Trump 'authorizing Full Force, if necessary' as military deploys to another US city

[Kurokage]

It does look like Trump is causing a bit of an upset, and as a few Republican senators have said, what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
How many of those members supporting these actions would feel the same way if a democratic President sent troops into a sate without being asked??


https://www.alternet.org/trump-gop-senators-2674166110/

'Handful' of Republican senators call Trump’s latest power grab 'bad precedent'
 
President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard to Democratic-run cities has started to ruffle the feathers of a handful of Republicans, Newsweek reports.
While Democratic governors Gavin Newsom (CA), Tina Kotek (OR), and JB Pritzker (IL) have loudly and forcefully condemned Trump's orders and threats to send troops into their states, the Trump administration has justified these deployments by saying they are necessary to deal with local crime and protect federal property. This, despite data showing a decrease in crime in many cities such as Chicago

[PorkChop96]

He does state 'trying' to create false flags. This is a conspiracy site after all, and there's been plenty of discussions in the past on false flag attacks used to push a government agenda.

But again, nobody is even "trying" to claim that ICE agents are being killed....they are stating that they are being attacked. 

He is very intentionally making false claims, he should know better. Especially being someone who never served under Trump, only ever served under Democrat Presidents, and would not even know ho his admin is being ran, from an internal POV.

[Kurokage]

But again, nobody is even "trying" to claim that ICE agents are being killed....they are stating that they are being attacked. 

He is very intentionally making false claims, he should know better. Especially being someone who never served under Trump, only ever served under Democrat Presidents, and would not even know ho his admin is being ran, from an internal POV.

True, no ICE agents have been killed, but the Trump administration trying to push an 'inner city war' agenda is only going to provoke a response, especially when the national guard turn up uninvited. Should he of had to serve under Trump to have an informed opinion?? I don't think so.

And like you say, no ICE agents have been killed, so why fan the flames with the National Guard??
 

Major General Randy Manner, US Army (Ret)
For over three decades he served our nation in a variety of positions in the Pentagon and around the world. Prior to retiring from the Army as a Major General, he served as the Deputy Commanding General of the United States 3rd Army in Kuwait, as the Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and as the Acting and Deputy Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.  He facilitated the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in 2010, helped neutralize chemical weapons in Russia, oversaw investments in biological prophylactic research on deadly pathogens, to include Ebola, and  helped coordinate military emergency response support to States during natural disasters. He also was responsible for red-teaming critical DoD systems and facilities against cyber and physical attacks.

[PorkChop96]

True, no ICE agents have been killed, but the Trump administration trying to push an 'inner city war' agenda is only going to provoke a response, especially when the national guard turn up uninvited.

And like you say, no ICE agents have been killed, so why fan the flames with the National Guard??

Also, like  I had said, if the cities they are being sent to actually policed and let the police do their jobs, the NG would not be needed......

[Kurokage]

Also, like  I had said, if the cities they are being sent to actually policed and let the police do their jobs, the NG would not be needed......

Depending on who's stats' you read the police are doing their job with crime rates actually falling, and even if you ignore that, no one asked for the National Guard to be sent and Trump just p*ssed on 248 years of the 'United' States.

[putnam6]

I’m aware the guard isn’t policing anyone and made sure to make that clear. That’s why I said their deployment is largely symbolic. They haven’t had to intervene, so the question is if their deployment was necessary to begin with.

I agree that local law enforcement is inconsistent and sometimes defiant. But I don’t want to normalize the federal government imposing their authority over domestic crime.

Cities aren’t burning or war zones like the justification tried to paint it.

Trump won’t be president forever. Other people will have these powers. And even with Trump it should be scrutinized, especially after his remarks yesterday of taking away freedom of speech (in the context of burning the flag). But he said it in those terms. He also left to question what happens with habeas corpus.

We are approaching lines that once crossed, can’t be undone.

Where?

The Guard is protecting a federal building and federal employees and allowing them to execute lawful orders.

Much more concerned about having protests allowed for 100-plus days for every political disagreement.

Protesting legally is fine, especially in Portland. Find a park or space and have at it.

Protests have no right to disrupt Federal or privately owned homes or businesses...

PROTESTS have no right to infringe unduly on an individual; the people in the neighborhood are tired of the shit, and property values will likely plummet, the noise and distraction are more than a minor annoyance.

Wonder what the costs are so far?

Will non protesting Portlanders have to pay the bill for less than a few hundred azzhats, which brings the broader point, do we really want a few hundred azzhats to be this disruptive to other individuals' rights and freedoms

There's a healthy percentage of people who want to abolish the IRS, do they get to block IRS auditors from doing thier lawful jobs, protest, vandalize and harass citizens within the vicinity of IRS buildings?  

We will likely have multiple entities (foreign?) finance and organize disruptive protests, aka like most of the universities' protests.

Endlessly

like Europe and the UK

Yay!

 

Yes, protests can infringe on an individual's rights if they disrupt protected freedoms, like access to property, free movement, or safety. For example, blocking a person's access to their home or business, causing physical harm, or damaging property during a protest can violate individual rights. Laws vary by jurisdiction, but such actions may breach civil or criminal statutes, like trespass, harassment, or assault.
The affected individual typically has legal recourse. They can:

• File a civil lawsuit for damages (e.g., property damage, emotional distress, or loss of business) if the protest caused direct harm.
  
• Seek an injunction to stop ongoing or future disruptions.
  
• Report criminal acts (e.g., violence, vandalism) to law enforcement, which could lead to arrests or charges.
  
• Invoke constitutional protections (in the U.S., for instance) if their rights to free movement or property were violated, potentially through a civil rights claim.
  

However, courts balance protest rights (free speech, assembly) with individual rights. Peaceful protests on public property are generally protected, but disruptions like blocking roads or private property access can cross legal lines. Recourse depends on evidence, jurisdiction, and the specific nature of the infringement. Consulting a lawyer is key to assess viable claims.

[CriticalStinker]

Also, like  I had said, if the cities they are being sent to actually policed and let the police do their jobs, the NG would not be needed......

There’s no evidence to suggest they are needed. They haven’t done anything.

Nothing happening now is unprecedented. There aren’t large scale out of control riots as suggested. Yes, in cases people are going past protesting and committing crimes they should be accountable for. That happens every where, every day. We have mechanisms to protect broader societal rights, and also address those problems.

But what we see is a deployment of troops on our soil, executive orders in direct conflict with Supreme Court decisions on free speech, and the humoring of adjusting or removing Habeas Corpus or applying the insurrection act.

Regardless of how you feel about this situation, the criminals involved… there’s no denying there will be long standing implications.

One day, some one else will be in power with the same tools at their disposal.

[PorkChop96]

There’s no evidence to suggest they are needed. They haven’t done anything.

Nothing happening now is unprecedented. There aren’t large scale out of control riots as suggested. Yes, in cases people are going past protesting and committing crimes they should be accountable for. That happens every where, every day. We have mechanisms to protect broader societal rights, and also address those problems.

But what we see is a deployment of troops on our soil, executive orders in direct conflict with Supreme Court decisions on free speech, and the humoring of adjusting or removing Habeas Corpus or applying the insurrection act.

Regardless of how you feel about this situation, the criminals involved… there’s no denying there will be long standing implications.

One day, some one else will be in power with the same tools at their disposal.

What do you say to those ICE agents in Chicago that are now under open season due to the mayor ordering police not to help the ICE agents that are being assaulted? 



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-chic...usting-act


Every president has had this power, and some other than Trump have used it, this is nothing new. Most people are only mad because of who is making the orders.

[PorkChop96]

Depending on who's stats' you read the police are doing their job with crime rates actually falling, and even if you ignore that, no one asked for the National Guard to be sent and Trump just p*ssed on 248 years of the 'United' States.

What do you say to those ICE agents in Chicago that are now under open season due to the mayor ordering police not to help the ICE agents that are being assaulted? 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-chic...usting-act

[CriticalStinker]

Where?

The Guard is protecting a federal building and federal employees and allowing them to execute lawful orders.

Much more concerned about having protests allowed for 100-plus days for every political disagreement.

Protesting legally is fine, especially in Portland. Find a park or space and have at it.

Protests have no right to disrupt Federal or privately owned homes or businesses...

PROTESTS have no right to infringe unduly on an individual; the people in the neighborhood are tired of the shit, and property values will likely plummet, the noise and distraction are more than a minor annoyance.

Wonder what the costs are so far?

Will non protesting Portlanders have to pay the bill for less than a few hundred azzhats, which brings the broader point, do we really want a few hundred azzhats to be this disruptive to other individuals' rights and freedoms

There's a healthy percentage of people who want to abolish the IRS, do they get to block IRS auditors from doing thier lawful jobs, protest, vandalize and harass citizens within the vicinity of IRS buildings?  

We will likely have multiple entities (foreign?) finance and organize disruptive protests, aka like most of the universities' protests.

Endlessly

like Europe and the UK

Yay!

 

See my above reply, I think it shows my position on all of this.

Im not defending anyone who is breaking the law. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t go against laws to fix the situation.

Also, this is creating a tinder box. To your point on foreign actors, what would happen if a foreign actor sent a lunatic to do something right now? What would happen after? Insurrection act, military now doing policing. Are those possibilities worth it because protesters threw rocks and got in the way? Not to me.

And I get that people say we shouldn’t always be panicking about the worst case scenario, but again this is going to have impact beyond just this instance. Other leaders will have these tools, and they shouldn’t. They also shouldn’t be able to enact law with executive orders, especially when it contradicts SCOTUS rulings on constitutional rights.