Trump mobilisiert das Militär gegen die Demos
Seite 1 von 4 Neuester Beitrag: 24.04.21 22:58 | ||||
Eröffnet am: | 02.06.20 01:04 | von: qiwwi | Anzahl Beiträge: | 92 |
Neuester Beitrag: | 24.04.21 22:58 | von: Sabrinaidsma | Leser gesamt: | 8.195 |
Forum: | Talk | Leser heute: | 2 | |
Bewertet mit: | ||||
Seite: < 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 4 > |
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that governs the ability of the President of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.
Das ist wie 1933 die "Reichstagsbrandverordnung" von Hitler.
"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or ...."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253
Nach diesem Gesetz wurde mehrfach gehandelt, allerdings selten gegen den Wunsch der jeweiligen Gouverneure (so aber beispielsweise unter Kennedy zur Durchsetzung von Gerichtsentscheidungen gegen Rassentrennungsmaßnahmen in einigen Südstaaten).
Zusammenfassung dazu in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
(die deutsche Version dazu taugt nicht viel).
Übrigens haben wir im Grundgesetz eine ähnliche Regelung (Bundeszwang, Art. 37 GG). Darin wird allerdings nicht vom Militär (was es 1949 noch gar nicht gab), sondern allgemein von den "notwendigen Maßnahmen" gesprochen. So eine allgemeine Formulierung kann bekanntlich sehr weit ausgelegt werden, wie wir nicht erst seit Mario Draghis "whatever it takes" wissen.
Und bevor jetzt jemand meint, mir vorwerfen zu können, ich sei ein Freund von Herrn Trump: Nein, bin ich durchaus nicht. Ich halte ihn für egozentrisch, angeberisch, autoritär, sprunghaft, kommunikationsunfähig, undiplomatisch, mit einem Wort: unfähig.
Aber ich mag auch nicht das in Europa und besonders in Deutschland verbreitete Verfahren, ihm Aussagen zu unterstellen, die er so gar nicht gemacht hat. Es gibt genug Unsinn, den er erzählt hat. Da muss man nicht noch was dazu erfinden.
Militärpolizisten wurden gegen friedliche Demonstranten eingesetzt, damit Trump sich vor der Kirche fotografieren lassen konnte.
Siehe im Video bei min. 2:27.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6oHx7gwnpc
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/...rge-floyd-protests
Former Defense Secretary Mattis' statement on Trump and protests
By CNN
Updated 2230 GMT (0630 HKT) June 3, 2020
Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis castigated President Donald Trump as "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people" in a forceful rebuke of his former boss as nationwide protests have intensified over the death of George Floyd.
Read Mattis' statement:
In Union There Is Strength
I have watched this week's unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict— between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.
Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat." We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln's "better angels," and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.
James Mattis
Die Polizei schaut trotz großflächiger Plünderungen/Verwüstungen/Covid-Verbreitung tatenlos zu, weil es zB von den regierenden Demokraten für politisch zweckmäßig erachtet wird. Nur wer Waffen hat, kann sich und sein Eigentum schützen.