My entire point was that the rules that are supposed to protect the general population are often interpreted to serve those in power. Posse Comitatus is supposed to negate the use of military members from being used for policing on US soil.
Meaning that the definition of policing is being semantically interpreted as “arresting people” when in reality policing is defined as prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
What other purpose can the military be utilized against the general public other than to maintain public order?
First of all, the national guard are not active duty military personnel and can and are utilized in state policing actions. Secondly, laying down shields is not disobeying a direct order. Lastly we have historic examples of national guard members committing massacares against non violent protestors.
The US has not signed the Rome Statute, and is therefore not beholden to the laws of the ICC unless in a nation that has signed said agreement.
My point was that international law a kin to those laid down by the Nuremberg trials do not protect us from fascist utilizing the military against us.
Your claim was that we were granted protections via the establishment of the Nuremberg principals…the Nuremberg principals are now moderated by the ICC via the 1999 Rome statute.
You are just proving my point for me. Internal laws are subject to interpretation via those who currently hold power (fascist), and external laws are inventions of convenience that we do not and have never allowed to truly moderate our countries behavior. My original claim stands, that we are not really in a much different scenario than in Hitler’s Germany.
What does any of that have to do with my original point of Trump not the necessary having abject loyalty of the military to use it as force against the people? You’re arguing a completely different point now about technicalities, and haven’t substantiated a counterargument against my point. Are you just in the debating mood?
Lol, my response was that you do not need abject loyalty in order to have the military use force against your own population. As I already stated Hitler never achieved abject loyalty over the military and regularly used the SS to oppress dissonance within Germany.
You then went on to claim that America is different because the Nuremberg trial made it to where soldiers could refuse illegal orders. I then responded with examples of why that wasn’t a valid argument.
Every one of my rebuttals have been direct responses to your claims, I even quoted what I was responding to…
You’re missing the part where the non-loyal German soldiers would face harsh consequences, including execution, for failing to follow orders. That returns us to my original point about the top-down military.
You’re missing the part where the non-loyal German soldiers would face harsh consequences, including execution, for failing to follow orders.
I already addressed that… American soldiers can also face harsh consequences for refusing “legal” orders. The legality of orders are determined by a military court which has a long history of being extremely biased toward protecting commanding officers.
So your argument is that the government won’t follow the law, but soldiers will?
Is your reading comprehension okay? My point is that there is no real separation between the military and government. The military is led by the executive branch which ultimately hands out orders. The legality of those orders is not determined by the military, it’s determined by the judiciary branch. If the judiciary determines an order as legal, then the military has no choice but to execute the order.
Which means… The court system, which have been captured by the heritage foundation determines the legality of military borders.
You don’t know many people in the military.
Lol, my dad retired as a chief. I spent the first 16 years of my life growing up on military bases.
You’re using an argument for the exceptions as the rule. It’s wildly sensationalist.
Out of 4,100 National Guard members and 700 Marines dispatched to LA, there has been one detainment of a US citizen, and no arrests. Detainment is currently being debated as a possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marines-carry-out-first-known-detention-civilian-los-angeles-video-shows-2025-06-13/
There are also many instances of the National Guard laying down their riot shields, and even taking a knee to support citizens in peaceful protest. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/02/tennessee-national-guard-troops-lay-down-riot-shields-at-protesters-request/
The US has not signed the Rome Statute, and is therefore not beholden to the laws of the ICC unless in a nation that has signed said agreement.
My entire point was that the rules that are supposed to protect the general population are often interpreted to serve those in power. Posse Comitatus is supposed to negate the use of military members from being used for policing on US soil.
Meaning that the definition of policing is being semantically interpreted as “arresting people” when in reality policing is defined as prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
What other purpose can the military be utilized against the general public other than to maintain public order?
First of all, the national guard are not active duty military personnel and can and are utilized in state policing actions. Secondly, laying down shields is not disobeying a direct order. Lastly we have historic examples of national guard members committing massacares against non violent protestors.
My point was that international law a kin to those laid down by the Nuremberg trials do not protect us from fascist utilizing the military against us.
Your claim was that we were granted protections via the establishment of the Nuremberg principals…the Nuremberg principals are now moderated by the ICC via the 1999 Rome statute.
You are just proving my point for me. Internal laws are subject to interpretation via those who currently hold power (fascist), and external laws are inventions of convenience that we do not and have never allowed to truly moderate our countries behavior. My original claim stands, that we are not really in a much different scenario than in Hitler’s Germany.
What does any of that have to do with my original point of Trump not the necessary having abject loyalty of the military to use it as force against the people? You’re arguing a completely different point now about technicalities, and haven’t substantiated a counterargument against my point. Are you just in the debating mood?
Lol, my response was that you do not need abject loyalty in order to have the military use force against your own population. As I already stated Hitler never achieved abject loyalty over the military and regularly used the SS to oppress dissonance within Germany.
You then went on to claim that America is different because the Nuremberg trial made it to where soldiers could refuse illegal orders. I then responded with examples of why that wasn’t a valid argument.
Every one of my rebuttals have been direct responses to your claims, I even quoted what I was responding to…
You’re missing the part where the non-loyal German soldiers would face harsh consequences, including execution, for failing to follow orders. That returns us to my original point about the top-down military.
I already addressed that… American soldiers can also face harsh consequences for refusing “legal” orders. The legality of orders are determined by a military court which has a long history of being extremely biased toward protecting commanding officers.
So your argument is that the government won’t follow the law, but soldiers will? You don’t know many people in the military.
Is your reading comprehension okay? My point is that there is no real separation between the military and government. The military is led by the executive branch which ultimately hands out orders. The legality of those orders is not determined by the military, it’s determined by the judiciary branch. If the judiciary determines an order as legal, then the military has no choice but to execute the order.
Which means… The court system, which have been captured by the heritage foundation determines the legality of military borders.
Lol, my dad retired as a chief. I spent the first 16 years of my life growing up on military bases.
With all that exposure, you sure don’t know how they work.