When the duly elected administration surrenders to the Illinois rebellion, the rebels can dictate the terms. Until then, the government will be enforcing the law.
Several legal exceptions allow military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The most notable is the Insurrection Act, which grants the president authority to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, or unlawful obstructions of federal law when local authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain order.
"Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer today issued a 52-page opinion and order finding that President Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard (CA NG) and active duty Marines to Los Angeles earlier this summer violated the Posse Comitatus Act—the 1878 law that generally bars the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement operations."
I cut off my cable back in January, so the only ads I see now are those on the handful of streaming services I subscribe to. Not a lot of ICE ads there, but a crap-ton of Rocket Money and drug ads (I play a drinking game with these, where I have to take a drink when a "parasite" is mentioned.)
Have you seen the ads urging self-deportation instead of being caught in operations designed to get the worst? Deportable aliens can't legally be ignored.
They sometime do. The problem is Biden/Mayorkas opened the borders to at least 11 million unvetted illegals. We do not know which are the worst until they are rounded up which requires a wide dragnet.
It's too bad that no one taught the ICE goons how to use a web browser, as plenty of intelligence on violent gangs in Chicago and where they operate online[1].
But what do I know, maybe the Tamale Lady is the secret leader of the Latin Kings, and Hispanic gangs are operating submarines in the Chicago River...
I'm glad you have at least one example of a gang arrest. How many American citizens and non-violent legal residents did they have to go through before making that arrest? How much manpower and taxpayer dollars were spent getting that one guy? How many rights were violated along the way?
I suspect that many of those involved in Chicago crime are citizens outside of ICE purview. Sorry that your FOID card did not get approved in time for you to prevent the arrest of 800 illegals.
Even if you as a law-abiding resident attempting to follow the law, wanted to protect the rights of legal citizens, you would be thwarted by liberal politicians.
“we don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement.” These rules are what separates us from Putin and Netanyahu. We don’t bomb hospitals, schools and apartment buildings. This makes me so angry and heartsick for our military. I don’t believe our soldiers will obey illegal orders to fire upon us. I pray my trust is not misplaced.
The shutdown is a weapon, not a tool. There is zero reason to believe the right will negotiate. They haven’t even once in this trump term straight from the bowels of hell.
As for Israel, I haven’t read the 20 point plan but I won’t hold my breath on any of this succeeding.
Damn, lady. Hegseth did not say "no rules of engagement". He said "stupid rules of engagement". A prime example is orders from on high prohibiting a sniper from taking out a suicide bomber during the Afghanistan withdrawal which cost 13 service members to lose their life. Are any of your four boys in the combat arms? I'm guessing not.
Pete's also on the record championing war criminals in the ranks (Eddie Gallagher), so color me (and maybe Kim) skeptical that he's going to be going over the ROE with a fine-toothed comb, making sure that they comply with federal laws, as well as our international commitments.
And Pete was been a champion in getting him (and other war criminals) pardoned.[1]
You're not doing a lot to convince anyone that a drunk, sexual abuser, high on his own farts isn't completely out of his league when it comes to leading the most potent military in the world. Pete should be smart enough to know better, but you know what they say about alcohol and brain cells.
But then again, he already proved that with Signalgate.
My oldest served in the JAG offices at Ft.Benning. He traveled the world with JAG officers. He explained rules of engagement to me and why this is so dangerous. I am just grateful my dad and my father-in-law,( both proudly served) are not here to hear this level of incompetence and ignorance of our constitution and the degradation of our military.
I appreciate his service, but lawyers cannot dictate combat decisions. Rules of engagement are issued by officers in command. JAG officers are advisors. Their degree of influence is determined by the civilians in charge of the Department.
It is only in the most extreme circumstances when a CO will willfully ignore the advice of a JAG regarding the legality or proper application of ROE. The responsibility (or blame) lies with the CO, but the purpose of the JAG is to protect the commander’s decision, not dictate.
JAG prosecutes military accused of war crimes in addition to other offenses. They uphold the Geneva convention. Do you? Or are you okay with slaughtering civilians and torturing enemies, including trump’s imaginary enemy within?
The war in Ukraine shows that anyone - male, female, young, old, able or paraplegic - can fly an unmanned drone and take out the shallow view of a warrior that Hegseth/et al drool over in Russian propaganda.
True. Stoned gamers might do it better than anyone, but they are easily distracted and cannot win a war. Only forces on the ground can root out a determined enemy unless the nuclear option is employed.
Gotta correct you both. The Ukrainian military is far more capable regarding drone warfare than most in the world, including the U.S. We can learn a lot from them about the next age of warfare. And don’t dismiss it. Aircraft carriers can’t take ground either but we’d never go to war without them. The difference between winning and losing is not infantry. It is who can gain any advantage, and semi autonomous drone swarms are a definite advantage if you know how to use them.
That will work well if the objective is to deter the enemy rather than take territory. Air power and artillery can certainly put the enemy in a hunker down mode. Barring total surrender or total destruction of the enemy, disciplined ground forces take over and maintain order.
I prefer deterrence. I saw Harold Ford, Jr. on FNC yesterday saying that he did not like the change from DOD to Department of War. He preferred Department of Deterrence.
Note we're still talking about a professional military - not a bunch of stoned gamers.
And from the sense of a "determined enemy", we're likely not talking about anything really requiring US personnel on the ground in direct combat. We have the largest (USAF), second largest (US Navy), fourth largest (US Army), and fifth largest (USMC) air forces in the world, and it's a safe bet that we will see larger UAVs being developed and utilized for both bombers and fighters - because we can remove the restrictions that the human body brings to aircraft development.
Lethality isn't the issue with the US military, at all.
Only if occupying a territory is not an objective. Afghanistan and Iraq for example. Maybe we should never have been in either of those places but that was the policy of our elected leaders.
Those are two great examples where the military did its job (killing the enemy) very well but the actual victory state was ill-defined and ultimately made the military do something it's not designed to do (build a state via long-term occupation).
Spoken like a true Air Force veteran. Every service member not engaged in immediate combat is a civilian by your definition. Discipline is not a consideration.
Recruiting statistics seem to indicate that goals are being met and patriots are volunteering for the right reasons in the hard combat service branches. One of the things that make marines special is that every Marine is a rifleman - even those who are also combat photographers.
No, I won't do it. For years I've blamed republicans for holding out on shut downs. For once its actually democrats are doing it. Republicans are offering a continuing resolution just like the dems demanded all those times. This shut down in purely on the dems.
That said some things are worth burning it all down for. Is the health and well being of millions of Americans worth it? I just that is up to each of us to decide.
Not when there is a filibuster rule. I'm in favor of the rule but it gives the minority party an equal voice in most legislation. It does give voters the final say when they have had enough of either party.
"He will bring the military in where he wants them, in U.S. cities."
Home Depot parking lots and tourist traps hardest hit.
I'm still waiting to see Trump and Co. go after actual violent criminals, instead of law-abiding soft targets.
When the duly elected administration surrenders to the Illinois rebellion, the rebels can dictate the terms. Until then, the government will be enforcing the law.
Like they're enforcing the Posse Comitatus Act?
No, thank you.
https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1385-the-posse-comitatus-act-explained/
Exceptions to Restrictions
Several legal exceptions allow military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The most notable is the Insurrection Act, which grants the president authority to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, or unlawful obstructions of federal law when local authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain order.
"Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer today issued a 52-page opinion and order finding that President Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard (CA NG) and active duty Marines to Los Angeles earlier this summer violated the Posse Comitatus Act—the 1878 law that generally bars the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement operations."
[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-judge-trump-regime-violated-posse-comitatus-act
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.33862d2f-fcee-484b-82e0-2aefd5de7aaa/gov.uscourts.ca9.33862d2f-fcee-484b-82e0-2aefd5de7aaa.7.0.pdf
"The district court’s September 2, 2025, order is temporarily stayed pending further order.
Are you seeing the commercials on tv with the claims of going after ONLY the most violent and dangerous?
I cut off my cable back in January, so the only ads I see now are those on the handful of streaming services I subscribe to. Not a lot of ICE ads there, but a crap-ton of Rocket Money and drug ads (I play a drinking game with these, where I have to take a drink when a "parasite" is mentioned.)
I'm familiar with the ICE ads, though.
Have you seen the ads urging self-deportation instead of being caught in operations designed to get the worst? Deportable aliens can't legally be ignored.
"operations designed to get the worst"
ICE needs more courageous planners.
"the worst" don't hang out at Home Depot and sell tamales on the street.
They sometime do. The problem is Biden/Mayorkas opened the borders to at least 11 million unvetted illegals. We do not know which are the worst until they are rounded up which requires a wide dragnet.
https://www.alipac.us/f12/tren-de-aragua-criminal-alien-arrested-chicago-home-depot-raid-433542/
It's too bad that no one taught the ICE goons how to use a web browser, as plenty of intelligence on violent gangs in Chicago and where they operate online[1].
But what do I know, maybe the Tamale Lady is the secret leader of the Latin Kings, and Hispanic gangs are operating submarines in the Chicago River...
I'm glad you have at least one example of a gang arrest. How many American citizens and non-violent legal residents did they have to go through before making that arrest? How much manpower and taxpayer dollars were spent getting that one guy? How many rights were violated along the way?
[1] https://gis.chicagopolice.org/datasets/2022-gang-boundaries/explore
I suspect that many of those involved in Chicago crime are citizens outside of ICE purview. Sorry that your FOID card did not get approved in time for you to prevent the arrest of 800 illegals.
Even if you as a law-abiding resident attempting to follow the law, wanted to protect the rights of legal citizens, you would be thwarted by liberal politicians.
“we don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement.” These rules are what separates us from Putin and Netanyahu. We don’t bomb hospitals, schools and apartment buildings. This makes me so angry and heartsick for our military. I don’t believe our soldiers will obey illegal orders to fire upon us. I pray my trust is not misplaced.
The shutdown is a weapon, not a tool. There is zero reason to believe the right will negotiate. They haven’t even once in this trump term straight from the bowels of hell.
As for Israel, I haven’t read the 20 point plan but I won’t hold my breath on any of this succeeding.
Damn, lady. Hegseth did not say "no rules of engagement". He said "stupid rules of engagement". A prime example is orders from on high prohibiting a sniper from taking out a suicide bomber during the Afghanistan withdrawal which cost 13 service members to lose their life. Are any of your four boys in the combat arms? I'm guessing not.
Pete's also on the record championing war criminals in the ranks (Eddie Gallagher), so color me (and maybe Kim) skeptical that he's going to be going over the ROE with a fine-toothed comb, making sure that they comply with federal laws, as well as our international commitments.
Eddie Gallagher was convicted of posing with a corpse.
It's still a war crime.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule113
Yes. He was convicted.
And Pete was been a champion in getting him (and other war criminals) pardoned.[1]
You're not doing a lot to convince anyone that a drunk, sexual abuser, high on his own farts isn't completely out of his league when it comes to leading the most potent military in the world. Pete should be smart enough to know better, but you know what they say about alcohol and brain cells.
But then again, he already proved that with Signalgate.
[1] https://time.com/7176342/pete-hegseth-donald-trump-pardon-war-crimes-military/
My oldest served in the JAG offices at Ft.Benning. He traveled the world with JAG officers. He explained rules of engagement to me and why this is so dangerous. I am just grateful my dad and my father-in-law,( both proudly served) are not here to hear this level of incompetence and ignorance of our constitution and the degradation of our military.
I appreciate his service, but lawyers cannot dictate combat decisions. Rules of engagement are issued by officers in command. JAG officers are advisors. Their degree of influence is determined by the civilians in charge of the Department.
It is only in the most extreme circumstances when a CO will willfully ignore the advice of a JAG regarding the legality or proper application of ROE. The responsibility (or blame) lies with the CO, but the purpose of the JAG is to protect the commander’s decision, not dictate.
Protect them only in the sense of keeping them out of trouble with the civilians in charge. Not always with warfighting being a consideration.
JAG prosecutes military accused of war crimes in addition to other offenses. They uphold the Geneva convention. Do you? Or are you okay with slaughtering civilians and torturing enemies, including trump’s imaginary enemy within?
The war in Ukraine shows that anyone - male, female, young, old, able or paraplegic - can fly an unmanned drone and take out the shallow view of a warrior that Hegseth/et al drool over in Russian propaganda.
True. Stoned gamers might do it better than anyone, but they are easily distracted and cannot win a war. Only forces on the ground can root out a determined enemy unless the nuclear option is employed.
Gotta correct you both. The Ukrainian military is far more capable regarding drone warfare than most in the world, including the U.S. We can learn a lot from them about the next age of warfare. And don’t dismiss it. Aircraft carriers can’t take ground either but we’d never go to war without them. The difference between winning and losing is not infantry. It is who can gain any advantage, and semi autonomous drone swarms are a definite advantage if you know how to use them.
That will work well if the objective is to deter the enemy rather than take territory. Air power and artillery can certainly put the enemy in a hunker down mode. Barring total surrender or total destruction of the enemy, disciplined ground forces take over and maintain order.
I prefer deterrence. I saw Harold Ford, Jr. on FNC yesterday saying that he did not like the change from DOD to Department of War. He preferred Department of Deterrence.
There is still the question of what we define as victory, and knowing what that is perhaps the most important part of fighting any war.
Note we're still talking about a professional military - not a bunch of stoned gamers.
And from the sense of a "determined enemy", we're likely not talking about anything really requiring US personnel on the ground in direct combat. We have the largest (USAF), second largest (US Navy), fourth largest (US Army), and fifth largest (USMC) air forces in the world, and it's a safe bet that we will see larger UAVs being developed and utilized for both bombers and fighters - because we can remove the restrictions that the human body brings to aircraft development.
Lethality isn't the issue with the US military, at all.
Only if occupying a territory is not an objective. Afghanistan and Iraq for example. Maybe we should never have been in either of those places but that was the policy of our elected leaders.
Those are two great examples where the military did its job (killing the enemy) very well but the actual victory state was ill-defined and ultimately made the military do something it's not designed to do (build a state via long-term occupation).
Spoken like a true Air Force veteran. Every service member not engaged in immediate combat is a civilian by your definition. Discipline is not a consideration.
Recruiting statistics seem to indicate that goals are being met and patriots are volunteering for the right reasons in the hard combat service branches. One of the things that make marines special is that every Marine is a rifleman - even those who are also combat photographers.
Credit where credit is due, to Trump, if he gets the ceasefire done.
Blame where blame is due. When one party controls both houses of congress as well as the White House, there is no escaping blame for a shutdown.
No, I won't do it. For years I've blamed republicans for holding out on shut downs. For once its actually democrats are doing it. Republicans are offering a continuing resolution just like the dems demanded all those times. This shut down in purely on the dems.
That said some things are worth burning it all down for. Is the health and well being of millions of Americans worth it? I just that is up to each of us to decide.
Not when there is a filibuster rule. I'm in favor of the rule but it gives the minority party an equal voice in most legislation. It does give voters the final say when they have had enough of either party.