A lethal response by our military to rock-throwing would be a war crime.

[MineralMan]

Think about how close a person has to be to you to hit you with a hand-thrown rock. Firing on rock-throwers with guns is such an outrageous over-response that it's ludicrous to even consider such a reaction. Rocks are not firearms. They are not lethal weapons. They are rocks.

People throw rocks because they have no other weapons. If they had guns, they wouldn't fire them at you from less than 50 ft. away from you. They have rocks. They throw them, despite your military fire arms because they know that shooting back is against all rules of engagement. Hand-thrown rocks are not a lethal weapon, although they can cause injury.

The appropriate response to rock-throwers is to move back a little to get out of range. it is not to fire your weapons at those throwing the rocks.

Our troops in many countries have faced rock-throwers, some of them children, many times in the past. Those troops did not shoot those who were throwing rocks. That was not part of the rules of engagement.

For the Commander-in-Chief to suggest that our military will shoot to kill rock throwers is absurd. It demonstrates only that he has no idea about how any of this works. He is a moronic dip shit who should be removed from office.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Any normal person knows that.

Trump, however, is far from normal.

[lark]

2. National Guard shot with live ammo at Kent State students throwing rocks.

It's a fact, I saw it on the news back then over and over and will never forget it. CSNY wrote a song about it and the chorus started "Tin Soldiers & Nixon Coming" and ended with "four dead in Ohio". That activated me and some of my friends and we started a network to keep everyone out of the war who didn't want to go. IMO, this was the worst thing Nixon did, having those students murdered to please his redneck base.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. That happened. I remember it very, very well.

Because of it, the rules of engagement have been changed and clarified. Because of that horror, it is now made clear to military personnel when and how they will respond to such things.

[lark]

9. It's been a long time, but I thought it was illegal back then as well.

I remember a huge hullabaloo about this, that National Guards were not allowed to use live ammo on Americans, but they did anyway. So rules were strengthened, but CIC says do it, shoot them dead. Which will prevail in the chaos? Guess I will never get over this and will viscerally never trust any military to do the right thing. I hope the officers enforce no live ammunition, but what the military does best is follow orders, so have no confidence there won't be a slaughter if enough folks arrive. Yes, I am a worry-wort as my mom used to say.

[MineralMan]

11. Well, I doubt very much that our military will be

facing any rock-throwers at the border. This whole thing is all bluster from Trump. It is a sham.

[lark]

13. I pray you are right and there aren't any hot heads throwing rocks.

So that way the military won't have the provocation they need to start the killing. I hope this is as big a sham as him thinking he can remove part of the constitution by Executive Order or by Congress. Only a constitutional amendment can change it. Or the even bigger sham of claiming he'd do a tax cut when Congress isn't even in session. That one was pure folly that not even a supine SCOTUS could make happen.

[unblock]

14. nixon didn't really have much to do with the specifics, csny's song notwithstanding

of course he escalated the vietnam war into cambodia, and dramatic expansion of a war he had promised to end, and the announcement of the expansion triggered the protests, including at kent state.

it was ohio governor jim rhodes who not only called out the national guard but also fanned the flames by lying about the nature of the peaceful protests.

of course, rhodes was a republican and a big-time nixon supporter, and nixon had also made a number of speeches against campus protests, both in general terms and specifically related to other campus protests, so he didn't help the situation either. but i don't think he ever said anything about the kent state protests in the lead-up to the massacre.


as relates to today, what nixon did do was set the tone. by calling peaceful campus protesters bad people who wanted to shut down higher education and suggesting that the peaceful protesters in fact were violent, that set the stage for the oppressive government actions at kent state.

i shudder to think what donnie is setting the tone for today....

[niyad]

41. thank you for that reminder of that horrendous event.

[malaise]

4. Well his grandfather was banished for deserting the army

And his father was too busy practicing racism and he had bone spurs.
Meanwhile his sons only shoot unarmed animals for sport.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. The Drumpf family only fires on creatures

that cannot fire back. There is no history of military service in that family. That's too dangerous, see...

[unblock]

5. republicans' idea of the land of the brave is mortal fear of rock-throwers nearly 1000 miles away

the *best* thing you can say about the people upset about the caravan is that they are the most cowardly bunch of yellow-bellied scaredy-cats ever.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, there is that, too.

The reality is that all of this is going to unwind shortly after this coming Tuesday, I think. It's all a show by Trump to make a frantic effort to avoid an election disaster.

I'm just posting this because it is such a ridiculous thing for a President to say.

[unblock]

15. i think donnie cares more about having the spotlight and framing the debate.

his campaigning is blatantly idiotic if he's actually trying to help republican candidates win in general elections in battleground districts and states. presidents don't go around and make hours-long speeches during the midterm campaigns, that "sucks the oxygen out of the room" when they should be making brief appearances, mostly to talk up the local candidate.

he's campaigning like he's running for president, or more specifically, he's campaigning like he's running to get renominated in the republican primary. obviously his timing is rather off for any of that.

personally, i think it's fairly clear republicans will keep the senate but democrats will win the house convincingly, and donnie can affect the margins but not the ultimate outcome.

i think he's more interested in setting the tone and furthering his white nationalist agenda, which he believes will serve him well down the road.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

54. ++1'sies

[HAB911]

6. This is what worries me about an all volunteer force

it's a thin line to being a mercenary. I hope this is all a diversion but he has gone from fantasy to reality before.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, a volunteer military is a far better option than

the involuntary servitude of a draft. That's especially true when the draft takes mostly people from low income groups, as it has in the past. I remember the draft, both before and after the lottery system was put in place. I enlisted in the USAF in 1965 because I was going to be drafted.

[HAB911]

12. Yeah, I know. I was drafted.

Into the Marines. No love loss for the draft. I cut to the chase and joined the Army for 3 before they could induct me. The economic gap is the problem. If those getting us into wars risked their kids, we would have fewer wars. I would only support a "service" draft, everyone in the pool, not necessarily military.

I don't trust mercenaries to have morals. See: Blackwater, et al

[GulfCoast66]

22. I think that is an incredibly uncalled for comment

We have as professional a military as anytime in our history. They included all types of Americans and better reflect our diversity that most other organization.

Thru almost 20 years of almost constant war, against an insurgent enemy I can’t recall one incident of a massacre of civilians like happened in Vietnam.

To suggest that they may suddenly start shootings unarmed Mexicans who are not threatening them is grossly unfair. I am confident they would actually disobey the order it trump gave it.

These men and women in our armed forces do not deserved to be compared to mercenaries.

[HAB911]

38. Time will tell

[sarge43]

42. Thank you n/t

[TomSlick]

49. Thank you.

I spent nearly thirty years in the all volunteer Army. One of my jobs was teaching soldiers the Law of War and the consequences of not obeying Rules of Engagement.

[qazplm135]

27. it's not remotely a thin line

as a member and officer of said force, and a judge advocate, trust me, no one wearing my colors is ever going to give an order like that.

[HAB911]

36. One thing for sure

Time will tell

[qazplm135]

46. I'm telling you right now

no need to wait for time. No one is getting shot by a Soldier.

[HAB911]

47. I don't doubt that

I don't think they will go to begin with, that is to say they will not be deployed. If they do go, they probably will not be issued ammo. But from the aspect of disobeying orders, I don't think you should be so sure. But, time will tell

On whether the military at southern border might fire on migrants, Pres Trump says "I hope not."

"I hope there won't be that, but I will tell you this – anybody throwing rocks... we will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference." https://abcn.ws/2QdaevU

Link to tweet

[qazplm135]

48. I'm absoutely sure

no doubt in my mind.

[TomSlick]

51. Another former JAG.

I never say never but I can say, without reservation, that today's military is the best trained and professional in our history. I can say that every member of our military from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the greenest Private has been schooled in the Law of War and the requirement to follow Rules of Engagement.

Finally, I can say that any soldier shooting a civilian for throwing rocks will be the subject of a court-martial.

[HAB911]

55. Yep, caught between a rock and a hard place

(pun intended :happy but moot now, I guess the Pentagon refused the "order"

[HAB911]

56. Hey, I was just wondering if you have changed your mind?

White House approves military to use lethal force at border

I'm counting on you, man!

[qazplm135]

57. nope

because it doesn't really change the rules. ANYONE can use "reasonable force" in self-defense or defense of others, including up to deadly force (if such force is reasonable). That's ALREADY the rule.

The real point of that "order" was to create the illusion that there is some dangerous situation developing at the border that puts the lives of Americans at risk.

[MineralMan]

17. Absolutely not!

You should self-delete your post. Calls for this sort of thing are not appropriate on DU, or anywhere else. You have gone too far with this.

[Moostache]

20. Mea Culpa. You are correct.

[MineralMan]

21. Thank you.

[Hangingon]

18. Issue rubber bullets.

The Israelis have used them.

[MineralMan]

19. Nope. Use standard procedures to process asylum seekers.

We have those procedures. We should use them. The people heading toward the US border are not criminals or invaders. They are people leaving an untenable situation in their own countries and looking for a safe haven.

Men, women and children make up the group. Take their asylum applications and process them as we have been doing for a very long time.

[GulfCoast66]

25. Which is exactly what will happen

After Wednesday you will hear nothing more of this.

[MineralMan]

26. Yes, I think so, too.

A good deal will change after Tuesday, I hope. I'm waiting to hear from Mueller, too.

[Adrahil]

23. It would... and member of the military are required....

to disobey unlawful orders.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, they'll take their immediate orders from

their own officers, not from Trump, and there will be no orders to shoot at rock-throwers, I'm certain.

[tavernier]

28. Why does he hate Latinos so much?

I bet he got turned down by some ladies south of the border. Hurt his widdle pride.

[MineralMan]

29. It's not Latinos, per se. He hates all "Others."

Or, at least, he sees them as pawns he can use. He is a populist and needs scapegoats to accuse of horrible things.

He could get nowhere unless he riles people up about someone or another. Immigrants are his favorite scapegoats, but only non-"white" immigrants. He plays on existing prejudices to fire up his base against things. That's what populists do to gain power.

[PearliePoo2]

30. Why would people seeking asylum be throwing rocks at U.S. personnel in the first place?

It seems to me it would not be in their best interest, if their hopes were to be granted entry into the U.S.

[MineralMan]

31. People do strange things. The people in this caravan

broke down some fences at the Mexican border to get into Mexico. I think some rocks were thrown, too. The Mexican authorities stood back and didn't attack the migrants. Eventually, they got into Mexico and began their journey toward the US.

People fleeing from one country into another are often frustrated and desperate. There is a reason they're leaving and a reason they're headed somewhere. Standing in their way won't work. It just won't.

[Honeycombe8]

33. I saw a prediction that only a small percentage would make it to America.

They're in south Mexico right now. Pretty far away. Some are turning back, some will stay in Mexico. And of course, they will be hearing about the U S taking their children away, along the way.

The statements I heard on tv by a couple of the caravan guys didn't amount to seeking refuge. They said they wanted a better life. Refugee status is only for certain situations. One woman said her teenage son was being beaten up in (whatever her country was). That doesn't qualify, either, I think.

The U S has been handling illegal immigration for..how long? Centuries? Decades? The border agents can deal with this. This is all a show for the mid-terms.

[MineralMan]

37. Yes. That seems very likely to me, unless someone

provides transportation for the migrants. I can't imagine that many will make it to the border on foot and hitching rides.

[Honeycombe8]

32. Loophole: There is no war?

So maybe just plain murder? People are allowed to defend themselves, but not allowed to fight an attack of a lightweight person with fists, by shooting him. You are allowed to defend yourself in a reasonable manner (in Texas, anyway).

[watoos]

35. Not according to our CIC,

he just issued the order and no one in the military has questioned it.

[Honeycombe8]

39. Troubling. My brother told me....

My brother told me that's an extraordinary step, because Presidents are not supposed to be allowed, by law, to use the military on U S soil. This dates way back, to prevent a military coup or militia action against the citizens. That's why only Nat'l Guard has been used, I think he said.

True? Not true? Sounds like it would be true.

[watoos]

34. As Tnnurse said in another thread,

where are the military brass condemning what Trump said? Their silence tells me they are ok with killing rock throwers. As of right now our CIC has given the order without anyone questioning it.

The Oath keepers will have a legitimate defense now to start killing refugees.

[The Liberal Lion]

40. I'm no legal expert in any way, shape or form but

But I don't think it would be a war crime because we are not at war with these people, nor are they an invasion force. But rather, should someone even be shot at, let alone get shot, I think that would be a crime against humanity. Again, I'm no legal expert.

[PufPuf23]

43. Almost every day Trump does or says something that warrants imeachment.

To me that Trump is and remains POTUS indicates something seriously rotten in the USA.

Even the members of the GOP that are not batshit black-hearted insane haters support the removal of Trump.

Trump has even given me a warm spot for William Kristol. That sucks.

Vote. Vote Democratic.

[MineralMan]

44. Yes, he does. However, impeachment and removal

require a majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate. That is why no President has ever been impeached and removed. The likelihood of any President being removed from office by Congress is very, very slim.

Voters have an opportunity every two years to replace all members of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate. Every four years, we can do the same to our President and Vice President. That is our power over our own government. We simply need to use it.

GOTV! That is the answer. If we take the House of Representatives next Tuesday, Trump will not be able to get anything through that body. It is that simple. We can bring his nonsense, for the most part, to a screeching halt.

We waste our time by hoping for things that will not happen, and then don't bother to vote. It makes no sense at all.

GOTV!

[PufPuf23]

45. I understand that impeachment is not going to happen and the politcal mechanism that makes it so.

Alas.

In the case of Trump (and also GWB), I question the patriotism and service to the People of the USA by GOP pols in that these shit stains were not removed from office. The bar for impeachment is now way too high.


We need to elect Democrats that are willing to go there or what has gone on since 2000 (at least) will occur again and again and worse. I do not recognize the USA as the same nation anymore. We were never perfect but aspired to an idealistic good, but something bad happened with the election of 2000


We have descended from a POTUS and GOP minions that lied us into aggressive war (GWB) to a POTUS (Trump) that lies and proposes or does evil shit virtually every day.


Venting. Thanks for you level headed posts.

I talk to people in my life and vote, always Democratic since 1971 (exception voted for John Anderson in 1980 primary because of my dislike for Reagan, supported Brown and voted Carter of course). But even that 1980 election was marred by propaganda and the Iran- hostage and Iran Contra. The GOP cheats (recall Nixon and Paris Vietnam Peace talks) to win elections then does what it wants and never pays the price. SMH. The public discussion has gotten so insanely ugly.

[brooklynite]

50. There is NO evidence that military leaders will implement this rule...

...any more than they went ahead and carried out his rule on transgender.

[talkingwithtrumpers]

52. Jesus. Aagh. Horrible.

[Separation]

53. Yea gonna have to disagree with you on that one there

As someone who has been on the recieving end of those rocks, they are life threatening. I dont know if you realize how much power and range you can get with a sling, or slingshots. They can, have and do cause some pretty horrific wounds.

Now, with that being said, I doubt our troops are gonna go full IDF and use live ammo against rock throwers. You will definately see, non lethal being used. Sonic weapons, tear gas, and flash bangs.

If it even were to get to that point, which I think is just fear mongering by trump, I have (hopefully) enough hope, that Captain So-and-so from Middle America, doesnt want CNN blasting live images of him and his men mowing down civilians. Or having images of hundreds of civilians withering away from malnourish and thirst, just 30 yards away. I know I would personally cross that line and offer food and water to them as would other military members. We will just have to see. One can only hope for the best.

What needs to be shot live on CNN, MSNBC, and anyone else who will shoot it, is they need to have cameras sitting there live 24/7 and show what a fucking waste of money, manpower, and resources this is. Especially with Thanksgiving coming up and deploying more troops to the border than what is in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan combined.