637
Walz Warns Against Normalizing Trump's Threat Of Using Military Against U.S. Citizens
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
637 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2105 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yup. I did. No mention of a second raid. But he did illegally sell guns that were recovered from crime scenes. Sounds like if they did that they wanted to arrest him at the same time so he couldn't run.
At any rate there's still zero evidence any Democrat is going after Americans with the military.
Zero evidence? The DOD just released a memo last month saying they can provide potentially lethal assistance to law enforcement. They might not have used the military to go after anyone yet, but they're laying the groundwork.
DOD DIRECTIVE 5240.01
(2) The decision to approve requests for these types of permissible assistance described in Paragraph 3.2. to law enforcement agencies and other civil authorities are reserved to the Secretary of Defense:
(c) Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury. It also includes all support to civilian law enforcement officials in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated. Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially as further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support.
Did you think that was going to be some hard to find document? This is "Omagherd the Army did a fun run outside base, it's martial law!111!" levels of stupid.
That memo is for intelligence agencies under the DOD like DIA who interact with the FBI and local law enforcement all the time. They've been doing this for decades. This is not the Army. And the assistance being talked about here is not the Infantry showing up. It's literally just telling the local police if someone they pinged is on a watch list or is involved in international shenanigans.
Let's look at paragraph 3.2 and see what's covered.
That's self defense. It's literally authorizing them to work with local and federal police to protect federal property and employees. That's it.
Counter intelligence. A core capability of every intelligence agency we have. The only one barred from operating on US soil is the CIA. But even then I've highlighted where this isn't a blank check. You still need to follow the laws.
Ah yes, the terrorism clause. Requiring legal's sign off to work with the locals even in the event of a terrorism. (I know what I said) This is as useless as the time I'm taking to write this because finding an incident that would require the attention of an agency like the DIA without there being federal jurisdiction is incredibly hard. They'd already have the FBI on the ground, who they can work with freely.
Rendering lawful assistance. Yup that sounds like extrajudicial killings to me. Lol, no. Just no. This just means that I'm the case of something like a barricade stand off they can go ahead and share things like profiles of the person with the police.
Oh no, not dissemination of information! The horror!
Oh no, not more information!! Whatever will we do with these rogue intelligence agencies?
Please stop listening to InfoWars or whoever is selling you on these takes. They're lying to you.
Either your source is biased or you have some reading comprehension issues. He didn't illegally sell guns and only fell afoul of ATF rules after they changed the rules without any input from Congress. There was only one raid because they postponed it when they found out he wouldn't be there. He didn't need to be there for them to execute their warrant, but he did need to be there for an extrajudicial execution.
The New York Times. And I already gave you a perfectly reasonable, and common reason to conduct a search with someone home.
You mean The "Iraq definitely has WMDs" New York Times? Yeah, I think I see why you got a skewed version of the story.