Latest news with #CivilWarandReconstruction
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Posse comitatus, or America beware
June 10 (UPI) -- For good or ill reasons, few Americans are aware of the Latin phrase posse comitatus and what it means. President Donald Trump's federalizing the California National Guard and ordering a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings the term into focus. It means organizing a group to confront lawlessness. In 1878, responding to the abuses of the Union Army in law enforcement after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was signed by President Rutherford Hayes. In part, that law read: "From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force need the expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The law was amended in the Patriot Act to expand the use of the military but not regarding law-enforcement roles. That requires the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 that, in part, grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions or civil disorder within the United States. The last time the Insurrection Act was used to authorize the use of federal troops was in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush responded to the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was delivered acquiting the four LA police officers of murder. The recent LA riots broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arresting and detaining people accused of illegally entering the United States. A great majority of Americans -- 80-90% -- agree on deporting undocumented migrants with criminal records and who are dangers to the community. An equal number of Americans oppose deporting those people here illegally who are now part of the community and -- rather than being threats -- contribute to society. But the politics of immigration and the profound disagreements between the two political parties, not the riots, is the issue. In that regard, both Trump and Newsom are responding accordingly to their bases. However, make no mistake: The Trump-Newsom dispute, including a lawsuit filed against the government for federalizing the National Guard, is a symptom and sign of the dreadful state of American politics. Trump may have been very clever playing to his base that favors "peace through strength" abroad and at home. Both the Guard and Marines have been assigned to protect federal buildings, installations and employees not, repeat not, to conduct law-enforcement tasks. Yet, that has not been widely advertised to allow most Americans to believe that the military will have a wider use. And Trump has not authorized the Insurrection Act to that end. Newsom and Trump are using this crisis to make opposite points when the reality is different. Had this been a Republican-controlled state, whether Trump would have reacted or not is debatable. However, it is entirely reasonable that any president would be committed to protecting federal assets. Had Trump made this argument clear from the beginning, Newsom's response might have been different. But that would have defused the crisis, ironically, in neither of their interests. Tragically, politics demand exploiting these riots for clearly political and not security or public safety reasons. Trump was arguing that the law was on his side in deporting undesirable undocumented migrants. Newsom was asserting that the governor should be consulted first; that federal forces were not needed; and the president was using this to advance his agenda. As Inspector Renault in the movie Casablanca famously remarked, "Gambling at Rick's. I'm shocked!" In these circumstances when rationality and common sense are missing in action, immigration poses an impossible dilemma: what to do with millions who have integrated into U.S. society yet have broken the law in entering the United States illegally? A tragedy can be seen as a clash to two justified views. These people broke the law. That cannot be ignored. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are now part of the U.S. polity. The future is self-evident. This dilemma will only worsen as will virtually all political issues on which the nation is divided. In these incendiary conditions, if the Insurrection Act were wrongly invoked, the effect will likely provoke the rebellion it is meant to prevent. So beware America. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
UPI
3 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Posse comitatus, or America beware
Protestors face off with Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies during a protest against ICE and immigration raids in Paramount, Calif., earlier this week. President Donald Trump's federalizing of the California National Guard and the ordering of a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings a term into focus: posse comitatus. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- For good or ill reasons, few Americans are aware of the Latin phrase posse comitatus and what it means. President Donald Trump's federalizing the California National Guard and ordering a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings the term into focus. It means organizing a group to confront lawlessness. In 1878, responding to the abuses of the Union Army in law enforcement after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was signed by President Rutherford Hayes. In part, that law read: "From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force need the expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The law was amended in the Patriot Act to expand the use of the military but not regarding law-enforcement roles. That requires the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 that, in part, grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions or civil disorder within the United States. The last time the Insurrection Act was used to authorize the use of federal troops was in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush responded to the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was delivered acquiting the four LA police officers of murder. The recent LA riots broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arresting and detaining people accused of illegally entering the United States. A great majority of Americans -- 80-90% -- agree on deporting undocumented migrants with criminal records and who are dangers to the community. An equal number of Americans oppose deporting those people here illegally who are now part of the community and -- rather than being threats -- contribute to society. But the politics of immigration and the profound disagreements between the two political parties, not the riots, is the issue. In that regard, both Trump and Newsom are responding accordingly to their bases. However, make no mistake: The Trump-Newsom dispute, including a lawsuit filed against the government for federalizing the National Guard, is a symptom and sign of the dreadful state of American politics. Trump may have been very clever playing to his base that favors "peace through strength" abroad and at home. Both the Guard and Marines have been assigned to protect federal buildings, installations and employees not, repeat not, to conduct law-enforcement tasks. Yet, that has not been widely advertised to allow most Americans to believe that the military will have a wider use. And Trump has not authorized the Insurrection Act to that end. Newsom and Trump are using this crisis to make opposite points when the reality is different. Had this been a Republican-controlled state, whether Trump would have reacted or not is debatable. However, it is entirely reasonable that any president would be committed to protecting federal assets. Had Trump made this argument clear from the beginning, Newsom's response might have been different. But that would have defused the crisis, ironically, in neither of their interests. Tragically, politics demand exploiting these riots for clearly political and not security or public safety reasons. Trump was arguing that the law was on his side in deporting undesirable undocumented migrants. Newsom was asserting that the governor should be consulted first; that federal forces were not needed; and the president was using this to advance his agenda. As Inspector Renault in the movie Casablanca famously remarked, "Gambling at Rick's. I'm shocked!" In these circumstances when rationality and common sense are missing in action, immigration poses an impossible dilemma: what to do with millions who have integrated into U.S. society yet have broken the law in entering the United States illegally? A tragedy can be seen as a clash to two justified views. These people broke the law. That cannot be ignored. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are now part of the U.S. polity. The future is self-evident. This dilemma will only worsen as will virtually all political issues on which the nation is divided. In these incendiary conditions, if the Insurrection Act were wrongly invoked, the effect will likely provoke the rebellion it is meant to prevent. So beware America. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
Observer
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Opinion- It's time to protect America from America's President
America has periodically faced great national tests. The Civil War and Reconstruction. The Great Depression. McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. And now we face another great test — of our Constitution, our institutions, our citizens — as President Donald Trump ignores courts and sabotages universities and his officers grab people off the street. I've spent much of my career covering authoritarianism in other countries, and I've seen all this before. The chummy scene in the White House this week with Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador was telling. 'Trump and Bukele Bond Over Human Rights Abuses in Oval Office Meeting,' read Rolling Stone's headline, which seemed about right. With chilling indifference, they discussed the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a father of three who is married to an American citizen and who in 2019 was ordered protected from deportation by an immigration judge. The Trump administration nonetheless deported Abrego Garcia as a result of what it eventually acknowledged was an 'administrative error,' and he now languishes in a brutal Salvadoran prison — even though, in contrast to Trump, he has no criminal record. This is a challenge to our constitutional system, for the principal lawbreaking here appears to have been committed not by Abrego Garcia but by the Trump administration. Appellate judges in the case warned that the administration's position represented a 'path of perfect lawlessness' and would mean 'the government could send any of us to a Salvadoran prison without due process.' Then the Supreme Court ruled that Trump must obey the district judge's instruction to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return. Trump and Bukele effectively mocked our federal courts by making it clear that they had no intention of bringing Abrego Garcia home. Trump prides himself on his ability to free hostages held in foreign prisons, yet he presents himself as helpless when it comes to bringing back Abrego Garcia — even though we are paying El Salvador to imprison deportees. A remarkable New York Times investigation found that of the 238 migrants dispatched to the Salvadoran prison, most did not have criminal records and few were found to have ties to gangs. Officials appear to have selected their targets in part based on tattoos and a misunderstanding of their significance. This is the same administration that marked for deletion a photo of the World War II bomber Enola Gay, seemingly because it thought it had something to do with gay people. But this ineptitude is intertwined with brutality. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said that those sent to the Salvadoran prison 'should stay there for the rest of their lives.' Trump's border 'czar,' Tom Homan, suggested that governors of sanctuary states should be prosecuted and perhaps imprisoned. 'It's coming,' he said. Much of this echoes what I've seen abroad. In China, the government has cracked down on elite universities, crushed freethinking journalism, suppressed lawyers and forced intellectuals to parrot the party line. One university lecturer recalled how an ancient historian, Sima Qian, had spoken up for a disgraced general and been punished with castration: 'Most Chinese intellectuals still feel castrated, in that we don't dare stand up for what is right,' the lecturer told me — and I suspect some American university presidents feel that way today. In Communist Poland, in Venezuela, in Russia, in Bangladesh and in China, I've seen rulers cultivate personality cults and claim to follow laws that they concocted out of thin air. 'We are a nation of laws,' a Chinese state security official once told me as he detained me for, um, committing journalism. In North Korea, officials hailed Kim Jong Il's book, 'The Great Teacher of Journalists,' less in hopes of improving my writing than as a demonstration of utter fealty to the boss. Trump's Cabinet members can sometimes sound the same. Trump's defiance of the courts comes in the wider context of his attacks on law firms, universities and news organizations. The White House this week appeared to ignore a separate court by blocking Associated Press journalists from a White House event. In the face of this onslaught, many powerful institutions have caved. Nine law firms have surrendered and agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono work for the administration's preferred causes. Columbia University rolled over. We needed a dollop of hope, and this week it came from Harvard University. Facing absurd demands from the administration, it delivered a resolute no, standing fast even as Trump then halted $2.2 billion in federal funding and threatened the university's tax-exempt status. (A conflict alert: I'm a former member of Harvard's board of overseers, and my wife is a current member.) Yes, critics of elite universities make some legitimate points. For many years I've argued that we liberals sometimes ignore a crucial kind of diversity on campuses: We want to be inclusive of people who don't look like us, but only if they think like us. Too many university departments are ideological monocultures, with evangelical Christians and social conservatives often left to feel unwelcome. It's also true that there is a strain of antisemitism on the left, although Trump exaggerates it to encompass legitimate criticisms of Israel's brutal assault on the Gaza Strip. (And note that there is parallel antisemitism in the Trump orbit, with Trump himself trafficking in troubling tropes about Jews.) Top universities amplify their own elitism when they admit more students from the top 1% than from the bottom 50%, as some do. Admission preferences based on legacy, sports and faculty parents perpetuate an unfair educational aristocracy. Yet Trump is not encouraging debate on these issues. Rather, like autocrats in China, Hungary and Russia, he's trying to crush independent universities that might challenge his misrule. One difference is that China, while repressing universities, at least has been smart enough to protect and boost academic scientific research because it recognizes that this work benefits the entire nation. I hope voters understand that Trump's retaliatory funding freeze primarily strikes not Harvard's main campus but researchers affiliated with Harvard Medical School. The university has 162 Nobel Prize winners, and scientists there are working on cancer immunotherapy, brain tumors, organ transplants, diabetes and more. It was a Harvard researcher who discovered the molecule that is the basis for the GLP-1 weight-loss medications that have revolutionized obesity care. Programs now facing funding cuts address pediatric cancer and treatment for veterans. The federal government already issued a 'stop-work order' on Harvard research on Lou Gehrig's disease. The upshot is that Trump's lust for power and vengeance may one day be measured by more Americans dying of cancer, heart disease and other ailments. All this illuminates an administration that is not only authoritarian but also reckless; this is vandalism of the American project. That is why this moment is a test of our ability to step up and protect our national greatness from our national leader.
New York Times
16-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
It's Time to Protect America From America's President
America has periodically faced great national tests. The Civil War and Reconstruction. The Great Depression. McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. And now we face another great test — of our Constitution, our institutions, our citizens — as President Trump ignores courts and sabotages universities and his officers grab people off the street. I've spent much of my career covering authoritarianism in other countries, and I've seen all this before. The chummy scene in the White House this week with Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador was telling. 'Trump and Bukele Bond Over Human Rights Abuses in Oval Office Meeting,' read Rolling Stone's headline, which seemed about right. With chilling indifference, they discussed the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a father of three who is married to an American citizen and who in 2019 was ordered protected from deportation by an immigration judge. The Trump administration nonetheless deported Abrego Garcia as a result of what it eventually acknowledged was an 'administrative error,' and he now languishes in a brutal Salvadoran prison — even though, in contrast to Trump, he has no criminal record. This is a challenge to our constitutional system, for the principal lawbreaking here appears to have been committed not by Abrego Garcia but by the Trump administration. Appellate judges in the case warned that the administration's position represented a 'path of perfect lawlessness' and would mean 'the government could send any of us to a Salvadoran prison without due process.' Then the Supreme Court ruled that Trump must obey the district judge's instruction to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return. Trump and Bukele effectively mocked our federal courts by making it clear that they had no intention of bringing Abrego Garcia home. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
06-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
House censures Rep. Al Green for outburst during Trump speech
Washington — The House voted Thursday morning to censure Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas for disrupting President Trump during his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. In a 224 to 198 vote, the House approved a censure resolution against Green, with 10 Democrats joining all Republicans in favor of the move. Two members, including Green, voted present. Green is the 28th lawmaker in U.S. history to be censured by the House. After the vote, he was ordered to stand in the well of the chamber while the resolution, which called his behavior "a breach of proper conduct," was read aloud. Minutes into Mr. Trump's speech on Tuesday, Green stood and raised his cane in the president's direction and shouted. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, warned Green to take his seat and "maintain decorum," but Green refused. Johnson then directed the sergeant at arms to "restore order" and "remove this gentleman from the chamber." What does it mean to censure a congressman? Censure is essentially a formal rebuke by the House for some form of misconduct. The punishment usually requires the censured member to stand in front of the dais in the House chamber while the resolution is read by the presiding member — Johnson, in Green's case. It does not remove the member from office or impose any other penalties, beyond the reputational damage and historical notoriety that accompanies it. The practice was relatively rare throughout history, but it has become more frequent in recent years. Three other Democrats — Adam Schiff of California, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Jamaal Bowman of New York — were censured in 2023. Republican Rep. Paul Gosar faced the punishment in 2021. It was most common during the Civil War and Reconstruction, when 13 members were censured for offenses ranging from assault in the Capitol to insulting another member. Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, who introduced the resolution to censure Green, said the move was not personal and called it a "difficult step." "We cannot ignore the willful disruption intended to stop a proceeding," Newhouse, who is one of two remaining House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump over the Capitol riot, said Wednesday. "Without decorum, without respect, what do we got? What do we have, truly?" Newhouse said Green's behavior reflects on all members of Congress and the moment serves as a reminder "that we all need to raise our level of accountability." "This is truly a wakeup call for this chamber," he said. "The lack of decorum has reached a new low. When the president of the United States cannot even come into our chamber invited and complete his speech without the interaction that we saw last night, we have to take this action of censure." Before Green spoke during floor debate on the resolution Wednesday, he walked over to Newhouse and shook his hand. Green said he did not hold any ill will toward Johnson, the officers who escorted him out of the president's speech or those who supported his censure. "The president indicated that he had a mandate. I said to the president, 'You do not have a mandate to cut Medicaid.' I have constituents who need Medicaid. They will suffer and some will die if they don't get Medicaid," Green said of why he heckled Mr. Trump. "I would do it again." Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said Republicans have shown "selective outrage" in their condemnation of certain behavior. "I can't believe we're having this debate," McGovern said Wednesday. The conservative House Freedom Caucus, however, thought that the censure did not go far enough and is seeking to remove Green from his committee assignment. The group said it will introduce a resolution to strip him of his seat on the House Financial Services Committee, and expects Johnson to bring it up for a vote next week. "Green was censured in a bipartisan vote but he needs real consequences to demonstrate that no one gets to disrupt the People's business in lame attempts to derail President Trump's agenda," said Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, who leads the caucus.
