Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Old Man said:

But $400 million for troops to rush to the border and machine gun turn back the caravan.

 

I'm pretty sure posse comitatus prevents both. (For regular Army at least. Not state Guard units.Pretty sure they were talking about sending RA, but could be wrong.) They can't act as law enforcement on the border. All they can do is provide logistical support. Even if Trump gives the orders, the commanders are obligated to disregard unlawful orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the migrants/refugees throw rocks first. The administration has established that throwing rocks would provoke the right of the soldiers to defend themselves with their weapons. So long as the soldiers only do the logistics support work they have been assigned to, I have hope there will never be a point when a frustrated migrant has even the opportunity to throw a rock, prompting a lethal response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Unless the migrants/refugees throw rocks first. The administration has established that throwing rocks would provoke the right of the soldiers to defend themselves with their weapons. So long as the soldiers only do the logistics support work they have been assigned to, I have hope there will never be a point when a frustrated migrant has even the opportunity to throw a rock, prompting a lethal response.

 

I'm not the least bit worried about the migrants throwing rocks. People who are just trying to stay alive don't usually go around picking unnecessary and potentially suicidal fights. Their supporters and people pretending to be supporters are another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Unless the migrants/refugees throw rocks first. The administration has established that throwing rocks would provoke the right of the soldiers to defend themselves with their weapons. So long as the soldiers only do the logistics support work they have been assigned to, I have hope there will never be a point when a frustrated migrant has even the opportunity to throw a rock, prompting a lethal response.

Shooting at rock throwers would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as I understand it, and soldiers have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, a rock (say, the size of a brick) is easily lethal force. No rules of engagement prevent soldiers from defending themselves from such.  The only question is, what circumstances would prompt the refugees to want to throw rocks, and what circumstances would provide soldiers as a target for rock throwing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's M.O. to this point has been to make a big show of being tough, to sell that image to his base of support, and to distract public attention from issues that really worry him, like the Mueller investigation. But he doesn't think through the consequences of his impulses, like with that immigrant-family-separation fiasco. With putting combat troops in the path of unarmed migrants, though, there's the tragic potential for loss of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion is purely academic because US troops are legally prohibited from enforcing the law, and because asylum seekers aren’t going to throw rocks. However, Trump swore to follow the UCMJ in his oath of office. Sentries are to use the minimum force necessary to control a threat; troops in body armor are not sufficiently threatened by individual brickbats to justify the use of deadly force as Trump suggested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion is purely academic because US troops are legally prohibited from enforcing the law, and because asylum seekers aren’t going to throw rocks. However, Trump swore to follow the UCMJ in his oath of office. Sentries are to use the minimum force necessary to control a threat; troops in body armor are not sufficiently threatened by individual brickbats to justify the use of deadly force as Trump suggested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

Meanwhile: Nigerian Army Uses Trump’s Words to Justify Fatal Shooting of Rock-Throwing Protesters

 

I think they'd have shot those people anyway. It's what they do. I think the bigger issue is that we're propping up groups like the Nigerian Army in an effort to fight the extremists, when they're no better. Our government has a long history of doing that, and has continued to do so under every administration in recent history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I think they'd have shot those people anyway. It's what they do. I think the bigger issue is that we're propping up groups like the Nigerian Army in an effort to fight the extremists, when they're no better. Our government has a long history of doing that, and has continued to do so under every administration in recent history.

[points towards the cluster fluff in Yemen, where we're supplying the Saudis]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Which is something that pains me every election. Obama supported the Saudis in Yemen. Trump isn't really any different. I will never get a chance to vote for someone who promotes peace in the world.

This is fair.  I would note, however, that peace-promotion is arguably a form of humanitarian interventionism, inasmuch as we would be using our soft power to influence countries to cease conflict. This is distinguishable from both isolationism and non-interventionism, both of which would do nothing in the event of a conflict which does not involve allies or impact our vital national interests.  China is non-interventionist, but actually does very little by way of promoting peace.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would mean fewer elected Democrats giving him a hard time, which might very well appeal to him.

 

But this is S.O.P. for Trump to this point: portray everyone who opposes him as incompetent, weak, evil, or otherwise "an enemy of the people," and threaten them to try to sound like a Strong Leader! Never mind that cutting federal funding for California's forestry management would just increase the suffering for victims of wildfires.

 

Oh, and blaming state mismanagement for increasing fire frequency sidesteps that inconvenient "global warming" issue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...