Posted on 10/06/2019 6:33:58 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The moment may come when soldiers have to choose between the Constitution and Donald Trump. No doubt most will embrace the Constitution. But some will see that as a tough call.
Earlier this week Donald Trump, commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, tweeted that his impeachment “will cause a Civil War” from which the country might never recover. Picking up on remarks made by an evangelical pastor on Fox News, Trump did not just say his removal would lead to a huge electoral defeat for the Democrats, or even mass demonstrations. He said “civil war”. Americans taking up arms against other Americans in his name.
“Civil War 2” started trending on Twitter. So, for a time, did #CivilWarSignup.
In the modern era, real civil wars have been the great affliction of Third World countries—conflicts that split nations and societies along political, ethnic or religious fault lines. They are very often accompanied by martial law and resolved by military intervention. Is this what the president has in mind? Where would the U.S. military stand in such a situation? A view from the inside indicates the armed forces are as divided as the rest of the country—and divided is a dangerous place for the U.S. military to find itself.
After spending 19 years in Washington with intelligence jobs in Congress, at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (focusing on counterterrorism and counterintelligence), I had the opportunity to join the commander’s Red Team at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.
Within a few years, however, CENTCOM’s senior leadership told us Red Team’s “alternative analysis” was “confusing” the commander. (Truth was, they really didn’t want any competing analysis contradicting what the traditional intelligence analysts were selling.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
USAF, I presume? Otherwise, I kind of thought Wesley Clark was one of those. BTW, my son finishes up USAF initial flight training tomorrow. He has a new love in his life. FLYING.
Can’t see them getting to impeaching Pence too before the smoke clears...
RE Cult-like”
What’s really laughable about that statement is that it comes from the same morons who had pictures of Obunghole with a halo around him.
If there’s a civil war, it’ll be the same as it is everywhere and always has been: One third on one side, one third on the other side, and the last third sitting in the middle, waiting to see which flag to put out and trying not to get killed by the other twos sides.
In a country the size of the USA with a population of 330 million what the 600,000 man regular army troops do or don’t do in a general insurrection and/or civil war is meaningless. Not even a foot note.
People think that our tiny military would have any effect on a general insurrection and/or civil war between states/factions and 330 MILLION citizens. Laughable.
“Trump’s rage”? That is laughable, If one wants to see rage, take a look at the faces of the Democrat leaders AND THE MEDIA running this lynching of DJT.
“take a look at the faces of the Democrat leaders”
Especially Bernie. He’s almost a caricature of himself. He didn’t have a heart attack; he exploded with anger.
From the article: “These generals knew Hillary Clinton personally for years. They had worked with Hillary Clinton as both a senator and as secretary of state and had admired her seriousness and intellect. “
Sorry, but I had to stop reading right there. This is nothing but Anti-Trump swill trying to pass it self off as a serious treatment on the possibility of CWII?
“What would the military do in that case? Would it be best for the country if they do nothing?”
What would the military do in that case? Would it be best for the country if they do nothing?
A more pertinent question would be: “What will you and I do in the face of blatant treason?
> A more pertinent question would be: “What will you and I do in the face of blatant treason? <
Going back to my post #20, is it treason if the House and the Senate remove Trump constitutionally? Yes, that would be disgusting. But would it be treason?
I think not. Following the Constitution is not treason, even if the results are very ugly and very unfair. So I wouldn’t grab my rifle in that case. But should the Democrats arrest Trump at the next State of the Union, or something like that, then all bets are off.
Your #81: Great comments.
I can’t see 20 GOP Senators voting to impeach Trump either, but the Dems aren’t known for restraint, and over-reach is a real possibility.
Um, ok. Say Patricia, why don't you and Maureen Dowd go have a few drinks together.
(Yes I know we all hate) Wikipedia Article on Posse Comitatus
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1956 and 1981.The act specifically applies only to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. Although the act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the act force with respect to those services as well. The act does not prevent the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
What is interesting is that this act was forced on the recalcitrant FedGov by the Southern States as part of the compromise of 1877 arising out of the aftermath of the Civil War and the occupation of the South by the North's military.
The Act, § 15 of the appropriations bill for the Army for 1879, found at 20 Stat. 152, was a response to, and subsequent prohibition of, the military occupation of the former Confederate States by the United States Army during the twelve years of Reconstruction (1865–1877) following the American Civil War (1861–1865). The president withdrew federal troops from the Southern States as a result of a compromise in one of the most disputed national elections in American history, the 1876 U.S. presidential election. Samuel J. Tilden of New York, the Democratic candidate, defeated Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio in the popular vote. Tilden garnered 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165; 20 disputed electoral votes remained uncounted. After a bitter fight, Congress struck a deal resolving the dispute and awarded the presidency to Hayes.In return for Southern acquiescence regarding Hayes, Republicans agreed to support the withdrawal of federal troops from the former Confederate States, formally ending Reconstruction. Known as the Compromise of 1877, this agreement involved allowing South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana to agree to certify Rutherford B. Hayes as the president in exchange for the removal of federal troops from the South.[1]
And, moving ahead a bit, we can see it has been sidestepped before:
In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the president to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[5]
So, there you go. They Posse Comitatus will not prevent FedGov from sending the Army in to "suppress violence" that is in "opposition to the constitutional rights of the people", for instance, abortion.
The article goes into this a little further:
Exclusions and limitations
There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:
Having reviewed all this I don't think Posse Comitatus provides any real protection against the US Military in the even of an insurrection.
Now that's you've looked at it, do you?
Nothing.
Would it be best for the country if they do nothing?Yes. Do you really want Generals second guessing the results of Congressional actions? The Impeachment bar is set high: 2/3 of the Senate to convict. If that bar is passed then the President must go, and the VP take his place. That's the law.
I can't imagine the U.S. Military standing with the President in such a situation.
Follow the orders of President Pence.
What Tribunal? That's the LARPing fantasy of the Q guys, isn't it?
Trump will be out of office and the "100,000" sealed indictment crew will still be monitizing by selling t-shirts.
If you have any links that give details on that story I'd love to see them.
There’s lots of optimism on this thread. A lot of our military is folks looking for permanent US residency or citizenship. They’ll follow orders or, if they leave, be a real threat. Also, keep in mind that a lot of the military leadership got there by impressing Obama, and just might be Deep State. Then there are those (I hope a majority) who joined the military for the correct reasons. I suspect that if there ever were a breakdown or out of control bad use of the military, elements of the military (across the spectrum) would go rogue. If society broke down (wouldn’t take much) they just might go home and defend their communities and loved ones. JMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.