Trump Invoking 'Insurrection Act' Speculation Grows After ICE Shooting(newsweek.com)
newsweek.com
Trump Invoking 'Insurrection Act' Speculation Grows After ICE Shooting
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-insurrection-act-ice-shooting-walz-11328894
14 comments
To be honest, the Insurrection Act could be a significant own-goal; IIUC:
- The Army is subject to UCMJ (what laws are ICE subject to?) In particular, this means[0] they are aware of the duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, and their officers are aware they are responsible for their subordinates' actions.
- The Army has been integrating ever since Executive Order 9981, which is to say decades before the rest of the country. (what about ICE, how integrated are they?)
- In principle, at least some Army units train in Crowd Control in Urban Terrain, reading formal manuals covering theory and practice; how much training[1] do ICE units get?
- The Army is big on acting honorably[2] and professionally. Can we say that of ICE?
In other words, an invocation of the Insurrection Act might well be going from the fire into the frying-pan.
What am I missing?
[0] Is this still true? Or did it change after 2003? It used to be in all the books for enlisted personnel. Anyone have a recent Soldier's Handbook to hand?
[1] IIUC, one reason Tiananmen Square went all pear-shaped in 1989 is because at least the PLA (what about the PAP?) did not possess riot-trained units at the time.
[2] yes, there bad apples. In principle, they get prosecuted. It doesn't help when the bad apples get sentenced at court-martial but the Big Apple pardons them.
This theory is from 1954:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#:~...
but I believe that spirit still applies, at least it held up until 2020:
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20...
- The Army is subject to UCMJ (what laws are ICE subject to?) In particular, this means[0] they are aware of the duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders, and their officers are aware they are responsible for their subordinates' actions.
- The Army has been integrating ever since Executive Order 9981, which is to say decades before the rest of the country. (what about ICE, how integrated are they?)
- In principle, at least some Army units train in Crowd Control in Urban Terrain, reading formal manuals covering theory and practice; how much training[1] do ICE units get?
- The Army is big on acting honorably[2] and professionally. Can we say that of ICE?
In other words, an invocation of the Insurrection Act might well be going from the fire into the frying-pan.
What am I missing?
[0] Is this still true? Or did it change after 2003? It used to be in all the books for enlisted personnel. Anyone have a recent Soldier's Handbook to hand?
[1] IIUC, one reason Tiananmen Square went all pear-shaped in 1989 is because at least the PLA (what about the PAP?) did not possess riot-trained units at the time.
[2] yes, there bad apples. In principle, they get prosecuted. It doesn't help when the bad apples get sentenced at court-martial but the Big Apple pardons them.
This theory is from 1954:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#:~...
but I believe that spirit still applies, at least it held up until 2020:
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20...
https://prediktion.market/event/polymarket/insurrection-act-...
It went from ~25% to ~50% (Dec '26) odds practically overnight. Doesn't account for the Portland incident yet, as those details are still murky and involves CBP.
It went from ~25% to ~50% (Dec '26) odds practically overnight. Doesn't account for the Portland incident yet, as those details are still murky and involves CBP.
He’ll find a reason to invoke it.
If there are no actual effective constraints on the actions of federal “law enforcement” agents, to the point where the can murder with impunity in the course of interactions which, even before the killing, had no justification based in their legal jurisdiction, why bother?
There’s no need for a formal act that alters the legal constraints when there is no practical impact from legal constraints in the first place.
There’s no need for a formal act that alters the legal constraints when there is no practical impact from legal constraints in the first place.
> why bother?
Because it’s meant to inflame the population into reacting, further justifying the oppression.
You’re right in that there’s no legal need for it, but that’s not the goal. The goal is to create a level of chaos that justifies and solidifies the existence of a totalitarian regime.
Because it’s meant to inflame the population into reacting, further justifying the oppression.
You’re right in that there’s no legal need for it, but that’s not the goal. The goal is to create a level of chaos that justifies and solidifies the existence of a totalitarian regime.
> Because it’s meant to inflame the population into reacting, further justifying the oppression.
You only need to justify the oppression if there is meaningful constraint on it without further justification.
> You’re right in that there’s no legal need for it,
No, I didn't say anything about legal need. What I am said is that there is no practical need because the actions are already far beyond what the law allows and there is nothing, whether through legal institutions, popular resistance, or otherwise, that is meaningfully constraining action, so a formal act that would relieve legal constraints is practically meaningless, because the legal constraints which it relieves have no practical force as it is.
I’m saying that will-he-won’t-he about invoking the Insurrection Act, or “declaring martial law”, or any other formal change of legal regime are, at this point, serving as a distraction from the fact that the executive’s substantive actions are not actually constrained by the nominal legal regime, and that changes in what is formally allowed do not matter very much when what is being done without meaningful resistance is already well outside of what is formally allowed.
You only need to justify the oppression if there is meaningful constraint on it without further justification.
> You’re right in that there’s no legal need for it,
No, I didn't say anything about legal need. What I am said is that there is no practical need because the actions are already far beyond what the law allows and there is nothing, whether through legal institutions, popular resistance, or otherwise, that is meaningfully constraining action, so a formal act that would relieve legal constraints is practically meaningless, because the legal constraints which it relieves have no practical force as it is.
I’m saying that will-he-won’t-he about invoking the Insurrection Act, or “declaring martial law”, or any other formal change of legal regime are, at this point, serving as a distraction from the fact that the executive’s substantive actions are not actually constrained by the nominal legal regime, and that changes in what is formally allowed do not matter very much when what is being done without meaningful resistance is already well outside of what is formally allowed.
There's some GOP legislators it probably makes quietly uncomfortable to see ICE blatantly murdering people on their watch, they could sleep easier with Insurrection Act
I can’t predict which way this will go but I sort of feel like Trump, Vance, Noem all jumping to conclusions immediately to say the shooting was a justified act of self defense, is a way of making their base believe it from the start - so they don’t form their own opinion. That keeps the other GOP legislators in line. If their base (people who voted for them) support the shooting, what’s the chance they step out of line and challenge their propaganda, even if they know it is wrong?
Trump mentioned in a couple weeks ago in the context of Chicago. He repeats these outrageous things many times until people are numb to how extreme it is, and then he actually does it.
No one is going to stop him, so you can only be prepared to react.
Yea it doesn’t seem like there is anyone to stand up to him. And it is unclear how they would. My understanding is it would require GOP legislators to flip?
So Trump wants to regime change Cuba, Columbia working on Venezuela and now soon to regime change in USA itself.
On the bright side, even after a hypothetical self-coup, he'd only have about a decade left: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46524296 (that's actuarial expectation; it'd always be possible to be lucky and get an Andropov, but if you're looking to recycle cynical jokes I think the Brezhnev ones work better)
May the Force be with you all.
May the Force be with you all.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmakers-call-trump-ar...