https://www.theguardian.com/us...roops-marines-morale

California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join.

Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.

“The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,” said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans.

“Families are scared not just for their loved ones’ safety, although that’s a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.”

Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to “mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy”, said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. “Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,” he said.

The marines and the California national guard did not respond to invitations to comment.

Trump has taken the unusual step of ordering 4,000 national guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, saying that the city risked being “obliterated” by violent protesters without them. Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours’ drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a “trash heap” that was in danger of burning to the ground.

In reality, the anti-Trump protests – called first in response to aggressive federal roundups of undocumented immigrants, then in anger at the national guard deployment – have been largely peaceful and restricted to just a few blocks around downtown federal buildings. The Los Angeles police has made hundreds of arrests in response to acts of violence and vandalism around the protests, and the city’s mayor, Karen Bass, has instituted a night-time curfew – all with minimal input from the federal authorities.

At the largest demonstration since Trump first intervened, last Sunday, the national guard was hemmed into a staging area by Los Angeles police cruisers and played almost no role in crowd control. Since then, its service members have been deployed to guard buildings and federal law enforcement convoys conducting immigration sweeps. The marines, who arrived on Wednesday, are expected to play a similar function, with no powers of arrest.


Newsom has described the deployment as “a provocation, not just an escalation” and accused the White House of mistreating the service members it was activating. A widely circulated photograph, later confirmed as authentic by the Pentagon, showed national guard members sleeping on a concrete loading dock floor without bedding, and the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the troops arrived with no lodging, insufficient portable toilets and no funds for food or water.

A pair of YouGov polls published on Tuesday show public disapproval of both the national guard and marines deployments, as well as disapproval of Trump’s immigrant deportation policies. A Washington Post poll published on Wednesday came up with similar findings, but with slightly narrower margins.

Active service members are prohibited by law from speaking publicly about their work. But Streyder, of the Secure Families Initiative, said she had heard dozens of complaints indirectly through their families. She had also seen a written comment passed along to her organization from a national guard member who described the assignment as “shitty” – particularly compared with early secondments to help with wildfire relief or, during the Covid pandemic, vaccination outreach.

“Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community,” Streyder described the message as saying. “This is quite the opposite.”

According to Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, the feeling was similar among some of the troops being sent from Twentynine Palms.

“Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that marines are apolitical,” Goldbeck said. “Some were concerned that the Marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where marines were necessary.”

The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, many if not most of whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies.

“We tend to be uniquely apolitical, as an institution and with each other,” Streyder said. “The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response… It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.”

The discontent may not be limited to California. In Texas, where the governor, Greg Abbott, called out the national guard on Wednesday in San Antonio, Austin and other cities expecting anti-Trump protests, guardsmen have a history of feeling poorly treated in the workplace if not outright misused, Purdy of the Chamberlain Network said.

After Abbott requisitioned the guard in 2021 to help police the Mexican border – a controversial policy codenamed Operation Lone Star – there were bitter complaints among guard members about the length and nature of an assignment that largely duplicated the work of the federal Border Patrol. Several guardsmen took their own lives.

The LA operations are also sparking safety concerns because of complications inherent in pairing military and domestic police officers, advocates say, since they are trained very differently and use different vocabulary to handle emergency situations. In one infamous episode during the 1992 Los Angeles riots – the last time the military were called out to restore order in southern California – a police officer on patrol turned to his marines counterparts and said “cover me”, meaning be ready with your weapon to make sure I stay safe.

To the marines, though, “cover me” meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt.

CJ Chivers, a New York Times reporter who was with the marines in Los Angeles in 1992 and witnessed the tail-end of this near-calamity, wrote years later of his mixed feelings about the assignment: “The Marines’ presence in greater Los Angeles… felt unnecessary,” he said. “I’d like to say we understood the context of the role we were given … But domestic crowd control had never been our specialty.”

Streyder and the other advocates concurred. “Domestic law enforcement and the military are entirely separate functions, manned by separate people who have been given separate training, who come from different cultures,” Streyder said. “As military families, we rely implicitly on that separation being honored and remaining clear.”

Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

That's why:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...dln?ocid=socialshare

Kristi Noem pressed Pete Hegseth to have the military arrest civilians
Story by Ja'han Jones • 20h • 3 min read

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

That's why:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

You aren't generally THIS stupid. Are you trying to say that protecting federal property isnt a lawful order? They aren't policing, chowderhead.

If that "nuance" is beyond you, you should consider retiring from the field

https://www.military.com/daily...ance-appearance.html

Military News
Bragg Soldiers Who Cheered Trump's Political Attacks While in Uniform Were Checked for Allegiance, Appearance

Military.com | By Konstantin Toropin and Steve Beynon
Updated June 11, 2025 at 5:50pm ET | Published June 11, 2025 at 1:31pm ET

It was supposed to be a routine appearance, a visit from the commander in chief to rally the troops, boost morale and celebrate the Army's 250th-birthday week, which culminates with a Washington, D.C., parade slated for Saturday.

Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/10...gg-troops-trump-lies

Fact check: Trump makes multiple false claims to the troops at Fort Bragg
Daniel Dale
By Daniel Dale, CNN
5 minute read
Published 8:07 PM EDT, Tue June 10, 2025

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...-military-rcna212437

Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts new questions, concerns about politicization of military
Uniformed soldiers in the stands cheered and booed along with political statements, something traditionally frowned upon and potentially a violation of military regulations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0....html?smid=url-share

Trump Crossed the Line at Fort Bragg
June 11, 2025

No president in modern history has done more to put the military in the middle of political and cultural crossfire than Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, just one day after he directed active-duty Marines onto the streets of Los Angeles in response to protests against his immigration policies and four days before he plans to oversee an extravagant military parade on his birthday, Mr. Trump stood before a crowd of beret-wearing soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and dragged them into his political maelstrom.

While past commanders in chief might have chosen to deliver a speech that celebrated the U.S. Army’s history ahead of the service’s 250th anniversary this weekend, Mr. Trump opted instead for a rambling speech that ridiculed “radical left lunatic” politicians, threatened flag-burning protesters and falsely claimed the 2020 election was “rigged.” He also announced his plan to reverse a Biden administration decision and restore the names of Fort Robert E. Lee and six other military bases honoring former Confederate officers.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

That's why:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

You aren't generally THIS stupid. Are you trying to say that protecting federal property isnt a lawful order? They aren't policing, chowderhead.

If that "nuance" is beyond you, you should consider retiring from the field

Well, Jeffee, I doubt that you will argue that all this is a surprise. Only the most indoctrinated wouldn't have seen this coming.

And more often than not I consider credible sources' info/views over stuff you say. That's a fairly easy nuance.

https://www.politico.com/news/...yment-legal-00394387

Trump’s troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
Trump has cited a provision of U.S. law that allows the president to use the National Guard to suppress the “danger of a rebellion.”

President Donald Trump’s deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say.

Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration’s mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest.

But Trump’s stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump’s deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission.

“It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,” said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment “unlawful” and said he would sue Monday.

“This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,” Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. “This is a consistent pattern.”

At issue is the president’s authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws.

An advocacy group said they heard from dozens of families...... Out of 2700 on TDY. That is far from an overwhelming number.

Maggie and her world of fear. Deal with facts. COULD the US military do "made up thing" maybe, but it's not factual.

It's cute how you dodge the simple question. Is defending us federal property an illegal order? They aren't policing, honey, that is in YOUR head... and like many things that only exist in your world of fear, you need to get a grip on actual reality

quote:

Is defending us federal property an illegal order?

Search:
does the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 apply to federal property

Results:
AI Overview
Yes, the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement, but it does allow for exceptions, including the protection of federal property. While the law restricts military involvement in law enforcement, it also acknowledges specific circumstances where exceptions are permitted, such as protecting federal agents and federal property during law enforcement activities.

Elaboration:
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, enacted to prevent the military from being used in civilian law enforcement, is a cornerstone of the separation of military and civilian functions in the United States. It essentially prohibits the Army and Air Force from participating in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress.

Key Points about the Act and its Application:

General Prohibition:
.
The Act generally prohibits the use of federal military personnel for civilian law enforcement activities, such as arrests, searches, and seizures.

Constitutional Exceptions:
.
The Act acknowledges instances where the Constitution explicitly authorizes the use of the armed forces in law enforcement, such as during emergencies or to protect federal property.

Statutory Exceptions:
.
Congress has also enacted laws that allow for exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, such as in cases of domestic violence, protection of federal property, and enforcement of certain federal laws.

Federal Property:
.
The Act explicitly allows for military protection of federal property.

National Guard:
.
While the National Guard is also subject to the Posse Comitatus Act when acting in federal service, it can still be deployed under state law or through federalization, potentially bypassing the Posse Comitatus Act in certain situations.

Enforcement:
.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, but it lacks a strong enforcement mechanism, and there have been few prosecutions for violations.

In summary, the Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of federal military personnel in civilian law enforcement, but it does include exceptions for protecting federal property and in other situations authorized by the Constitution or by Act of Congress.

==================================================================

Next search:

does the protection of federal property fall under domestic law

Results:

AI Overview

Yes, the protection of federal property in the United States falls under domestic law. This means the laws and regulations governing the security and protection of these properties are primarily federal laws enacted by the US Congress and enforced by federal agencies.

Here's a breakdown:

Federal Law: Federal criminal law plays a key role in protecting government property from theft, misuse, and misappropriation.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS): The Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred authority for law enforcement and security functions on federal properties to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is responsible for protecting federal buildings, grounds, and the people on the property. The Federal Protective Service (FPS), part of DHS, is the primary agency responsible for providing law enforcement and security services to federal facilities.

Regulations: DHS has the authority to issue regulations specifically for the protection and administration of federal property and individuals on the property. This includes rules regarding prohibited conduct, inspections, and enforcement.

Specific Statutes: Several federal statutes address the protection of specific types of federal property, such as:

18 U.S. Code § 1361, which criminalizes the damage or destruction of government property.

18 U.S. Code § 930, which prohibits the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in federal facilities.

In summary: The protection of federal property is a matter of domestic concern, primarily governed by federal laws and regulations within the United States legal framework.

thanks for dodging all the pertinent questions, and trying to leverage AI, which can't be used in court or legal settings, to try and use it in a legalistic sitting.

oh, and your little AI said what I said - protecting federal property - perfectly legal -- roaming the streets for hoodlums, not in the mission, just in your fear-filled head.

Not joking, not teasing, you seriously need mental help (not a doctor)

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

That's why:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

You aren't generally THIS stupid. Are you trying to say that protecting federal property isnt a lawful order? They aren't policing, chowderhead.

If that "nuance" is beyond you, you should consider retiring from the field

Kabluey has never been or ever will be the sharpest tack in the box.

I well recall training in crowd and riot control. This in Alabama in 1969. As it happened, we were never deployed in that role. If we had been, I'm sure we wouldn't have liked it either. Our situation is worse today. Bill

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

Not joking, not teasing, you seriously need mental help (not a doctor)

I rarely say on this forum fuck you.

But there are occasions. In particular your gaslighting, making it personal BS gets tiring.

Did you see the second search above?

And here's a third:

Does the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bar the president from using federal troops to enforce domestic laws?

AI Overview
Yes, the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the president from using federal troops, including the National Guard, to enforce domestic laws.

Specifically, it bars federal forces from participating in civilian law enforcement unless "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress," according to the Brennan Center for Justice and the Brennan Center for Justice.

This means that the military cannot generally be used for tasks like making arrests, detaining people, or policing protests.

Exceptions:
The Posse Comitatus Act does have exceptions.

The Insurrection Act provides an exception, allowing the president to use federal troops to quell civil unrest or suppress insurrections.

This act can be invoked when state and local law enforcement is unable to handle the situation.

Additionally, the military can be used in situations like protecting federal property or assisting in natural disasters without violating the Act.

Historical Context:
The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted in 1878 in response to the use of the federal military during and after the Civil War to enforce laws in the Southern states. The act was intended to prevent the military from becoming involved in civilian law enforcement and to ensure that civilian law enforcement remained in the hands of civilian authorities.

============================================

So, my point is that it's not as simple as you want it to be.

And since you poo pooed the AI summaries I provided, here's a better source:

https://www.brennancenter.org/...20Congress.%E2%80%9D

June 10, 2025

The Brennan Center for Justice

Unpacking Trump’s Order Authorizing Domestic Deployment of the Military

The president’s move represents an unprecedented, dangerous, and legally doubtful exercise of power.

sorry honey, you couldn't say a thing that would make me compromise my principals -- i guess we can't say the same for you -

but, honey, regardless of your rejection of the advice, you should seek help



oh, and on PCT -- you are dead wrong, and not even the idiot lawyers in blue states are trying to leverage it, as it's not a question - they are trying to work on a different process -- i know it's complex, but you REALLY shouldn't freestyle from the daily dem talking points

let's be clear.. you make stuff up, get SCARED about it, because you don't understand big scary words, and since you live in a world of fear, you act out --

repeatedly
in the same day
over and over
can't stop posting about your fear
THEN you make up stuff to support it ...

there's help available

quote:

sorry honey, you couldn't say a thing that would make me compromise my principals

So, I wasted a fuck you on you.

Otherwise:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 04:20

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

sorry honey, you couldn't say a thing that would make me compromise my principals

So, I wasted a f*ck you on you.

Otherwise:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 04:20

those that need it the most can't see it -

so, how long have you let other's control your emotions, responses, and principals?

i wonder, how many times have your heard this about you acting out from your personal world of fear?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 04:54

are you hiding under the bed, in the closet, or under the table, and crying? always letting others control your emotions

you feel FINE using one of the FCC forbidden 7 at me, and I didn't use a single curse word at you ... feeling like a fulfilled adult yet, or still going to act out like a petulant child?

you sure can give it, honey,,,, but getting 2% back makes your cry foul ...

you might think about THAT and how you present

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 05:16

translation

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 05:26

quote:

Originally posted by rcraig:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

That's why:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

You aren't generally THIS stupid. Are you trying to say that protecting federal property isnt a lawful order? They aren't policing, chowderhead.

If that "nuance" is beyond you, you should consider retiring from the field

Kabluey has never been or ever will be the sharpest tack in the box.

You are being very kind to an estrogen fueled, old, senile idiot....

But you do you man. I'm all in.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 04:54

are you hiding under the bed, in the closet, or under the table, and crying? always letting others control your emotions

you feel FINE using one of the FCC forbidden 7 at me, and I didn't use a single curse word at you ... feeling like a fulfilled adult yet, or still going to act out like a petulant child?

you sure can give it, honey,,,, but getting 2% back makes your cry foul ...

you might think about THAT and how you present

All of the above! Just wait....hell call you racist or misogynist.... You know....that or the ignore button means the old woman has,lost......

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 13 June 2025 05:16

translation

Perfect! You just need to add some wrinkles and a pink dress!


.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
An advocacy group said they heard from dozens of families...... Out of 2700 on TDY. That is far from an overwhelming number.

I doubt they are pleased about taking off work for a political stunt.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by rcraig:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

That's why:

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

You aren't generally THIS stupid. Are you trying to say that protecting federal property isnt a lawful order? They aren't policing, chowderhead.

If that "nuance" is beyond you, you should consider retiring from the field

Kabluey has never been or ever will be the sharpest tack in the box.

You are being very kind to an estrogen fueled, old, senile idiot....

But you do you man. I'm all in.

He's nothing more than an irrelevant moron.

I heard Nazi soldiers didn't like what Hitler told them to do.

Trump is only following the pattern of his idol.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Troops don't get a say in the matter. Period.

follow the orders lol it did not work that much during nurnberg trials lol