By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, stated he would execute orders to attack designated terrorist organizations within the U.S. if he had no concerns about the lawfulness of the order. This revelation comes amid reports of the military conducting extrajudicial killings of alleged “narco-terrorists” in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, raising concerns about the legal justification for such actions. The White House and Justice Department have refused to rule out summary executions of Americans, with the Justice Department announcing arrests of a “far-left, anti-government, domestic terror cell” and a directive from the President to target U.S. progressive groups. The administration’s rhetoric, coupled with the executive order to root out domestic terrorist organizations, raises concerns about the potential for military action within U.S. borders and the suppression of dissent.
Read the original article here
The core issue here revolves around the unsettling statement by General Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, regarding the military’s willingness to engage “Designated Terrorist Organizations” (DTOs) within the United States. This statement, made before the Senate Armed Services Committee, has sparked intense debate, and for good reason. The potential implications of such a stance are vast and deeply concerning, raising fundamental questions about the role of the military, the protection of civil liberties, and the potential for political abuse.
The general’s response, when asked about potentially attacking DTOs on U.S. soil, was essentially, “If I have no concerns and am confident in the lawful order, I would definitely execute that order.” This seemingly straightforward answer has ignited controversy because it opens the door to a scenario where the military could be deployed against American citizens within the borders of the United States. The crucial element here is the term “Designated Terrorist Organizations.” Who decides what constitutes a DTO? Under what criteria would an organization or individual be labeled as such? And what safeguards are in place to prevent the arbitrary application of this label, especially in a politically charged environment?
Many fear that the “DTO” designation could be weaponized. With the current political climate, some see a very real threat of political opponents, dissenting voices, or even entire groups being falsely labeled as terrorists. The potential for abuse is enormous. Imagine a scenario where a future administration, perhaps one with authoritarian tendencies, uses this power to silence critics, suppress protests, or even target specific communities or ideologies. The chilling effect on free speech and the right to peaceful assembly is undeniable.
The fundamental principles of democracy are built on the separation of powers. The military’s role is to defend the nation against external threats, not to police its own citizens. Using the military domestically fundamentally blurs the lines between law enforcement and national defense. The military has different rules, operates with different tools, and often operates with less transparency than civilian law enforcement. The potential for excessive force, the erosion of due process, and the undermining of the rule of law become very real possibilities.
Many people are drawing historical parallels. The possibility of this is not a new concept, as throughout history, when military forces are used against their own people, it often signals the beginning of the end of democratic governance. There’s a strong sentiment that this course of action is an unmistakable step towards authoritarianism.
One of the central fears surrounding this issue is the potential for extrajudicial killings. If the military is authorized to attack DTOs, and the definition of a DTO is broad and potentially subjective, what prevents the military from carrying out summary executions? The absence of due process, the lack of judicial oversight, and the potential for secret “enemies lists” are all deeply troubling, and many point out that these actions would be fundamentally un-American. This is a very real possibility and one the general seems to be comfortable with.
Adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that the Trump administration has been accused of creating a “secret enemies list.” This further fuels concerns about the potential for abuse and the weaponization of the “DTO” designation. If the government is already considering summary executions, the prospect of the military targeting Americans seems even more alarming.
The very nature of this issue is designed to create distrust and fear. The lack of transparency, the ambiguity surrounding the criteria for designation, and the potential for political manipulation all create an environment of uncertainty and apprehension. It’s a situation that requires careful scrutiny, open debate, and robust safeguards to protect the rights of all Americans. It’s not just a hypothetical threat; it’s a very real possibility given the current political climate and the statements of a high-ranking military official. The very idea that the U.S. military might be willing to attack Americans on American soil represents a fundamental challenge to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.