Let's hope it doesn't have the same effect (ie the eventual fall of the republic)
[1] No military weapons were allowed inside this boundary of ancient Rome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerium
Is that any better than people with a conscience staying and reluctantly following much worse orders in due time? At least when they leave, they send a message of resistance instead of silently capitulating.
That said, obviously the point of remaining is so that they can refuse those worse orders when they come, so that they can convince their peers to do the same or temper their actions, so that the administration needs to worry about pushing too far lest that wave of resignations comes at a critical moment. Alarming though the pattern may be, this is neither a clear cut violation of the constitution nor likely to be a major turning point in the administration's public support. Leaving now would be ineffectual - there is no plan in place to take advantage of a few resignations to put a serious damper on the current plans, nor will it stop what's to come. The people who resign now may feel good about themselves, maybe enough to justify the potential hardship they and their loved ones will suffer as a consequence, but they deny the rest of us a key resource. Resigning is a weapon that can only be fired once; it would be selfish and stupid to waste the shot.
Might not the people of DC deserve better? Is it possible that problems exist in real life outside of "media attention"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities...
Sorting by Total here looks like #76 in violent crime and #72 in property crime.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/19-year-former-doge-worker-assault...
The use of US military troops on the civilian mainland of the United States in a non-emergency situation is wrong.
Also, the current crime situation in the District of Columbia is not an emergency situation.
Upvote if you agree Downvote if you disagree
If this sounds like things that occur together in fascist regimes, well, there's a reason for that.
The use of US military troops on the civilian mainland of the United States in peacetime situation is wrong.
Also, war has not been declared by Congress regarding the situation in the District of Columbia.
It's conceivable this his shirt got pulled off during the fight, but equally conceivable that he took it off and wiped blood on himself. I've seen people fake injuries at political demonstrations, using the old pro wrestling trick of making a small cut in the hairline with a sharp blade (scalp wounds bleed a lot because there are so many capillaries on the head). I can't say this is what's happened here, but it just doesn't look consistent with real violence.
Another reason I'm skeptical of the reported account is that there's no mention of injuries to his female companion. If it were a regular mugging or carjacking, you'd expect to read the woman was pushed to the ground and her bag taken. This could be poor quality reporting, but stories like this generally include a catalogue of all victims' injuries.
Article including the photo I'm describing: https://abcnews.go.com/US/19-year-former-doge-worker-assault...
> Another reason I'm skeptical of the reported account is that there's no mention of injuries to his female companion.
The story is that he pushed her into the car first then faced the carjackers.
No proof, but wow do they just happen to get exactly the event they need for the PR.
https://whyy.org/articles/30-years-ago-george-hw-bush-held-u...
Aside from street protests and rallies (which NG should scrupulously facilitate for 1A reasons; DC itself has been fairly bad about this in the past, too), I don't think most local policing is highly political. Yes, DC residents are losing some democratic control over their local policing, which is bad, but DC has also done a bad job with local policing for a long time.
(I'm broadly in favor of shrinking DC to the federal areas themselves; the parts where people live generally should be returned to the States.)
Trump says crime in D.C. is out of control. Here’s what the data shows. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/10/trump-cri... - August 10th, 2025
Violent Crime in D.C. Hits 30 Year Low - https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-... - January 3rd, 2025 (My note: Published by this admin's DoJ in January of this year)
DC Metro Police 2025 Year-to-Date Crime Comparison - https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance
I don't know how you could measure this, since DC saw a very significant reduction in crime last year without any interference from the National Guard. If there are further reductions this year, that would be a continuation of a trend, not a new phenomenon.
Maybe some people prefer that but I would rather have garden variety criminals and a trustworthy government fighting them than some kind of re-invention of the USSR, which didn't really bother with collecting crime statistics, and where crime was - so they claimed - very low (this really wasn't the case, especially not if you consider the behavior of lots of highly placed individuals, who could get away with just about anything, except of course stealing from their bosses).
The lesson from El Salvador is that you need to stop violent crime to protect democracy. If liberals can't deliver safe cities, then no amount of argumentation will stop voters from trying out a strongman.
Alternatively, we could just make DC a state, which I'm broadly in favor of.
Would you be as favorable to DC statehood if they were guaranteed to vote the opposite of you?
Yes I would, the people of DC should have representation, but using retrocession to get there would dilute any influence they have on their own politics and local control. I understand that the founders were worried about fairness and no state being favored over another by selecting one to be the capitol of the country, but I don't believe that'd be a concern for almost anyone alive today – especially if that state were made up out of whole cloth from the people who had already lived there.
What are 10000 federal agents and soldiers going to do? Walk around looking for crime to stop? DC has the most police per capita of any city in America. How much crime do they stop by standing around? At best they respond to 911 calls and federal agents aren't plugged in to 911. What the hell are they going to do about crime that isn't in the streets? And are they going to do traffic enforcement because that's probably 99% of the unenforced crime in any city.
Weigh that against Pam Bondi stating in no uncertain terms that DC will be completely crime free in short order. This is pure theater.
Counter-argument: things have not been bad. In DC or elsewhere. It's a meme. In fact DC crime statistics, like national ones, have been trending steadily downward for decades. They burp with immediate inputs, like spiking over the pandemic when formerly-employed folks found time to get in more trouble, but... they aren't bad.
DC is safe, historically. Chicago is safe. Seattle is safe. Portland is safe. NYC is extremely safe. All these places partisan media likes to paint as urban hellscapes are in fact historically safe cities in which to live and do business.
The answer to "why things have been so bad for so long" is inside your television, basically. It's not on the streets of DC.
Sadly, some of the malignant people around him are more cunning.
What if it helps clean up the homeless encampments and crime like Gavin Newsom did in San Francisco when Xi visited recently? That would be good!
D.C. is a dump and has been my entire life. There's been a drop in homicides since the peak in 2023, but last year was still 15% higher than in 2019: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2025/01/02/homicid.... In 2023, the homicide rate in D.C. was 39 per 100k people. This is only a little better than the civilian death rate in Iraq when it peaked in 2014 during ISIS (that was around 50 per 100k).
This is not a "guns" issue, it's a policing issue. Idaho has among the most guns of any state in the union, and Boise is as safe as a western European city, with 1/30th the homicide rate of D.C. Even several large U.S. cities, like Austin, El Paso, and Virginia Beach, have homicide rates 1/10th or less of D.C.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b....
D.C. is a rich city surrounded by wealthy suburbs. There's no reason for it to be as unsafe as decaying post-industrial cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore.
Calling it a "dump" is interesting, especially compared to some other cities that have much larger populations, budget, and representation. I've been in the DMV for nearly twenty years and much prefer living here than other metro areas because it is simply a lot cleaner and safer. Baltimore and Philadelphia are both cities that are much worse than living in DC proper.
It’s hard to imagine three summers from now being anything other than a hellscape. I hope to God I’m wrong.
It directs the executive agencies to seek to loosen any restrictions on non-consentual admission to psychiatric facilities and to force homeless (and people with mental illness) into them.
It also aims to end drug abuse recovery programs and says that not having physical space for patients shouldn't stop them, IIRC.
That's not the context that we are in politically or socially right now.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Why would you invest millions and years of your life into building a company if the administration can just decide to take your intellectual property [0] because you made them angry?
Why would you spend effort developing hardware and a domestic manufacturing process if the administration can just declare 100% tariffs on your critical components? Especially when your competitors can just pass off a little bribe and get special treatment: [1]
> Cook and Apple aren't walking away empty-handed. Companies that "are building in the United States," like Apple, won't be subject to a forthcoming 100% tariff on imports of semiconductors and chips, Trump said.
There is a reason you don't see world-changing companies arise from states with so much corruption. A free market requires neutral governance - no special treatment or favorites. With this new administration, the US market is looking much more skewed than in the past few decades, and that will have severe consequences for domestic innovation and research.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/harvard-patents-tar...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-donald-trump-gift-a...
A military deploying to the capital of the richest country on earth where most tech giants reside is important for tech.
Whereas extensively researched political articles like this one? Mum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165
So, that's why I flag that stuff. I also think it's pretty absurd to think that HN censors opinions. I and others constantly criticize SV bigwigs like Marc Andreessen (can somebody ask ChatGPT how many goddamn 'e's are in his name, Jesus Christ) and Paul Graham, lots of tech-skeptic stuff gets posted here and makes it to the front page.
> As with pretty much all war I'm disgusted by what Israel is doing
We are too! The same way we decried the despicable genocidal actions Germany did on the Jewish population during WW2, we now decry the despicable genocidal actions of the state of Israel on the population of Palestine.
> (neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will wake up suddenly and say "Oh, HN has decided we're to blame; I guess we'll call the whole thing off"
Only one side is actually doing genocide at the moment, and that's Israel. Israel should stop the genocide and either engage in a war without war crimes, or better yet, stop annexing foreign territories and stop the war altogether. I appreciate your "there are two sides to every conflict" point, but there is only one side currently shooting at civilians at aid sites, stopping food from reaching the civilian population, and killing journalists.
Gaza is not a foreign territory. It is part of israel. Israel won it over the course of a series of wars that they won in the last century. Almost all of which were not started by the israelis. If the gazans wanted sovereignty they shouldnt have started and lost so many wars. Losing has consequences.
> there is only one side currently shooting at civilians
The only reason the gazans are not doing this is because they are utterly incompetent, they cant. I dont see how that gives them the moral high ground. As soon as they gain the ability to shoot israeli civilians they will begin to do so again.
Both sides are led by truly despicable governments, no one has any amount of moral high ground in this conflict imo.
using dehumanizing/racist language as a defense for war crimes unfortunately doesn't fly at The Hague.
you should ask Israelis if they feel like Oct 7 was a display of incompetence.
Oct 7 will never happen again because it shouldn't have been able to happen in the first place had Israel been less busy fomenting Palestinian extremism in Gaza, and beating/killing Palestinians in the West Bank.
There is no justification for the conditions in Gaza today. All I see are Israelis relishing in the suffering of another group of people. And I see Israeli extremists continuing to conflate Israeli Nationalism with Judaism, so that any criticism of Israel is called anti-Semitic.
I was about to make a joke about this to your sibling comment. Completely agree that oct 7 was one of the biggest security fuck ups in modern history, the militants never shouldve been allowed to escape gaza.
There is no defending Israel's actions over the last year. I just hate seeing people hitting the wrong points. The lopsided death count is irrelevant because it is Hamas' fault. The annexation of gaza is irrelevant because thats what happens when you lose a war you started.
Now starving them out and running them over Tiananmen square style, thats pretty relevant I think. Israels actions in the west bank were in many ways even worse until the starvation stuff started. Straight up state sanctioned terrorism happening over there
Nope, deliberately not saying this. I super don't care what the "whose fault is this" tally is. I'm only interested in saving lives and figuring out what's next.
The (awful) truth of this is there are no realistic good options. We're not invading, Israel won't allow UN peacekeepers in, surrounding Arab states can't challenge Israel militarily and/or don't want to aid the Palestinians, there is no political will in any country to send troops, and Israel doesn't actually need our support militarily or otherwise so we have no leverage anyway. So, either a given person's naive to this and they have reading to do, or they're aware and using the situation to further their own ends. Maybe that's anti-Semitic propaganda from some Muslim states (Iran). Maybe that's Russian (et al) disinformation ops driving political wedges into the Democratic Party. Maybe it's the DSA demagoguing the issue to (try to) win elections. Maybe that's committed anti-Semites carpeing those diems. All pretty reprehensible; all getting a flag from me. How can I tell? I listen to upstream sources and recognize the talking points.
Also I'm not Jewish! I do have family down the block from where Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh was shot up though, plus a fair number of Jewish friends. Appreciate the sentiment though.
AFAICT, from Peru's General Óscar Benavides:
https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/transcripts-show-president-trum...
There were over 5000 auto thefts reported last year[1] in an area that has about 350k registered cars. Statistically speaking, more than one in a hundred cars were stolen in one year!
Similarly, there were roughly 26k cases of property crime reported for an overall rate of property crime victimization of 3-4% of the population.
If I lived in DC, my day-to-day life would be affected a whole lot more by this level of disorder than a political event that took place on one day in one building. Of course, you're free to value things differently, but it's an indictment of how much antisocial behavior some Americans are willing to tolerate that people are shocked by the statement that "crime in DC is bad".
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intenti...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There are a handful of other American cities with worse crime, so we should give DC a pass?
Constitutionally it belongs to the federal government, which devolved some level of home rule to the local government starting about 50 years ago. The evidence seems clear that local authorities aren't doing the job well.
Here is the list of the top-20 murder-rated cities in the US:
St. Louis, MO – Mayor Cara Spencer (DNC), DNC rule 76 years.
Baltimore, MD – Mayor Brandon Scott (DNC), DNC rule 56 years.
New Orleans, LA – Mayor LaToya Cantrell (DNC), DNC rule 153 years.
Detroit, MI – Mayor Mike Duggan (ex DNC), DNC rule 63 years
Cleveland, OH – Mayor Justin Bibb (DNC), DNC rule 35 years
Las Vegas, NV – Mayor Carolyn Goodman (Husband of ex-DNC mayor), DNC rule 82 years
Kansas City, MO – Mayor Quinton Lucas (DNC), DNC rule 34 years
Memphis, TN – Mayor Paul Young (DNC), DNC rule 53 years.
Newark, NJ – Mayor Ras Baraka (DNC), DNC rule 72 years.
Chicago, IL – Mayor Brandon Johnson (DNC), DNC rule 94 years.
Cincinnati, OH – Mayor Aftab Pureval (DNC), DNC rule 41 years
Philadelphia, PA – Mayor Cherelle Parker (DNC), DNC rule 74 years
Milwaukee, WI – Mayor Cavalier Johnson (DNC), DNC rule 65 years
Tulsa, OK – Mayor Monroe Nichols (DNC), only outlier in this list with significant non-DNC mayors
Pittsburgh, PA – Mayor Ed Gainey (DNC), DNC rule 91 years
Indianapolis, IN – Mayor Joe Hogsett (DNC), DNC rule 9 years.
Louisville, KY – Mayor Craig Greenberg (DNC), DNC rule 56 years
Oakland, CA – Mayor Sheng Thao (DNC), DNC rule 48 years
Washington, D.C. – Mayor Muriel Bowser (DNC), DNC rule 64 years
Atlanta, GA – Mayor Andre Dickens (DNC), DNC rule 164 years
Trump just made himself owner of the crime rate in DC. Every crime that occurs there is now Trump's failure. That is not something that he's going to want.
And his base gobbles it up.
Heck, even it did get attributed to him - it doesn't matter. 47% of conservatives said they'd still support Trump even if he raped children with Epstein: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-47-republican...
Do you really think he will let out numbers that make him look bad
Is there anything to learn from that? Of course not. Aside from the liberty for security trade, should every town increase the police budget by 50x? Is that actually a solution for anyone?
They have budgets in the Billions of dollars, tons of surveillance equipment, military grade weapons, and a monopoly on force. But they still can't deal with street thugs, belligerent crazy people, or jerks on the subway like cities in other countries manage to do?
I don't know what Trump's game is in all of this, but we should stop pretending that blue cities aren't already playing their own games and they clearly don't involve stopping or solving crime.
Criminology studies have shown that you in fact do not need a hyper-resourced police state to achieve this. The Pareto rule applies very strongly in criminality; the majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny fraction of the population[0]. About 90% of prisoners have been arrested more than three times[1].
You do not understand the difficulty in obtaining a criminal conviction in this country (a result of the common law tradition coming down from Blackstone) and the degree to which local policy in places like DC outright favors the rights of the criminals over the rights of the innocents that must live near them. There's a lot of room to improve the lives of the law-abiding before there are "snipers on every roof".
> should every town increase the police budget by 50x? Is that actually a solution for anyone?
DC isn't just any town; it has such a high homicide rate that were it a country, it would rank in the top 20 most murderous. In 2024 alone, it had over 5000 cars stolen in a place that only has 350k cars. That's more than one in a hundred.
Perhaps every town whose crime rate is at this level should increase the police budget by 50x, or try some other radical thing? Because this isn't working out.
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/arrest-history-pers...
"The Act (Posse Comitatus Act) does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor."
Wiki Page on the Posse Comitatus Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_ActIt's never dropped of my news, from him moving Maxwell to a minimum security prison, to questions about whether he'll pardon her, to the signed letter with illustrations he wrote for Epstein's birthday.
I don't think the world will ever forget, certainly my social circles and social media are still buzzing with it.
In many ways it's more damning than watergate, though people are debating whether to call it Epsteingate or Pedogate.
https://ground.news/article/judge-rejects-unsealing-ghislain...
Revealing the epstein docs/list was a major selling point for the q-anon/conspiracy voters during the election. This is the first major controversy that puts trump against a sizable majority of his supporters, which are becoming disillusioned.
We are reaching a nixon-esque turning point where the cover up is worse than the crime.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
Biden was kept hidden and carefully managed and his staffers had to cut him off and remind him of the current year. You may not like Trump, but everyone that works with him closely, recognizes he is more intellectual than his public persona would seem to imply.
2024: Harris 75,017,613 votes [2]
Where are you getting 14 million? The actual difference was barely even half that.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
First past the post yo.
Your understanding is incredibly confused. Yes, electors need to meet within each state to cast their ballots at a location specified by each state.
Those ballots are certified by (a) state official(s) (on or before December 12th) and those ballots are then forwarded to DC (IIRC, to the National Archives) and those certified ballots are conveyed to the capital for counting on January 6th.
So, no. The electors needn't go to Washington DC to "cast their ballots." In fact, if they did so on the appointed day for them to cast their ballot, they'd be unable to do so, as that process would be proceeding without them in the state which designated them as an elector.
I really hope you're not an American citizen.
Not as a "gotcha," but to clarify the process for others who may not be well informed about it.
I'd note that I was also incorrect. Sealed ballots from each state are sent to the President of the Senate, not the National Archives. My mistake.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted."
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
But this time around he has a playbook of “inching towards autocracy” very well defined and milestoned. He is executing on it very well too
I have reservations about this line of thought.
For one, the people at the local city counsel have been showing up for a long time, all over the country in fact. If the actions they took have brought them here, of what use were the actions?
And second, I would like to see some hard evidence that you have in fact effected/enacted change by showing up beyond just being more informed and participating in what can otherwise be (from personal experience) either a snooze-fest or an echo chamber.
Sure, it might be a "snooze-fest", but you're not there for excitement.
I don't intent this comment to be a "you're wrong" comment. I'm only saying that OP's POV runs on an assumption that can be damaging.
Yeah, and they're a big part of the reason why housing is a messed up as it is.
This lets the people who do pay attention have complete capture. You know your rent is high? Yea that's mostly your state and municipal government doing the bidding of landlords and landed gentry.
At least I thought that when living in GA and saw most of the modern governors both Democratic and Republican weren’t bat shit crazy.
Kemp (Republican) is still sort of trying to hold the line against the GA MAGA wing of the Republican Party.
But then I moved to Florida…
Which I’m not saying is good, but we should separate the bluster from the reality.
From this article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/11/trump-dc-...
On national guard, 200 people at a time focused on administrative work:
> U.S. Army spokesman Col. Dave Butler said that most National Guard troops live locally and that the idea is to deploy them in shifts of 200 soldiers each to provide a round-the-clock presence.
> The troops for now will be focused on providing logistical and administrative support to free up D.C. police officers, similar to their support role at the southern U.S. border.
And they basically don’t want to actually run the police dept:
> Trump named Terry Cole, the head of the DEA, as interim commissioner of the D.C. police. Cole told Police Chief Pamela A. Smith on Monday evening that the federal team is hoping for the Metropolitan Police Department to lead the effort,
> Cole described Trump’s takeover of the department as more of a collaboration, and he stressed that officials would meet and work together to figure out where to deploy resources, the official said.
Basically they’re putting bodies out there so DC can put more local cops in the streets. And they really don’t know how to run anything when it comes to policing DC. How would they? They need the local cops to actually understand the issues.
Not saying any of this is good. But wanted to add this context.
But to take the opposite maximalist “Trump is a maniacal dictator” position ignores the pattern of bluster and back down from Trump.
Save your mental sanity. His goal is your outrage. He doesn’t have a plan.
He doesn’t have a plan* other than finding the button that keeps him in the news and generates narcissistic supply. When he gets bored of that button he backs off. Then he finds a new shiny button to press that freaks people out and generates headlines.
Social media posts where people are freaked out - like many on this thread - is to him like the best high possible.
The best you can do is respond to actual facts on the ground and ignore the bluster.
* it’s the people around him with plans to be worried about
Controlling the physical space around Congress, the Supreme Court, the federal bureaucracy means that every legislator, judge, and federal worker sees the Guard on their commute.
The message is environmental and atmospheric. Propaganda for the governing class. Power made visible to those for whom there is intent to intimidate.
Extending that, DC notoriously exists as an anomaly violating the foundation that the US was founded on. It is a city that isn't a city, a population with little representation in the federal apparatus that controls it.
DC's legal vulnerability makes it perfect for testing. What works there can be threatened elsewhere. "We did it in Washington" becomes the precedent.
The 30-day limit isn't a constraint. It's a demonstration period.
> "We did it in Washington" becomes the precedent.
The fact that Trump mobilized troops in LA to help with ICE raids was way more worrying, but they were withdrawn a week and a half ago by the Pentagon without much hullabaloo.
DC is also the capital of the country and a major tourist destination, and makes a terrible impression being covered with homeless encampments.
Democrats, more than anyone else, should want Trump to flood D.C. with police and turn it into Disney Land. When tourists from Wisconsin or Idaho come to visit the nation's capital, you want them to have a positive impression of what the federal government can build!
Kings have control over the military. The prime minister has control over the police. In absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia, there's no separation between the police and the army; soldiers are out there enforcing the law. In constitutional monarchies, you can't elect someone into Commander-in-Chief; the prime minister has to convince the king that it's something worthy of military action. As the king is well fed, it's difficult to bribe or blackmail kings into acting against the state.
I'm not saying it's a better system by any means - the US of A has seen plenty of wars and maybe it's best to have an elected Commander-in-Chief. But just some thought from a systems design standpoint.
Bagehot divided the dignified and the efficient. I've long thought that one glaring downside of the American presidential system is that it tries to combine the two roles in one office.
This only works on paper, and on paper congress or SCOTUS would've stepped in much sooner.
In practice, the monarch either has a lot of power, or does whatever the real head of government wants. Especially with how Trump can claim that he has the mandate of the people given that he won the election, and it's not like he doesn't wrap his motives behind legitimate claims. It's pretty easy to just claim that he has to do X for the security of the nation.
In reality, if the US had a monarch, they too would've gone along with whatever Trump wanted because to not do so is the nuclear option. It would be the equivalent of states trying to secede or not recognizing the current administration as legitimate and choosing to declare Harris as the real POTUS.
No Javascript required
x=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/08/11/us/trump-news
echo url=$x|curl -K- -A "googlebot" > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htm
John23832•13h ago
Though I guess the loop hole here is that the National Guard would in this case be acting under "state authority" given that typically state-like actions for DC are deferred to Congress. The open question being whether the Executive branch could act independently, or whether they still need explicit authorization from Congress.
baggy_trough•13h ago
normalaccess•13h ago
"The Act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard (under the Department of Homeland Security) is not covered by the Act either, primarily because although it is an armed service, it also has a maritime law enforcement mission."
It's confusing because DC does not have a governor so it looks like an edge case that has not been tested before.
ratelimitsteve•13h ago
pcaharrier•8h ago
Source: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/use-national-guard-suppo...