Nope.
https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC66984/text
Yeah, this is why I thihk that if Trump were reelected and gave illegal orders, some would still follow them. It would be a disaster.
Many would follow them. All of America’s institutions are collapsing and our refusal to see the depth of the problem is a big part of the why. We should have stopped them at Reagan.
I may have missed it in the thread, but the count is up to 250,000 according to NPR.
Meanwhile, over here at Amazon HQ…
Yes, I’m familiar with the posse comitatus act. I even double checked my memory of it.
I’m saying that there are lots of people, including Trump, high officials in a future Trump administration, potentially generals and certainly other military, and judges, who would view such military deployment as not “law enforcement” or carrying out “domestic policy” but literally fighting foreign enemies who have invaded the country. It’s not rhetoric to them. They feel (at least, some of them do) that the (real) US is being conquered in slow motion by immigrants replacing or eventually outnumbering “real” Americans.
And thus will Bezos have an excuse to close his money-losing vanity purchase. 
There are (other) 18th Century workarounds:
Many US Army Corps of Engineers projects are environmental disasters by design irrespective of politics. That it has become a political staking goat by Republicans to take pride in intentionally doing unnecessary environmental damage or deny essentially unequivocal science showing harms is further evidence of how perverse the “partisan divide” has become and that there are not two equally balanced positions on those issues.
To be clear, there has long been an issue with racism in the military, and a contingent of white supremacy. But for the most part overt racism was limited to a minority contingent of enlisted personnel and junior officers in the post-integration era; senior officers and especially those aspiring to flag rank, either moderated their views or kept silent out of institutional conformance, and also because the modern armed services would be severely understaffed if not for recruiting and promoting minorities. But Michael Flynn certainly demonstrates that there is some contingent of bigotry in the higher ranks.
Quite aside from that, however, is that while military officers are drilled on their responsibility to “preserve and defend the Constitution” as their highest duty, you can certainly find officers who do otherwise in furtherance of promotion by currying favor with a leader, and the President as Commander-In-Chief can reassign or dismiss officers at his or her discretion until the find those who will obey illegal orders. I doubt a hypothetical President Trump could find enough sycophants to replace the entire senior command structure but even a few are enough to create churn at the leadership level and kick off an attempt at ‘rounding up’ immigrants, and absent of contrary legal guidance most junior officers are not going to go against orders from on high. We invaded Iraq in 2003 under pretenses most people suspected were false, and virtually no one in the military leadership or Congress (except for Representative Barbara Lee balked at starting an illegal war.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the notion that the editorial board of the Washington Post endorsing Kamala Harris is creating the perception of ‘liberal bias’ in their hard news reporting that is pushing away conservative news consumers is so obtuse it is hard to begin describing how wrong that is. Setting aside the fact that the Washington Post gives editorial column inches to not only conservative (if anti-Trump) commentator George Will but also to Trump flag bearers Marc A. Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt would seem to obviate the basis of that claim. The reality is that most conservatives (and all Trump advocates) aren’t seeking non-biased news sources; instead, they are embracing those with very evident biases in the direction that supports their views like Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, et cetera, which are perfectly happy to not only endorse Trump but spread obvious propaganda and easily fact-checked lies for him at every opportunity.
Even if the Washington Post hadn’t established the precedent of regularly endorsed a candidate for the presidency for the last four decades one can argue that they should do so now because while you might argue that they shouldn’t have a bias for a particular political viewpoint, they should have a bias for fact and integrity (as well as, I would argue, for maintaining and strengthening democratic institutions which includes a free press performing investigative journalism and publishing editorial criticism), and in this case there is a clear distinction in this regard between one candidate who is essentially honest and has a long history in service of democratic institutions, and the other who not only lies so reflexively that he can’t even keep them straight or coherent and has a long record of corruption but actively incited insurrection and tried to interfere with fair election processes, and who by he way has expressed naked ambition to be a dictator. For the publisher and owner of the Washington Post to ignore the paper’s editorial board intent to endorse Harris is not only an unconscionable and unethical act but it is also an abrogation of the one principle that a newspaper or medial outlet should fundamentally stand for; informing the public about an imminent danger to civil society and democratic freedom.
It’s fucking cowardly for someone with the profile and influence of multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos to not stand up and back the Washington Post editorial board in making an endorsement for Harris regardless of what it costs him, and even (or perhaps especially) if it makes no practical difference in the election, because fighting for freedom is fundamentally about what you stand for regardless of the consequences. Apparently Jeff Bezos stands for protecting his profit margins and preemtively showing deferences to an avowed demagogue. Fuck…that…guy.
Stranger
Sorry, man. but this is just not how militaries behave. Never has been and never will be.
I am sure that if Trump started off by ordered the military to go out and start shooting school buses with rocket launchers, they’d universally refuse. But that’s not how it’s going to go. It will always start, because it always does, on the edge of legality, citing things like “insurrection” and whatnot. Using the military to do things at the edge of the law. And the military WILL go along with it.
Or even fully within legality – to start cloaked in the Defense Support of Civilian Authority mission description, what you use for disasters and civil emergencies. And under current law a state of emergency is something declared (and extended) by executive action. Just gradually ratchet up what is the emergency measure justified.
Especially guys like this.
I concur, Trump’s promise of rounding up all of the undocumented immigrants and sending them back to Mexico, is less realistic than his promise of building a wall across the entire Southern border and making Mexico pay for it.
On the other hand, like the border wall he will probably feel obligated to show some degree of progress in that direction and so will randomly detain and deport a whole bunch of people spreading fear and misery across the country.
But those people who think that are wrong. Surely people who are wrong won’t prevail.
And those Trumpeteers who believe grocery prices are high now are in for a shock if all those immigrant workers get disappeared. A lot of our economy depends on their labor.
Meh. They’ll just blame ObamaBidenHarris. During the Two-Minute Hate.
Gotta disagree here. In 2016, the Chicago Tribune made their presidential endorsement. They talked about their founding, and how they had endorsed the Republican candidate every time except one before 2016, but that they were endorsing Hillary Clinton. That did not change the conservative bias of the newspaper one bit; they continued to lean on endorsing Republican candidates. Endorsing an INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE should be just that - endorsing an individual. Their overall atmosphere might track in that direction; it might not. I think you’re putting the cart before the horse - a newspaper’s general political environment lends to them endorsing a party candidate, not that endorsing a candidate endorses the party.
Yes to all this. Bezos’ stated rationale for his choice to bow down to Trump is indefensible, both logically and ethically.
100% this, too. Yes, Trump’s handlers will start with orders that the military–both the white-supremacist ones and the others–can tell themselves are lawful. Then, gradually, we’ll move to the outrageously-unlawful acts. Frog in boiling water.
Michael Flynn is not a unicorn. There are plenty like him in all military branches, and they will be eager to commit acts of vicious repression. You know, because God wants them to.
And Jeff Bezos will be there all along, to praise and encourage them.
And sell them the software.