Hacker News Reader

Comment by austin-cheney | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think this will work the way the administration thinks it work. They can dictate where the military will deploy but they cannot dictate the conduct of the military once they arrive. In fact, this might prove to be extremely counterproductive to the authoritarian objectives the administration is hoping for.

View on HN

The Secretary of Defense is a loyalist and will likely put people in charge of the operation who are on board with the mission to suppress protest.

There's also just the chaos angle. From the same New Yorker article I linked elsewhere in this thread, I thought this anecdote was nuts:

> In Los Angeles, for example, [in 1992] there was a situation where marines were accompanying police to a house where there was a domestic disturbance and the police officers said to “cover me” as they went into the house. “Cover” means something very different in the Marines, and they opened fire on the house. It was only by good fortune that no one was killed.

The people in charge of any such operation would be unit commanders, military officers, who have greater legal restrictions on their conduct than either the President or the SECWAR. Regardless of the orders upon them military commanders are obligated to follow the law and are provided legal representatives for clarity.

I'm hopeful that'll be the case. But can SECDEF (it's still called the Department of Defense, regardless of stationery changes) hand-pick the unit commanders and military officers?

No. The closest they could get is hand picking a specific military unit, but there are limitations on even that.

Thanks. I appreciate your comments in this thread.

That's great on paper, but we saw what happened in international waters and Venezuela after the SOUTHCOM shake up

Something tells me the military won't be joining the protesters

Why not? Serious question. The military cannot join law enforcement, Posse Comitatus, and protesters have a right to protest. The military can only take action to limit violence and property destruction. So what happens if law enforcement is the more violent party?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

People keep citing law as if this administration has ever respected them. Realize that laws are just pieces of paper with words that are useless without enforcement.

The administration has systematically removed leadership in both the military and the DoJ that aren't ideologues. Case in point: SOUTHCOM

Further, internal DoJ and military checks and balances have been eviscerated for the last 12 months. Specifically military lawyers and inspectors general that are concerned with lawful conduct.

You are talking as if law is something more than a construct.

Should we be optimistic that current law will be followed? Maybe. Does the existence of the law ensure it? Not at all.

Because the 'protesters' are all riled up against 'the law' and will see these troops as opponents (like they see ICE). They'll attack the troops first and I firmly believe federal troops will respond (in defense) violently and in unison. That's the training.

Minnesota has no clue how serious a can of whoop-ass they're about to pry open.

That's not the training; cf ATP 3-39.33: 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.

The majority of members of the military are trump supporters.

We've already seen that it's extremely rare for even the national guard to support protesters in their own communities when being deployed against them

We've already seen that the military will willfully follow trump's unlawful orders, including clear violations of international law

Acting unlawfully and then falling back on "just following orders" is far less likely to have negative consequences for soldiers than refusing to follow unlawful orders would

Reply on news.ycombinator.com