[flagged]
All of those situations still have the problems associated with deploying the military against civilians: The military isn't trained to carry out appropriate law enforcement. It compromises trust in and support for the military. It tends to be used disproportionately against the left rather than the right. It is easily abused to suppress dissent. Etc.
On the other hand, nor are the police.
(When the National Guard is under the command of the federal government, rather than state governor, they are, obligation- and restriction-wise, the same as the US military.)
Oh good, no government has ever tried to justify authoritarian policies via scapegoating their political opponents as being "radical" and requiring force to suppress. Thanks for clearing that up!
> Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump was repeatedly told dating back to his first year in office why he should not use the U.S. military against Americans and the limits on his authority to do so. Mr. Trump nevertheless continued while in office to push the issue and claim that he did have the authority to take such actions, Mr. Kelly said.
From his Oct 2024 interview with NYT: https://web.archive.org/web/20250213113815/https://www.nytim...
Upvoted because it provide more context, not because I agree these are good reason.
Putting active duty military members on Title 10 orders, such those of the 82nd Airborne Division which reporting indicates Trump also wanted to use in 2020, would also be an obvious violation of Posse Comitatus if those troops were used to arrest, surveil, or otherwise control protestors. Active duty troops may perform in a supporting function for domestic law enforcement, such as by providing engineering, logistics, or communications to law enforcement, which is what US troops do when they're on the border (or when they are supporting counter-smuggling operations).
But if an army actually crosses the Rubicon? Turns out that law doesn't count for much when the other guy has an army, and all the senators have to flee the country.
Then the guy with the army is in charge. He can retrospectively legalise his actions, grant himself a pardon, and fill recently-vacated positions of power with allies who'll sign it all off.
So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.
Caesar's civil war was illegal under the laws of the Roman Republic. Caesar successfully took power, so there was no one to enforce those laws, but he did break them, and ultimately, the Republic. As far as I know Caesar never even bothered legitimizing his war or self-pardoning - he didn't need to, he won and the Senate made him dictator for life.
> So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.
This is very important: only if they win will their illegal actions go without punishment, and winning is not guaranteed.
There is a reason we generally prefer the rule of law to the rule of power.
Article II and Congress have invested absolutely vast powers in the Presidency. The main check on their exercise is not Congress, or the Judiciary, or even the Deep State, but rather just traditions. Unfortunately, both parties have been attenuating those traditions for many administrations.
I don't think we're going to see the US government morph, Roman style, into a new form of government that's only nominally a republic. I think it's already happened quite some time ago. And just like in ancient Rome, most people have no idea it happened, because it will continue to use the same legal structure, just applied in new and interesting ways.
What we're seeing now is the struggle between two factions of the elites over who controls this new system.
True.
> National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG.
False. Posse Comitatus (18 USC Sec. 1385) does not prohibit the military (including the National Guard when called into federal service) from being used for domestic law enforcement, it prohibits that from being directed by those without specific authority in the Constituton or act of Congress to do so. The Insurrection Act provides authority to the President to do so, either at the request of state governments (10 USC Sec. 251) or on his own unilateral determination of necessity (10 USC Sec. 252, 253).
This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.
Yes, I'm saying that given the right circumstances what is legal on paper does not matter in the real world.
> This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.
I have never served but I have read history books. This isn't a pure hypothetical: these things have happened before, there are examples going back as far as you would like. My sibling comment even expanded on one of these.
> I'm sorry
If you're sorry then I think it would have been possible to edit your comment not to have the tone of personal insult.
Care to explain how having weapons or emotions is insulting? Everyone serving in the military is a human and humans have emotions. There's no shame in that and I think it requires quite a mean spirited mis-reading of what I said to take that from it.
> the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations
I think we're in agreement, you just have a different idea of what it means to be emotional. The desire to maintain a cool head in the face of horror is based in emotion. The effect of keeping a cool head might be exactly the reason why the technicalities of legality break down.
All that said we also have to remember that not everyone serving is a "great military leader" and that's also part of the point at hand.
> it comes down to people who are armed and emotional.
This implies that real people are making emotional decisions instead of guided by reason.
> technical terms like this of what is and isn't permitted
These technical terms that you are discounting are some of the real weapons that human beings use to give them options beyond simply following orders that they disagree with.
This is an incredibly nuanced topic, and to reduce it to people making "armed and emotional" decisions shows a lack of appreciation for what people try to do in difficult situations.
I would point out the humour in an emotional reaction to my choice of words derailing the conversation but the realisation that there are people who believe their "great military leaders" are somehow "above" emotions and that this is a good thing is genuinely terrifying
People including myself have emotional reactions, but I choose to respond with a reasoned explanation, and I certainly wouldn't engage in violence with you over it, even if a portion of my lizard brain demanded that I should.
You've added the words "primary driver" here yourself, I never made such a claim. But I hope you can see that not only that leap but also your desire to overcome your "animalistic" emotions are both rooted in emotion.
I won't waste my time looking for evidence for a claim I didn't make and I don't think it's up for debate that the majority of people in the armed forces are "armed and emotional." But in terms of the original claim that checks and balances only serve up to the point of human failure I could point to any number of examples and would repeat the fact that others have raised some in this thread.
But you did claim that, or at least imply it, so here we are.
I do wish either riot police or the National Guard was deployed on Jan 6th though. But neither Trump nor anyone in the chain of command with that authority did, which only emphasizes how it was orchestrated and intentional.
Coming from a government who qualifies everybody they don't like as “radical left” it's not reassuring at all…
Hilariously, I was early in the tea party stuff until it was clearly coopted by the Ted Cruz types.
I've consistently been a centrist libertarian for decades. If a person feels I am a radical leftist, I am confident they are working from a skewed worldview.
We have had a social contract since the 1930s to take care of each other through taxes. Like it or hate it, to change this requires the legislature. Current gutting is based on executive action, lawlessly, capturing rents, quashing regulatory enforcement for a certain Mr. Musk and buddies, and otherwise capturing the function of the state and government, to the benefit of cronies. This is antithetical to liberty and freedom.
That's deploying military inside US against its citizens. You just argue it might be a good idea.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/25/trump-blasts-harris...