The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

1
Here's an AI summary of the long article.
The article describes the debate within the US military about the potential deployment of troops on US soil under a Trump presidency. Some military leaders are concerned about the lack of clear rules of engagement and the potential for troops to be used for political purposes. The article also highlights the historical context of the Insurrection Act and its potential implications for the military.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00195609

I remember Kent State, also remember my Dad talking to my Mom about Eisenhower ordering the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to protect the black students. I also remember reading about when President Hoover ordered Gen. Douglas MacArthur to break up the Veterans March on Washington. We are facing a similar situation today and without any restraint from TOS.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

2
Posse Comitatus Act Explained by the Brennan Center for Justice:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained
The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force.
Laws have not stopped him before, and having escaped accountability and fresh with his new absolute "emergency" powers, I believe we're going to have some excitement. That's not a good thing. Remember: JD Vance on the Sunday talk shows claimed that the US economy was a "dumpster fire" just after the host laid out how well Biden's economy is doing.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eye Jack

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

4
featureless wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:55 am Boy, we sure better get more AWBs and magazine restrictions in place quick! Wouldn't want there to be any resistance to such an occurrence. Right, Dems?
We always know that we can count on the Democrats that control the California Legislature to pass more gun control bills to "protect us". Probably more in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts.... too.

I think Trump would have a lot of problems if he tried to use the military in an immigration compacity. The Posse Comitatus Act and other laws could block him. Plus some governors could block their National Guard from being used and that would land in a federal court in a New York minute.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

5
I really must chuckle at this line of malarkey. First, the premise that the US Military will obey the shit head is weak. Secondly--now I say this with love, boys--a couple of home owners with AK's or AR's will just be target practice for a well trained military. I love you guys, but gun laws won't mean squat in that ugly instance. For my part, I will spend my energy where it might have a chance at positive influence. Peace, love, and tie-dye.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eye Jack

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

6
I really can't see US military firing on US citizens defending themselves. Any that did would probably get hung, drawn and quartered by a mob. We're not professional soldiers and don't have their bodies either. Last I read, Trump's border czar Homan was telling people to lower their expectations on the immigration roundup. .
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

7
CDFingers wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 11:25 am I really must chuckle at this line of malarkey. First, the premise that the US Military will obey the shit head is weak. Secondly--now I say this with love, boys--a couple of home owners with AK's or AR's will just be target practice for a well trained military. I love you guys, but gun laws won't mean squat in that ugly instance. For my part, I will spend my energy where it might have a chance at positive influence. Peace, love, and tie-dye.

CDF
Agree, law will be meaningless if this comes to pass.

There are, however, plenty of current and recent history examples of the US military being fought to a standstill by folks with small arms. Not sure why home soil would be an exception. But agree, would rather pursue peace and happiness.

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

11
CDFingers wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:50 am Posse Comitatus Act Explained by the Brennan Center for Justice:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained
The law generally prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force.
Laws have not stopped him before, and having escaped accountability and fresh with his new absolute "emergency" powers, I believe we're going to have some excitement. That's not a good thing. Remember: JD Vance on the Sunday talk shows claimed that the US economy was a "dumpster fire" just after the host laid out how well Biden's economy is doing.

CDF
As the article also states.
In the summer of 2020, President Trump deployed the DC National Guard into Washington to police mostly peaceful protests against law enforcement brutality and racism. Simultaneously, over the objections of DC’s mayor, the administration asked state governors to deploy their own Guard personnel into Washington in Title 32 status, and 11 governors did so. Although these out-of-state forces were nominally under their governors’ control, it was later revealed that they were reporting up through the DC Guard’s chain of command for “coordination” purposes. That meant they were ultimately taking orders from the president. In this way, the Trump administration brought a large, federally controlled military force into Washington and used it for civilian law enforcement, all while skipping over the procedures in the Insurrection Act and evading the political costs of invoking it. That is exactly what the Posse Comitatus Act is meant to prevent.

Moreover, the deployment of non-federalized, out-of-state Guard forces into a jurisdiction without its consent represents another threat to the Posse Comitatus Act. When operating in Title 32 status, Guard forces are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act because they are under state command and control. A key part of that control is the governor’s right to decline a particular federal mission. That right is meaningless if the president can simply approach a different governor and ask her to deploy her state’s Guard into the unwilling governor’s state. In this scenario, the cooperating governor becomes a fig leaf for the president to use the military as a police force anywhere in the country, free from the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act.
There are the loopholes and there are governors like Abbott that would rollover and call out the Texas National Guard to please TOS.

President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to protect the students integrating Little Rock High School under the Federal Court order Brown Vs the Board of Education Ruling. He did this because the Governor of Arkansas was threatening to use the State National Guard to prevent it.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

12
Meidas Touch weighs in, saying that fascism is tough to define and even harder to eradicate once identified. "Fascism is government by the few, for the few." Other good quotes. Moreover, Meidas discusses the Army's approach to a president giving orders that should not be followed. Horrible attitudes toward women.

[youtu_be]https://youtu.be/O3y_8UHk3uM?si=5b-wLIYhL02VZMUS[/youtu_be]

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eye Jack

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

14
It looks like Pete Hegseth will be the new Defense secretary, reports are he could be confirmed by the US Senate on Inauguration Day. There will be changes within DOD, we just have to wait and see what Hegseth does and his actions could prompt lawsuits and injunctions.

National Guard troops already assist at the US border, Abbott and other governors have sent them to Texas and Newsom has sent them to California's border with Mexico. The New York governor has sent armed National Guard MP units to patrol the New York City Subway system. NG troops are always sent to disaster zones.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

17
Pronus wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 8:44 am I served in the U.S. Army, long ago. It's my experience that the folks who serve are politically conservative, compared to many here. That does not make them MAGA. Slur words say much about the person who issues them and nothing of value otherwise.
Totally agree Pronus.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

18
I’m not trying to slur or insult anyone who served or is currently serving. Maybe I should refine that to : down here in DeSatanistan many of the veterans and NG that I have met are MAGA, or maga-adjacent. There are many who aren’t. It’s obviously a diverse organization.

My main point was that the incoming administration has openly said that if you’re not loyal, or of their ilk, you’re fired - including military personnel.

Re: The US Military Debates Possible Deployment on US Soil Under Trump

20
My Nephew recently finished his stint in the Marines as an avionics technician. Of course, like all Marines, he's a rifleman first as are all Marines. His views and perspective on whether or not US Military personnel would fire on civilians if ordered to is recent - less than 5 years ago. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Based on what I have been told, I'd expect Marines at least to follow orders.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests