https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmakers-call-trump-ar...
It went from ~25% to ~50% (Dec '26) odds practically overnight. Doesn't account for the Portland incident yet, as those details are still murky and involves CBP.
May the Force be with you all.
- The Army is subject to UCMJ (what laws are ICE subject to?) In particular, this means[0] they are aware of the duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, and their officers are aware they are responsible for their subordinates' actions.
- The Army has been integrating ever since Executive Order 9981, which is to say decades before the rest of the country. (what about ICE, how integrated are they?)
- In principle, at least some Army units train in Crowd Control in Urban Terrain, reading formal manuals covering theory and practice; how much training[1] do ICE units get?
- The Army is big on acting honorably[2] and professionally. Can we say that of ICE?
In other words, an invocation of the Insurrection Act might well be going from the fire into the frying-pan.
What am I missing?
[0] Is this still true? Or did it change after 2003? It used to be in all the books for enlisted personnel. Anyone have a recent Soldier's Handbook to hand?
[1] IIUC, one reason Tiananmen Square went all pear-shaped in 1989 is because at least the PLA (what about the PAP?) did not possess riot-trained units at the time.
[2] yes, there bad apples. In principle, they get prosecuted. It doesn't help when the bad apples get sentenced at court-martial but the Big Apple pardons them.
This theory is from 1954:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#:~...
but I believe that spirit still applies, at least it held up until 2020:
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20...
toomuchtodo•1mo ago
SilverElfin•1mo ago
toomuchtodo•1mo ago
SilverElfin•1mo ago
dragonwriter•1mo ago
There’s no need for a formal act that alters the legal constraints when there is no practical impact from legal constraints in the first place.
CodingJeebus•1mo ago
Because it’s meant to inflame the population into reacting, further justifying the oppression.
You’re right in that there’s no legal need for it, but that’s not the goal. The goal is to create a level of chaos that justifies and solidifies the existence of a totalitarian regime.
dragonwriter•1mo ago
You only need to justify the oppression if there is meaningful constraint on it without further justification.
> You’re right in that there’s no legal need for it,
No, I didn't say anything about legal need. What I am said is that there is no practical need because the actions are already far beyond what the law allows and there is nothing, whether through legal institutions, popular resistance, or otherwise, that is meaningfully constraining action, so a formal act that would relieve legal constraints is practically meaningless, because the legal constraints which it relieves have no practical force as it is.
I’m saying that will-he-won’t-he about invoking the Insurrection Act, or “declaring martial law”, or any other formal change of legal regime are, at this point, serving as a distraction from the fact that the executive’s substantive actions are not actually constrained by the nominal legal regime, and that changes in what is formally allowed do not matter very much when what is being done without meaningful resistance is already well outside of what is formally allowed.
sidibe•1mo ago
SilverElfin•1mo ago