This is the most bizarre take imaginable. You label something that is 100% factually correct as propaganda because stupid people might misunderstand it? That is completely insane. Your brain is broken.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
What? Impeachment is a process similar to an indictment . This is his second time facing an impeachment charges. There is nothing false or misleading about this headline; there is literally no propaganda in those three words. What would you rather have it say?
If you’re mislead by that headline, then you were failed by your high school civics class, and probably fail to grasp how our government and Constitution works in the first place. If you don’t yet have a copy of The Constitution, then you should probably get one.
Edit: delayed on the post, I see everyone else beat me to it
Last edited:
"No it isn't!"
To answer your question, maybe something like; "House RES passes and impeaches President, moves to Senate for conviction vote"?
Last edited:
Definitely one way to try to make sure your crowd is larger than Trump's was!
Obviously a joke here for those that have trouble with them
After watching the video in the second embedded hyperlink. I'm wondering from a law enforcement perspective how "clean" the shooting was. I heard a perpetrator(s?) say repeatedly "he has a gun!" or "there's a gun!", but as of yet there hadn't been any bloodshed or other shootings. So I'm wondering what the ROE equivalent was and if there were other de-escalation steps that could've been taken. How come no warning shots? No tear gas to disperse the unruly crowd? It appeared that the representatives had already been removed, so was he covering the evacuation or withdrawl? The crowd moved out fairly quickly after the shot was fired, so I'm wondering why a warning shot wasn't a viable COA to try and prevent any bloodshed.
I understand that tensions were high, but after other high-profile police shootings recently there has been quite the coverage of whether or not the shooting was justified. I haven't really seen anything like that, much less the President-elect publicly question why the officer didn't try to shoot her in the leg. Is it because of the rather heinous nature of the victim's alleged crime? (And yes, I am saying alleged because this is still America and people are still presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)
I'm curious if anyone knows if only the National Guard can be used as guards in this situation, or if the Reserve component of a military branch could be used as well? When Senator Cotton suggested deploying active-duty troops to quell the riots in America's cities that was met with almost universal criticism. Now I believe that is possibly because he was advocating use of the Insurrection Act, but isn't that essentially what's going on here, minus the President declaring "I invoke the Insurrection Act"? A Guardsman (or reservist) that is on drills or is on orders is still subject to the UCMJ and is really no different than someone on active duty. So what gives? Link attached in case anyone needs a refresh.
'Abhorrent' and 'dangerous': Sen. Cotton's call for military response to protests receives criticism
The editorial, titled "Send In the Troops" went viral and drew sharp criticism following high tensions surrounding the protests.
www.usatoday.com
I don't know how this plays in DC, because DC is weird. But generally, Guardsmen operate under two separate authorities of US Code: Title 10 and Title 32. Title 10 is the same as active duty, and involves the Guard being federalized. Title 32 is the framework under which Governors can call up their individual state militias for active duty within their states. The Guard can have some law enforcement authorities under Title 32, but this isn't allowed under Title 10 because of Posse Comitatus. I'm not clear on what the boundaries of that are. There is also Title 10 §12406, which partly deals with hostile military invasions of CONUS, but also allows the Guard to be federalized when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States," or "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."I'm curious if anyone knows if only the National Guard can be used as guards in this situation, or if the Reserve component of a military branch could be used as well? When Senator Cotton suggested deploying active-duty troops to quell the riots in America's cities that was met with almost universal criticism. Now I believe that is possibly because he was advocating use of the Insurrection Act, but isn't that essentially what's going on here, minus the President declaring "I invoke the Insurrection Act"? A Guardsman (or reservist) that is on drills or is on orders is still subject to the UCMJ and is really no different than someone on active duty. So what gives? Link attached in case anyone needs a refresh.
'Abhorrent' and 'dangerous': Sen. Cotton's call for military response to protests receives criticism
The editorial, titled "Send In the Troops" went viral and drew sharp criticism following high tensions surrounding the protests.www.usatoday.com
Pretty sure 10 USC § 12406(2) is the modern equivalent of Lincoln calling up the militia in 1860, and 10 USC § 12406(3) is more an LA Riots-level thing. No idea how the Insurrection Act plays into all of those MOB authorities. But the Guard is distinct from the Reserves legally by being the organized militia of the individual states, not a Federal formation.
This 2nd impeachment is a political play and that is it. For it to be anything more requires an actual investigation to be completed, which hasn't happened yet. The Dems and those few GOP who voted for it are doing so purely for politics and not based on any findings from an investigation. Pelosi doesn't have enough time before Biden's inauguration to wait for an investigation to be completed to fulfill her stated goal for the last 4 years of removing Trump from office. She's determined to win.
The House impeachment vote is supposed to be the equivalent of a prosecutor issuing an indictment. Prosecutors don't issue indictments without completed investigations or grand jury hearings.
Trump's actions were idiotic but so are Pelosi's.
The House impeachment vote is supposed to be the equivalent of a prosecutor issuing an indictment. Prosecutors don't issue indictments without completed investigations or grand jury hearings.
Trump's actions were idiotic but so are Pelosi's.
Thanks. The articles I’ve read keep saying they were “federalized”, so I was thinking Title 10, but I didn’t think it was really possible for US troops to be in a position to potentially open fire on US citizens. I know we all fervently hope that doesn’t happen, but we’ve already seen deaths so the potential for that is very real.
If I were one of the officers I know I’d want a very thorough briefing and understanding of the ROE. I’m also hoping that this isn’t the NG equivalent of taking Seaman Timmy out of his normal NOSC duty and handing him a rifle and telling him to be brave. I know that the Army is different, but I don’t know if most of those soldiers are MPs or even from the combat arms. Being a reservist myself, I just have a different perspective now when they talk about “calling up the National Guard”; if they told NOSC Washington, D.C. folks to break out the M9s and M16s and guard a section of that barricade, I have a pretty good idea what they would have in terms of training for that scenario. The last thing anyone wants is another Kent State situation where poorly trained and equipped troops are in way above their heads.
That being said, I have the utmost faith that these soldiers will rise to the occasion and represent their nation very well.
Last edited:
Anwar al-Awlaki's ghost would like a word...
I keed, I keed. I enthusiasticlally support the killing of Al Awlaki, and I don't know whether this was done under Title 10 or 50. Just highlighting that conventional wisdom can go sideways sometimes.
This jogged my memory, I guess this was sort of the controversy to which I was obliquely referring. I guess my follow on question is this: does it matter if it occurs on US soil or not?
The comments are, not surprisingly, absolute ??.
Screen cap for those who’ve recently bought a home, are turning into their parents, and think clicking on an Instagram link is going to give their computer a cold.
Isn't the play to prevent a 2024 Trump bid? I figured that's why Mitch McConnell is offering lukewarm encouragements about the whole thing, too -- a chance to let the Trump era to fade away without taking the Republican Party with it.
Yup, which is purely political and impeachment is not supposed to be political.
You’re right, McConnell is playing politics too but he is using a political play he can’t stop to his best advantage. Still politics but different and not as egregious as Pelosi’s. Especially as she is not giving others any real choice but to do do some of her dirty work for her.