• DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:

    • 🔹 Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
    • 🔹 Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
    • 🔹 Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
    • 🔹 Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
    • 🔹 Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
    • 🔹 Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

    This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Smells like AI, but that doesn’t mean it’s just slop. You can look up each of the cited laws—they’re not long or particularly difficult reads. They are all arguably accurate citations.

        1. Iffy “explicitly authorized” is a loaded phrase for this use case. He controls enough DoD leadership to make it happen legally without much resistance.

        2. Legit.

        3. It depends on the framing. If rocks were being thrown at ICE, the argument likely wouldn’t hold up.

        4. Likely legit.

        5. Legit, but remember that this simply means the military can be held accountable for their actions. If they assault or kill someone, they can face legal consequences. It’s just precedence. Essentially, this is the point in law where you can’t say you were just following orders.

        6. Legit.

        However, within this framework, prosecution depends on willingness—someone has to actively push for it, and the government has to be stable enough to recognize these violations as valid. For the most part, these are pardonable offenses.

        TL;DR: Until there’s a regime change, none of this will carry much weight.

      • callouscomic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        It was. I keep seeing this at work. ChatGPT especially loves to add the unnecessary icons.

          • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            No, the information is correct from what I can determine. But it would have taken me a lot longer to find the relevant sections of law and precedent and sift through them on my own.

            • rumba@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              They’re all mercifully short reads (at least enough to get the idea if they apply) and famous enough to be easy to find. I just went through them in a higher-level post. They’re all right-ish. 3 are solid, the other 3 are technically accurate, but there’s enough wiggle room to get out of it.

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          Definitely needs fact checking, but yeah I do the same thing when I have some good points to be made on a popular topic that is being discussed in various threads. Not everyone needs a super special unique response when copy-paste is a thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          I don’t think I’m a bot or AI…🤖

        • D_C@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          I said that about the stolen top secret documents because of all the obvious treason and the even more obvious° sending/selling of said documents. Yet the american public decided it was a good idea to vote him in once again so he could pardon himself.

          Nothing will happen to him. I see no one over there with the backbone to do anything to bring him to justice. The best you can hope for is death or debilitating stroke.
          The bad news is even if that happens today then Fatboy Tangerine has shown just how easy it is to be a dictator. The next guy will be more organised.

          (°Why obvious? There was a fax machine right there. A fax machine in a toilet. The fact that there was old tech like a fax machine shows what it was being used for, but to move one to a fucking toilet full of the documents is plain damning. Anyone who believes differently is either an idiot, or corrupt. Or both.
          End of, full stop, no further explanation is needed.)

        • freeman@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Thats what I thought about the mocking of the disabled man, the “grab em by the pussy” comment, the Epstein-thing, the impeachement, Jan6, the classified documents, Musks salute, …

          If you have the majority of the voting public, parties, media and judges behind yourself then you are pretty safe doing illegal things, even in a Democracy.

      • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        You’re not wrong, but it’s important to call it out. And to CONSTANTLY call out the message to our troops that it is incumbent upon them to refuse to follow illegal orders.