By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As the Trump administration considers expanding military deployments to liberal cities, troops carrying out these actions may face prosecution. Several Democratic leaders, including Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, have vowed to pursue local or state charges against any federal officials who violate residents’ rights. These local prosecutions cannot be overturned by a presidential pardon. This possibility of accountability might discourage some troops from engaging in potentially oppressive actions, despite the president’s directives.
Read the original article here
Democrats threaten charges for troops who commit crimes at Trump’s direction is a sentiment gaining traction, and it’s not hard to see why. The idea of holding individuals accountable for their actions, especially when those actions involve potentially illegal orders, seems fundamental to the rule of law. The discussion appears to center around the principle that even those who are following orders are not above the law.
The core of the issue is clear: if troops, or any government agents, commit crimes under the direction of a leader, particularly if that leader is perceived to be acting against the law or in an authoritarian manner, then consequences should follow. This isn’t just about the military; it extends to ICE agents and potentially any federal employees who are carrying out directives that may be unlawful. The sentiment is that there should be no “get out of jail free” card for anyone, regardless of their position or who gave them the orders.
One of the main concerns is the potential for abuse of power and the erosion of civil rights. It’s highlighted that ICE agents, for instance, are accused of committing crimes in the field, possibly hiding their identities to avoid prosecution. This leads to a call for action. There’s a strong feeling that immunity is unacceptable and that those who violate the law should face prosecution. The discussion then broadened to include questions on the proper use of the military and the potential for misuse of the National Guard.
The “just following orders” defense is frequently referenced, pointing out that this excuse failed to protect those who followed orders during the Nazi era. The consensus is that this defense shouldn’t hold water for those who commit crimes, whether they are in the military, ICE, or any other government entity. It stresses that there is a personal responsibility for actions, regardless of the source of the order.
The discussions also brings up the crucial role of accountability for those who break the law. It suggests that the lack of consequences has emboldened wrongdoers and that stronger measures are necessary to prevent such behavior. There is a demand for trials with “serious consequences,” and an emphasis on stripping those who commit violations of rank, benefits, and potentially, their freedom.
There is also a consideration for the practical implications of the Democrats’ threats. There’s concern about court backlogs and the challenges of holding individuals accountable in a legal system. However, the prevailing sentiment is that the pursuit of justice, while potentially difficult, is essential. Some people raise the potential for charges being overturned by the Supreme Court, using the “following orders” defense.
The debate also covers the complexities of defining “troops” and the differences between members of the military and federal employees. There is a lot of discussion regarding the fact that ICE job postings are readily available in many areas and the pay is often low, leading to the suggestion that the hiring is meant to terrorize people for border control. This touches upon the concern that some entities may be misusing their power. The point is that the accountability should be universal, that there needs to be a strong line drawn in the sand that ensures the rule of law is upheld.
Furthermore, the conversation highlights the significance of checks and balances. There is a need to remember those who break their oaths and to strengthen the legal framework to prevent future abuses. The idea of the state elected officials standing up against what is going on and standing up for the people is present. It emphasizes that those who abuse their power will be held accountable, and anyone who supports these actions would also be held accountable.
In addition, the discussion shifts to the importance of defining actions and intentions. One point is that, people are wearing masks to hide their identities while at work. There is no reason to wear a mask for those who are proud of their work. The idea is that everyone is watching, keeping notes, and remembering who broke their oaths. There is a need to identify who supported the corrupt behavior that is taking place.
The article closes with a call to action. The sentiment is clear: instead of issuing threats, Democrats should arrest and prosecute those who commit crimes. They should enforce the law, and hold people accountable. This sentiment is also shared across different sectors of the population, and it will be interesting to see how things play out. The importance of not letting felons, lawbreakers, and anyone attempting to take over the nation go without consequences is re-emphasized.