5 ms·
Pentagon orders states' national guards to form 'quick reaction forces'
- alistairSH 1y agoThis worked out so well at Kent State. /s
- ourguile 1y agoI know you're being sarcastic, but I believe there's a legitimate argument in demonstrating that the administration is contributing to circumstances that would lead to this exact response. I can envision these exact same sentiments coming from the national guard, ICE, CBP, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Guardsmen's_reasons_for_opening_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Guardsmen...
- alistairSH 1y agoI think we agree? Putting the military into a peace-time law enforcement role is asking for trouble, as we've seen in the past. There's a reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists. Allowing the administration to declare "Insurrection!" (and effectively bypass Posse Comitatus) whenever it wants is awful precedent.
- ourguile 1y agoYes, I definitely agree with you! I also think it's asking for trouble (between ICE, CBP and/or National Guard) especially considering how reckless these other agencies have been (I'm thinking of a recent raid where agents were rappelling from helicopters) and the administration now reassigning ICE leadership to intensify ongoing campaigns.
- estearum 1y agoIs it just me or is 100% of the civil unrest today triggered by the US federal government itself?
- hammock 1y agoYou make a great point and if you really think about it, it’s probably true no matter your political leanings. The federal government may be too powerful, as an institution.
- CamperBob2 1y agoThe federal government may be too powerful, as an institution. In a smoke-filled room somewhere, a radio crackles to life. "We've got one who can see!"
- stronglikedan 1y ago[flagged]
- deepfriedchokes 1y agoThat seems to be intentional, no? It’s a pretty common tactic among authoritarians, and abusers in general, to provoke violence and then claim the resulting self defense as an unwarranted attack.
- foxyv 1y agoAlso known as the "Stop hitting yourself!" tactic.
- lefrenchy 1y agoVery cool and normal to have military forces operating internally to scare citizens and immigrants!
- stronglikedan 1y ago[flagged]
- lefrenchy 1y agoAh yes, let's put an occupying force into New York a city that globally is known for not having law and order and being a complete mess. It's not like giant cities with millions of residents will always have crime and homelessness and issues. We should send the entire military in!
- alistairSH 1y agoShow me where the cities where Trump has deployed the NG have fallen into anarchy and I'll agree. But they haven't, so I won't. Hint: Crime is higher in some of cities of the Deep South, where voters trend red, but we haven't sent in the NG. It's all about pwning the libs, not quelling make-believe insurrections.
- ThePowerOfFuet 1y agoI bet you're fun at parties.
- JohnFen 1y agoThere is no breakdown of law and order that requires anything like this sort of federal response.
- Refreeze5224 1y agoOnce again, I'd like to see how supporters of the current administration, and states rights advocates generally, square this type of behavior. I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero, especially compared to, say, the Vietnam anti-war movement, or even the BLM protests in 2020. There is no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, and the only logical reason for this sort of action is to consolidate federal control over the military, and prepare them to suppress dissent against Trump, especially around election season.
- hammock 1y ago> I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero “The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
- Refreeze5224 1y agoI mean that there are no "riots" or other unrest that would require the government to send in the National Guard, and that claiming otherwise is a pretext.
- tartuffe78 1y agoPortland is burned to the ground friend, I heard it on Fox News the other day...
- hammock 1y agoThe comment was posed as “theoretical” which I took to mean they were looking at possible future developments, not the current state of affairs. Would you say for instance that the national guard cannot be justified in response to any riot, no matter how bad?
- 1y ago
- LarryDarrell 1y ago"This isn't technology related." says the HN poster as he's lined up against a wall.
- clanky 1y agoSeriously the moderation and flagging policy on this site has reached truly disgusting levels. "Just let me build the dystopia for Silicon Valley freak billionaires and collect my pathetic $180K pittance in peace!"
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- timdaub 1y agoHey clanky! I'm building a social media product myself and I saw your comment here. So I wanted to reach out and ask if you'd be up to talk about how moderation could be improved online. My contact data is in my bio!