted.
- Grum9 1y ago
  [dead]
- UberFly 1y ago
  They are being targeted for breaking into another country illegally. I'll never understand anyone who thinks it's OK to welcome anyone who's first act in the US is committing a federal crime by breaking in.
  - rocqua 1y ago
    Federal crimes require federal court to establish. Besides, there are also fully legal immigrants being deported.
  - esseph 1y ago
    The US spent a lot of time assassinating democratically elected leaders is South American and Central America for decades, along with tons of psychological warfare and economic sanctions. This, along with bullish economic policies to get them to capitulate to demands of US-homed multinationals (along with plenty of their own internal problems like everywhere else), has caused a problem that has now come home to roost. It wasn't their fault, they were just born in the wrong country. If they can make it here to work and build a better life for themselves, great. Pay taxes. Get ID'd. Done.
  - matsemann 1y ago
    How do you know they're there illegally, when there's no due process? Is it all based on their ethnicity or how do you even determine who's "illegal"?

pyuser583 1y ago

I read somewhere reliable Trump is not invoking the Insurrection Act. I’d cite my source, but can’t find it. I also can’t find anything saying he is invoking it. Do you have any specific source? Edit: I’ve found several sources that make It clear the Insurrection Act had not been invoked. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics/insurrection-act-trump-miller-discussions https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics/insurrection-act-tru... - “Trump officials quietly discuss moves in LA that avoid invoking Insurrection Act, but it’s not off the table”

brewdad 1y ago
Then that makes this move illegal. Impeach him now.
- RajT88 1y ago
  We tried that. Nothing has changed since then - if anything he has consolidated more power. Republicans would have to lose a lot of seats for it to happen. Or, Trump would do something beyond the pale for the GOP. Hard to imagine what would make them change their minds on it. Probably not thousands of dead protesters.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  I have no knowledge of this area of law, but responsible press are saying he can deploy NG and Marines to defend federal property and employees without anything special.
- cwsx 1y ago
  Third time's the charm!

plandis 1y ago

According to the military release [1]: > Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area. It seems like Trump has not invoked the insurrection act but instead it’s all under a different federal law. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor, has a write up [2] on Title 10 vs the Insurrection Act and some possible concerns. He posted this about the National guard but given the military release states they are being deployed to assist the nation guard under title 10 it still seems relevant. To quote the TL;DR of his post: > The TL;DR here is that Trump has not (yet) invoked the Insurrection Act, which means that the 2000 additional troops that will soon be brought to bear will not be allowed to engage in ordinary law enforcement activities without violating a different law—the Posse Comitatus Act. All that these troops will be able to do is provide a form of force protection and other logistical support for ICE personnel. Whether that, in turn, leads to further escalation is the bigger issue (and, indeed, may be the very purpose of their deployment). But at least as I’m writing this, we’re not there yet. [1] https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Press-Releases/Article/4210889/usnorthcom-statement-on-additional-military-personnel-in-the-los-angeles-area/ https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Press-Releases/Article/421... [2] https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-california-national https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-californ...

rocqua 1y ago
What can a soldier do to protect federal property or personel that is not law enforcement? Manual labor to throw up barriers seems to be the only option. Anything else requires violence, which only law enforcement can do legally I thought. Unless perhaps they intend to 'use self defense'. But intent kinda defeats self defense.
- Spivak 1y ago
  Seems like they can do what private security would be allowed to do.