On the contrary, Professor Bruce Afran of the University of Rutgers states that the deployment of military forces against Americans is “completely unconstitutional” in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. “There was an attack on ICE offices, the doors, there were some graffiti, there were images of demonstrators who were crashed into a guard guard, who was empty,” he says. “But even if it went to the point of setting fire to a car, this is not a domestic insurrection. This is a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.”
AFRAN claims that incorporating the expectations of civilians, which naturally anticipate the interaction with the police but not armed soldiers, can basically alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even obscuring the border between democracy and authoritarianism. “The long -term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in the regulation of the civil protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the work,” he says. “And once we accept that new paradigm, to use a sort of word BS – the relationship between the citizen and the government is modified forever.”
“Violent revolted in Los Angeles, qualified by the Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, attacked the American law enforcement officers, set fire to cars and fed the chaos without law,” says Abigail Jackson, spokesman for the White House, at Wired. “President Trump rightly intervened to protect federal police. When democratic leaders refuse to protect American citizens, the Trump president will always intervene”.
Since the orders to mobilize federal troops have decreased, some users on social media have invited members of the service to consider illegal orders and refuse to obey, a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to achieve.
David Coombs, professor of criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the body of the American army judge, says that it is hypothetically possible that the troops can wonder if Trump has the authority to mobilize the state guardians on the objection of a state governor. “I think in the end the answer will be yes,” he says. “But it’s a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it provides the governor who controls all these individuals.”
Separately, it says that Coombs, when the troops are ordered to mobilize, could – again hypothetically – to execute to engage in activities that go beyond the purpose of the President’s orders, such as the performance of immigration raid or to carry out arrests. “Everything they can do in this case, under the state of title 10, is to protect the safety of federal staff and property. If you go further, then you violate the posse Comitatus Act.” Federal troops, for example, would need a civil police to intervene. At the point, the authorities want peaceful demonstrators to disperse.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports That, in a letter from Sunday, the national security secretary Kristi Noem asked that military troops were aimed at holding alleged “puzzle” during protests “or arresting them”, that legal experts agree almost universally would be illegal in ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-Mise demonstrators of being “violent and insurrectionists” who aim to “protect invaders and military age males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations”.
Khun, who warns that there is a big difference between philosophy on what constitutes an illegal order and disobedinium commands, rejects the idea that the troops, in the warmth of the moment, will have an option. “He will not be happy in the middle of an effective deployment,” he says. “There is no immediate relief, no immediate way to demonstrate that an order is illegal.”
Khun states that if he was deployed in a similar situation, “I and my junior soldiers will not respond to a non -violent or peaceful protest”. When asked what the demonstrators should expect, if they are committed to the federal troops trained for combat abroad, Kuhn says that the Marines will hold their land more firmly of the police, who are often forced to retire while the mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same weapons of control of the crowd, the Marines are widely trained in nearby combat.
“I would expect a defensive answer,” he says, “but not the lethal force”.
Additional reports by Alexa O’Brien.