Unfortunately DC is a legal exception. They are following what is legal, on a technicality, but… I’ve been here with them and talking to them- so far not one has wanted to be here, but all are afraid of what would happen if they refused a technically legal order.
Thanks for the insight. I just posted this www.npr.org/2025/08/17/g...
They are absolutely armed. The legal but dubious “emergency” that brought them to DC runs out after 30 days, but I think the damage that is done to their credibility as defenders against enemies “ foreign AND domestic” will forever be tarnished. I wish there was a way for them to speak out openly.
So do I. There may be some that don’t mind policing cities, but I would assume this is in violation of their entire reason for being in the Guard.
Not just them. All law enforcement is tarnished. A big part of the judicial system requires jurors to trust cops. You want to convict real criminals? Gonna be a lot harder because all this stormtrooper shit pits them against us. Credibility is gone. I won't ever trust them again.
I’m with you on this! The law and order guy uses it against the citizenry, and that is NOT our America.
Same here. Fuck em all. They showed us that their oath of office has always been a joke to them
👍🏼👍🏼
Again, I think that’s a bit harsh. They don’t WANT to be here, but they are following the law. Their superiors gave them legal orders, even if on dubious grounds. If you are a military member and you violate a direct order, you go to prison. Saying YOU would do different isn’t genuine.
And trying to compare my situation to theirs is also a bit disingenuous. They don’t have to want to be there to be violating their oath. They just have to be following illegal orders. And there is nothing legal about this.
That’s where you are wrong though- their orders, while dubious, are legal. During a declared emergency the president can authorize up to 30 days for DC and federal lands. The emergency is made up, and his talk of other cities is nonsense, but sometimes the worst things ARE legal.
I hate that you're right. Good thread.
I can accept your argument as sincere and perhaps even technically correct. However, I would suggest that this deployment being explicitly in support of rounding up homeless people and immigrants, that those orders constitute support of and complicity in crimes against the United States.
And I don’t mean this back and forth with you to be disrespectful, I appreciate the dialogue and I agree with you with just glaring caveats I cannot let go of. Which is not your fault, it’s his. Those glaring caveats are: 1) participating in political events by letting trumpy film commercials
The military is a nonpartisan force. Or, at least, it was. Now, I don’t see much reason for the public to continue affording them the benefit of that doubt. When they’re out there protecting ICEholes and gleefully participating in partisan political stunts by the tyrant.
I’m sorry to be harsh about it, but I didn’t swear an oath. I also don’t have the duty to kill for the state. They signed up for a job that could, without any warning, compel them all to be ready to mobilize and die for their country. It even says they should have that energy for domestic enemies.
And here those enemies stand. Ordering “guard” units to occupy a city not in their jurisdiction because it’ll serve the tyrant. Ohio. West Virginia. Those units have zero business deploying for this partisan show of force. They’re making us the enemy. Their mistake.
Yup. If they’re not armed then why the hell are they deployed? Like if they deployed unarmed troopers to “fight crime” than I guess it’s Markus if Queensbury rules?? Lol
Well, it IS Trump… so there’s THAT! lol