However there is quite a large difference between conscription for a war with some coherent reasoning vs pure military adventurism with people the draftees have no quarrel with. If you're fighting Nazis, that declared war on you, in France, where they throw a party for you in every new village you roll into, that is very different to a conflict where the locals are sympathetic to the other guys which creates headaches for you as well as just not being welcome.
ICE
- Thread starter poochyena
- Start date
However there is quite a large difference between conscription for a war with some coherent reasoning vs pure military adventurism with people the draftees have no quarrel with. If you're fighting Nazis, that declared war on you, in France, where they throw a party for you in every new village you roll into, that is very different to a conflict where the locals are sympathetic to the other guys which creates headaches for you as well as just not being welcome.
Okay with me as long as they're also paying for the entire extra max security prison they'll need for Trump, Vance, Miller, Noem, and all of their ICE goons.
So, here's the problem with this theory: Trump and his supporters are ultimately liars. The idea that they 'need' us to do something so that they can invoke the Insurrection Act is fallacious, after all, any such 'need' they might actually have can be sufficiently fulfilled with lies. So, the idea that us declining to do something might serve as some kind of protection is senseless, as what we don't do won't stop them from lying about it. If the supposed alternative that they would inflict on us for taking action is "far worse", well, that's because they want us to suffer under that far worse situation regardless. And, because of that, no matter how hard we attempt to appease them, they will eventually inflict it upon us. And, either way, by the time that they do, it will appear to be nothing more than the next logical step. After all, the previous step didn't make us stop existing.
Your assumption about his desires are likely correct, but our overtures to the Rule of Law are meaningless to him. The reality is that such desires are not achieved in one moment. Instead, they are advanced piecemeal, one logical step at a time. First you send the national guard to Chicago to convey the idea that Chicago is a lawless hellhole. Then, after people grow used to that, you send ICE to actively harass places like Minneapolis. Then, once that becomes normal, you escalate one step further: now ICE starts randomly beating brown people up. And, again, you wait for people to grow used to that as the current status quo. Then you have them start murdering people. In each case, it isn't some overture to the rule of law that slows this process down, instead it's the fact that the it takes time for the last such escalation to start to feel normal. And then you see the next logical step.
Which means that this kind of response "if we give them a reason, they will beat us" doesn't work. After all, that just makes the last step seem like it might be normal. Which means it is exactly the wrong response. Instead, what you want to see is people playing the rough music because that is a clear sign that the locals find what's happening utterly abnormal and unacceptable. When ICE can show up an any place in town and whoever just happens to be present will start blowing whistles, honking horns, banging pots and pans, and screaming at them, that is the evidence that something abnormal is happening, and that abnormality is what will ensure that the "next step" never seems logical. Indeed, it indicates the most recent step was not logical either. That's what brings this kind of disaster to a halt.
Sounds like the internal recruitment drive for ICE agents to come join the surge in Minneapolis isn't going so well. A portion of the more tenured agents are concerned with how both leadership and the new recruits are behaving and say that the heavy handed tactics are making things more dangerous for both agents and the general citizenry.
https://newrepublic.com/post/205222/dhs-immigration-agents-minneapolis
https://newrepublic.com/post/205222/dhs-immigration-agents-minneapolis
Case in point, the Trump regime’s goons in MN accelerated & amplified their aggression & abuses in the immediate aftermath of murdering an innocent woman, who was complying with them, in broad daylight, in cold blood, and endlessly lying about it and relentlessly demonizing her ever since.
They used their own unilateral maniacal escalation as a pretext for even more brazen & grotesque unilateral escalation.
Last edited:
My theory is the the plan is to have 200,000 ICE agents hired and ready to go. Most likely by 2028.
It feels like the Democrats are sitting this out and letting ICE just run rampant and continue to escalate. Other than some strong words Walz has been doing little else.
It feels like the Democrats are sitting this out and letting ICE just run rampant and continue to escalate. Other than some strong words Walz has been doing little else.
Democrats chickened out of a government shutdown, which allowed the of funding this massive expansion of Gestapo to proceed. Which was blindingly f*cking obvious was going to be the result at the time. Even now Schumer and Jeffries patently refuse to entertain the notion of attempting to roll that back.
That’s true of Frey, Pritzker, etc. as well. They like being in the skybox, not out on the field.
The Trump regime has shown that:
- They’ll murder you if you resist.
- They’ll murder you if you comply.
There must be thousands of people in the US named Jose Martinez.
There's 718k people with the last name Martinez, 1 in 446.
There's 1.048 million people with the first name Jose.
If those facts weren't correlated, there would be 2349 people named Jose Martinez.
But there's way more than that because most people named Jose are Hispanic and Martinez is a Hispanic name.
They were so sure they had the right guy.
also because they're stupid.
Also they're probably lying. They probalby saw his name, said, "Sounds Hispanic, let's go harass him."
Also they don't check to see if you committed a crime before they arrest you, or before they shoot you.
Civil rights and due process protect the innocent.
That’s why I qualified it with “currently”.
Much of the coverage is woefully inadequate. Was he justified in shooting her? Did he fear for his life? Should she have complied? Should the Mayor have sworn? Did DHS jump to conclusions? Was there fraud in MN? Much of the coverage is covering these points of conflict instead of the big picture. Many of my family and friends, especially ones not on social media and not living in the hot spots have not seen just how bad it's gotten. Don't get me wrong, there's been great coverage, but not enough of it.
I suspect the pre-surrendered at this point and know what is looming in 2028/2029. They hope that if they play controlled opposition to keep the people calm,nonviolent while the process unfolds. They do not want what is happening in Iran and hope to keep their status quo life and continue having brunch.
“Well, you’re white, and you wouldn’t be any fun anyway. Get out of the car,”
Yes, those words were spoken to Pastor Kenny Callaghan after ICE detained him for an hour or so after he offered himself instead of a brown-skinned woman. I know very few have doubts about how racist ICE officers are, but it does seem a little jarring how they're more than happy to be so openly racist. They even waved a gun in his face to try and scare him.
If you think of the biggest losers you've ever met in life, they're probably ICE officers now.
<edit> Minnesotans are now calling for a day of truth and freedom on Friday, January 23rd. No work, no school, no shopping. </edit>
Yes, those words were spoken to Pastor Kenny Callaghan after ICE detained him for an hour or so after he offered himself instead of a brown-skinned woman. I know very few have doubts about how racist ICE officers are, but it does seem a little jarring how they're more than happy to be so openly racist. They even waved a gun in his face to try and scare him.
If you think of the biggest losers you've ever met in life, they're probably ICE officers now.
<edit> Minnesotans are now calling for a day of truth and freedom on Friday, January 23rd. No work, no school, no shopping. </edit>
Three things.
A) The big funding push into DHS was signed during reconciliation - that money was in place already before the shutdown and continued through it. And there was less than nothing that Democrats could do to stop that. Senate rules around budget reconciliation being what they are.
B) ICE/CBP was still working during the shutdown, and recruitment efforts were ongoing. That didn’t stop. The only thing that might have slowed down was immigration courts, but since a lot of this <waves at everything> is extrajudicial? I’m not sure that would have mattered.
C) Since the CR was passed, the new DHS funding for FY26 hasn’t made it out of the subcommittee in the House. It was supposed to go up for vote this week, but it was already imperiled before the murder of Good.
Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just providing some context on funding.
Sounds like they're pretty rape-y too. Makes sense, given who they've freely* decided to work for.
* Though I do wonder what kind of threats are levied against anyone who tries to get out.
My question here is if this is a bug or a feature. Does leadership want to push out old veterans with a semblance of morals and a level head in favor of zealots on a power trip? Because it occurs to me that the things we are complaining about with ICE, and their lack of training, lack of compassion, lack of respect for the law or humanity - all of that - is probably exactly what they're aiming for. Otherwise why would they be standing up for it while claiming "absolute immunity"?
Ya, I thought roughly the same thing when I first read that: what? Veteran agents complain about heavy handed tactics, sounds like they need to be diven out, or at least, that's what I would expect the Trump administration to think.
Just glad to see folks acknowledging the reality here because I still see the “escalation theory” being propagated by people that should know better, and it’s exactly this.
They will fabricate whatever “pretext” they want. I don’t know how anyone can think otherwise after almost a year of this, to say nothing of the previous decade of this.
Why are the FBI removing unsealed evidence from the shooters house? Since when does the FBI wear masks? Or is it some of his proudboy converts cleaning shop before anyone gets a hold of it. Removing white nationalist or boogaloo propaganda is one example of what could have been taken.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadloder.bsky.social/post/3mbzgb3nzr22q
https://bsky.app/profile/chadloder.bsky.social/post/3mbzgb3nzr22q
I'd be more inclined to believe that those are fellow ICE employees... "participating" or "aiding" the supposed investigation.
Granted, I've also done a pretty careful scouring of my normal news sites (Guardian, The Hill, Politico, AP, a few others). Nothing there on this. Does the individual you quoted have a source they're pulling from, since my search-fu is turning up next to nothing?
Granted, I've also done a pretty careful scouring of my normal news sites (Guardian, The Hill, Politico, AP, a few others). Nothing there on this. Does the individual you quoted have a source they're pulling from, since my search-fu is turning up next to nothing?
Zero Chill
Ars Scholae Palatinae
The thing that gets to me the most is how much they're all (from ICE agents all the way to POTUS) acting as if they don't think there will ever be consequences for anything they do.
The idea that they might be right is what haunts me.
The idea that they might be right is what haunts me.
To believe that there might be consequences you have to first realize that what you're doing might be wrong or illegal. I have to operate in the belief that Trump et al simply operate entirely on the belief that what they're doing is "the right thing" and can't have consequences to them because its "right" (according to them). They operate like there will be no consequences because they don't have the slightest shred of decency or understanding in their body that what they're doing is wrong (For ICE specifically, until the boot is stomping THEIR face, by which time it'll be too late).
For what it's worth, there are some small local MN news websites that have been doing in depth reporting on recent ICE actions, specifically https://sahanjournal.com/ and https://minnesotareformer.com/ , among others.
I spose I thoroughly don't understand what the national guard is.
I've always been under the idea it was the 'state's army' that is there to protect the state (all that state's rights shit).
If it's nothing but another federal army then disband them imo. If not then they should be called up to protect the state's citizens from the tyranny of DC.
I've always been under the idea it was the 'state's army' that is there to protect the state (all that state's rights shit).
If it's nothing but another federal army then disband them imo. If not then they should be called up to protect the state's citizens from the tyranny of DC.
Otherwise today, local public radio has a story, Observer: ICE detainee flights increase at MSP as enforcement action ramps up, and reporters for the local big news paper did a one-off podcast discussing the overall surge.
View: https://youtu.be/_Pux0GXMVTc?si=oN3BkPJ5W2cvGauB
View: https://youtu.be/_Pux0GXMVTc?si=oN3BkPJ5W2cvGauB
Yeah, we are saying the same thing. Technically there was a draft in WWII...but they didn't really need it because almost everyone was doing backflips to participate.
There are no tenured, principled ICE agents any more. I could believe that there are princpled ex-ICE agents...but how do you stand next to these guys and clutch pearls?
Well they wouldn't have gotten the needed numbers just with volunteers. The way I heard it described in the BBC's World At War docuseries is that it was more or less accepted that it needed to be done and a draft was a reasonable way to decide who had to do it, even if you weren't necessarily fighting to get in line. They'd gladly take you if you volunteered though—less people needed to draft. And there were advantages like being able to choose which service you ended up in, which ended up being a quiet form of draft dodge for some people—sign up for the Coast Guard and you'd probably avoid being deployed to actual combat. And there were still people that objected, but not many, relatively speaking.
Where it's resented is when there's no broad consensus it has to be done, which there wasn't in the Vietnam war. And of course here, nobody, or very few people, in the impacted communities think it needs to be done. Even Joe Rogan seems to object to the idea of being a "papers please" country where they just shoot you if you look at them wrong.
It effectively a State Militia under the control of the Governor. However, the general ability of the Governor to call those troops up is for things like Natural Disasters or Civil Unrest.
The National Guard can also be readily Federalized, in theory for War and / or National Emergency. That Federalization supersedes State control.
So basically...if you have a National Guard "civil unrest" means you're more likely going to see them used to control the populace of the state versus protect it. If the State tried to mobilize against the Federal government...then it would just be Federalized (easily enough because a State going against the Fed could pretty easily be considered a National Emergency).
All that being said...the above all assumes everyone "following the rules" which we know by now is not how the real world works.
You'd likely get some split loyalty of the Guardsmen, to what extent we can't predict. But...that's the way it is with humans. Tribalism all the way down.
It's whatever the President says it is because we've established there are no rules that can bind the President except his own "morality."
Which as observed is completely missing from the scene.
Okay, just to be clear - there are 3 situations where the President can federalize the National Guard under 10 USC 12406
1) Invasion by a foreign government
2) Rebellion against the authority of the United States
3) Where the federal government is unable to execute the law witb "regular forces"
Not every single national emergency can be used as a justification for federalization.
The current Supreme Court have also indicated that they are interpreting 10 USC 12406 very very very narrowly. Under Trump v Illinois, Trump petitioned the Supreme Court to allow federalization of the Illinois National Guard in Illinois to help support ICE raids and protecting ICE agents and its detention facilities because ICE agents were "regular forces" under 10 USC 12406(3).
The Supreme Court disagreed with this broad interpretation and interpreted "regular forces" very narrowly as meaning the military. Thus, federalization under 10 USC 12406(3) can only occur when the military is unable to enforce law. Since the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of the military for law enforcement purposes except in very specific circumstances, it stands to reason that the national guard couldn't be federalized for law enforcement purposes except under those circumstances as well.
Now, Trump can try to federalize the National Guard under 10 USC 12406 by declaring the National Guard protection of state residents as a rebellion. However, based on how narrowly the Supreme Court interpreted 10 USC 12406(3), I think it will ultimately also be viewed with skepticism.
Last edited:
3) when a republican feels like it
Shit if I were Waltz I'd go ahead and call em up to protect the state. He's not re-running anyway so may as well get this fight started. But he's a Democrat so bold moves aren't really in the play-book.
The problem is Walz etc.. are unwilling to use the one too at their disposal. They have given up at this point and are afraid of putting their necks out to protect the people.
Majority of Democrats are controlled opposition. They just want to get thier pay and have brunch not actually lead and put themselves at risk. That would require courage and leadership capabilities. They are primarily just managers trying to get the paycheck,lobbyists donations,pension and healthcare. Just a job for them and they will play the game accordingly.
My fairly uneducated view on this is that Trump would probably be on much firmer grounds under Trump v Illinois to federalize the National Guard if the governor deploys the National Guard to directly confront ICE agents, although I still think SCOTUS will scrutinize it.
It might constitute a rebellion under 10 usc 12406(2). It may also be used as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is one of the exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, thus giving legal justification to federalize under 10 usc 12406(3).
If the Insurrection Act is invoked, then it's the wild west.
Last edited: