Comment by aebtebeten | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aebtebeten | Hacker News Reader

I've said elsewhere on HN that the military (here, specifically a battalion of the 11th airborne, presumably picked because they actually have cold weather gear?) could turn out to be a far more congenial occupier than ICE currently is.

Note the two verbs, adjective, and adverb: "deescalate", "protect", "legal", and "legally"; does ICE operate as professionally?

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN35675-ATP_3-...

> U.S forces responding to planned rallies and demonstrations, spontaneous crowds, and civil disturbances must follow the procedures best designed to deescalate crowd actions and to protect life, the rights and safety of the persons involved, and property.

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/Army-Blue-Book/in...

> All Soldiers are required to obey the legal orders of their lawful seniors.

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN34403-ADP_6-...

> Commanders are legally and ethically accountable for the decisions they make or do not make, and for the actions, accomplishments, and failures of their subordinates.

EDIT: elsewhere I'd asked if the Soldier's Manual still (post 2002) includes the duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders. I now guess that it does, as this duty is explicitly described on p.22 of FM-1 "THE ARMY: A PRIMER TO OUR PROFESSION OF ARMS" (01 May 2025).

AFAIK countries that turn totalitarian often end up having alternative force directly under the regime control because the military is very strict in following rules and often non-partisan due to its composition and claim of high moral ground.

To enforce an ideology you need people whom identity is based around the ideology, they need to be losers, goons who don't have anything else for them going on.

Therefore the proper military can indeed be an attempt to de-escalate the situation.

Could be but this administration is just trying out its new Dictator Shoes for the first time, so I wouldn't bet on it.

> Therefore the proper military can indeed be an attempt to de-escalate the situation.

Considering that our military swore an oath to the constitution and to defend the country against domestic threats the correct thing for them to do might instead be an escalation against that alternative force of losers operating in American cities. I wouldn't bet on the military occupiers marching into Minnesota upholding their oaths though.

We need a new Smedley Butler

Based on your reply, I suspect you've never served in the US military. I have. The majority of the US military is comprised of the poor or persons who otherwise have nothing going for them. There's a lot of internal jokes about US servicemembers being uniformed criminals.

Further, under the current regime, you have to remember that military leadership and checks and balances has been systematically eroded for the last 12 months. Military leaders that would oppose trump are/have been removed or retired. Holsey is the latest/biggest example I can think of. Look what happened in Venezuela almost immediately after.

Also, recall the address Hegseth and Trump gave to the gathering of generals in Quantico. They explicitly said if you aren't an ideologue aligned with the administration, there is no place for you in the military. Which is to say that the time of the US military being non-partisan is over.

Lastly, I'd consider the kind of leadership Hegseth and Trump want leading that occupying unit. It's going to be somebody that will be receptive to their orders, legal or not.

On the other hand, it was only a couple of months ago when the Navy did a double tap to kill the survivors of their attack on an alleged "drug boat". Clearly the military isn't strictly following the whole "don't follow unlawful orders" any more.

But hey, perhaps things will be different when they are face-to-face with regular Americans who could've been their neighbors, instead of some anonymous pixels of foreigners on a computer screen.

It's hard to think of an organization that has broken international law more consistently than the US Military.

The CIA, probably.

I'm hoping on the "things will be different"; for more context regarding the "couple of months ago" see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46671917

genuine question: What is the interpretation of the law such that ICE operations are wholly unlawful, and the military should broadly disobey an order to support/protect ICE operations?

While there's certainly many instances where ICE breaks the law, what would be the rationale for the military wholly refusing to support ICE performing their stated duty of enforcing immigration law? (besides more specific orders like "disperse these legal protesters" which could be disobeyed for more narrow reasons, because peaceful protesting is legal)

No rationale for the military wholly refusing; that's a straw man.

This suggestion is that the insurrection act could be moving from the fire into the frying pan: I'm not saying the military would be good occupiers, only that they're probably better occupiers than ICE.

(and were they to be supporting ICE operations, from what I've seen in the news reported on this side of the Atlantic, they'd be more likely to ride herd on ICE than on the public*: keep the SOF LARPers on the up and up, as it were)

* after all, the Arctic Angels have been training for going up against the ВДВ, not for playing "respect my authoritah!" games with civilians.

Probably not with the current leadership.

I'd like fewer occupiers rather than more congenial ones, personally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com