Shooting at protestors is wrong, unless it is in self defense.
I do not see how ICE is inciting violence by doing its job.
The protestors are interfering with lawful enforcement actions performed by ICE.
The protestors are the violent ones and ICE is reacting to the threats posed by the protestors is how I see it.
But that's backwards and not reality.
1) The Mayor doesn't want ICE there and contends that a) the real protestors are nonviolent and have been so b) there are hoodlums, as always, and the LA police have them in their sights and c) ICE is in their way
2) The Governor did not ask for help and doesn't want ICE there.
3) WTF? Agree with me that ICE is in the wrong here, just like at Kent State.
Sorry ICE is not wrong here, see my edit below and reposted here.
. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed U.S. Army paratroopers to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce federal court orders for school desegregation at Central High School. This action, prompted by Governor Orval Faubus's attempt to prevent the integration of nine African American students (the Little Rock Nine), demonstrated the federal government's commitment to upholding Supreme Court rulings and ensuring equal access to education.
Shooting at protestors is wrong, unless it is in self defense.
I do not see how ICE is inciting violence by doing its job.
The protestors are interfering with lawful enforcement actions performed by ICE.
The protestors are the violent ones and ICE is reacting to the threats posed by the protestors is how I see it.
But that's backwards and not reality. Iâm editing to fix my misstatement.
1) The Mayor doesn't want the guard there and contends that
a) the real protestors are nonviolent and have been so
b) there are hoodlums, as always, and the LA police have them in their sights and
c) the guard is in their way
2) The Governor did not ask for help and doesn't want the CA National guard there.
3) WTF? Agree with me that theyâre in the wrong here, just like at Kent State.
Been there, done that already. I'm thinking Kent State.
But...that was wrong... So, then, the ICE out there inciting violence and shooting at protestors is...wrong, too. Right?
Shooting at protestors is wrong, unless it is in self defense.
I do not see how ICE is inciting violence by doing its job.
The protestors are interfering with lawful enforcement actions performed by ICE.
The protestors are the violent ones and ICE is reacting to the threats posed by the protestors is how I see it.
Edit: There is precedent for federalizing the Nat'l Guard when they were used to enforce integration of schools in Arkansas.
In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed U.S. Army paratroopers to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce federal court orders for school desegregation at Central High School. This action, prompted by Governor Orval Faubus's attempt to prevent the integration of nine African American students (the Little Rock Nine), demonstrated the federal government's commitment to upholding Supreme Court rulings and ensuring equal access to education.
US citizens are increasingly too stupid for their own good right now. There's an article in the NY Times today about Trump's continued popularity in Appalachian Kentucky, in light of the reality that they are going to get hammered by his inflation and Medicaid cuts. They don't see it, and those that do excuse it as some sort of necessary move to fix what's broken in the country? It's magical thinking on a grand scale.
"Gotta swallow the bitter medicine to get better, son."
And yet, here we are. The entire congress, and much of the supporting personnel of the government have abandoned their duty.
And a large percentage of the population of the country support it.
And the popularity of the Trump goes up.
US citizens are increasingly too stupid for their own good right now. There's an article in the NY Times today about Trump's continued popularity in Appalachian Kentucky, in light of the reality that they are going to get hammered by his inflation and Medicaid cuts. They don't see it, and those that do excuse it as some sort of necessary move to fix what's broken in the country? It's magical thinking on a grand scale.
"If you were deployed on the front line and given the order, would you fire?"
Wrong question. Wrong questions get wrong answers.
What you're really asking is if I, a commissioned officer in the US military, would fire on Americans?
Would I?
I don't know. I can't answer your question without more information. What's the situation? Where am I deployed, where are these "front lines" you speak of? Who gave the order? Why? Am I being ordered to fire on unarmed civilians exercising the rights I am sworn to defend with my life? Or am I being ordered to defend those Americans with my life from brutal men who would do them harm? Most importantly: What DON'T I know in this moment?
See, that's thing. It's NEVER just that simple, shoot, don't shoot, kill, don't kill. Just follow orders.
That's what all that education, training, and experience is for. Years of it. Decades sometimes when you're talking about senior NCOs and General Officers. That's why we train our people the way we do and why it's so damn disastrous when we forget it.
That's the difference between thugs and professional soldiers.
That's the difference between a Marine and a proud boy, a Soldier and brownshirt.
That's the difference between a drunken Fox News host shilling for clicks and likes on social media and a qualified and professional Secretary of Defense who fully understands the gravatas of his office and that his sworn duty is to America and not to a man.
That decision you're asking me to make, THAT'S the difference. Right there.
But more importantly, it's about LEADERSHIP.
And THAT'S difference between a real President, and Donald Trump.
It's about those who put duty, sacrifice, honor, courage, dedication, and full commitment to the nation and its people over all else and are fully willing to lay down their lives in defense of civilization, not for a man, or a king or a president or a political ideology, but for a PEOPLE and the idea of a better future for all.
That's why we swore our oath not to a man, or a flag, or a political party, but to the Constitution.
And that's why I've spent the years since taking off that uniform, telling you over and over and over again just how goddamn important it is for you, CITIZEN, to show the hell up and do YOUR duty to the Republic.
You answer your own question by those you elect to run your nation, good or bad.
You either elect those who believe their office is a sacred trust, a duty, an obligation to the ideals of that better future, that better nation, and who understand the forces they unleash, or you hand your world over to the dull witted thugs and self-serving power-hungry who see military force only as a boot to be placed squarely on the throat of the people when they rise up in defense of liberty.
You ask me if I would fire on Americans.
I might.
But that's the wrong question and wrong questions get wrong answers.
The correct question is this: Would you, CITIZEN, elect by deliberate will or through lazy indifference a leader who would GIVE that order?
The U.S. Constitution and longstanding federal law strictly limit the use of the military to police civilians.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, active-duty military forces are prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
And yet, here we are. The entire congress, and much of the supporting personnel of the government have abandoned their duty.
The U.S. Constitution and longstanding federal law strictly limit the use of the military to police civilians.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, active-duty military forces are prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
National Guard and Reserves are generally not considered "active duty military", so the Posse Comitatus Act does not expressly prevent their deployment, especially if the Guard was "invited" by the state's governor - which obviously was not done. Trump has deployed them under Title 10, which allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a ârebellion or danger of rebellionâ, or the president is âunable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.â
"What you're really asking is if I, a commissioned officer in the US military, would fire on Americans?"
The U.S. Constitution and longstanding federal law strictly limit the use of the military to police civilians.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, active-duty military forces are prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
"If you were deployed on the front line and given the order, would you fire?"
Wrong question. Wrong questions get wrong answers.
What you're really asking is if I, a commissioned officer in the US military, would fire on Americans?
Would I?
I don't know. I can't answer your question without more information. What's the situation? Where am I deployed, where are these "front lines" you speak of? Who gave the order? Why? Am I being ordered to fire on unarmed civilians exercising the rights I am sworn to defend with my life? Or am I being ordered to defend those Americans with my life from brutal men who would do them harm? Most importantly: What DON'T I know in this moment?
See, that's thing. It's NEVER just that simple, shoot, don't shoot, kill, don't kill. Just follow orders.
That's what all that education, training, and experience is for. Years of it. Decades sometimes when you're talking about senior NCOs and General Officers. That's why we train our people the way we do and why it's so damn disastrous when we forget it.
That's the difference between thugs and professional soldiers.
That's the difference between a Marine and a proud boy, a Soldier and brownshirt.
That's the difference between a drunken Fox News host shilling for clicks and likes on social media and a qualified and professional Secretary of Defense who fully understands the gravatas of his office and that his sworn duty is to America and not to a man.
That decision you're asking me to make, THAT'S the difference. Right there.
But more importantly, it's about LEADERSHIP.
And THAT'S difference between a real President, and Donald Trump.
It's about those who put duty, sacrifice, honor, courage, dedication, and full commitment to the nation and its people over all else and are fully willing to lay down their lives in defense of civilization, not for a man, or a king or a president or a political ideology, but for a PEOPLE and the idea of a better future for all.
That's why we swore our oath not to a man, or a flag, or a political party, but to the Constitution.
And that's why I've spent the years since taking off that uniform, telling you over and over and over again just how goddamn important it is for you, CITIZEN, to show the hell up and do YOUR duty to the Republic.
You answer your own question by those you elect to run your nation, good or bad.
You either elect those who believe their office is a sacred trust, a duty, an obligation to the ideals of that better future, that better nation, and who understand the forces they unleash, or you hand your world over to the dull witted thugs and self-serving power-hungry who see military force only as a boot to be placed squarely on the throat of the people when they rise up in defense of liberty.
You ask me if I would fire on Americans.
I might.
But that's the wrong question and wrong questions get wrong answers.
The correct question is this: Would you, CITIZEN, elect by deliberate will or through lazy indifference a leader who would GIVE that order?
