U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to use the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to deploy military forces, in Minnesota amid escalating tension over a deployment of federal agents in the state’s most populous city, which has become the focus of daily clashes.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
Let’s see. We’ve got: ‘use military on Venezuela’, ‘use military on American allies’, ‘use military on Americans.’
Yeah, that all seems like something the winner of the FIFA peace prize would do.
Don’t forget that we’re going to ‘use the military on Iran’ because they are… um, cracking down on protesters.
But the prize was made of chocolate, so it’s only peace until it’s completely gone. Then it’s back to authoritarianism.
If you don’t stop resisting my illegal violent takeover, I’ll get more illegal and more violent!
The beating will continue until morale improves.
Just going to put this right here for you service men and women out there…
“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home.”
Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.
I mean that’s kind of a cop out that relies on the least educated people in the chain of command to not only successfully refuse an illegal order, but to defend its legality in a court where you’re guilty until proven innocent.
If scotus and other federal judges take weeks/months to deliberate if these are actually illegal orders, I’m not exactly confident that a bunch of privates and specialist are going to figure it out in the moment.
In extreme cases we’re starting to see now, I’d say if given an order to fire upon US citizen protesters, I’d hope the soldiers would have common sense in knowing that’d be illegal. In a recent scenario where given the order to fire a second strike upon a down vessel with survivors, that also should have been a common sense in its legality, or at the very least morality.
I can see, however, a dilemma of soldiers disobeying and fearing the repercussions in the moment of doing so until proven otherwise. I do urge, though, that “i was just following orders” does not hold up in a tribunal sense. It’s a double edged sword and an unfortunate situation this regime should NOT be putting our military in.
In extreme cases we’re starting to see now, I’d say if given an order to fire upon US citizen protesters, I’d hope the soldiers would have common sense in knowing that’d be illegal.
I think even if someone had the notion that it’s an illegal order, I would bet they’d still follow it. The military has made it very clear over the decades that they will protect soldiers following illegal orders before they protect soldiers disregarding illegal ones.
“i was just following orders” does not hold up in a tribunal sense.
The problem being that US soldiers are immune from prosecutions from international courts. The government has illicitly stated that we would invade the Hague before allowing a US military member be tried before their courts.
International courts of justice are largely a legal farce that allow countries to transmute their hard power into soft power to influence geopolitics.
Strategies straight from the fascism playbook.
i have been assured that the military will not fire upon civilians. let’s see.
International sanctions and property seizures for the US regime and its oligarchs would seem fair.
Maybe if you just bend over and take it a little longer, it will start to help…
