(06-11-2025 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 09:48 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Once again, tanq reads stuff and spouts off on things he doesn't understand.

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military being used in a law enforcement capacity. In other words, they can not conduct investigations, detain people, and make arrests.

Section 12406 allows the use of military forces to support and protect federal agents who are doing that work referenced above and facilities. The wide scale attacks on federal agents and facilities are not only putting the lives of agents at risk it is prohibiting them from doing their sworn LE duties. Which is the whole point of the riots and attacks. Whether the government could force deploy more agents to the area to help provide that protection instead of the military is debatable. The 1811, 1801, 0080, etc agent/officer/security force is generally pretty small nationally and redeploying them from other parts of the country would risk security elsewhere, particularly given riots are now happening in other cities. I imagine this is the argument that would be made in court. The military force was needed because the intense attacks on LE and inability to pull other LE from other places due to the threat nationally.

Sorry, 12406 doesnt do that.

Try reading it. The only usage of 12406 bypassing a Governor was used when the state was in open and explicit defiance of Federal law.

Not only that, even when the Governor is bypassed, 12406 states that "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States". Shall. And amazingly -- that never happened.

Again, try reading it.

Every implementation of 12406 was done *with* the planning and cooperation of the state. That is required. The only bypass that has *ever* occurred for the last 90 years (until now) is when the state is in explicit and open defiance of Federal law. Which is the provision covered in c) of 12406.

I think the liberal California court will side with your view of this and it will be overturned on appeal if it gets that far. The law demonstrates that the President has the discretionary authority to make the decision. And POTUS already illustrated he spoke to Newsom about doing this. So, what if in that conversation Newsom refused to do so? The statute states not that he has to agree or has any form of discretion or decision in the matter, it requires him to issue the orders, which he very clearly refused to do. So, if he refused to do so at the President's order he's the one in violation of the law.

Also, it's interesting that California state law obfuscates the Governor's responsibility in this issue. Article 3.163 of the California State Code provides that the California adjutant general “shall issue all orders in the name of the Governor.” Hegseth called TAG prior to the deployment, but we don't know what was said. Did the TAG also refuse the order?

That's no excuse for a riot, lawyer boy.

(06-11-2025 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 09:48 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Once again, tanq reads stuff and spouts off on things he doesn't understand.

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military being used in a law enforcement capacity. In other words, they can not conduct investigations, detain people, and make arrests.

Section 12406 allows the use of military forces to support and protect federal agents who are doing that work referenced above and facilities. The wide scale attacks on federal agents and facilities are not only putting the lives of agents at risk it is prohibiting them from doing their sworn LE duties. Which is the whole point of the riots and attacks. Whether the government could force deploy more agents to the area to help provide that protection instead of the military is debatable. The 1811, 1801, 0080, etc agent/officer/security force is generally pretty small nationally and redeploying them from other parts of the country would risk security elsewhere, particularly given riots are now happening in other cities. I imagine this is the argument that would be made in court. The military force was needed because the intense attacks on LE and inability to pull other LE from other places due to the threat nationally.

Sorry, 12406 doesnt do that.

Try reading it. The only usage of 12406 bypassing a Governor was used when the state was in open and explicit defiance of Federal law.

Not only that, even when the Governor is bypassed, 12406 states that "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States". Shall. And amazingly -- that never happened.

Again, try reading it.

Every implementation of 12406 was done *with* the planning and cooperation of the state. That is required. The only bypass that has *ever* occurred for the last 90 years (until now) is when the state is in explicit and open defiance of Federal law. Which is the provision covered in c) of 12406.

By explicitly telling state officials to not cooperate with federal law enforcement, and encouraging their citizens to resist, are they not in open and explicit defiance of federal law?

Don't try to reason with Tanq. He's never wrong. Just ask him.

(06-11-2025 10:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Don't try to reason with Tanq. He's never wrong. Just ask him.

(06-11-2025 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 07:56 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-10-2025 09:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2025 08:13 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-10-2025 08:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Only 3 cars, though.

I wonder if the Not Peaceful to Mostly Peaceful percentage is the same or higher than the day Democracy Almost died?

Certainly not to the level of putting a battalion of active duty Marines into play on the streets.

Or bypassing the step of getting the Governor's agreement to Federalize.

I find it odd this forum gets a boner to deploy active Marines, and illegally Federalize the Nat Guard over this level of disturbance ---

yet seemingly has zero problem that the same chump who seems to get *his* hard on by not bothering to address a riot that is buying him time to avoid losing an election.

Really interesting nuance employed there.

So I guess I have to ask a few questions and share a few observations (sorry these are in no particular order):

- on J6 were people burning automobiles?

Nope. The issue of whether to deploy the US military is 'how many vehicles are burnt'? The definition of a riot is

Quote:- on J6 how much of that crowd was unruly -

Enough where 1583 people faced Federal charges.

Quote:I readily acknowledge a few people got out of hand on J6, but how many actual assaults occurred?

At least 140 people were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. That is -- serious assault issues.

A total of 418 were charged with assault style charges in total.

11 were charged with assualting a member of the media.

Were people throwing bricks at law enforcement?

Quote:I am not condoning what a few people did on that oh-so fateful day. People who defaced public property or assaulted any official deserved consequences. But their actions were far from a riot that required reinforcements to regain control. The entire thing started and finished in 2 or 3 hours and in a very confined space.

And the President, the chief decision maker, simply locked himself in a private room a and furiously called members of Congress -- not about the riot, but about the vote.

Quote:So let's fast forward to last weekend. The number of 'peaceful" protesters was a significantly larger number of people (3 times, maybe 4 times ... maybe more) reports vary? The levels of violence and number of reported incidents is significantly higher.... This has gone on for days not hours and it is still not fully under control.

And the Governor of the state *decided* that local forces were sufficient for the purposes.

Quote:So, Was Trump pre mature to deploy the NG and Marines? If your answer is yes, then how long do you wait?

Yes. You actually interact with the Governor.

How long? That is the particular decision of that Governor. End of story.

Quote:How much has to be burned or looted? How many officers, ICE need to be assaulted with rocks and bricks before you call in for back up?

That is the decision of the local authorities. And the local authorities literally have to be in the loop, by law, for the decision to Federalize the NG.

Quote:You can easily argue bring them in incited more violence .... but they were already breaking laws with little to no repercussions because the LA Police were (admittedly) overwhelmed.

They Chief of police said they were overwhelmed Only after the Feds were brought in. Which, even the WSJ noted -- seriously inflamed the issue.

Quote: SO you just let these people continue to riot until they get tired and go home?

False premise. A US President defers to the local authorities in the matter. Until there is agreement between the local authorities and US govt that the Posse Comitatus needs to bypassed, and until the local authorities and US govt *agree* that control of the NG is better served under federal direction.

Quote:So Tanq, after my diatribe above I will ask you a more basic question - Are these people in LA "more entitled" to protest than those who protested on J6?

Nope, thats not the issue.

In the case of J6, Trump lackeys continue to use the pretext that the local folks failed to *ask* them for Fed assistance. Even when the evidence shows those local decision makers tried to get that assistance.

But the question there was, as it is in LA, the steps you have to go through to enable the stark step of active duty troops to quell a disturbance, and the Federalization of NG.

Trump short circuited the entire legal process of doing the above in the current LA case. For that, he is lauded by this board.

He is also defended by this board for abjectly failing to respond to the local decision makers for J6.

GD you are hard to do this with. You seem to be missing the point - shocked face.

You care not how many of the 1538 people who were charged on J6 actually did something other than being there. To you the ends justify the means. A great many of those people were merely walking around, and by many accounts, many charged never even entered the building.


Look I am asking YOU a simple question - do YOU think what is going on in LA is OK at the moment regarding people burning stuff, throwing bricks at LE etc....

If so (i woudl hope so), what would you do about it if you had to make a decision to get it back under control?

Kilmar is fricked

(06-11-2025 10:40 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Kilmar is fricked

Literally and figuratively.

(06-11-2025 10:21 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 09:48 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Once again, tanq reads stuff and spouts off on things he doesn't understand.

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military being used in a law enforcement capacity. In other words, they can not conduct investigations, detain people, and make arrests.

Section 12406 allows the use of military forces to support and protect federal agents who are doing that work referenced above and facilities. The wide scale attacks on federal agents and facilities are not only putting the lives of agents at risk it is prohibiting them from doing their sworn LE duties. Which is the whole point of the riots and attacks. Whether the government could force deploy more agents to the area to help provide that protection instead of the military is debatable. The 1811, 1801, 0080, etc agent/officer/security force is generally pretty small nationally and redeploying them from other parts of the country would risk security elsewhere, particularly given riots are now happening in other cities. I imagine this is the argument that would be made in court. The military force was needed because the intense attacks on LE and inability to pull other LE from other places due to the threat nationally.

Sorry, 12406 doesnt do that.

Try reading it. The only usage of 12406 bypassing a Governor was used when the state was in open and explicit defiance of Federal law.

Not only that, even when the Governor is bypassed, 12406 states that "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States". Shall. And amazingly -- that never happened.

Again, try reading it.

Every implementation of 12406 was done *with* the planning and cooperation of the state. That is required. The only bypass that has *ever* occurred for the last 90 years (until now) is when the state is in explicit and open defiance of Federal law. Which is the provision covered in c) of 12406.

By explicitly telling state officials to not cooperate with federal law enforcement, and encouraging their citizens to resist, are they not in open and explicit defiance of federal law?

Are you aware that a state need not comply with enforcing immigration law? In fact, the default is that they are barred from doing so.

The Supreme Court has held that because federal immigration law is “the supreme law of the land” and creates “a comprehensive and unified system” for immigration enforcement, federal law preempts states from enforcing their own immigration policy. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399, 401, 408 (2012).

• To maintain federal supremacy while preserving the police powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment against commandeering by the federal government, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) provides for voluntary cooperation by state and local officials with federal immigration enforcement efforts in limited circumstances and under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

• Under the INA, state and local officials may, but are not required to, communicate with DHS about the immigration status of any person, including whether a person is not lawfully present in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(A).

• Also under the INA, state and local officials may, but are not required to, “otherwise cooperate” with DHS “in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal” of people not lawfully present in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(B).

A state doesnt have to act in any manner to enforce immigration law, unless both the state and the Feds agree that they should.

Getting to the nitty gritty of your comment, I dont think I buy in to the broad statements

If you could, please provide a tad more detail, and I will absolutely consider it, on how the Government of Cali has *thoroughly*

1. [told] state officials to not cooperate with federal law enforcement;
2. [told] their citizens to resist.

The only time a Governor or state was bypassed in Federalization was Johnson in '65. The Alabama government explicitly told the Feds that they would not abide by the Civil Rights Act, and Alabama state police were explicitly told to impede court ordered desegregation. Johnson dropped the Federalization bomb on Alabama, and used them to force them to abide by the Civil Rights Act and to comply with court.

If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Yes, we all know Newsom is a large critic of Trumps immigration policies. Being a large critic doesnt get you to 1 and 2 above. Being a critic doesnt get you to the Federalization threshhold that we have seen before.

(06-11-2025 10:19 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 09:48 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Once again, tanq reads stuff and spouts off on things he doesn't understand.

Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military being used in a law enforcement capacity. In other words, they can not conduct investigations, detain people, and make arrests.

Section 12406 allows the use of military forces to support and protect federal agents who are doing that work referenced above and facilities. The wide scale attacks on federal agents and facilities are not only putting the lives of agents at risk it is prohibiting them from doing their sworn LE duties. Which is the whole point of the riots and attacks. Whether the government could force deploy more agents to the area to help provide that protection instead of the military is debatable. The 1811, 1801, 0080, etc agent/officer/security force is generally pretty small nationally and redeploying them from other parts of the country would risk security elsewhere, particularly given riots are now happening in other cities. I imagine this is the argument that would be made in court. The military force was needed because the intense attacks on LE and inability to pull other LE from other places due to the threat nationally.

Sorry, 12406 doesnt do that.

Try reading it. The only usage of 12406 bypassing a Governor was used when the state was in open and explicit defiance of Federal law.

Not only that, even when the Governor is bypassed, 12406 states that "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States". Shall. And amazingly -- that never happened.

Again, try reading it.

Every implementation of 12406 was done *with* the planning and cooperation of the state. That is required. The only bypass that has *ever* occurred for the last 90 years (until now) is when the state is in explicit and open defiance of Federal law. Which is the provision covered in c) of 12406.

I think the liberal California court will side with your view of this and it will be overturned on appeal if it gets that far. The law demonstrates that the President has the discretionary authority to make the decision.

He ahs the discretion to do so *within* the law, and bounds set out by the law. A fairly big distinction than what you claim.

And no, the law does not show he has that purely at his whim discretionary authority. Cite me a single case that says that.

Quote:And POTUS already illustrated he spoke to Newsom about doing this.

And the state of Cali, under oath, has said the opposite.

"51. 51. Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members. "

"52. At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National
Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

The response from the US on this -- crickets.

Are you sure you want to stake your ground in "POTUS already illustrated he spoke to Newsom about this"?

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachme...t%20NG.pdf

Quote:So, what if in that conversation Newsom refused to do so? The statute states not that he has to agree or has any form of discretion or decision in the matter, it requires him to issue the orders,

There are no words in the statute requiring anything of the sort.

If you think I misread it, please point out those portions requiring him to issue the orders. I will consider them.

If Newsom refuses -- it goes to Court. Just like we see right now. At least in that sense the administration can tell the court with a straight face that they tried. Now? They cant. Stupid as fk move.

Quote:which he very clearly refused to do.

Ill refer you to paras. 51 and 52 above. You might want to back off on not just the word 'clearly', and not just the word 'refused' -- but the entire premise in the clause.

Quote:So, if he refused to do so at the President's order he's the one in violation of the law.

Nope. First, there doesnt seem to be any 'President's order'. Second, one cannot refuse to obey an order that was never made. Third, there is no requirement of a Governor to pass on those orders in the law.

Fourth, the statute very much reflects the limitations of calling up the guard, and the implications of the 10th amendment -- where the Governor is literally and explicitly the CinC of the state Natl Guard.

And that is *why* the *only* short circuits are in the statute -- 1) invasion; 2) rebellion; 3) the Feds cannot carry out their own law. And that is why the *only* time a Governor has been end runned in modern times was when Ike used the Natl Guard to enforce the Civil Rights Act, when Gov of Arkansas said that he would actively use the state to impede that enforcement, and the enforcement of court desegregation orders.

Quote:Also, it's interesting that California state law obfuscates the Governor's responsibility in this issue. Article 3.163 of the California State Code provides that the California adjutant general “shall issue all orders in the name of the Governor.” Hegseth called TAG prior to the deployment, but we don't know what was said. Did the TAG also refuse the order?

"60. The Adjutant General subsequently shared the DOD Order with the Governor’s
Office; however, at no time did the Governor or his Office provide consent to the mobilization or issue orders through the Governor mobilizing the Guard members."

He passed them to the Governor. as he should. The phrase you cite simply means that orders the Adj Gen issues have the same legal weight to the Guard that the Governor has. In things that are delegated to him, he makes that decsion in and with the weight of the Governor. That doesnt apply to items that must pass through the Governor.

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

Tanq figures they were talking about their golf games.

(06-11-2025 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq figures they were talking about their golf games.

Plausible that was squeezed in as an ice breaker.

But then whatever gets discussed Newsom and the Calif gov cronies then just come out and lie about it. And that's the story the media runs with.

With Trump the self licking ice cream cone deployed by the left happens over and over again day after day.

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

What this narcissist fails to understand is whether he sees it or not the point is still valid

Why yall keep feeding the clown i dont know

(06-11-2025 11:58 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

What this narcissist fails to understand is whether he sees it or not the point is still valid

Why yall keep feeding the clown i dont know

Because it's fun! I try not to quote him, though.

And I sure as hell don't read any of his stupid stuff. Tried that early on. Waste of time.

(06-11-2025 12:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:58 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

What this narcissist fails to understand is whether he sees it or not the point is still valid

Why yall keep feeding the clown i dont know

Because it's fun! I try not to quote him, though.

And I sure as hell don't read any of his stupid stuff. Tried that early on. Waste of time.

He loves it though. It feeds his delusion.

(06-11-2025 01:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 12:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:58 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

What this narcissist fails to understand is whether he sees it or not the point is still valid

Why yall keep feeding the clown i dont know

Because it's fun! I try not to quote him, though.

And I sure as hell don't read any of his stupid stuff. Tried that early on. Waste of time.

He loves it though. It feeds his delusion.

Why would I GAF either way? It makes me laugh at his delusion.

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

I am sure they absolutely discussed the unrest, and the issues of the Federal agents involved. The pleadings are exceptionally clear:

"51. Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members. "

"52. At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

And even if they discussed the possibility, that does not mean there was any 'seek[ing] [explicit] approval.'

Maybe you should contact Judge Breyer and tell him The State of California is lying under oath. Show him all that proof there.

Quote:Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

You sure seem to know absolutely. Again, what we have here is:

On one hand we have the State of California, under oath, is saying:
a) "Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members"; and
b) "At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

and Three, on the other hand, saying:
Unh unh.

Does that about sum it up?

(06-11-2025 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq figures they were talking about their golf games.

Im sure the Fed Govt will make their position, and the contents of their conversations known in their answer. They have studiously avoided that to this point in any verified manner. Imagine that.

If they had the conversation as you and Three say happened, this case would have been tossed at this point, and honestly, wouldve never been brought.

If the Cali folks are lying through their teeth about the issue, Trump and his buddies have every oppty to make that known. Again, imagine that.

Back to your whiny mealy mouth comments I see. Good for you, I guess.

(06-11-2025 11:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq figures they were talking about their golf games.

Plausible that was squeezed in as an ice breaker.

But then whatever gets discussed Newsom and the Calif gov cronies then just come out and lie about it. And that's the story the media runs with.

With Trump the self licking ice cream cone deployed by the left happens over and over again day after day.

Again, cant wait to see that in the Fed Govts response in Fed Court. Should take care of the issue immediately -- not just immediately but dispositivley. Can you point out where they have done so?

Or do you simply want to mutter bad things in a whiny matter about the "self licking ice cream cone deployed by the left" that really isnt dispositive of anything at the question....