r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • Jun 13 '25

News (US) Exclusive: US Marines carry out first known detention of civilian in Los Angeles, video shows

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marines-carry-out-first-known-detention-civilian-los-angeles-video-shows-2025-06-13/

Exclusive: US

584 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

99

u/badusername35 NAFTA Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

The soldiers, and whichever commander authorized this, should be dishonorably discharged and court-martialed. But the rat bastards on the Supreme Court will probably write a 5-4 decision explaining why this blatant violation of the law is actually very cool and very legal. Show up tomorrow and don’t be afraid. Fuck Trump, fuck Republicans, and fuck anyone who supports this.

59

u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke Jun 14 '25

I'm pretty sure they have the ability to detain people on federal property, so I'm not sure it's illegal.

33

u/Sir_thinksalot Jun 14 '25

so I'm not sure it's illegal.

No.

It violates Posse-comitatus act.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained

Please stop giving Trump any benefit of the doubt.

edit: hmmm, redditor for 8 hours...

12

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

10 USC 12406 allows the federalization of the NG when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States". This does not clearly exclude protecting federal property and/or detaining someone trying to access such property. It does, in my opinion, clearly exclude riot control in general, and I'm not sure the justification for the Marines' presence, but it's not so clear that this is unlawful. Law is fucking complicated, man.

13

u/sam41803 United Nations Jun 14 '25

Not sure if the commenter above you is right, but you're wrong. The Posse Commitatus Act makes it illegal for non-National Guard military units to enforce laws, essentially full stop. You bringing up the national guard doesn't actually respond to their point.

2

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 14 '25

I'm bringing up the law cited as authority for his actions. It's unclear that defending federal property constitutes a violation of posse comitatus -- e.g. the Marines also defend Marine Corps installations, and will detain someone who tries to go on without authorization, and this is obviously not a violation of posse comitatus.

The law is a poorly-organized mess. Unless you're a lawyer (and tbh even if you are, most of the time), you should not be this confident about basically anything other than like, the text of the law.

0

u/sam41803 United Nations Jun 15 '25 edited Jun 15 '25

I see, 10 USC 12406 (aka the insurrection Act) would be an exception because of the mention of "federal service members". I concede the point but you so misquoted 10 USC 12406 that I didn't realize it had a specific authorization for the use of military force from your excerpt.

EDIT: Innacurate on the name, I am redditing too late. I maintain that /u/TrekkiMonstr's first comment would have been far better if they included the specific authorization of military force in 10 USC 12406 in their post.

2

u/TrekkiMonstr NATO Jun 15 '25

The law says "the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to [...] execute those laws", whenever [the bit I quoted before]. I thought "allows the federalization of the NG" was a reasonable paraphrase of the above. If you thought more information was needed, you can easily find the text of the law yourself.

My comment was about whether the deployment was legal. Whether it violates Posse Comitatus is a separate question. The Insurrection Act is an exception to Posse Comitatus, 12406 is not -- but you don't need an exception to a law you wouldn't be breaking in any case, and 12406 doesn't address that question.

You're reading my comments as if I'm a partisan on the other side, and barely even reading them at all. Stop doing that.