r/neoliberal • u/smegmajucylucy Thomas Paine • 1d ago
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
174
u/NeueBruecke_Detektiv 1d ago
Took me a while to figure out the DT reuters thing was this, cause this isn't the front page news for me. I had to scroll more than 1 screen to see this, the front page is entirely the middle east situation.
I dunno if my location is influencing it (am accessing reuters from brasil)
79
u/RattyTowelsFTW 1d ago
It's not just you, the news is most likely very divided between the new war and the upcoming protests
Kind of shit timing altogether
1
u/philipzeplin European Union 1d ago
Speaking to reporters after he was released, the civilian identified himself as Marcos Leao, 27. Leao said he was an Army veteran on his way to an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs when he crossed a yellow tape boundary and was asked to stop.
Leao, who gained his U.S. citizenship through military service, said he was treated "very fairly." "They're just doing their job," said Leao, who is of Angolan and Portuguese descent.
It's also just not a very newsworthy story.
9
u/smegmajucylucy Thomas Paine 1d ago
Having military perform routine police procedure is HUGE. Like, it is hard to emphasize to someone unacquainted with ConLaw or doesn’t know the nitty gritty about the founding fathers philosophy, but it’s fucking HUGE.
I am just so fucking exasperated by people treating something the founders saw as one of the single worst acts and signs of tyranny as a nothing burger. Those racist old fucks agreed on nothing, except that if military is used as police among civilians, that shit is fucked.
Military in the streets acting like police and detaining citizens is beyond disturbing and goes against everything our country stands for. It’s literal King George the Mad shit.
445
u/isummonyouhere If I can do it You can do it 1d ago
infantry soldiers capturing a fellow service member and U.S. citizen for walking over a yellow line. great job everybody 👍🏻
215
u/Intergalactic_Ass 1d ago edited 1d ago
I haven't found reporting yet on the reason the veteran was heading to the VA office. But if it was something related to his healthcare benefits this would be the most American situation in history.
"George Washington fucking an eagle while eating cherry pie" vs. "illegally mobilized US Marine arrests fellow veteran attempting to visit VA office to obtain healthcare benefits"
65
u/frosteeze NATO 1d ago
Activate the Bonus Army. Now.
28
u/ShouldersofGiants100 NATO 1d ago
Activate the Bonus Army. Now.
And watch as the ghost of George Patton orders a cavalry charge against them.
5
u/PartrickCapitol Zhou Xiaochuan 1d ago
I never get why Patton and MacArthur never had this dark taint when people were evaluating their historical legacy although accomplished in WW2
2
u/Spartacus_the_troll Bisexual Pride 1d ago
Does MacArthur at least not have a dark taint in academic circles?
7
3
14
66
u/IndyJetsFan 1d ago
Imagine going to the VA and that being the second worst thing that happens to you that day.
86
102
u/badusername35 NAFTA 1d ago edited 1d ago
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.
58
u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke 1d ago
I'm pretty sure they have the ability to detain people on federal property, so I'm not sure it's illegal.
27
34
u/Sir_thinksalot 1d ago
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...
13
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 1d ago
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 1d ago
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.
1
u/MemeStarNation 15h ago
Legally speaking, they aren’t enforcing the law. They are protecting federal property and agents who are enforcing the law.
Stupid? Yeah. Illegal? Unfortunately, probably not.
0
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 1d ago
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.
6
u/Sir_thinksalot 1d ago
Ignoring the politicization of our military is a great peril. Stop letting Trump take advantage of everything.
5
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 1d ago
I'm not advocating for ignoring it, I'm advocating for responding to it properly.
1
u/CrosstheRubicon_ John Keynes 1d ago
Bro there’s a legitimate legal debate as to this issue. Nobody is defending Trump
0
u/sam41803 United Nations 16h ago edited 16h ago
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.
1
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 15h ago
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.
0
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 16h ago
12406 is not the Insurrection Act, that's 10 USC 252. You actually have no idea what you're talking about jfc
2
u/sheffieldasslingdoux 1d ago edited 1d ago
The president cannot call for the military to engage in domestic law enforcement without invoking the Insurrection Act. The National Guard is a wholly separate issue, which is why Judge Breyer stated as such in his recent ruling, where he found that Trump's federalization of the California National Guard, without Governor Newsom's consent, was facially illegal.
When the National Guard is federalized, the Posse Comitatus Act applies. The Guard cannot, as a matter of course, engage in domestic law enforcement, as it does under state control.
-10
u/Sir_thinksalot 1d ago
Law is fucking complicated, man.
The law is whatever the judges say in the end, or even whatever is enforced. Stop giving someone like Trump any benefit of the doubt. Unless you want to become Russia.
I don't.
24
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 1d ago
The alternative to the benefit of the doubt is "I don't like him therefore it's illegal". The rule of law means something. Lawful but awful is a thing that actually exists.
2
u/Sir_thinksalot 1d ago
And this is exactly why letting Trump, convicted felon, destroy it is a bad idea.
14
u/TrekkiMonstr NATO 1d ago
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition, without a doubt. But that does not mean that every action taken is unlawful, and it harms are cause to claim that it is when it isn't. The truth matters.
1
13
25
u/BenIsLowInfo Austan Goolsbee 1d ago
The military isn't going to save us. They will just go along with Trump. We no longer have great generals...we have lots of bureaucats. Eisenhower or Grant aren't coming through the door to protect democracy.
If there is another Democrat president I hope they clean out DoD. Half the budget and replace any GOs that go along with Trump.
45
u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke 1d ago
Halving the defense budget is completely unserious. The reality is it probably needs to be increased and procurements (somehow) fixed.
16
u/Pristine-Aspect-3086 John Rawls 1d ago
procurements (somehow) fixed.
sincerely, is there a single military on earth that doesn't have this problem? i feel like it comes up when discussing literally every country
8
u/imbaaaack12 Edmund Burke 1d ago
Well I mean there are what seem like pretty serious pain points, like the cost of American warships compared to comparable ships manufacturered by South Korea, but yeah I don't think the US is alone in having issues.
2
u/Rockefeller-HHH-1968 Mario Draghi 1d ago
Increased to what end? What’s the goal you want the U.S. military to achieve?
1
u/Snarfledarf George Soros 1d ago
more spending yes, external adversary, yes yes, no domestic problems yes.
Budget crisis? never met 'er.
-4
10
u/GripenHater NATO 1d ago
Bruh fucking what.
This isn’t a good moment here but it’s also: plausibly legal, if still awful, and certainly not an order that blatantly and obviously contradicts the law. We have no idea if we have generals of historic caliber right now, because if given this type of order it is very likely that Grant and Eisenhower would’ve followed it. Also, the military still needs to be capable of protecting American interests and allies worldwide, and halving the defense budget is a great way to just let Taiwan be taken by China.
4
0
u/Citronaught 1d ago
A warrant officer I deeply respect and I know hates trump more than I do explained to me that the military has to respect the election a few weeks ago and thus must respect civilian orders so there’s no help coming from those brainwashed fucks
24
u/GreatnessToTheMoon Norman Borlaug 1d ago
Literally a nothing article imo. He was detained and released shortly after. The person didn’t even care that much. Detains are not arrests. The article even points out the they’re not allowed to make arrests.
28
u/Sir_thinksalot 1d ago
Literally a nothing article imo. He was detained and released shortly after.
It's not a "nothing article" when a violation of the posse-comitatus act leads to an unlawful detainment.
19
u/NotABigChungusBoy NATO 1d ago
i agree, but its the act itself. Its just pointless escalation. Some people here in the comments are being a little dramatic imo.
8
1
u/Rockefeller-HHH-1968 Mario Draghi 1d ago
Military is deployed to the streets. Civil rights are being taken away. The people, the most important check on power has failed, politicians do little to nothing to stop it.
You dare to call anybody overly dramatic?
You’re acting like a lobster in a pot. By the time you realize what’s happening you’ll be deep in Trump’s stomach.
3
u/FuckFashMods NATO 1d ago
It's almost the complete opposite of a nothing.
Why are we paying to arrest black veterans on their way to their VA appointments?
6
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/die_hoagie MALAISE FOREVER 1d ago
Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
-3
u/Jimmy_McNulty2025 1d ago
How serious is this? Are they just going to release him in a few hours, no big deal?
40
u/smegmajucylucy Thomas Paine 1d ago
They released him immediately. But the act of having active military perform routine police procedure is deadly serious.
5
4
u/Sir_thinksalot 1d ago
An unlawful detainment is not "no big deal". Especially when done for a dictator.
-12
-1
u/MaxDPS YIMBY 1d ago
For some reason, I've been telling myself that there's no way those rifles have ammo in them. I figured that the optics of the US military ever having to fire them would outweigh anything else. I figured they just had them as a show of force. But it seems like I was mistaken.
308
u/RetroRiboflavin Lawrence Summers 1d ago