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
2
2
0
Local law enforcement has the responsibility to ensure the safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. If they cannot or will not do it, the jurisdictional head (mayor; chairman of the county commission) can, and should, call on adjacent and state law enforcement agencies to augment, or even replace the locals.
If that's still not enough, you call in the National Guard, which is, in effect, the state militia, unless ordered to active duty by the Pentagon.
Finally, as a last resort, you ask for a declaration of martial law, and federal troops.
Now, there are those that will claim that the Posse Comitatus Act precludes federal troops from enforcing the law. Not necessarily true. The precedent was set in the 50's, when Eisenhower sent in active army units to enforce integration at Little Rock's Central High School.
If that's still not enough, you call in the National Guard, which is, in effect, the state militia, unless ordered to active duty by the Pentagon.
Finally, as a last resort, you ask for a declaration of martial law, and federal troops.
Now, there are those that will claim that the Posse Comitatus Act precludes federal troops from enforcing the law. Not necessarily true. The precedent was set in the 50's, when Eisenhower sent in active army units to enforce integration at Little Rock's Central High School.
(2)
(0)
SPC Woody Bullard
U.S. Army troops were also used in Washington D.C. in 1932 to break up the
World War I veterans protest over not receiving their promised war bonus from
congress. Calvary and infantry troops were ordered in by President Herbert Hoover.
President Lyndon Johnson ordered paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division
into Detroit, Michigan in 1967 during the riots. SSG Gilder you are correct. Federal
troops have been used by U.S. Presidents who have found a way around the
Posse Comitatus Act.
World War I veterans protest over not receiving their promised war bonus from
congress. Calvary and infantry troops were ordered in by President Herbert Hoover.
President Lyndon Johnson ordered paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division
into Detroit, Michigan in 1967 during the riots. SSG Gilder you are correct. Federal
troops have been used by U.S. Presidents who have found a way around the
Posse Comitatus Act.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SPC Woody Bullard
September 1957: President Eisenhower ordered 1,000 Paratroopers from the
101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce a federal court order.
This was after he federalized the Arkansas National Guard troops.
101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce a federal court order.
This was after he federalized the Arkansas National Guard troops.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Governor's call in the National Guard in natural disasters to guard against looting and riots, I think this situation warents National Guard activation.
(2)
(0)
MSG Frederick Otero
Really, so just be clear can you elaborate a bit on what "this situation" is that your referring to.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Sherry Taylor-Bruce
MSG Frederick Otero - demonstrating that leads to violence. Getting arrested for vandelisum and destruction of property might put a dent in the issue. It's not a perfect solution but hitting the wallets would get attention.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
The other consideration that has to happen if it is a wide spread situation - covering more than one state - is the governor of the state in which the event is happening has to request the assistance of the governor of another state - ex - LA during the hurricane requested assistance from OH guard) to do this there has to be a memo of understanding between the two states - each state guard is only authorized to act in their own state unless - approval is given.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't believe the military should be used against citizens. I remember Kent State and armed, poorly trained troops shot into the crowd. The military is to defend the constitution and the people of the United States. Look at the countries that the military has either taken over or the president uses them as his personal police force. And, do I want to have to shoot a soldier following his orders even if illegal.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Should the military be used against you to quell your rights to speak out and voice your opinion in a lawful way?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I think that is a very fine line.but each and every one of us took an oath.to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Guess the question you have to answer is it for political bs or for defense of our constitution.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google