They are willing to destroy this country

[anunitu]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Can't remember what it is called,but you can not use troops to police in country,and that is what trump is trying.

- - - Updated - - -

ok,here

There's a law that dates back more than a century known as "posse comitatus" that bars active-duty US troops from domestic law enforcement without authorization. Other laws and regulations have further clarified that troops can't participate in activities such as making arrests and conducting searches, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Can't remember what it is called,but you can not use troops to police in country,and that is what trump is trying.

Unless there's an invasion, I think - but who declares it's an invasion?

And they can't go into (or, I assume, shoot into?) Mexico. That would be sooooo tacky...

- - - Updated - - -

On a positive note, All ballot proposals here in michigan are set to pass. They are a Marijuana legalization proposal, an anti-gerrymandering poposal and a voter rights proposal including same day/election day voter registration, automatic voter registration and you can absentee vote for any reason if it passes.

I'm in The Great Mitten State, too. I am so excited to be voting next week!

[thalassa]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Posse Comitatus Act

[monsno_leedra]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

The problem here is that using the military to prevent masses of people from coming into the US doesn't strictly fall under the Posse Comitatus Act. Figure the military is charged with guarding the US from invasion and protecting the country. Add that "Invasion" is defined as more than just an army entering a country by force but also as "An occasion when a large number of people or things come in an annoying or unwanted way" (cambridge dictionary). Strictly speaking a large group of people entering by force or using threat of force to gain entrance would qualify as an army as they are using force to obtain entry into the country. Nothing says that an Army. much less an invading force, has to be made up of men only. That said group has already demonstrated usage of force to penetrate other countries would potentially qualify them as an aggressive attacking force and a threat to the US. Especially if from a legal status we have laws in place and consulates and embassies through which refugee status can be applied for.

As far as opening fire upon them, that would become an issue I think it they fire'd into Mexico. That would be firing into another country. But in truth I fully expect to see it where it will be women and children at the front when the line gets to the border. Yet if it gets held up then those women and children will vanish again and all those men will be there with the violence.

Of course it does ask the question then, to be a refugee by law you have to be persecuted but Mexico offered them so much to stay. That means they were not being persecuted by Mexico and had opportunity there. So by design not qualify for refugee status in the US as they were given refugee status somewhere else.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Oh, cool!

It's like Kent State, only instead of being a domestic horror, it'll be an international horror.

Thanks for 'splaining.

[anunitu]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

The kent state thing crossed my mind as well,and the national; guard,and the song.

- - - Updated - - -

A repeat will burn trump down to his dark roots!!

[monsno_leedra]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Oh, cool!

It's like Kent State, only instead of being a domestic horror, it'll be an international horror.

Thanks for 'splaining.

No, I think the "Bonus Army" incident of 1932 might be more appropriate as a comparison if your looking at men, women and children being involved and the US Army being directly involved / utilized against "civilians". Shelters destroyed, men & women driven out by force, the whole thing ordered by the sitting President of the United States. People may or may not have been injured or killed. Well it's known that at least two were killed by the police prior to the military involvement.

What will be historical will be the actual written "Rules of Engagement" that the deployed Troops have to obey and are given for the operation. President Trump can say all sorts of things for the camera but what is actually given to the troops will be the big thing. The military always gets all sorts of "You Can Do This" type thing reported in the press but seldom does it actually match the rules of engagement we are given for performing under.

I'll admit up front that is not to say there may not be "Incidents" those always seem to happen. The definition of "Incident" to broad to define to be honest as in the 24 years I served I saw the criteria change as the conditions changed.

Just my opinion and others may disagree but I think how it unfolds will depend a lot on which troops are placed on the border. Young green troops, eager to prove themselves will respond differently than older troops who've seen battle and might be less wiling to just shoot. Troops who've been stateside for a bit versus troops who've just come back from the battlezone will have a different attitude and response. Regular Army versus mobilized National Guard will have a different perspective and manner in how they carry out their orders. To a large degree how their Officer's and Senior NCO's respond and present themselves will have a significant influence upon their Solders and how they carry out their orders.

Kent State was National Guard, what many call Weekend Warriors. Some prior full time Army others what you might call part time military except when mobilized for full time operations. The rest of the time only active on the weekends, once a month or 2 weeks a year. They fill a significant role in that they augment the Army ranks real quick in time of war if activated or needed but I've also heard many say it's tough to go from being a civilian to military and shift the mindset that is needed.

Kent State is sort of an example where imagine being in a situation where on Friday your a school teacher that morning. That afternoon your part of a military squad responding to a riot and with a group of 10 to 15 men and supposed to read each other and think as a unit. But you haven't been working with each other and really can't think of how the rest of your group is moving or working under pressure. You hear a shot and it all goes to crap and you all start shooting. Even the officer in charge of your group really doesn't know what is going on because he hasn't been with you either. You train for it but its not 24-7 like active duty Army. Sad part is even being active duty does't mean it will not happen under pressure or under poor leadership.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Whatever order is given to troops regarding rules of engagement, the words spoken by tRump have impact.


Nigeria's army cites Trump to justify shooting Shia protesters

From the article:

The Nigerian army has cited a video of US President Donald Trump, in which he says soldiers should respond with force to migrants throwing stones, to justify opening fire on a Shia group this week.

"When they throw rocks... consider it as a rifle," Mr Trump says in the clip.

Nigerian police have arrested 400 members of a Shia Muslim sect after days of deadly protests in the capital.

Amnesty International has criticised Nigeria's army for the killings, saying the Shia protesters were peaceful.

But a spokesman for the Nigerian army says their decision to fire live rounds at protesters in Abuja was justified because they were armed, telling the BBC "this is what [Mr] Trump was talking about".

Also, for the record, the word " incident," in this context, would be Orwellian for "shooting down civilians throwing rocks."

[monsno_leedra]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Whatever order is given to troops regarding rules of engagement, the words spoken by tRump have impact.


Nigeria's army cites Trump to justify shooting Shia protesters

From the article:




Also, for the record, the word " incident," in this context, would be Orwellian for "shooting down civilians throwing rocks."

Truthfully think you have selective "justified usage" here by the Nigerian Army more than what you'd get within the context of application of intent within the US response at our border. Perhaps even to the extent of psychological warfare upon those in the caravan's coming from the south as to what they can expect. What I hope would be our response anyway, wouldn't like to think we'd fire on them with lethal force.

In my opinion two different issues here. That a foreign power uses something a sitting president says to justify an action is nothing new. Good, bad, or indifferent been done many times before and will be done over and over again. Doesn't really matter which foreign power they cite, simply one seen as a world power and justifies their position and action. Part will condone it, part will slam it and say how bad it was. All part and parcel of the big global political game, spin world approval or disapproval to suit your own needs and position.

I purposely chose "Incident" vice using any singular meaning because if it should devolve to shooting civilians who throw rocks I think you'll find that will be the least of what happens during the conflict. The actual things that happen, on both sides, will be worse than just shooting. Especially if it goes on for any amount of time. Then you get lovely little situations for instance where the people in front are trying to stop and go back but the people behind them are pressing forward and driving them into the slaughter. Guns are shooting and you can't hear anything over the shooting and even when the order is given to stop it takes a bit before it filters down. Secondary and tertiary fires or explosions within structures or vehicles kill or maim those near them or in them. River crossing with their drownings either due to not being able to swim or trying to bring over children and keep them above water. Doesn't even have to be that deep either. Like I said incidents.

In truth the military being at the border is of less concern to me than a bunch of good-ole-boys who think their president is telling them it's their national and patriotic duty to go down there. Some of the meme's and postings I've seen that are encouraging that is what worries me.

[anunitu]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

US militia groups planning to form their own caravan and head to border: report

Might be worst case.

See story here.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

US militia groups planning to form their own caravan and head to border: report

Might be worst case.

See story here.

That fits some of the stuff I've seen and heard. Some of the nuttier groups if they take an active role worry me way more than the US Military on the border.

[anunitu]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

I have seen things like if trump or the Repubs lose there will be a new civil war,now that is scary if they believe that

- - - Updated - - -

see story here.

- - - Updated - - -

also a story here.

Trump supporters are talking about civil war. Could a loss provide the spark?

[monsno_leedra]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

Not sure about a civil war but it's crazy the way this mid-term cycle is going. I live in West Virginia and have gotten more political flyers in the mail this cycle than I recall for any previous election cycle. Some serious money is being spent on this state for our vote between two people up for the seat in the Senate. Neither of which is a good choice and our 3rd party choices basically do nothing but ensure one of the primary choices is sure to win but not by a large majority. The Democrats want the seat the Republicans want to keep it, both options bad for the state in general. Yet both bases claim their side the better choice and want you to ignore their sides trash and history, and there is lots of it.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

P.S. pentagon turned down tRump's request for troops. Official statement is that the U.S. military is not tasked with policing within the United States, except under emergency conditions (declaring martial law, I'd imagine).

[anunitu]

Re: They are willing to destroy this country

There is a lot of crap popping up in this midterm.