General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOKAY someone PLEASE calm me down...
I have seen in the news, there is a massive caravan of people coming to the USA from Venezuela and that TRUMP MAY send the Military to the border. Do you THINK HE will order the Military to kill those people if they try to enter the US? ...
He is just fucked up enough to want to do that... am I wrong here or what?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,726 posts)That would be beyond the pale, even for him.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)Seperating Children from Parents... I JUST have this AWFUL feeling!!
brush
(53,922 posts)Of course stupid trump doesn't know that. He'd have to get a governor to deploy his/her state's National Guard or state troopers and that may or may not happen.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)Militia taking pot shots at families heading toward the border.
brush
(53,922 posts)mobeau69
(11,159 posts)ala LBJ in AL.
Caliman73
(11,744 posts)They have been on the border for a couple of months now "helping" the Border Patrol. President Obama had used the NG down there as well but not as law enforcement. LBJ did not use the NG as law enforcement, he used them to "supervise" a march, to ensure that people's civil rights were not infringed upon.
Trump specifically said, "Not the Guard, the Military". He is full of shit though. Federal law prohibits him from using the military as law enforcement. He is trying to call what the caravan is doing an "Invasion" but what they have done for the last 10 years is get to a port of entry and request asylum.
Pity Puddles
(98 posts)from my reading. I remembered that something recently repealed the Act, and wasn't sure. NDAA has a Section 1031 that repeals it.
brush
(53,922 posts)authorize military units operating domestically.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)They will do anything from now on.
Believe it..
still_one
(92,433 posts)brush
(53,922 posts)The Posse Comitatus Act, which passed after the Civil War to keep federal troops from policing the South, limits federal troops' deployment on U.S. soil and forbids using them to enforce domestic laws. The President can deploy troops if there's an insurrection or invasion on U.S. soil.Apr 3, 2018
Whatever it is you posted is behind a paywall. Why not excerpt what you are contending?
still_one
(92,433 posts)"Unfortunately, much of what Americans think they know about posse comitatus is wrong. While Trumps actions may, in fact, be legally dubious, the army can be used for civil policing as it always has.
Far from violating a founding principle of the republic, the use of the military as law enforcement was common in the 19th century, a function of wide-open spaces, small populations and underdeveloped institutions. These realities, Michael Tate says in The Frontier Army in the Settlement of the West, left only one other legally constituted body with enough manpower and proper mandate to fill the enforcement void the U.S. Army. Within a generation of American independence, helping to police the frontier had become one of the U.S. Armys primary missions.
After 1878, however, this state of affairs more or less vanished, despite the persistence of frontier conditions. It vanished because, as popular opinion tells us, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act ended such practices. This widespread conclusion only has one small problem: There is no such thing as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act."
Instead, a mere paragraph attached to the 1878 Army Appropriations Act addressed posse comitatus. It is a meaningful paragraph for all its brevity, it serves as the foundation of our current posse comitatus policy but its inclusion in an appropriations bill was extremely unusual for the time and speaks to why the story of posse comitatus is far more complicated than modern commentators realize.
The story of the 1878 law has far more to do with the Civil War and free African Americans than with the frontier and the settling of the West. Establishing order and protecting free people in the South after the war required an active and expansive military presence in the former Confederacy.
The Third Enforcement Act of 1871, Congresss legislative riposte to waves of violence unleashed against African Americans and their white Republican allies by Southern Democratic white supremacists, granted the federal government the ability to at the discretion of the president use military force to protect constitutional rights when the state government proved unable or unwilling to do so.
Knowing that they could not challenge the military might of the army, Southern Democrats instead tried to use political means to weaken this enforcement power. As their numbers increased in the House of Representatives during the 1870s, they worked to reduce the size of the Army and hold its budget in check.
Restraining the legal ability of the military to intervene in civil society for example, to be stationed at polling places on Election Day would have served as another way to forestall renewed federal action to carry out the promises of congressional Reconstruction. But any Posse Comitatus Act introduced in the late 1870s would have been dead on arrival with a Republican president and Senate. (President Rutherford B. Hayes disclaimed any need for renewed military intervention in the South but simultaneously insisted that the executive retain the power to initiate said interventions.)
Facing this roadblock in their quest to roll back Reconstruction, Democrats turned to legislative hardball. Without consulting Republicans, they inserted clauses such as the posse comitatus ban into ordinary appropriations bills for federal agencies, thereby holding government funding hostage until they got their way. Republicans held firm for some time, resulting in a stalemate during which the U.S. Army was not paid for the better part of a year. In June of 1878, however, they accepted the posse comitatus clause to restore a functioning government.
Importantly, Republicans gained one key concession: The clause now included Republican language allowing the military to serve as domestic law enforcement when expressly authorized by the Constitution or act of Congress. Within a few days, the U.S. Army disseminated a general order recognizing nearly 20 statutory exceptions to the new prohibition, as well as an overriding constitutional principle that Section IV, Article IV of the Constitution, which promised protection against invasion or domestic insurrection, justified the use of the military as domestic law enforcement.
One of those statutory exemptions would prove powerfully important, allowing and perhaps requiring the president to use federal military force to suppress widespread violations of civil rights either sanctioned by state authorities or beyond their power to control. In a supreme historical irony, by forcing Republicans to spell out the exemptions to posse comitatus, Democrats had essentially codified an assertive Republican approach to civil rights enforcement the exact thing they were trying to prevent.
Nearly 80 years later, this success helped seal the fate of Jim Crow in the states of the former Confederacy. In 1957, the Eisenhower administration, citing an exception to the posse comitatus ban first enumerated by Gen. William T. Sherman in 1878, deployed the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce court-mandated school integration. What Eisenhower did then, any president before or since could have done whenever state authorities allowed discriminatory practices to unfold in their jurisdictions.
This history reveals that the military can, in fact, legally serve in a law enforcement capacity. But before Trump backers triumphantly dismiss claims that the president cant send troops to the southern border as fake news, there is a catch. None of the critical exceptions carved out by the Army in 1878 spoke to the sort of border security envisioned by Trump (the closest one involved the power of the military to enforce state-crafted disease quarantines at ports of entry).
Consequently, there is no obvious legal path to employ the active-duty military on our Southwestern border. The 19th-century statutory exceptions to posse comitatus mostly speak to 19th-century concerns, which did not include the subject of border security.
Probably the best legal argument the president could make is that the movement of people across the border constitutes an invasion the federal government would be duty-bound to repel given the language of Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution. This would be a highly strained argument (for one thing, none of the states directly affected has deployed its forces to combat the purported invasion). But it is important to remember that in periods of great crisis real or imagined strained arguments sometimes win the day.
In short, as the complicated tale of posse comitatus in the United States suggests, the republican institutions and values that defined the United States since its founding are always being negotiated and remade. Our choices are the only things that preserve them. Let us choose wisely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/17/can-president-trump-legally-send-troops-to-the-border-its-complicated/?utm_term=.6a49d7b8ddbc
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,467 posts)Nothing is beyond that thing in our White House, if it believes the act will gain it applause or cheers.
Stuart G
(38,449 posts)The thought may enter his mind, but the people around him would keep it from happening because it ...........is
even more stupid than usual.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)Horrifying!
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)He won't kill anyone, at least until after the mid terms
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)He is complicit in the murder of Kashoggi.
First Speaker
(4,858 posts)...just gunning them down would be too much even for him. At least for now...
TomSlick
(11,114 posts)I think using the military to enforce immigration law would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Since violation of the PCA carries a criminal sanction, you can expect the military to balk.
Stuart G
(38,449 posts)a federal statute prohibiting use of the military in civilian law enforcement.
TomSlick
(11,114 posts)Lawyers sometimes assume - incorrectly - that people know what we're talking about.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)I'm just hoping he doesn't send in the 7th Fleet !
TomSlick
(11,114 posts)I am reasonably confident that Navy JAGs will have the same concerns as I.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)The fact that he even thinks this is an idea worth entertaining disturbs me.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)WE know he hates non-whites.. regarding Neo Nazis, "There were bad people on both sides" but if those people try to cross the border, ordering the Military to open fire on them, would be A MASSACRE THE Likes no one has seen Since VIETNAM!
john657
(1,058 posts)but that being said, I don't believe he would order the military to open fire and even if he did, the military would not obey an obvious illegal order.
Besides, Mexico is dispatching a whole lot of Federales to the border to stop them from entering the US.
bluestarone
(17,062 posts)Saudi Arabia? Just thinking out loud here.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)Everything with him is smoke and mirrors and don't look behind that curtain.
Baitball Blogger
(46,764 posts)This might not end well. I hope the FBI is watching the militia groups.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)it was reported they were coming from Venezuela ??
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)The caravan is coming from Honduras.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)Stuart G
(38,449 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,478 posts)fleeing Honduras.
Jim__
(14,088 posts)Sure to bring his supporters out to vote.
brooklynite
(94,757 posts)...for making the story about him.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)I am generally scared about this. I think he would do it, but your statement IS not HELPING my nerves right now, thank you very much!
john657
(1,058 posts)but I think it's safe to say that the on scene commander and troops wouldn't obey an obvious illegal order, so, I think you can breath a sigh of relief.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)jmowreader
(50,566 posts)john657
(1,058 posts)if it has butter on it, I'LL eat it.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)He loved it.
JCMach1
(27,575 posts)Memo to dems... "Kids in Cages" ... Say it every time you hear the word, "caravan"...
Oneironaut
(5,530 posts)Trump isnt going to risk immediate impeachment. Much of this is theater to both make Democrats look bad and force action on the border.
If anything, hell send token unarmed service members to the border to give the illusion hes doing something. Then hell claim some bogus statistic about how illegal immigration had dropped 50%, etc.
Stuart G
(38,449 posts)These people may be stopped from entering, but that is all..wait..aren't people allowed in the U.S. for a couple of weeks?..legally??
LeftInTX
(25,595 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Something like Kent State.
Could be both the caravan and the military are just stories for him to use to fire up his base for the midterms.
lpbk2713
(42,769 posts)Not a chance in hell I would serve in a military service of a country
that would want to harm people who are looking for a better life.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Thankfully, though, TRUMP is not in direct command of any military unit, and there's no way commanders would obey such an order.
So, TRUMP would order it, TRUMP might order it, but it would/will be an illegal order and would/will never be carried out.
Demonaut
(8,931 posts)but "inspired" US civilians may try
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)Some crazed volunteer Militia men taking pot shots at a crowd heading towards the border.
Raine
(30,541 posts)LeftInTX
(25,595 posts)Remember Ebola in 2014????? The GOP made a big deal about Obama and Ebola. He makes it sound like big bad people are coming over and only he and the GOP can save us from them.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Take a deep breath.
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)and they could lose their children if they ask to come and live here
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)One would hope that the people of Mexico will tell them. I am sure the Mexican people are in tune with and aware of what's going on across the border here in the US.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What Sessions/Miller/Orange wanted was for people to decide not to come because they would be separated from their children.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)But it's very unlikely the migrants are stupid enough to attempt to physically cross in the face of a military presence.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Texasgal
(17,048 posts)There is a war due to the presidential elections down there. Lots of violence.
I am not sure what will happen but the people fleeing are fleeing because it's dangerous and the country is in peril.
They are not coming from Venezuela.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)still_one
(92,433 posts)domestic disturbances.
Kent State was not that long ago, and even if there was no intent to shoot on civilians, when you have people with loaded arms anything can happen, including those with an agenda to provoke the troops to fire into the crowd.
There is a real danger that this could end badly, and civilians can be injured or killed
The argument that trump would make is that the caravan constitue and "invasion". No doubt it would go to the courts, but I share your concerns.