Rep. Lisa McClain(R-MI) on Morning Joe this AM made a spirited defense for using the military to stop crime in major cities (those with Democratic mayors, I notice). Her argument: when the military went into Washington, DC, the murder rate not only went down, but there were no murders reported while they were there. Therefore, she argues, just sending them in to other cities works.(DC has a special federal status that makes this legal, which states and cities do not have.) A follow-up question I would ask if this means for permanently reducing the murder rate, is this a pitch for permanent military occupation of cities?
Or is the answer something else, like funding more local resources and police to combat crime? The next question I would ask is what has the Trump regime done to fund more local police resources in cities. I ran across this information at DOJ Funding Update: A Deeper Look at the Cuts - Council on Criminal Justice The Trump DOJ has cut $500 million in grant funding to improving police forces since January 2025.
Updaten10/7/25 from my FB post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HALfwHzRkew Trump throws out a trial balloon...he wants to invoke the insurrection act against major US cities run by opposition mayors and governors so he can occupy them with active military. To do so he will have to show it is an organized effort to overthrow the government that involves violence. He tried using it in CA, and the judge denied it. It does explain the Antifa BS. It is not organized, and all those who acted 5 years ago were in protest of George Floyd and police brutality. To try to call that Chicago and Portland are in flames caused by antifa is a fantasy in his brain, that is removed and sheltered from reality..
Update: 10/7/2025 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-considers-invoking-the-insurrection-act-to-restore-order/vi-AA1O0Qjp?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=68e5452eceb4474ebd317d2bbc03b008&ei=7
In the case of California, the judge ruled against using the Insurrection Act. There are tough conditions when that can be invoked. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-considers-invoking-the-insurrection-act-to-restore-order/vi-AA1O0Qjp?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=68e5452eceb4474ebd317d2bbc03b008&ei=7
Google's AI answered my inquiry with the legal definition of insurrection. The major characteristic is that it must be an organized group committing violence. To meet that definition, the Trump administration claims the group is Antifa (which is not organized) and the violence is a fantasy in Trump's unhinged, from-reality brain . AI Overview
For an excellent posting on Substack, the BS is the purpose itself...to paint all opposition to Trump's takeover of democracy as antifa, hopefully scaring off participants in the Oct. 18 No Kings rally Jonathan V. Last (@jvlast): "If antifa is a domestic terror organization and the No Kings protests are an antifa joint, then shouldn’t law enforcement arrest everyone who shows up on Saturday? Oh . . ."
(or convincing his cult he is justified in arresting and militarizing blue cities.) .
Legally, an insurrection is a violent revolt or rebellion against a government or civil authority, characterized by organized, armed resistance intended to overthrow the government or deny its authority. It differs from a riot or mob violence in its organized nature and purpose to challenge the government's stability. In the United States, engaging in or inciting an insurrection against the U.S. government is a federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, carrying penalties of fines, imprisonment, and a ban from holding office. Key Elements of an Insurrection
- Organized Group: The resistance is typically by a group of citizens or subjects, not just an isolated incident.
- Violence: The act involves acts of violence against civil or political authority.
- Intent to Overthrow: The fundamental goal is to deny the lawful authority of the state or to overthrow the constituted government and seize its powers.
Legal Context in the United States
This federal law makes it a crime to incite, assist, or engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States. Penalties:
The punishment for insurrection under this law can include a fine, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both, and results in being barred from holding any U.S. office. Distinction from Riots:
Insurrections are distinct from riots or mob violence. While riots are disturbances of the peace, an insurrection involves a more organized, armed uprising with the specific purpose of undermining or overthrowing the government, threatening the stability of political society itself.
- "In April, the Trump Administration terminated 373 grants from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP).
- The defunded grants were initially valued at about $820 million, but many were multiyear grants in various stages of payout and implementation. The Administration has rescinded the remaining balances of these awards, which a CCJ analysis estimates at about $500 million.
- The terminated grants provided federal support for violence reduction, policing and prosecution, victims’ services, juvenile justice and child protection, substance use and mental health treatment, corrections and reentry, justice system enhancements, research and evaluation, and other state- and local-level public safety functions."
The Secretary of "war", Pete Hegseth's remarks to the assembled brass the other day were alarming, a call to arms against US civilians and giving freedom for the military to ignore any rules that forbad harming civilians in combat and occupation. He, by his pacing, made for TV oratory in many words, was telling the military to ignore the Constitution and to obey orders that they thought were
illegal.
Among the retired military and those in our family who appreciate the military, the discussion was, should those brass who sat through that resign now, or stay quiet as long as they can until they are given a direct illegal order to fire on US civilians in their own country or to commit war crimes against civilians in countries they occupy or conquer in the future.. The consensus was pragmatic: option 2. Resignations now would only leave vacancies for some junior officers loyal to Trumpism who would be promoted into those positions. There are always vultures who like to pick up the scraps in any society.
Retired General James Mattis published a response in The New York Times: here's a PDF of it.
In Union There Is Strength I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. Itis a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind.We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens, much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside. We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home,we should use our military only when requested to do so,on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict— between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them. James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law. Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics. Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens, to past generations that bled to defend our promise, and to our children. We can come through this trying time stronger and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite. Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad. "James Mattis
No comments:
Post a Comment