The ‘Long-Term Danger’ of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests

On the other hand, Professor of Rutgers University, Bruce Afran, said that the deployment of military forces against the Americans is “completely unconstitutional” in the absence of a real domestic state of insurrection. “There was an attack on the offices of Ice, the doors, there were graffiti, there were images of demonstrators who break in a goalkeeper, who was empty,” he said. “But even if it has been set to a car, it is not a domestic insurgency. It is a manifestation that is engaged in illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.”

AFRAN arises that interference with the expectations of civilians, who naturally plan to interact with the police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally modify the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the border between democracy and authoritarianism. “The long-term danger is that we accept the role of the army in the regulation of civil protest instead of allowing local police to do the work,” he said. “And once we accept this new paradigm – to use a kind of word BS – the relationship between the citizen and the government is changed forever.”

“The violent rioters in Los Angeles, made Governor Democrat Gavin Newsom, attacked the American police, burnt down to cars and fed chaos without law,” Abigail Jackson, spokesperson for the White House, told Wired. “President Trump rightly intervened to protect federal law enforcement agents. When Democratic leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump is still intervening.”

While the orders to mobilize federal troops have dropped, some users on social networks have urged members of the service to consider illegal orders and refuse to obey – a decision which, according to legal experts, would be very difficult to withdraw.

David Coombs, lecturer in criminal proceedings and military law at the University of Buffalo and veteran of the judge defender general of the American army judge, said that it is hypothetically possible that the troops could wonder if Trump has the power to mobilize state guards on the objection of a governor of state. “I think in the end, the answer to this will be yes,” he says. “But it’s a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, she plans that the governor controls all these people. ”

Furthermore, says Coombs, when the troops are ordered to mobilize, they could – once again, hypothetically – to engage in activities which are beyond the scope of the president’s orders, such as the realization of immigration raids or the arrests. “All they can do in this case, under title 10 status, is to protect the security of staff and federal goods. If you go beyond, it violates the law posse comitatus. ” Federal troops, for example, would need the civilian police to intervene.

San Francisco Chronicle reports On Sunday, in a letter, the secretary of internal security, Kristi Noem, asked that the military troops be responsible for holding alleged “counterfeits” during the “or arresting” demonstrations, which legal experts are almost universally suited would be illegal in ordinary circumstances. The letter was sent to the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and accused anti-glacial demonstrators of being “violent crowds and insurrectionists” aimed at “protecting invaders and military elderly men belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations”.

Khun, who warns that there is a big difference between the philosophy of what constitutes an illegal order and disobeying it of commandments, rejects the idea that the troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. “It will not be a dispute in the middle of a real deployment,” he says. “There is no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is illegal.”

Khun says he was deployed in a similar situation: “Me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a non -violent or peaceful demonstration.” Asked about what the demonstrators should expect, if they engage with federal troops trained in combat abroad, Kuhn says that the Marines will hold more firmly than the police, who are often forced to withdraw when the crowds approaches. In addition to being armed with the same weapons of control of the crowd, the navies are largely trained in the combat of the nearby.

“I would expect a defensive response,” he says, “but not a deadly force”.

Additional report by Alexa O’Brien.