Posted on Jan 25, 2017
Should the US military be used to enforce law and order and quell the protests against President Trump?
82.5K
431
204
15
15
0
Edit: I posted this as a little experiment. There was a similar discussion asking whether American soldiers would fire on American citizens due to the riots that were taking place. I had responded that the Posse Comitatus prohibited that, much like many of you did. However, I was unconvinced that most of the respondents "No's" had to do with an obligation to their fellow citizens and more to do with their dislike of the Obama administration. I hypothesized that it was the latter and posted this question to test that theory. Turns out you all pleasantly surprised me and proved me wrong. Thank you for that. I'm sure this post will continue to generate discussion though.
Martial Law
Office of the President (POTUS)
Protest
Law Enforcement
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 82
4
4
0
As a rule no. IIRC States may use NG to assist with disasters or rioting. I think the biggest problem of late has been that LEOs and local government has been afraid to use adaquete measures to prevent riots and looting, mostly because they feared repercussions from the US Attorney General.
(4)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
1stSgt Eugene Harless, the biggest constraint on states using the National Guard is that they don't like paying for it (which is why governors are so quick to ask that the Guard be federalized). Under the Constitution, states are allowed to use National Guard units (as organized militia) pretty much however they see fit, as long as they are not used to violate federal law (e.g., called into duty to block enforcement of an order from a U.S. court). That is why we had NG troops napping at LAX with their unloaded M16s in the days after the 9/11 attacks -- they were activated on the orders of the Governor, who also publicly reassured the good citizens of California that the troops were not issued ammunition because they were deployed "to make everybody feel safe".
(Before you ask, the governor in question was the one who got replaced by Der Governator)
(Before you ask, the governor in question was the one who got replaced by Der Governator)
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that only the National Guard could be called to do something like this, if AD or the Reserves did it they would be in violation of Federal Law.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
It will never happen, at least in the way you're asking the question. President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne into Alabama, I believe, to enforce desegregation law by protecting and escorting 4 (or was it 6?) Black students into an all-white high school. Governor Wallace had actually used his National Guard to prevent them from them from entering.
So, let's look at a worst case scenario of what could happen. Think of it as a risk assessment of sorts. And this is purely fictional (IMHO).
In no particular order:
One, it's illegal to use the US military in law enforcement, as others have pointed out.
Two, if it did happen, I'd say we now have a dictatorship and we are no longer the USA.
Three, any officer or enlisted personnel would be subject to court martial if they complied with that order.
Four, that could be the kindling for the start of a "2nd American Civil War".
Five, what's to prevent the current POTUS (whoever it is) from declaring martial law and all elections are now postponed indefinitely?
Seven, each state's governor activates their National Guard as they are the CInC for their respective National Guard units. They order their units to defend the citizens of their states against the oppressive military.
Etc., etc.
So, let's look at a worst case scenario of what could happen. Think of it as a risk assessment of sorts. And this is purely fictional (IMHO).
In no particular order:
One, it's illegal to use the US military in law enforcement, as others have pointed out.
Two, if it did happen, I'd say we now have a dictatorship and we are no longer the USA.
Three, any officer or enlisted personnel would be subject to court martial if they complied with that order.
Four, that could be the kindling for the start of a "2nd American Civil War".
Five, what's to prevent the current POTUS (whoever it is) from declaring martial law and all elections are now postponed indefinitely?
Seven, each state's governor activates their National Guard as they are the CInC for their respective National Guard units. They order their units to defend the citizens of their states against the oppressive military.
Etc., etc.
(4)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
It was the Little Rock 9, not 4 or 6. It was Arkansas, not Alabama. It was Governor Faubus, not Wallace. One of the most important events in U.S. history concerning equal rights for blacks.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Neil Greenfield
SGM (Join to see) - Thanks for the correction. I usually look up the facts first before commenting on historical events, but didn't this time. Learned a lesson here.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
1stSgt Eugene Harless and MSgt Neil Greenfield, President Eisenhower's use of federal troops was predicated on enforcing an order of a U.S. court which the Governor had illegally ordered his National Guard troops to obstruct. The Governor's actions, in conjunction with the associated civil disorder (protests), met the major requirements of the Insurrection Act ("domestic violence" which the State authorities are incapable of suppressing and which "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws").
(2)
(0)
SPC Woody Bullard
U.S. Army troops have already been used in the United States to enforce law and order.
1932: Washington D.C.: President Herbert Hoover gave the order to the Army.
Calvary and infantry troops along with 5 tanks were engaged against civilians.
1957: Little Rock, Arkansas: President Dwight Eisenhower gave the order to the Army.
1,000 101st Airborne Division Paratroopers were engaged against civilians to enforce a
federal court order. President Eisenhower also federalized the Arkansas National Guard.
1967: Detroit, Michigan: President Lyndon Johnson gave the order to the Army.
82nd and 101st Airborne Division Paratroopers were engaged against civilians
who were rioting. The civilian law enforcement and Michigan National Guard
could not control the rioting.
The President has the legal power to federalize any or all of the 50 states National Guard
units making him the commander of them taking that power away from the state
Governor.
1932: Washington D.C.: President Herbert Hoover gave the order to the Army.
Calvary and infantry troops along with 5 tanks were engaged against civilians.
1957: Little Rock, Arkansas: President Dwight Eisenhower gave the order to the Army.
1,000 101st Airborne Division Paratroopers were engaged against civilians to enforce a
federal court order. President Eisenhower also federalized the Arkansas National Guard.
1967: Detroit, Michigan: President Lyndon Johnson gave the order to the Army.
82nd and 101st Airborne Division Paratroopers were engaged against civilians
who were rioting. The civilian law enforcement and Michigan National Guard
could not control the rioting.
The President has the legal power to federalize any or all of the 50 states National Guard
units making him the commander of them taking that power away from the state
Governor.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
that is not the job of active military, but the national guard can be called in by their state govenor
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
We have done it many times with Guard and Reserves. Usually associated with some specific incident or occurrence though. Using them for just normal law and order as suggested by president would be a precedent.
(4)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
It has been suggested that Army Delta Force personnel were on-site and "advising" civilian law enforcement at the Branch Davidian complex. Regardless though, there WERE M-113 APCs on site. This was prior to the 1033 program. Very few, if any civilian police forces had armored vehicles in their inventories.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
TSgt (Join to see), the fiasco outside of Waco was a federal operation from start to finish. The FBI was sent in after the BATF got into a shoot-out while attempting to force entry for a warrantless search. BATF had obtained a warrant to search for automatic weapons, but BATF policy at the time was to not bother bringing the actual warrant with them on a raid-style search, claiming that they had no obligation to present a warrant clearly "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" to the property owner -- instead they would just declare that they had a warrant and assert that whatever they were searching was covered by the warrant.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Agree , but then again this was the use of Feds for a specific incident/situation, not the general keeping of law an order for an entire city as is being suggested. Realistically the Feds are already there. Chicago has large FBI and Secret Service offices along with many other federal agencies, but by law their job isn't patrolling the streets to control crime.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
Why would anyone want to use the military against protesters? It would be overkill and they simply are not needed.
(3)
(0)
SP5 Steve Powell
Interesting that Rutherford B. Hayes loses the general election by popular vote & Electorial College and still became President. It's because of the Federal Military occupying the evil, bad Confederate States after the Civil War during "reconstruction". I do not find my fellow Citizens to be a threat exercising their Constitutional Rights. They become criminals when they riot and destroy other people's property. Lawlessness is not a Constitutional Right. Just saying...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
It would work on paper, till people get killed. If Rump decides to go that route, it will be very bad for him in the end.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Are you talking about martial law? Doing something like that or even the idea of that combined with the bullshit media would become chaos. The only effective thing to do is enforce the law. When protesters become criminals, arrest them. When people block the highway, call the families to identify their dumbass for playing in the street.
There's a difference between protesting and causing problems.
There's a difference between protesting and causing problems.
(3)
(0)
COL Bill Gross
. See Insurrection Act. Actually there is no "martial law" term in the Constitution of 10CFR
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google