2020 US Election (Part Two)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Zardnaar
Deity
I thought that as well.
tuckerkao
King
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 729
The military troops have to be deployed if the protesters chose to go for the riot path instead of the peaceful demonstrations.
No they don't
Ironsided
Flower of happiness
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,267
Not sure how much I want to invest in a tangent to a Jimmy Dore tangent to this tread topic, but I will clarify a few things. My intent is not to sound morally superior, but I am invested in this thread and this discussion as I was in the discussions prior to it and all the way to the 2016 primaries. And I have held some consistency and honesty about my positions since then and if you want to call that signalling “moral superiority” that is on you. The issue here being the vapid and often completely one-dimensional reason to get behind Biden no matter how little you get in return (because him not being Trump). And the saving soul part was written as a figure of speech.
You keep harping on about a solution. If your “solution” is to look beyond the crime bill, the Iraq war, the WallSt bailouts, the constant lies painted gaffes and the complete lack of character and support Joe Biden in his current state, with the promises he has made and not-made so far, fine. I respect that, but I would be allowed to question it in a forum discussion on this topic, shouldn’t I?
I am not trying to be “morally superior” to anyone who votes Biden in the General - I was in the primaries because there were so clearly and objectively better options. Now the other option is Trump which is a game changer. If I had the choice to vote, I would still be undecided but strongly leaning third party, probably green – a very viable and honourable choice. Biden still has a chance to earn his votes but when he is dead set on vetoing single payer health-care in a pandemic and at the same time opening to increase the already overly bloated defence budget – he does not earn anything but disappointment.
Zardnaar
Deity
National guards gonna get called in though?
I assume they're allowed to operate domestically.
We are in a state of war. Remember the Global War on Terror thing? The authorization for military action for the GWOT states we will be in a war-like state (no official declaration of war was made) until either the president or Congress declares an end to the GWOT. And we all know that's never going to happen, so the US is pretty much in a permanent state of war.
Also the law you are referring to does allow for military deployment to put down a domestic insurgency without a state of war existing. The only thing the military is really forbidden from doing is taking on the day-to-day responsibilities of law enforcement. In other words, the president can't disband a particular police department and replace them with soldiers.
It's murky. The FBI would certainly be taking the lead on investigations and arrests, but if it turned into a full-blown insurgency, the military could take over if the president ordered it.
A good depiction of how this could possibly play out is the movie The Siege. In that movie the FBI starts out investigating a series of terror attacks in New York City until the president orders the military in to take over after the FBI prove unable to stop the group responsible.
Oh, how convenient. Thanks Bush and 2001 congress.
Oh, you mean like dealing with protests and riots?
I wouldn't really call that day-to-day stuff. Plus, there is precedent for the military being called in for stuff like that and it being generally viewed as legal. Things like the 101st Airborne being deployed to Little Rock, Arkansas to escort black students into newly integrated schools.
Indeed.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I think I perhaps remember it better than you do, because it establishes no such precedent. The appropriate "peace keeping" force is not the United States military, it is the state national guard under the direction of the governor. In the situation referenced the governor had ordered out the national guard and directed them to defy federal law by preventing the black students from entering the newly integrated school.
YES, if the governor of a state effectively sets his state against the constitution of the United States precedent says that the military is responsible to intervene against what amounts to a revisiting of the war of secession and if had been necessary the 101st Airborne had constitutional authority to fire upon the Arkansas National Guard. NO, there is no precedent for deploying the military against civilian US citizens. YES, as a veteran of US military service I would have expected you to know that without even a moment of indecision.
For D'ump to deploy the US military as 'riot police' or to break up protests, as he has already done, is strictly unconstitutional and every step of the chain of command that followed that order should be facing a court martial.
Actually, there is. The New York Draft Riots in 1863. It was federal troops as well as New York National Guard that were deployed to suppress the riots once the police had been overrun.
Not really. The Insurrection Act of 1807 (which is still in effect) gives the president the power to deploy the military against civilians who are determined to be in a state of rebellion or insurrection to such a degree that the president believes it would be impractical for civilian authorities to handle it. Now it can certainly be argued that the protests were not beyond the ability if civilian law enforcement to handle, but that's something that would have to be hashed out in court.
Also, I think the officers that went along with the order would largely be shielded from punishment. The order was given by Trump and it wasn't immediately clear that it was an unlawful order. So if a court later determined the order was unlawful, Trump really should be the only one that faces consequences from it.
Which, by the way, if the House were smart they would pursue this issue for impeachment. Improper invoking of the Insurrection Act would be a much stronger case than all that Russia stuff.
EDIT: And since you felt the need to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll point out that your clear lack of knowledge of history and the laws of this country is what leads you to believe I don't know what I'm talking about. To that I'll just say that just because you don't have the knowledge to understand what I'm talking about doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Last edited:
Too late for that with the election this close. All it would do is distract from all the other more pressing issues that are making Trump look bad. And in a scenario where Trump wins re-election, there is no way the Democrats have enough political capital to pursue Impeachment again, particularly not for something Trump did, before being re-elected, which was known by the electorate when they voted him in a second time. The Democrats need to focus all their efforts on removing Trump squarely on the election.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,054
But George W. Bush was a war criminal, both internationally AND domestically for his conduct of the "Global Terror on Terrorism," and his (un)Patriot Act was THE biggest violation of the U.S. Constitution itself in one legislative package in U.S. history. He and his Administration belong serving a life sentence in a war crimes prison like Slobodan Milosovic and Charles Taylor were in, or being hung for high treason, NOT enjoying a cushy retirement making amateur paintings or doing consulting or whatever the rest are doing now, and so does any other U.S. President or other Federal Executive official or Legislative leader whose decisions rest on his seditious and high criminal precedents.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Guess what...when you cite one example and get it busted over your head taking an "oh yeah, well look at this one" mulligan isn't terribly impressive.
You know you could just admit that you don't have a rebuttal to my post...
EDIT: And that you were wrong as well...
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,490
It is, technically, limited to the perpetrators of 9/11. I'm not saying Trump wouldn't call BLM protesters the perpetrators of 9/11 in order to use it against them, but it does, technically, have some limitations.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,054
And it quickly blossomed into a mass affair of war crimes, state crimes, crimes against humanity, overt violations of the U.S. Constitution and acts of high treason by the Bush Administration. It is not something that anyone with any conscience or humanity should quote as a justification, especially for the purposes of legality. The again, I sometimes have concerns about @Commodore's conscience and humanity by some of the things he posts - but that's between him, his psychiatrist, and God - assuming he never crosses a red line...
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Ummm...I'm not the one who totally whiffed on the deployment of the 101st Airborne as establishing precedent, so I think if there's any "admitting to being wrong" to be done here everyone who is keeping up with the thread knows exactly who it is, including you.
You should stop digging as you have already found the hole you are gonna wind up in here. If you dig much further you are gonna wind up at Nuremberg.
The bottom line is that US military troops are not to be deployed against civilians in the US. That's a constitutional limitation and as much as some members of the US military would enjoy being used as a force of fascism to "bring the country to heel" their oath to defend the constitution should prevent it. A company given an unlawful order is going to include two sorts...the ones who abandon that oath and "just follow orders" and the ones who keep their word. I know which one I would be. Which one are you?
No it's not. The Constitution itself has no language to that effect. There is, however, the Insurrection Act which specifically says the president can deploy the military domestically to put down a rebellion or insurrection as long as he can show that such a rebellion is beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to deal with. Now I already stated that Trump's case for invoking said act is dubious at best. However, to say that the military cannot be used domestically against US citizens is factually incorrect.
You were wrong. You were also wrong in your claim that there is no actual precedent for the military being legally deployed to suppress riots. Unless you are going to argue the deployment of federal troops in the New York Draft Riots were an illegal action taken by the government.
It's okay to admit that before I brought them up you weren't even aware of either the New York Draft Riots or the Insurrection Act. Especially since it is apparent you weren't aware of them with your bold statements that federal troops can never be deployed against US citizens (seriously, it's in the oath man) and that there exists no precedent for such a thing in the history of the US.
- Status
