“Former government lawyers say we need to limit the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops at home”

[RZehr]

Seems like the right would be attracted to this sort of thing, given their constant fear and distrust of the Federal government, the history of the Feds at Waco, Ruby Ridge, Malheur, and the way the right likes militias.
But I suppose since it is Trump, they will oppose this.

A bipartisan group of former national security officials and lawyers is calling for new restrictions on a president's ability to deploy troops on U.S. soil, arguing that existing law is "antiquated" and grants too much power to one person.

The group convened at the invitation of The American Law Institute to examine the Insurrection Act of 1807, which former President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke should he return to the White House, ostensibly to address what are now-declining rates of crime in major cities.

In a statement, Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel under former President Barack Obama, argued that the Insurrection Act itself is “poorly drafted" and full of "vague or obsolete language." It "has been clear for decades that this antiquated law needs serious revision," he said.

As it stands, the Insurrection Act permits the president to deploy U.S. armed forces domestically in response to outbreaks of violence, including rebellion against federal or state governments. It was last used by former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 in response to riots in Los Angeles sparked by the acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King case.

Jack Goldsmith, who served as an assistant attorney general under former President George W. Bush, said in a statement that he agrees the law “gives any president too much unchecked power." He and others in the group would like to see Congress eliminate outdated language, such as references to "obstructions" and "assemblages," that could be cited to justify another deployment; they would also like to see deployments subject to a statutory limit of 30 days, with any extension requiring lawmakers' consent.

Included among those calling for reform is a former member of the Trump administration. John Eisenberg, who served as a lawyer for the National Security Council under Trump, told The New York Times that the Insurrection Act, as currently written, should alarm Democrats and Republicans alike.

“This is something of great importance regardless of what party you are in because, obviously, it is an area that can abused,” Eisenberg said. “If the triggers, for example, are too vague, the risk is that it can be used in circumstances that do not really warrant it. So it is important to tighten up the language to reduce that risk.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-gover ... 41470.html

[Ken]

Seems like the right would be attracted to this sort of thing, given their constant fear and distrust of the Federal government, the history of the Feds at Waco, Ruby Ridge, Malheur, and the way the right likes militias.
But I suppose since it is Trump, they will oppose this.

It is actually more about reining in Trump than Biden. They were afraid that had the 1/6 protests spiral more out of control an succeeded in stopping the vote certification, Trump would have called up Federal troops to put down protests around the country. Trump's people were making plans to that effect.

Also, this is to prevent Trump's proposed mobilizing of Federal troops to round up and deport illegal immigrants. Which is actually one of his campaign planks. For example: https://wapo.st/3TNUfGK

Faced with a surge of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018 and 2019, Donald Trump’s White House discussed ways to more aggressively deploy the resources and the might of the U.S. military.

Aides and officials spoke privately about detaining migrants on military bases and flying them out of the country on military planes — ideas that the Pentagon headed off. Throughout his presidency, Trump himself would frequently demand to send troops to the border and catch people crossing.

“He was obsessed with having the military involved,” said a former senior administration official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.

That approach and unfinished business have taken on renewed significance and urgency as the country confronts another migrant crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, and as Trump closes in on the Republican presidential nomination. The former president is making immigration a core campaign theme, promoting a proposal for an unprecedented deportation effort if he is returned to power.

To my knowledge, there aren't any Democratic proposals to mobilize Federal troops and deploy them within the US. Are you aware of some that I am not?

[RZehr]

No, I agree that it is about Trump. And I assume that the right will oppose it because of that. Which I find as another example of the Republicans putting Trump over principle.

[temporal1]

No, I agree that it is about Trump. And I assume that the right will oppose it because of that. Which I find as another example of the Republicans putting Trump over principle.

i don’t know enough to have anything but questions about this, but, i typically think of the National Guard being used in times of natural disaster, and various non-violent work.

i appreciated Trump’s offer to help in Seattle in 2020. i didn’t fear violence. at all.

Some awful things have happened. i was college age in Vermont when Kent State happened.
Overall, i believe the Guard is most used for needed help in times of domestic disaster.

i wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Ken]

The National Guard are part-time volunteer soldiers who volunteer to spend a few weekends training and a couple weeks in the summer doing more training while they go about their usual jobs and live with their families the rest of the time. They are the modern day militia. The deal is that they agree to be called up in times or war or national emergency. But they aren't the political plaything of governors or presidents to use as they see fit.

This is actually a big problem down in Texas right now where Governor Abbott has more or less called up the TX National Guard on a permanent basis to go patrol the border which has taken then away from their regular jobs and families for many months at a time.

So many TX Guard members are protesting this intrusion and breaking of faith that they are moving their official state of residence to NM or CO which legally entitles them to leave the TX National Guard and join the NM or CO National Guard which is not being used for political stunts. https://www.nationalguard.com/how-to-tr ... ther-state

[barnhart]

Why not refuse to vote for candidates who would deploy troops domestically.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Seems like the right would be attracted to this sort of thing, given their constant fear and distrust of the Federal government, the history of the Feds at Waco, Ruby Ridge, Malheur, and the way the right likes militias.

We don't need standing armies. No foreign country will invade the US in 2024

[Ken]

Seems like the right would be attracted to this sort of thing, given their constant fear and distrust of the Federal government, the history of the Feds at Waco, Ruby Ridge, Malheur, and the way the right likes militias.

We don't need standing armies. No foreign country will invade the US in 2024

And the Army wasn't involved at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Malheur either. This is what an actual armored combat brigade looks like (the operational unit of the US Army). There is no conceivable domestic issue that requires this sort of firepower or troops whose training is in how to operate and use this equipment in combat against an opposing army, rather than police civilians.

This is most definitely NOT the right tool to enforce immigration rules, fight drug trafficking on our streets, or any other social problem within the borders of the US.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Seems like the right would be attracted to this sort of thing, given their constant fear and distrust of the Federal government, the history of the Feds at Waco, Ruby Ridge, Malheur, and the way the right likes militias.

We don't need standing armies. No foreign country will invade the US in 2024

And the Army wasn't involved at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Malheur either. This is what an actual armored combat brigade looks like (the operational unit of the US Army). There is no conceivable domestic issue that requires this sort of firepower or troops whose training is in how to operate and use this equipment in combat against an opposing army, rather than police civilians.

Oh yes we should defund and end the FBI, ATF, DEA and all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies

[Josh]

Why not refuse to vote for candidates who would deploy troops domestically.

What if the people vote for the “wrong” candidate?