The US Constitution

[Peterkin]

41 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Worryingly, the rioters were constantly referring to each other as patriots. That seemed to be their buzz word. 

Of course - and they believe it. They always believe it.  In this instance, however, I was referring to the soldiers' loyalty to the constitution and duly elected Commander in Chief. Each soldier may also have a very particular concept of their own nation, its laws and what that should mean.  

I am not at all certain of the inclination of most military personnel; I've only heard and read comments by a few. My fervent hope is that more high- and mid-ranking career military are more like Col. Vidman. Otherwise, there will be a very great deal of blood and fire in American streets. 

52 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm suggesting that something could be written into the constitution that would remove the confusion, under these circumstances.

Anything can be written. Anything that's written can be obeyed - or not. Like those famous Commandments.

53 minutes ago, mistermack said:

. I'm in agreement really that the scenario is fairly unlikely in the USA.

Which is unlikely? A coup? (No, it isn't) Or that the army will support a coup? (That depends on who is leading it.)

55 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would think that the same thing will be well covered in the future, with preventative measures,

They existed, but were not implemented - partly by design, with forethought, and partly due to blind it-can't-happen-here faith. Unfortunately, only the more paranoid, chink-gauging and ruthless elements could prevent an overthrow by the other side  - only, it's they themselves who stage it against the more trusting, optimistic, unguarded side.

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

but there may be other weaknesses in the system. 

Oh yes - there are.

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Of course - and they believe it. They always believe it.  In this instance, however, I was referring to the soldiers' loyalty to the constitution and duly elected Commander in Chief. Each soldier may also have a very particular concept of their own nation, its laws and what that should mean.  

Considering we've seen that military members have participated in the sedition, this loyalty to the constitution can't be considered to be universal. Their loyalty is not supposed to be to the commander-in-chief. 

[mistermack]

It says in wikipedia that Donald Trump did actually instigate an enquiry into declaring martial law, with a view to cancelling the election result. So the US came closer to this sort of chaos than it seemed at first sight. But if you elect a psychopath, you are playing with fire. Maybe this will have a long lasting effect on who the Republicans choose as candidtates in the future. 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Considering we've seen that military members have participated in the sedition, this loyalty to the constitution can't be considered to be universal.

That's why I don't take their loyalty for granted, nor their personal ideas of what patriotism requires of them. They may be wearing uniforms, but underneath, they're still individuals, to a point. Those soldiers (not active, I believe, but retired?) who participated in the riot didn't do so in their capacity as members of the armed forces, but as private citizens with a particular conviction about some aspect of a Great Again America.

The crucial question regarding the actively serving armed forces is how the proportions work out: how many high- and mid-level officers side with the usurper vs how many side with the legally constituted authority, and only then, which ones are obeyed by how many of their troops. As for the veterans who were not at Trump's clambake, who know how they're all thinking, what they each want, how they would respond in a national emergency? That's a lot of people with combat training.

Then, as matters military unravel further, there is the question of state militias, state and municipal police forces: who commands them, where their loyalty lies, whether they'll obey this or that kind of order. 

And since so many intransigent positions have already been taken, so much bile accumulated,  so much propaganda spewing out of so many radios and websites, so many of the untrained, undisciplined, volatile civilian population is also heavily armed.... 

Martial law might not be as neat as simple as the man who invokes it imagines.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's why I don't take their loyalty for granted, nor their personal ideas of what patriotism requires of them. They may be wearing uniforms, but underneath, they're still individuals, to a point. Those soldiers (not active, I believe, but retired?) who participated in the riot didn't do so in their capacity as members of the armed forces, but as private citizens with a particular conviction about some aspect of a Great Again America.

Emily Rainey participated in activities surrounding the rally; she resigned her commission soon after being identified, and the army was/is looking into the matter.

DoD Directive on Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Docs/134410p[1].pdf

4.1.2. points to things one is not permitted to do, which includes involvement in partisan political activities. I think the issue with Rainey was that she was an organizer of the trip, and protesting that someone stole an election from another seems like partisan politics.

We also don't yet have a clear picture of what happened inside of the government on that day, or in the days leading up to it. Particularly in regard to the deployment of national guard troops and any delay that might have occurred.

  

 

 

[CharonY]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

It says in wikipedia that Donald Trump did actually instigate an enquiry into declaring martial law, with a view to cancelling the election result. So the US came closer to this sort of chaos than it seemed at first sight. But if you elect a psychopath, you are playing with fire. Maybe this will have a long lasting effect on who the Republicans choose as candidtates in the future. 

It already does. Unfortunately it means that psychopaths have increasingly being in charge in the GOP. Moreover, according to an article https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/

GOP lawmakers were coordinating with Jan. 6th protestors to coordinate efforts to contest the elections.

Quote

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

“We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer.  

And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further. Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a “blanket pardon” in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.

“Our impression was that it was a done deal,” the organizer says, “that he’d spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support.” 

The organizer claims the pair received “several assurances” about the “blanket pardon” from Gosar.

“I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you’ve been doing,” Gosar said, according to the organizer.

The rally planner describes the pardon as being offered while “encouraging” the staging of protests against the election. While the organizer says they did not get involved in planning the rallies solely due to the pardon, they were upset that it ultimately did not materialize.