677
Comments (38)
sorted by:
36
MisterKag 36 points ago +37 / -1

Agent Orange Man?

First post. Couldn't resist.

26
Kochamcie 26 points ago +30 / -4

You know what though? The damage is done. Most people lost their livelihoods qnd homes completely. But lets just talk some more about what we may do.

21
harrison_bergeron 21 points ago +21 / -0

If it's "100% correct" then I expect to see boots on the ground TONIGHT. No more of this shit. No more talk. No more excuses.

10
incogneato 10 points ago +10 / -0

Same here. I have family in direct line of the mobs. The gov of their state is worse than worthless. Need an end to this mob rule NOW.

14
HCQaddict 14 points ago +14 / -0

I know right.

10
incogneato 10 points ago +11 / -1

We would need declaration of martial law for this, correct?

Fine with me.

Can martial law be imposed nationwide, or does it have to go state by state? Or city by city, etc?

23
SpaceRussian [S] 23 points ago +23 / -0

All he’d need to do is activate the Insurrection Act. Gives him some authority to order in regular military to conduct suppression of riots, revolts, unlawful and criminal behavior if the local and state Government has proved unwilling or incapable of doing so themselves.

13
ntvl 13 points ago +13 / -0

He can just federalize the national guard, no need for military.

10
Kornstalx 10 points ago +10 / -0

For pedes wanting to know more about Federalizing the NG, this falls just outside the Posse Comitatus Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406

4
Slapstick86 4 points ago +4 / -0

I love Trump and trust him, but we don't need to give the government anymore power. We already have the 2nd amendment but people in leftist states can't use guns to defend themselves or the state will ruin their lives. What has to happen, is the people have to be free from the threat of prosecution if they use the 2nd amendment to defend themselves and their livelihoods. No need for martial law. We need our power back.

4
genghiskern 4 points ago +7 / -3

You don't want martial law. You might think you do. But you don't.

7
incogneato 7 points ago +7 / -0

You're right. I don't. But I want my city to burn - and my children's cities to burn - even less.

5
genghiskern 5 points ago +6 / -1

Then give the cops authority to remove the velvet glove. Also no point arresting anyone when the DA isn't going to prosecute. Get neighbourhood militias out and patrol to take some of the load off the cops. Stop voting for progressive democrats.

The point is you don't need martial law to fix this.

Also I see the strain on some of these cops, they're treating some of these people very badly weather they deserve it or not, their patience is wearing thin.

1
Fizbin7 1 point ago +3 / -2

There isn't any fucking law, you clueless loser.

7
OldsmobileRocket 7 points ago +8 / -1

VIETNAM 2.0

4
Ex-libtard 4 points ago +4 / -0

lol, have you met a Democrat?

6
Lla26 6 points ago +6 / -0

ZERO TOLERANCE!!

5
YaBoiJacob 5 points ago +5 / -0

Screaming Eagles will stop this

4
wubeizhi 4 points ago +4 / -0

Anyone else find it ironic that the current domestic terrorist threat is made up of people who refer to the southerners of the Civil War as "rebel losers?"

Looks like that title will have to be applied to a new group.

4
Basedcanadian 4 points ago +4 / -0

Crack of the lightning splitting the ground Thunder is sounding, artillery pounding

2
AFandAM 2 points ago +2 / -0

That seems somehow swedish.

3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
3
bit0101 3 points ago +3 / -0

Now it's a party.

2
phate451 2 points ago +2 / -0

They want to completely destroy or cripple the middle class. From shutting down businesses to destroying property. From the wuflu to the riots, it's been a pretty strong 1,2 punch.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
AnotherPedeInTheWall 0 points ago +1 / -1

I mean, we would first have to suspend posse comitatus, but fuck it, this might be war.

-6
ChickNorris -6 points ago +2 / -8

They can't take military action on US soil. They can be used for riot and crowd control but Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the US military from taking LEO action. I'm not sure Tom Cotton knows what he's talking about here tbh.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/posse-comitatus-act/

10
newaccountusername 10 points ago +10 / -0

He has a law degree from Harvard.

-5
ChickNorris -5 points ago +3 / -8

ok. doesn't mean he knows military law. I just linked the posse comitatus law I was referring to. If martial law is declared then perhaps the military can take LEO actions but at the moment all they can do is crowd control and that sort of stuff.

8
newaccountusername 8 points ago +8 / -0 (edited)

Tom Cotton was on active military duty with the US Army between 2005 and 2009, and reserve from 2010 to 2013. After he got his law degree.

He was a platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division, the one that he mentioned in his tweet.

1
ChickNorris 1 point ago +3 / -2

ok.

This is directly from the link I included, interpret it however you wish:

“The Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1385 (1979), is designed to limit "the direct active use of federal troops by civil law enforcement officers" to enforce the laws of the nation. Limiting military involvement in civilian affairs is basic to our system of government and the protection of individual constitutional rights.”

7
newaccountusername 7 points ago +7 / -0

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1266407429455187974

"The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 does not prevent domestic use of the military for law enforcement. It prevents such use of the military only without statutory authorization. And several statutes already authorize use of federalized guard or federal regulars for riot control."

1
ChickNorris 1 point ago +2 / -1

Ok.

8
SpaceRussian [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Look up insurrection act of 1807

-3
ChickNorris -3 points ago +1 / -4

Again, it's the scope of what the President can task the military with doing and it is limited even under the Insurrection Act:

The Act aims to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. The Act, with the Posse Comitatus Act limited and delayed Presidential powers for law enforcement.

It is still up to the individual states to take action and the use of military force commanded by the POTUS is a last resort. Things have to be out of state's control for this to happen and we are not there.

The last time US troops were deployed on US soil under the Insurrection Act was during the Rodney King Riots and even then they could not "arrest people". They can put down rebellion and control crowds or mobs and act as a resource for the local LEO but they cannot act as LEO.

According to this AP article: https://apnews.com/cf9947a3ca9f3225f9645fd330403eae

the Pentagon has made it clear they can send military police at the state's request to assist the local LEO.

Edit: What I'm trying to say here and they can't go in guns ablaze ready to take out US citizens. That's not how this works. Not at all.

2
1badcop 2 points ago +2 / -0

What do you think "put down a rebellion" means?

2
ChickNorris 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know, I was wrong. I started doing some more reading and well, I was wrong. I've been corrected now and quit commenting on it so I think we can move on. I'm glad the POTUS has called in the military.

1
1badcop 1 point ago +1 / -0

All good pede!