5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act Though I guess the loop hole here is that the National Guar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act Though I guess the loop hole here is that the National Guard would in this case be acting under "state authority" given that typically state-like actions for DC are deferred to Congress. The open question being whether the Executive branch could act independently, or whether they still need explicit authorization from Congress.

burkaman 1y ago
[flagged]
- croes 1y ago
  That protects Trump, not his henchmen. And soldiers are expected to refuse orders that are manifestly illegal
  - burkaman 1y ago
    True. Has an American soldier ever been prosecuted for obeying an illegal order?
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      I'm not sure what exactly the orders were, but Calley, one of the My Lai massacre war criminals was in fact convicted. But many others who should have been convicted were not. Calley claimed he was following orders from Medina (his SO) but Medina denied giving them.
      - sitkack 1y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley only served 5 months behind bars, the other 35 were under house arrest. https://time.com/archive/6878225/the-military-galley-paroled/ https://time.com/archive/6878225/the-military-galley-paroled...
        jacquesm 1y ago
        For the cold blooded murder of many civilians. Insanity, and one of those moments that humanity will judge its past by.
  - monkey_monkey 1y ago
    His henchmen are implicitly protected because he'll pardon them.
    - readthenotes1 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - SirFatty 1y ago
        Don't forget about Bengasi and the emails!
      - croes 1y ago
        Trump topped that easily by pardoning the January 6th rioters even those attacked police officers. Similar examples for the same by Biden?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    Trump has pardoned several people who attempted to breach the capital and murder elected representatives to stop the ratification of a democratic presidential election. All he needs is a single paper that says "All members of the military following the orders of President Trump are pardoned for all crimes past and future related to said orders" and - boom - accountability gone!
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      For now. But there is no reason why a future government of the USA would not see that in an entirely different light. After all, those that went to trial after WWII also argued that their actions were legal and it turned out not to be the case.
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
        There is no legal mechanism for unpardoning someone, the constitution only allows it to go one way. It would require an amendment, and we can't even pass laws with this legislature. And for good reason, mind you. Same reason as dismissal without prejudice gets some flak as easily abused for corrupt leverage.
        jacquesm 1y ago
        A future government is not necessarily bound to the one the preceded it depending on the way the one government changed into the other. And the way things are going right now there is a non-zero chance that the USA will see a reboot of its system of government, if it doesn't actually fall apart into multiple different countries.
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    This protects Trump, and Trump protects his henchmen. Look at the J6 pardons.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  This ruling has been widely misinterpreted. It does not mean that the president can make an unlawful declaration and that the National Guard, for example, must follow it even though the declaration is inconsistent with the law. That said, it’s not immediately clear to me that this would be illegal. The National Guard and the District of Columbia is a unique edge case because D.C. is not a state. To be clear I don’t like this move nor where it is going. I’m not endorsing it, only trying to understand the legal basis.
  - burkaman 1y ago
    You're right, but if someone down the chain of command refuses to obey a declaration they consider illegal, the president can (and will) just repeatedly fire people until someone does what he wants.
    - justin66 1y ago
      We're talking about the military. In the worst case he can do a lot more than fire people for their disobedience. He's already indicated publicly that he believes General Mark Milley ought to be hung, although to date his efforts to end the general have not gone further than removing his security detail. (the general is believed to be an assassination target of Iran...) And to go back to the original comment, the president cannot be prosecuted for doing any of this since it's part of his "official duties." I'd expect this Supreme Court to walk back the specifics of this ruling the moment a Democratic president starts pushing the limits, however.
  - jameskilton 1y ago
    No, I think we all have a pretty clear interpretation of that ruling. If no-one is going to uphold the legality, or lack there of, then there is no rule of law. SCOTUS is not going to hold POTUS accountable. Therefore, Trump is above the law.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - quickthrowman 1y ago
- api 1y ago
  Even if Trump isn’t the one, this means we are ready for our Caesar and fall of the Republic. Of course I think we’ve been sliding toward our decadent imperial phase for quite some time. This did not materialize out of nowhere. The Executive long ago took the power to declare war from Congress, at least in practice, and that was one of the first huge steps. Personally I think Trump will die, there will be a power struggle, and it will be one of the next few. There’s even some chance it could be a left-populist authoritarian. Political winds can shift fast in an environment like this. Speed running the fall of Rome.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Rome, for all its might was puny in comparison to the United States. The downfall and/or breakup of the USA will leave the world in pieces. If it happens - which I really hope it will not, though I don't see how at this point it is still unavoidable - millions of people will die the world over. Every two bit dictator will see their chance and grab it knowing the next opportunity to do so will be at least a century away. The number of democracies and the number of people living in an (actual) democracy is already a minority. Democracy may well soon become an endangered species in the zoo of possible governments.
    - api 1y ago
      China will probably rise up in our place, which is why I think MAGA just handed the world to China. In that first state of the union when he talked about a golden age I was like “yeah, this is the Chinese century. He’s gonna burn it down.” Literally gilding the White House is a caricature of how you’d depict the fall of an empire in bad fiction. An editor would say that was cliche.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        There is a pretty good chance of that, I don't see any other contenders. Australia and NZ better watch their back.
      - Bender 1y ago
        China is going through its own issues at the moment. Larger numbers of people are rising up against the CCP and recent events are becoming more and more frequent. Their government is predictably cracking down harder on its citizens. But you could be right, just not with the CCP but rather whatever government takes its place soon. The riots have not yet reached their precipice but it's getting nasty.
baggy_trough 1y ago
"One set of troops, the District of Columbia National Guard, has historically operated as the equivalent of a state militia (under Title 32 of the United States Code) not subject to Posse Comitatus Act restrictions, even though it is a federal entity under the command of the President and the Secretary of the Army."
normalaccess 1y ago
From the Wiki Page: "The Act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard (under the Department of Homeland Security) is not covered by the Act either, primarily because although it is an armed service, it also has a maritime law enforcement mission." It's confusing because DC does not have a governor so it looks like an edge case that has not been tested before.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  the DC national guard is under the direct command of the president. The law may use the words "state" and "governor" but I'd take the other side of any bet that says that will be interpreted to mean that the president doesn't have the authority to deploy the DC guard in DC because of the posse comitatus act.
pcaharrier 1y ago
Suffice to say that before this morning I had only a vague idea about how legally complicated this could get. For instance, there's an opinion from the Department of Justice (albeit an old one) that concluded that the President can use the DC National Guard for law enforcement purposes (in that case, drug interdiction) without running afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act. Source: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/use-national-guard-support-drug-interdiction-efforts-district-columbia https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/use-national-guard-suppo...

burkaman 1y ago

[flagged]

croes 1y ago
That protects Trump, not his henchmen. And soldiers are expected to refuse orders that are manifestly illegal
- burkaman 1y ago
  True. Has an American soldier ever been prosecuted for obeying an illegal order?
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    I'm not sure what exactly the orders were, but Calley, one of the My Lai massacre war criminals was in fact convicted. But many others who should have been convicted were not. Calley claimed he was following orders from Medina (his SO) but Medina denied giving them.
    - sitkack 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley only served 5 months behind bars, the other 35 were under house arrest. https://time.com/archive/6878225/the-military-galley-paroled/ https://time.com/archive/6878225/the-military-galley-paroled...
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        For the cold blooded murder of many civilians. Insanity, and one of those moments that humanity will judge its past by.
- monkey_monkey 1y ago
  His henchmen are implicitly protected because he'll pardon them.
  - readthenotes1 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - SirFatty 1y ago
      Don't forget about Bengasi and the emails!
    - croes 1y ago
      Trump topped that easily by pardoning the January 6th rioters even those attacked police officers. Similar examples for the same by Biden?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Trump has pardoned several people who attempted to breach the capital and murder elected representatives to stop the ratification of a democratic presidential election. All he needs is a single paper that says "All members of the military following the orders of President Trump are pardoned for all crimes past and future related to said orders" and - boom - accountability gone!
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    For now. But there is no reason why a future government of the USA would not see that in an entirely different light. After all, those that went to trial after WWII also argued that their actions were legal and it turned out not to be the case.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      There is no legal mechanism for unpardoning someone, the constitution only allows it to go one way. It would require an amendment, and we can't even pass laws with this legislature. And for good reason, mind you. Same reason as dismissal without prejudice gets some flak as easily abused for corrupt leverage.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        A future government is not necessarily bound to the one the preceded it depending on the way the one government changed into the other. And the way things are going right now there is a non-zero chance that the USA will see a reboot of its system of government, if it doesn't actually fall apart into multiple different countries.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  This protects Trump, and Trump protects his henchmen. Look at the J6 pardons.
Aurornis 1y ago
This ruling has been widely misinterpreted. It does not mean that the president can make an unlawful declaration and that the National Guard, for example, must follow it even though the declaration is inconsistent with the law. That said, it’s not immediately clear to me that this would be illegal. The National Guard and the District of Columbia is a unique edge case because D.C. is not a state. To be clear I don’t like this move nor where it is going. I’m not endorsing it, only trying to understand the legal basis.
- burkaman 1y ago
  You're right, but if someone down the chain of command refuses to obey a declaration they consider illegal, the president can (and will) just repeatedly fire people until someone does what he wants.
  - justin66 1y ago
    We're talking about the military. In the worst case he can do a lot more than fire people for their disobedience. He's already indicated publicly that he believes General Mark Milley ought to be hung, although to date his efforts to end the general have not gone further than removing his security detail. (the general is believed to be an assassination target of Iran...) And to go back to the original comment, the president cannot be prosecuted for doing any of this since it's part of his "official duties." I'd expect this Supreme Court to walk back the specifics of this ruling the moment a Democratic president starts pushing the limits, however.
- jameskilton 1y ago
  No, I think we all have a pretty clear interpretation of that ruling. If no-one is going to uphold the legality, or lack there of, then there is no rule of law. SCOTUS is not going to hold POTUS accountable. Therefore, Trump is above the law.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrowman 1y ago
api 1y ago
Even if Trump isn’t the one, this means we are ready for our Caesar and fall of the Republic. Of course I think we’ve been sliding toward our decadent imperial phase for quite some time. This did not materialize out of nowhere. The Executive long ago took the power to declare war from Congress, at least in practice, and that was one of the first huge steps. Personally I think Trump will die, there will be a power struggle, and it will be one of the next few. There’s even some chance it could be a left-populist authoritarian. Political winds can shift fast in an environment like this. Speed running the fall of Rome.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Rome, for all its might was puny in comparison to the United States. The downfall and/or breakup of the USA will leave the world in pieces. If it happens - which I really hope it will not, though I don't see how at this point it is still unavoidable - millions of people will die the world over. Every two bit dictator will see their chance and grab it knowing the next opportunity to do so will be at least a century away. The number of democracies and the number of people living in an (actual) democracy is already a minority. Democracy may well soon become an endangered species in the zoo of possible governments.
  - api 1y ago
    China will probably rise up in our place, which is why I think MAGA just handed the world to China. In that first state of the union when he talked about a golden age I was like “yeah, this is the Chinese century. He’s gonna burn it down.” Literally gilding the White House is a caricature of how you’d depict the fall of an empire in bad fiction. An editor would say that was cliche.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      There is a pretty good chance of that, I don't see any other contenders. Australia and NZ better watch their back.
    - Bender 1y ago
      China is going through its own issues at the moment. Larger numbers of people are rising up against the CCP and recent events are becoming more and more frequent. Their government is predictably cracking down harder on its citizens. But you could be right, just not with the CCP but rather whatever government takes its place soon. The riots have not yet reached their precipice but it's getting nasty.

baggy_trough 1y ago

"One set of troops, the District of Columbia National Guard, has historically operated as the equivalent of a state militia (under Title 32 of the United States Code) not subject to Posse Comitatus Act restrictions, even though it is a federal entity under the command of the President and the Secretary of the Army."

normalaccess 1y ago

From the Wiki Page: "The Act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard (under the Department of Homeland Security) is not covered by the Act either, primarily because although it is an armed service, it also has a maritime law enforcement mission." It's confusing because DC does not have a governor so it looks like an edge case that has not been tested before.

ratelimitsteve 1y ago
the DC national guard is under the direct command of the president. The law may use the words "state" and "governor" but I'd take the other side of any bet that says that will be interpreted to mean that the president doesn't have the authority to deploy the DC guard in DC because of the posse comitatus act.

pcaharrier 1y ago

Suffice to say that before this morning I had only a vague idea about how legally complicated this could get. For instance, there's an opinion from the Department of Justice (albeit an old one) that concluded that the President can use the DC National Guard for law enforcement purposes (in that case, drug interdiction) without running afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act. Source: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/use-national-guard-support-drug-interdiction-efforts-district-columbia https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/use-national-guard-suppo...