this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
1750 points (98.6% liked)
People Twitter
7376 readers
482 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hillary Clinton too.
load more comments
(25 replies)
The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:
- Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
- Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
- Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
- Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
- Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
- Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.
EDIT: Formatting EDIT: Better Citations: (DoDI 3025.21, Enclosure 3, Section 3)
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf
- EXCEPTIONS BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE. By policy, Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (as well as other restrictions in this Instruction) are applicable to the Department of the Navy (including the Marine Corps) with such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense may authorize in advance on a case-by-case basis.
LISTED EXCEPTIONS
a. Such exceptions shall include requests from the AG for assistance pursuant to section
873(b) of Reference (al).
b. Requests for approval of other exceptions should be made by a senior official of the
civilian law enforcement agency concerned, who verifies that:
(1) The size or scope of the suspected criminal activity poses a serious threat to the
interests of the United States and enforcement of a law within the jurisdiction of the civilian
agency would be seriously impaired if the assistance were not provided because civilian assets
are not available to perform the mission; or
(2) Civilian law enforcement assets are not available to perform the mission, and
temporary assistance is required on an emergency basis to prevent loss of life or wanton
destruction of property.
4. MILITARY READINESS. Assistance may not be provided if such assistance could
adversely affect military preparedness. Implementing documents issued by the Heads of the
DoD Components shall ensure that approval for the disposition of equipment is vested in
officials who can assess the effect of such disposition on military preparedness.
5. APPROVAL AUTHORITY. Requests by civilian law enforcement officials for use of DoD
personnel to provide assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies shall be forwarded to the
appropriate approval authority.
a. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for requests for direct assistance in
support of civilian law enforcement agencies, including those responding with assets with the
potential for lethality, except for the use of emergency authority as provided in subparagraph
1.b.(3) of this enclosure and in Reference (c), and except as otherwise provided below.
b. Requests that involve Defense Intelligence and Counterintelligence entities are subject to
approval by the Secretary of Defense and the guidance in DoDD 5240.01(Reference (ar)) and
Reference (j).
24
Change 1, 02/08/2019 ENCLOSURE 3
DoDI 3025.21, February 27, 2013
c. The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies
may, in coordination with the ASD(HD&GS), approve the use of DoD personnel:
(1) To provide training or expert advice in accordance with paragraphs 1.e. and 1.f. of
this enclosure.
(2) For equipment maintenance in accordance with paragraph 1.d. of this enclosure.
(3) To monitor and communicate the movement of air and sea traffic in accordance with
subparagraphs 1.d.(5)(b) 1 and 4 of this enclosure.
d. All other requests, including those in which subordinate authorities recommend
disapproval, shall be submitted promptly to the ASD(HD&GS) for consideration by the
Secretary of Defense, as appropriate.
e. The views of the CJCS shall be obtained on all requests that are considered by the
Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS), that otherwise involve personnel assigned to a
unified or specified command, or that may affect military preparedness.
f. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS)
that may involve the use of Reserve Component personnel or equipment shall be coordinated
with the ASD(M&RA). All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the
ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG personnel also shall be coordinated with the
Chief, NGB. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the
ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG equipment also shall be coordinated with the
Secretary of the Military Department concerned and the Chief, NGB.
Only illegal if someone enforces the law, and I have a sneaking suspicion the chances of that are low
You're not wrong, but it's important to call it out. And to CONSTANTLY call out the message to our troops that it is incumbent upon them to refuse to follow illegal orders.
load more comments
(11 replies)
I mean is anyone surprised? The media's capitulation and normalization of a felon rapist traitor and his enablers is why we are where we are. Because drama makes them more money and this nation lacks the rules necessary to prevent the media from lying to Americans.
I mean is anyone surprised?
I am genuinely surprised that we made it four years under his first term without getting this far in, but we're speed running to military dictatorship inside six months.
If you actually read the article it is absolutely swimming in reactionary revanchism. There's everything from the author defending Trump's association with the Charlottesville rioters to whining about MSNBC sound-bites to referring to immigration during the Biden Presidency as a "Border Invasion".
This isn't even the boilerplate Politico "Lying when their lips are moving" false-equivalency. This is Derek Hunter, a talk radio frothing fascist and senior columnist for Townhall.com, doing exactly what his corporate handlers pay him to do.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Hillary was right. Harris was right. Misogyny ignored them.
Americans didn't vote for Hillary or Harris because apparently they wanted a whiny bitch to be president instead.
Lets not pretend the presidential election is all about gender and nothing else. Thats just not true.
load more comments
(35 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
I can almost the trolls saying 'well Ackshually he sent the marines, not the army! Pwned lozur!'
Isn't the National Guard the Army?
Kind of, sort of, it’s complicated.
They’re independent organizations under their given state, they’re coordinated with the army and air force through the national guard bureau.
They sort of become part of the army and Air Force when called up federally.
So technically they’re part of the army right now in LA as they were called up federally.
All that’s not strictly accurate but, like, roughly that’s how it works.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Um ackchyually it's the Marines and National Guard.
It was an opinion piece by a guest columnist.
Who is a piece of shit, but regardless.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Outrage_Inc.html
he is derekahunter on siteformerlyknownasbirdsite
It was an opinion piece by a guest columnist.
That an editor then chose to publish. What's your point?
load more comments
(3 replies)
This reminds me of another woman presidential candidate who was also right about Trump. I'm starting to see a pattern.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I understand that the hill published this, but it was an opinion article. I get that some people value that, but they are almost never opinions of people that should have an opinion on the matter. Either way, I don't consider opinion articles to be something that you can nail an organization to the cross over. Just sharing a perspective is all.
There have to be consequences for platforming fascists. This whole “civility and decorum” crap has got to stop, we are in a fascist coup and cannot afford to tolerate any enemy activity.
load more comments
(4 replies)
You should. Arguably, you should nail the to the cross for opinion pieces more, because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can't reasonably justify publishing... but still really wants to publish.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Should organizations platform anything and everything? Should there be no standards?
Hey now, they blacklisted Katie Halper for talking about Palestine.
Never say The Hill doesn't have standards.
load more comments
(1 replies)
An agreeable position if those opinion pieces were written in good faith by a respectable journalist who knows what they're talking about. Honest opinions are never wrong.
But in today's news it's just a way to publish straight-up misinformation and propaganda, they can just abuse their position to just say whatever and people internalise it because, well, it's the news.
Journalists and news outlets used to depend upon a reputation of integrity and factuality built over the years. Now anyone can open up their "news" website, or be a politically motivated party with lots of resources, claim completely made-up stuff, and when those articles reveal themselves to be complete bullshit, nothing happens.
Also, the world seems to really have lost the conception of what is a fact vs what is an opinion, a deduction, a belief, and so on. Guess the nature of Internet communication doesn't help with that.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Kamala DID lie. They didn't send the Army. They sent the Marines.
Stupid smart Kamala.
They can still argue that their definition of "you" is exclusive to a certain group of people
load more comments
(2 replies)
If only the dems had had 4 years to do something...
Any attempt by the Democrats to forestall this would have allowed Trump to paint them as anti-American traitors. So the Democrats did nothing and Trump painted them as anti-American traitors.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hey now! He was convicted of all 34 indictments he was charged with!
And sure, those charges were delayed for years. And they were a fraction of the 91 indictments he could have been tried for. And they had to be brought in a municipal court, by a local DA, because nobody above Alvin Brag was willing to bring a case to trial.
And then the court never bothered to issue a sentence, because it would have been rude to punish a newly elected President.
But they did something!
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Hill always lies. It's an undeclared right wing propaganda site.
Instead of focusing on what is actually happening with National Guard and Marines being deployed, we see the pattern of pointless arguing in circles about why the candidate lost in the comments below. Analysis Paralysis is the exact intention for articles like this. This helps the current criminal administration continue their behavior.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You can save so many words by just saying "the hill lied".
view more: next ›