United States Civil War

[RiffRaff]

Note: I am going to do my best to keep this analysis as politically neutral as possible. Honestly, this will affect people of both political parties, so everyone needs to pay attention to what's being said here.

There has been a lot of talk and rhetoric over the past few years of an upcoming American Civil War. At first, I wasn't too concerned, personally. The nature of a Civil War in the current political environment would not look anything like Civil War 1. Back then we had a clearly established border between the two sides, and it was easy to tell the militaries apart just by uniform color. In today's America, however, the lines between opposing sides cannot be so clearly defined, because it's difficult to just look at a person and determine if they are the enemy or not. Right versus Left is a whole different ball game than North versus South. And, honestly, that's why I thought the odds for an actual second civil war in this country were not high. Definitely possible, but not certain.

That has changed as of today. President Trump told senior generals, admirals, and other military leaders in the big meeting at Quantico that they will be going to war on US soil. That's a direct quote. Moreover, he listed target cities - San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Another direct quote regarding those cities: “They’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

So, regardless of party affiliation, this is tantamount to a declaration of war against US citizens. He is prepping the US military to go into those cities, perhaps more, and perpetrate violence by American soldiers against American citizens. SECDEF Hegseth further added, “We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country.”
Make no mistake, those "enemies of our country" are citizens of the United States.

I'm going to break down why this is going to be such a dangerous path to follow:

• Using the US military against American citizens on US soil is a clear and flagrant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The US military is prohibited by federal law from interfering in civilian affairs. Any US flag officer or soldier receiving such an order is required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse that order as being unlawful. Statistically, some will do this, some won't. This will create division within the military which will destroy unit cohesiveness and could potentially lead to two separate militaries on US soil not only fighting US citizens, but also each other.
• If that level of division occurs within the military, the US is finished as a world power and would be immensely weakened by both the infighting and the sudden reduction in troops necessary to project power on a global scale. Other world powers, such as Russia and China, would not hesitate to take advantage of this.
• It puts civilians in a dilemma. Do they take up arms against a clearly superior force, or do they sit quietly by and allow whatever is going to happen, happen? Again, just like the military, you will have civilians on both sides who are eager and waiting for the chance to kill other Americans, and you will have those who will refuse to participate in the violence. The problem is, it honestly doesn't matter. There will be collateral damage in any skirmish or battle.
• As a civilian home owner, it also puts me in a bad situation. I legally have the right to use lethal force against any hostile actor attempting to enter my home without permission or a warrant. (Reasonable suspicion and probable cause also come into play, but only for law enforcement.) The US military has no authority over me nor do they have any legal right to come onto my land or enter my home for any reason. Do I put up a fight because that is the legal and moral thing to do, most likely getting myself killed in the process? Or do I just capitulate and let them do whatever they want to me and my family?
• For those who choose to participate in the war, how will they distinguish between friend and foe? How will they make the determination that this US citizen is a threat to the country, but this one isn't? If an enemy is found and confirmed, what are the ROE for dealing with them? Will they be arrested and imprisoned? Or will they be shot dead in their homes or in the streets? Do they get the due process that is guaranteed to them by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution? Or are we suspending Constitutional rights?
• Where will militias fit into this war? Will they join forces with regular Army units or will they engage in missions of their own creation?

For the moment, President Trump has only named highly Democratic cities as targets for the military. What's next? Does he then go after entire states? Does he go after "purple" cities that sometimes lean Republican and sometimes lean Democrat? What is the long-term goal? These operations are being sold to the American public as a "high crime" issue. If that's true, high crime rates are not restricted to Democrat-run cities. Why aren't Republican cities with high crime rates also on the list? Not to mention, crime falls under the purview of civilian law enforcement at the local, county, state, and federal levels. The military is not trained to combat crime on US soil.

To quote a man I greatly respect and admire:
"There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." --Commander William Adama

I firmly believe that philosophy is 100% correct. If we have cities with major crime issues (and I know we do), then we need to increase funding and training to law enforcement agencies, not send in the Army.

To summarize, in my personal opinion, I believe that there is now a declared state of war between various factions in the United States. Whether or not that becomes a shooting war remains to be seen, but I think it should be discussed. And I think it should be discussed not from the standpoint of left versus right, but constitutional and unconstitutional. The moral implications of the government pitting American against American. The fundamental shift in global geopolitical power and influence if the war goes hot. Impact on economy. REAL issues; not issues manufactured by politicians and the media.

Please keep discussion civilized and as apolitical as you possibly can. Focus on the reality of our situation and separate it from the artificial constructs of left and right.
Thank you in advanced.

 

[Librarylady]

I didn't watch it live, but yes --that part is extremely ominous. Too put it mildly. However, Trump tends to veer into hyperbole.

I live one of the cities he mentioned, and yes there has been an increase in crime in recent years. And the pro-Hamas marches/transit shut downs.are worrying. BUT, I'm old enough to remember the 70's, when things were a lot worse and we didn't need troops in the streets. I think these are still problems the local police can handle.

Local governments are not doing any of us any favors by giving the Federal government an excuse to come in by refusing to enforce Federal laws.

 

[teekay99]

Using the US military against American citizens on US soil is a clear and flagrant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The US military is prohibited by federal law from interfering in civilian affairs. Any US flag officer or soldier receiving such an order is required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse that order as being unlawful. Statistically, some will do this, some won't. This will create division within the military which will destroy unit cohesiveness and could potentially lead to two separate militaries on US soil not only fighting US citizens, but also each other.

Posse Comitatus does have some exceptions, and DOD might attempt to engage in law enforcement activities under some loose definition of those exceptions. Possible examples include (quoting Wikipedia, which is never wrong /sarcasm):

• Under 10 U.S.C. § 282, the Attorney General may request assistance from the military in enforcement of laws regarding biological, chemical, or other weapons of mass destruction (18 U.S.C. § 175a, § 229E, and § 2332e).
• Under 18 U.S.C. § 112, § 1116, and § 1201, the Attorney General may request that any other federal, state, or local agency, including the military, assist in the enforcement of laws protecting foreign diplomats and their families.
• Under 10 U.S.C. § 283, the military may assist in responding to terrorist bombings, particularly in terms of explosive ordnance disposal.
• Under 10 U.S.C. § 284, the military may provide surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement on operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism missions. For example, Delta Force soldiers from Fort Bragg were deployed upon request by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to serve as sniper/observer teams, run communications, provide medical support, gather intelligence, and conduct assistance in explosive breaching during the 1987 Atlanta prison riots.

And of course:

• Federal troops used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, which has been invoked 23 times, as of 1992
  • to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
  • to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

 

[GBS61]

From outside the US: Trump's idea is to get rid of the Democrats forever and anyone who criticizes him, it's so obvious. You're screwed. Trump dreams of a single party in the USA.

 

[teekay99]

From outside the US: Trump's idea is to get rid of the Democrats forever and anyone who criticizes him, it's so obvious. You're screwed. Trump dreams of a single party in the USA.

This comment might run counter to @RiffRaff 's request to keep it apolitical. Another way to express this sentiment from a more politically neutral point of view is to say that "President Trump reacts adversely to criticism and appears to be taking active steps to disrupt his critics." Or something to this effect. I admit that It might take some of the bite out of your statement; however, it could help reduce some the emotional component baked into American and global political discourse today and hopefully allow us to have a more academic and productive discussion here.

 

[RiffRaff]

• Under 10 U.S.C. § 282, the Attorney General may request assistance from the military in enforcement of laws regarding biological, chemical, or other weapons of mass destruction (18 U.S.C. § 175a, § 229E, and § 2332e).

Not applicable in the current situation.

• Under 18 U.S.C. § 112, § 1116, and § 1201, the Attorney General may request that any other federal, state, or local agency, including the military, assist in the enforcement of laws protecting foreign diplomats and their families.

Not applicable in the current situation.

• Under 10 U.S.C. § 283, the military may assist in responding to terrorist bombings, particularly in terms of explosive ordnance disposal.

Not currently applicable as political violence to date seems to be limited mostly to shootings instead of explosives. Even if this does become applicable in the future, EOD is their primary function. They are not authorized to police the people or investigate the incident. That role remains with civilian law enforcement.

• Under 10 U.S.C. § 284, the military may provide surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement on operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism missions. For example, Delta Force soldiers from Fort Bragg were deployed upon request by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to serve as sniper/observer teams, run communications, provide medical support, gather intelligence, and conduct assistance in explosive breaching during the 1987 Atlanta prison riots.

Surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement is not what's on the agenda. Troops will be going in to conduct law enforcement operations, with permission from SECDEF to use lethal force on suspects.

I really don't think any of those exceptions will hold up under scrutiny for what's being planned.

 

[teekay99]

Not applicable in the current situation.


Not applicable in the current situation.


Not currently applicable as political violence to date seems to be limited mostly to shootings instead of explosives. Even if this does become applicable in the future, EOD is their primary function. They are not authorized to police the people or investigate the incident. That role remains with civilian law enforcement.


Surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement is not what's on the agenda. Troops will be going in to conduct law enforcement operations, with permission from SECDEF to use lethal force on suspects.

I really don't think any of those exceptions will hold up under scrutiny for what's being planned.

To be clear, I am not supporting the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. I agree with you, I do not expect use of these exceptions to hold up under scrutiny. But I also think an enterprising administration official will try to loosen the definition of these exceptions, or will seek some criminal activity within a targeted area and try to link it to one of these exceptions. It might actually take some federal court decisions or a Supreme Court decision to complete the scrutiny.

 

[DarkNoon]

Coasta Rica keeps looking nicer and nicer.

 

[HoldFast]

Until commanders get official written orders, this is all speculation.

My recommendation to mayors and governors though: Work on initiatives to get your crime under control so this isn't required.

I'm in California and LA and SF are borderline war zones. Almost got capped by a homeless guy with a pistol in his pants in the Bay Area for a stop to check on some loose rattling on a trailer.

There are spots I can not and will not go for fear of getting killed in my state.

 

[Librarylady]

At the risk of sounding like a raging paranoid -- I don't think this is all down to Trump. Or the Republicans. There's simply too much (rather theatrical) provocation from Democratic politicians. And, remember, it was Obama who wanted to federalize the police. Usually the Republicans and Democrats are not that far apart -- it's controlled opposition for the masses. Nothing gets done legislatively that either side really has a problem with. This is also about setting the stage for the next administration to take control (think the Patriot Act on steroids).

 

[Torch]

Not applicable in the current situation.


Not applicable in the current situation.


Not currently applicable as political violence to date seems to be limited mostly to shootings instead of explosives. Even if this does become applicable in the future, EOD is their primary function. They are not authorized to police the people or investigate the incident. That role remains with civilian law enforcement.


Surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement is not what's on the agenda. Troops will be going in to conduct law enforcement operations, with permission from SECDEF to use lethal force on suspects.

I really don't think any of those exceptions will hold up under scrutiny for what's being planned.

In the 1960 and early 70’s US Troops not just the national guard. We called up this security for locations where there was rioting and protests.

Im against this and the courts are not on our side. I was 30 minutes away from Kent State. That didn’t exactly work out …

The Airborne (I don’t remember 82nd or 101st) * were called out to patrol Washington DC. Yes I know Federal District but bad optics.

The US Army Performed an Air Assault into LA to stop the Rodney King riots. That, that actually worked out well.

I’m sure there’s more but they all generally fall in the same groups either they are federal districts or installations or it’s an acute problem like a riot or a disaster. Presently this is calling up troops for semi disasters.

I would say let the people be scared in their own homes. Elections means something and if you live in the city and you vote liberal after liberal you’re gonna end up with runaway crime and homelessness (that you can see). On top of that, you are invariably gonna make it difficult to bear arms to defend yourself.

Let the voters have what they voted for. What will change their minds is when they realize their government a disaster.

When they’re scared to walk the streets and they’re scared in their own homes and they’re scared because they can’t even rise to their own defense because they can’t get a firearm, they’ll vote differently.

This is a tremendous overage.

It’s also ending out of control violence so mixed emotions. But I fall back on “freedom versus security”

This is NOT the same as troops on the border. That’s what the hell they are there for.

* both the 82nd and the101st were airborne at the time (173rd Vincenza, Italy also)

 

[Torch]

Coasta Rica keeps looking nicer and nicer.

I had a small farm in Guacimo, between San Hose and Limón

Loved it.

 

[DarkNoon]

Do people not realize cities everywhere, throughout human history, have always had crime problems? Statistically, it’s logical, more people means more chances for people to do bad things, and more “bad people” means more networking among them.

That’s why organized crime, in all its forms, has been a recurring issue in cities because bad actors tend to congregate. The more people, the higher the odds of that forming.

You see less crime in smaller towns because there are fewer people to commit crimes or to network with others who will.

Crime has been a city problem since humans started building cities thousands of years ago, and the reasons are straightforward. It’s not about a political party. Good God, people need to give the party politics BS a rest.

Different faces, same game. Lock one up, another steps in. No matter what anyone does crime will always be a reoccurring issue in all cities everywhere. Not unique to US either. Not a political parties fault.

 

[Fascist lite]

Posse Comitatus does have some exceptions, and DOD might attempt to engage in law enforcement activities under some loose definition of those exceptions. Possible examples include (quoting Wikipedia, which is never wrong /sarcasm):

And of course:

• Federal troops used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, which has been invoked 23 times, as of 1992
  
  • to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
  • to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

Not as cut and dried as usually presented is it?

If local law enforcement fails to secure said rights then it is allowed.

So as far as a full blown civil war? Well if you think this is cause have at it.

PC operates with in the framework of the insurrection act and was never meant to be a suicide pac.
The insurrection act has two provisions for the president to act without governors approval. Restoring order if states refuse or are unable to restore order. Or to protect constitutional rights granted under the constitution.

Could it escalate, well regarding rhetoric it already has it seems. Could states decide to escalate it? Yes but likely not beyond rhetoric and legal challenges.
See we’re still within the bounds of checks and balances and political remedies.

If a state chooses to secede, well we already precedent for that don’t we.

Let’s not forget the demographic changes today. Many of these states that might threaten insurrection are not in any way homogenous. My state would probably split into. And there would be citizens in those states calling for federal troops to defend them from state governments. How much of California Oregon and Washington would tell their respective capitals to pound sand.
And the states would be powerless to do anything about it. Sure they could send out State Police or even loyal guard units. But how many sniping attacks or vets building what they learned to fear in Iraq would it take to put an end to that.

But if you oppose it speak out that is your right and duty. Just as I oppose many of the laws my state has imposed as unconstitutional. I speak out, I vote, I organize and if all else fails I place my nullification vote into action by disobedience.

I don’t want to see it come to this, but you know what it’s been a long time coming. Democrats have imposed laws and actions I find unconstitutional.

And I’ve heard congressional democrats this week talk about payback whenever they reclaim the presidency.
What some fail to realize we’ve been here awhile already. Many still view the ACA as blatantly unconstitutional. Yet it was steam rolled down opposing parties throats.
When Trump entered office many of us knew it was an all or nothing fight. Because most who supported him regarded the nation as lost if a democrat won.

Sounds kinda like the three years that led up to the civil war doesn’t.
Democrats still plotting insurrection again. That was Lincoln enacting the insurrection act.

In short a president can and has sent troops to restore order and secure the rights of citizens protected under the constitution.

 

[Fascist lite]

Do people not realize cities everywhere, throughout human history, have always had crime problems? Statistically, it’s logical, more people means more chances for people to do bad things, and more “bad people” means more networking among them.

That’s why organized crime, in all its forms, has been a recurring issue in cities because bad actors tend to congregate. The more people, the higher the odds of that forming.

You see less crime in smaller towns because there are fewer people to commit crimes or to network with others who will.

Crime has been a city problem since humans started building cities thousands of years ago, and the reasons are straightforward. It’s not about a political party. Good God, people need to give the party politics BS a rest.

Different faces, same game. Lock one up, another steps in. No matter what anyone does crime will always be a reoccurring issue in all cities everywhere. Not unique to US either. Not a political parties fault.

It’s not that cut and dried yes cities have more obvious crime. The question is are the local and states doing anything to suppress the things that are causing this crime. That I believe was part of the RICO law. If local gov are doing things that directly exacerbate crime and the deprivation of the rights of citizens. Then it would seem it is legal and right for the president to act.

Why these cities? Sanctuary laws, they are a direct violation of constitutional authority given to the federal government over immigration and citizenship. Enacting them or opposing federal agencies in carrying out their constitutional duties is technically an act of insurrection.

 

[Fascist lite]

In the 1960 and early 70’s US Troops not just the national guard. We called up this security for locations where there was rioting and protests.

Im against this and the courts are not on our side. I was 30 minutes away from Kent State. That didn’t exactly work out …

The Airborne (I don’t remember 82nd or 101st) * were called out to patrol Washington DC. Yes I know Federal District but bad optics.

The US Army Performed an Air Assault into LA to stop the Rodney King riots. That, that actually worked out well.

I’m sure there’s more but they all generally fall in the same groups either they are federal districts or installations or it’s an acute problem like a riot or a disaster. Presently this is calling up troops for semi disasters.

I would say let the people be scared in their own homes. Elections means something and if you live in the city and you vote liberal after liberal you’re gonna end up with runaway crime and homelessness (that you can see). On top of that, you are invariably gonna make it difficult to bear arms to defend yourself.

Let the voters have what they voted for. What will change their minds is when they realize their government a disaster.

When they’re scared to walk the streets and they’re scared in their own homes and they’re scared because they can’t even rise to their own defense because they can’t get a firearm, they’ll vote differently.

This is a tremendous overage.

It’s also ending out of control violence so mixed emotions. But I fall back on “freedom versus security”

This is NOT the same as troops on the border. That’s what the hell they are there for.

* both the 82nd and the101st were airborne at the time (173rd Vincenza, Italy also)

True states should choose. But there is the duty under the constitution for the federal gov to protect the civil rights of citizens of the local gov is unwilling or unable to maintain order.
Enacting laws or granting voting rights to those who have not entered the nation illegally. Can and likely has created an environment that is depriving citizen their rights.

As well as separation of powers. Sanctuary laws enacted by many of these cities is an infringement on the duty and right to oversee immigration.
States cannot enact citizenship for those who entered illegally. Which in effect forces other states to eventually respect the constitutional rights of illegal aliens
Federal troops were used throughout the reconstruction period to suppress Jim Crow laws. And after 1878 and PC what happened Jim Crow laws flourished and resulted in the suppression of black Americans rights for multiple generations.

As I mentioned PC is integrated in the insurrection act. And the PC is not a suicide pac to allow in this case large metropolitan cities depriving the civil rights of legitimate US citizens.

 

[teekay99]

Can any of these preceding arguments be presented from a more objective point of view instead of "party rho good, party delta bad"? Is there anything to be said about both parties moving towards their extremes? How about both parties taking steps to entrench their power by enacting certain administrative rules ("nuclear" options) or redrawing districts in a favorable manner? Or how about both parties acting like its more important to stay in power than it is to enact good law, or even a legislative pause? Or both parties holding their leader up as someone who does no wrong?

We are a two party system and BOTH parties are engaged in this wearisome and dangerous tango.

 

[Onoya]

To clarify my point of view (and why i'll ask some questions), i'll remind people that i'm a french citizen that never went to the US soil (beside a school visit to an US embassy in France when i was in middle school ), that knows about the US what i readed online and what told me american friends online and american studenst i met in France at university.

For a lot of French (and maybe europeans?), we have the feeling the Trump is kinda abusing his powers and trying to have more powers than what he should have as the US president.

Like what RiffRaff said, he said that he (Trump) will send troops to some majors US town ( LA, New York, San Francisco etc...), but those are all towns where his party (republicans) are in minority.

Why didn't Trump say that he will also send troops to Republican towns? I'm sure that there is also Republican towns that have a high crime rate. For me (and most europeans i spoke with about that), we "fear" that Trump will just use that as an excuse to fire the local democrat mayors/administrations by instauring federal governance. We (in Europe) also have little trust in Trump respecting the US constitution since he said publicly that he might not respect it (to have a 3rd term as president for example)
And we also have this feeling because Trump did used the police several times to serve his opinions, sometimes not really legally or in a way that looks like he just want to repress democratic opposition.


Do americans also think about this possibility? Or no because it would be impossible for Trump to do that due to current US laws/constitution

And also, as a french, i'm really surprised that there is not an insurrection already happening in the USA. You're (the USA) are the country that claims to be the lands of the free, you have the right to bear arms specifically for that, and yet there is no big opposition on the street against Trump. While in France, we blocked the whole country for less than that (with blockade of highway, refineries, general strikes).

But it's true that in France, we do have a tradition and culture on protesting/rioting to defend our rights to the points that now, most french people know how to build a barricade, protect themselves against tear gas XD



Of course, if i offended people with my opinions/questions, i apologize, it wasn't my intention, it was just some thought and questions from a french that looks at the US situation from afar and is curious to understand it^^

 

[Librarylady]

Can any of these arguments be presented from a more objective point of view instead of "party rho good, party delta bad"? Is there anything to be said about both parties moving towards their extremes? How about both parties taking steps to entrench their power by enacting certain administrative rules ("nuclear" options) or redrawing districts in a favorable manner? Or how about both parties acting like its more important to stay in power than it is to enact good law, or even a legislative pause? Or both parties holding their leader up as someone who does no wrong?

We are a two party system and BOTH parties are engaged in this wearisome and dangerous tango.

We've been heading in this direction for years now. The rhetoric is largely directed towards the masses, though. Pretty sure that at the end of the day the top politicians and billionaires will all be going to the same exclusive vacation spots, hanging out together behind the scenes and doing just fine. Redistricting is to keep the loyalty of the local politicians.

 

[ljheidel]

We talk about the Posse Comitatus Act as though it's sacrosanct. And I'm really afraid that's all just a waste of time and energy. I'd clung to that based on the deeply ingrained idea that norms and customs still apply, and our institutions can still serve as firewalls. I mean, that's what I've been told since childhood, right? That's been a core belief, right?

I've disabused myself of those notions.

One court challenge that winds its way to the Supreme Court giving them the opportunity to declare it unconstitutional, and it it doesn't matter.

It doesn't even have to get that far. A fully captured Congress can simply overturn it.

I wouldn't count on it standing beyond the end of the year if the administration faces any serious resistance.

But, also, if it gets that far...I'm actually more worried about government-sanctioned (either explicitly or implicitly) paramilitaries and irregulars operating outside of military order and discipline.