The parent asked a question and I answered as neutrally as possible. I welcome suggestions on how I could have been even more colorlessly neutral, but I suspect that phrases like "radical left lunatics" would be counterproductive to that neutrality even in quotation.

National guard members are subject to the restrictions imposed by Posse Comitatus when on Title 10 orders. National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG.

Putting active duty military members on Title 10 orders, such those of the 82nd Airborne Division which reporting indicates Trump also wanted to use in 2020, would also be an obvious violation of Posse Comitatus if those troops were used to arrest, surveil, or otherwise control protestors. Active duty troops may perform in a supporting function for domestic law enforcement, such as by providing engineering, logistics, or communications to law enforcement, which is what US troops do when they're on the border (or when they are supporting counter-smuggling operations).

If the Roman Senate's law says the army can't cross the Rubicon river, and anyone who does lead an army across will be executed - then that's the law.

But if an army actually crosses the Rubicon? Turns out that law doesn't count for much when the other guy has an army, and all the senators have to flee the country.

Then the guy with the army is in charge. He can retrospectively legalise his actions, grant himself a pardon, and fill recently-vacated positions of power with allies who'll sign it all off.

So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.

You are making an important and fatal mistake: you are confusing law and power.

Caesar's civil war was illegal under the laws of the Roman Republic. Caesar successfully took power, so there was no one to enforce those laws, but he did break them, and ultimately, the Republic. As far as I know Caesar never even bothered legitimizing his war or self-pardoning - he didn't need to, he won and the Senate made him dictator for life.

> So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.

This is very important: only if they win will their illegal actions go without punishment, and winning is not guaranteed.

There is a reason we generally prefer the rule of law to the rule of power.

I don't think michaelt was confused; I think he was making the exact point that you are.

It's probably a common blindspot for people on HN to think in technical terms like this of what is and isn't permitted. But it comes down to people who are armed and emotional.

I'm sorry, you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities?

This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.

> you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities

Yes, I'm saying that given the right circumstances what is legal on paper does not matter in the real world.

> This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.

I have never served but I have read history books. This isn't a pure hypothetical: these things have happened before, there are examples going back as far as you would like. My sibling comment even expanded on one of these.

> I'm sorry

If you're sorry then I think it would have been possible to edit your comment not to have the tone of personal insult.

It also would have been possible for you to not claim that military servicemembers are not in control of their emotions, and that this may make them present a danger to others by misusing their weapons.

But you did claim that, or at least imply it, so here we are.

Then it seems you are not sorry. Either way, it would have been absurd for me to ignore the humanity of the people I share the world with, especially given the ample amount of examples of military men being lost in their emotions.

I think it took the tone of an insult partly because "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult to our military leadership. There's probably nothing more important to being a great military leader than the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations. I would guess there is a point of pride in doing that which was being assailed in your comment.

> "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult

Care to explain how having weapons or emotions is insulting? Everyone serving in the military is a human and humans have emotions. There's no shame in that and I think it requires quite a mean spirited mis-reading of what I said to take that from it.

> the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations

I think we're in agreement, you just have a different idea of what it means to be emotional. The desire to maintain a cool head in the face of horror is based in emotion. The effect of keeping a cool head might be exactly the reason why the technicalities of legality break down.

All that said we also have to remember that not everyone serving is a "great military leader" and that's also part of the point at hand.

This is getting a bit silly, but I'll try again.

> it comes down to people who are armed and emotional.

This implies that real people are making emotional decisions instead of guided by reason.

> technical terms like this of what is and isn't permitted

These technical terms that you are discounting are some of the real weapons that human beings use to give them options beyond simply following orders that they disagree with.

This is an incredibly nuanced topic, and to reduce it to people making "armed and emotional" decisions shows a lack of appreciation for what people try to do in difficult situations.

Again, your position is based on a disdain for emotion and a preference for "reason.' This is not a position I share, we are not Vulcans. I see no shame in recognising the emotional nature of our fellow actors.

I would point out the humour in an emotional reaction to my choice of words derailing the conversation but the realisation that there are people who believe their "great military leaders" are somehow "above" emotions and that this is a good thing is genuinely terrifying

Nobody is saying emotions don't exist. But I, like many others, believe that our ability to choose our reactions based on reason rather than emotion is what separates us from animals. We don't always succeed, but this is why your unevidenced claim implying that emotion is the primary driver of decision making has ruffled feathers.

People including myself have emotional reactions, but I choose to respond with a reasoned explanation, and I certainly wouldn't engage in violence with you over it, even if a portion of my lizard brain demanded that I should.

> unevidenced claim implying that emotion is the primary driver of decision making

You've added the words "primary driver" here yourself, I never made such a claim. But I hope you can see that not only that leap but also your desire to overcome your "animalistic" emotions are both rooted in emotion.

I won't waste my time looking for evidence for a claim I didn't make and I don't think it's up for debate that the majority of people in the armed forces are "armed and emotional." But in terms of the original claim that checks and balances only serve up to the point of human failure I could point to any number of examples and would repeat the fact that others have raised some in this thread.

The Insurrection Act[1] is still in force. The President can legally suspend Posse Comitatus with a simple proclamation and then he can use federalized Guard or regular troops to enforce law as he pleases.

Article II and Congress have invested absolutely vast powers in the Presidency. The main check on their exercise is not Congress, or the Judiciary, or even the Deep State, but rather just traditions. Unfortunately, both parties have been attenuating those traditions for many administrations.

I don't think we're going to see the US government morph, Roman style, into a new form of government that's only nominally a republic. I think it's already happened quite some time ago. And just like in ancient Rome, most people have no idea it happened, because it will continue to use the same legal structure, just applied in new and interesting ways.

What we're seeing now is the struggle between two factions of the elites over who controls this new system.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

> National guard members are subject to the restrictions imposed by Posse Comitatus when on Title 10 orders.

True.

> National Guard members can only perform domestic law enforcement duties when under the command of a state's governor and TAG.

False. Posse Comitatus (18 USC Sec. 1385) does not prohibit the military (including the National Guard when called into federal service) from being used for domestic law enforcement, it prohibits that from being directed by those without specific authority in the Constituton or act of Congress to do so. The Insurrection Act provides authority to the President to do so, either at the request of state governments (10 USC Sec. 251) or on his own unilateral determination of necessity (10 USC Sec. 252, 253).

According to Trumps longest serving chief of staff, John Kelly, he regularly needed to be talked down from using the military on citizens:

> Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump was repeatedly told dating back to his first year in office why he should not use the U.S. military against Americans and the limits on his authority to do so. Mr. Trump nevertheless continued while in office to push the issue and claim that he did have the authority to take such actions, Mr. Kelly said.

From his Oct 2024 interview with NYT: https://web.archive.org/web/20250213113815/https://www.nytim...

Illegal and he can stuff "radical left lunatics" rhetorics cause it just makes it more plain he is about to abuse power.

It gets downvoted because it tries to minimize or justify clear threats of using military force under exagerated pretense.

It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor.

So Trump wanting to deploy the National Guard to stop his imagined election day interference, or to deal with rioters, would fall under the same rules as if he were to try to deploy the US Army for those tasks.

> It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor.

But Trump provided zero details about how he might use the military. Zero.

He didn't say "i don't care about Posse Comitatus Act" or "I will personally deploy them as the Commander in Chief".

This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!"

Assuming Trump will break the law when he nothing in his comments suggested he would AND he has legal channels with which to do it (send a formal request to a govenor), is not a reasonable nor logical thought process.

I don't recall the same hysteria when Obama said he was going to deploy troops to the Mexico border for law enforcement because of cartel violence.

https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying...

He even said he will "continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border." Whatever is necessary?!? Doesn't he know it's illegal for the President to deploy US troops inside the US?

Amazing how the media gives him a pass and is happy to explain how he'll do it all legally, but Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.

That's why norms exist. Most previous presidents never would have had this problem in the first place because they would never suggest using US troops on citizens in the first place. If they needed to do something that even approached violating a norm, then they would go out of their way to affirm that they still supported the norm and to explain their actions. Obama was given more benefit of the doubt partially because he mostly followed norms.

By going out of his way to flout norms, Trump has brought this sort of mistrust and criticism on himself. Therefore, it's not really reasonable for his supporters to complain about it, it's exactly what they signed up for. Remember that Republicans style themselves as the party of personal responsibility.

You are failing the first law of HN, where you have to assume the worst possible form of any action when it refers to Trump.

Four years of this TDS is going to be exhausting.

We have years of experience with Trump already. At this point assuming that he will be cruel, irresponsible, corrupt, and vindictive is justified.

So was Biden. And with Alzheimers and unknown people actually running the government.

I don't see the comparison you are trying to make. Biden defined his entire political persona around centrism, bipartisanship, moderation, etc. He certainly made major mistakes (e.g. mismanaging the Afghan pullout, running for reelection); however, he didn't really display the cruelty or intolerance of different ways of life that is a core part of Trump's brand.

I mean, that might be how he defined his persona, but I don't think it's borne out by the facts. I think there was quite a lot of intolerance of anybody that didn't fit in with the left wing view of culture war issues espoused by his government.

He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.

Didn’t those “political persecutions” end up with actual criminal convictions for fraud by an independent jury?

"independent jury". It was in New York. What do you think would happen if Biden or Hillary were tried by a jury in Florida or Texas?

Did voir dire not apply?

> He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.

Odd conclusion. Why would you think solely? Are you familiar with the evidence in the documents case?

In the documents case, Trump clearly violated the law, based on evidence now in the public record. National security documents he was not entitled to were handled illegally, in ways that others have been prosecuted and convicted for. In really, really bad and scary ways, like nuclear-level secrets in an unlocked closet ways. With pictures. And videos. In the place he lets random foreign enemy political figures AND THEIR SECURITY STAFF run around.

The predominant reason someone like Biden or Bush doesn’t get prosecuted is because they don’t do this shit. Second, because of norms, they transparently cooperate when they make mistakes. Even still, Trump was handled with kid gloves. The documents prosecution took years and was ultimately a massive waste of time.

So if the sole reason was to disadvantage Trump, wasn’t it real dumb? Wouldn’t a more reasonable motivation be that the hundreds of elite law enforcement agents were doing their jobs / protect the country from a clear and present national security threat?

>>The predominant reason someone like Biden or Bush doesn’t get prosecuted is because they don’t do this shit.

Biden mishandled secret documents but escaped prosecution by being mentally unfit. He kept them in his garage, I believe.

Bill Clinton hid secret documents in his sock drawer.

Hillary had her secret email server with classified information on.

“this shit” was not a referent to mishandling classified material.

It was a referent to Trump having thousands of documents, including nuclear secrets and other SCIF material.

Please provide evidence of any of these other people doing it with nuclear secrets.

Please provide evidence of these other people risking national security by giving access to their sock drawers or email servers. Trump lets anyone into Mar A Lago. Anyone including known Chinese spies: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/759906611/chinese-woman-who-b...

Here’s a convenient wikipedia article summarizing sources and showing you pictures of what Trump did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago

You honestly think these behaviors are equivalent or comparable severity?

Biden had SCIF material.

I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't let just anyone into the rooms where the secret documents were. You realise Mar a Lago is a 17 acre country club, right? It's not a 3 bedroom house.

And if you think Gmail is secure you need to read up on the DNC email leak.

You followed up with more accusations without evidence, so I’ll stop engaging after this.

But to your point about where they were, that would be a public bathroom amongst others: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/heres-where-donald-t...

So yeah. I do think he completely and openly abused our country and everything it stands for, by letting anyone into those rooms, exactly as you implied. We know for a fact that ONE Chinese spy has been caught. I linked it already. So for all the other spies that weren’t caught - including Israeli, German, Russian, etc - they know exactly what Trump had. It’s a shame we don’t.

My assumption is that he wasn’t prosecuted for treason because the documents weren’t actually valuable. Classified doesn’t mean important, just that we obey laws about it.

Indeed. And the world did not end and soldiers did not fire on US citizens. Americans experienced it and his support grew.

Hanlon's razor is reserved for people who don't demonstrate malice on a daily basis. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they deserve the scourge of the certainty. I'm sure you can go back through your comments, find several instance where you've said something similar, and it later turned out the concerns were completely justified.

Edit: Didn't even have to go back a month: "The Project 2025 that he disavowed? Do you want trying arguing with facts rather than some evil figment of your imagination?" Of course, it was already ridiculous making that argument a month ago, and I'm sure you'll still say that's a figment of everyone's imaginations.

I think this is what people call the Mandela Effect. Below is an actual video in a presidential debate of Trump saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and yet you claim he never said that:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t...

Please try and find some facts to argue with.

> Please try and find some facts to argue with.

Why don’t you start first and show us all how it’s done?

I did not claim he never said it. I’m claiming that it was an obvious lie. If words are the only thing that matters when judging a persons intentions, then that must apply to every person equally or else you’re objectively biased. But you already know that.

Trump is deranged.

The question: "Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US citizens?"

The answer: Numerous examples of Trump threatening to use the US military against US citizens

The retort: He didn't explain exactly how he would do it, so it's not a threat.

> This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!"

No, it's like someone saying I'm going to steal your bike, then you tell other people they said they're going to steal your bike, then someone else defends them arguing they didn't say how they were going to steal your bike so stop saying they said they're going to steal your bike.

When Obama threatened the same, he was given the benefit of the doubt?

Example? I was drunk for the entire administration. I don’t doubt he said some stupid shit, but I doubt he then doubled down and escalated consistently afterwards, with unquestioning support from his constituents.

> Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.

Because he keeps breaking the law. Repeatedly. The better part of term in office this year has been spent violating the constitution, and lets not forget he's a convicted felon despite all the effort put towards making him immune from the law.

> 1 was to stop the rioting around George Floyd where there was significant damange to public and private property, again the national guard was suggested

That's deploying military inside US against its citizens. You just argue it might be a good idea.

So then 0 and 1 would indeed satisfy "using the US military against US citizens".

(When the National Guard is under the command of the federal government, rather than state governor, they are, obligation- and restriction-wise, the same as the US military.)

Damage to public / private property is normal in a riot, that's where riot police comes in - who are, on paper, experts in nonviolent / nonlethal crowd control and de-escalation. Deploying the National Guard would have been an unnecessary escalation.

I do wish either riot police or the National Guard was deployed on Jan 6th though. But neither Trump nor anyone in the chain of command with that authority did, which only emphasizes how it was orchestrated and intentional.

I found it helpful to have that one line summary without following the link.

Upvoted because it provide more context, not because I agree these are good reason.

I don't see how that changes anything. Especially since in practice "rioting" tends to mean "a protest that the police or those in power don't like".

All of those situations still have the problems associated with deploying the military against civilians: The military isn't trained to carry out appropriate law enforcement. It compromises trust in and support for the military. It tends to be used disproportionately against the left rather than the right. It is easily abused to suppress dissent. Etc.

> Rioting is rioting and not protesting.

This doesn't seem to hold well in practice.

> The moment protestors cross over to vandalism and violence, they're rioters and not mere protesters.

And this seem to be usually applied collectively (in obvious opposition to basic human rights) in practice. Often in cases where the violence wasn't done by the protesters and even in cases where the violence was against the protesters.

Also, police has a really shitty history of capturing and holding into account the actual violent people. They usually go free for turning the next protest violent too.

And both happen again and again, all over the world.

> Often in cases where the violence wasn't done by the protesters and even in cases where the violence was against the protesters.

Also very possible that the state actors are the ones beginning the violence which is well documented to have happened during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

The point still stands that the choice of response should be appropriate, and there are several choices between inaction and deployment of the military.

I agree that January 6 was a riot.

> The military isn't trained to carry out appropriate law enforcement.

On the other hand, nor are the police.

It's worth noting that when Trump says "radical left lunatics" he means mainstream democrats like Kamala Harris.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/25/trump-blasts-harris...

Who, it should be noted, is not a leftist. Let alone a radical leftist.

> radical left lunatics

Coming from a government who qualifies everybody they don't like as “radical left” it's not reassuring at all…

For decades, a certain set of neoreactionaries have called me a radical leftist. Usually because I would note their ideas miss all kinds of unintended consequences.

Hilariously, I was early in the tea party stuff until it was clearly coopted by the Ted Cruz types.

I've consistently been a centrist libertarian for decades. If a person feels I am a radical leftist, I am confident they are working from a skewed worldview.

We have had a social contract since the 1930s to take care of each other through taxes. Like it or hate it, to change this requires the legislature. Current gutting is based on executive action, lawlessly, capturing rents, quashing regulatory enforcement for a certain Mr. Musk and buddies, and otherwise capturing the function of the state and government, to the benefit of cronies. This is antithetical to liberty and freedom.

> 0 was talking about stopping Election Day interference from "radical left lunatics", and he suggested the national guard first

Oh good, no government has ever tried to justify authoritarian policies via scapegoating their political opponents as being "radical" and requiring force to suppress. Thanks for clearing that up!