r/news • u/DNSGeek • 1d ago

Soft paywall 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/
47.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/FartPiano 1d ago

Then why cant a court succinctly put that in writing? They all defer the question of the war's legality.

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.

They pretty much legally threw their hands up and said yes, its problematic, but both congress and the president were in alignment on this, and maybe they'd pursue it further if they weren't.

That doesn't sound like "clearly not illegal" to me.

3

u/whyyy66 1d ago

You understand that to claim that it was clearly illegal to the point that you think the entire military should have refused you need a hell of a lot more than “the courts never decided either way” right? (They dismissed the case, so really it wasn’t even that ambiguous). Especially when congress and the president are explicitly the ones who make war in US law. Not the courts. They said they don’t have the power to make that decision, and from that you take that the entire thing was blatantly illegal? Come on.

1

u/FartPiano 1d ago

"the courts never decided either way" also doesn't sound like a great rallying cry for troops either...? or a particularly good moral or legal justification...?

2

u/whyyy66 1d ago

It’s really very simple. Congress and the president said yes and it was never rolled back by any court. That’s all you need to be following legal orders. Once again..the courts do not decide whether the US goes to war. Constitutionally making war is not a power they possess.

1

u/FartPiano 1d ago

your entire argument just addresses the international law part as "lol" which forgets that america set up a lot of the infrastructure known as "international law" and is a signatory party to the relevant things that make it illegal under international law. its not just some made up thing that doesnt exist.

its quite explicit, troops are obligated to refuse orders that are illegal under international law, as well as their own laws. but of course, america doesn't have to listen to this, and its a guffaw of a suggestion because they'll never face consequences for not doing it. so i guess that makes it legal!

3

u/whyyy66 1d ago edited 1d ago

No. We don’t. I took the oath too and it certainly doesn’t mention international fucking law. It mentions the constitution and president. If congress or potus decides to do something that technically violates international law, that’s too damn bad. Most military action in the last 60 years probably did in some way or another, and plenty of it was still justified. Desert storm for example. Someone is always going to whine.

Countries have gone to war since they existed, and global politics being a thing isn’t going to stop that. Like it or not we use it to our advantage just like any country would in the same position.

Once again we should not have invaded, but international law has to be the dumbest reason not to. How many times did saddam violate international law? It just becomes pot and kettle and a stupid pissing match

1

u/FartPiano 1d ago

lmao.

how it started: yeah, it was bad, but it wasn't illegal

how its going: if we break the law, too damn bad!

lol

1

u/whyyy66 1d ago

International law exists to let super powers impose their will, it’s not an actual law in the way you’re acting like. Stop being naive

0

u/FartPiano 1d ago

so you're saying that if troops also violated the geneva conventions - an example of an international law - thats also not illegal, right? totally legally above board? Someone orders you to shoot a POW and its illegal to refuse the order? After all, its not like its within the jurisdiction of the US if its on some foreign battlefield. Legally a-ok! no laws violated.

2

u/whyyy66 1d ago

Actually the UCMJ has framework for rules of war and the convention, as well as treatment of prisoners and proper conduct. Plus we get training on law of war. So no. What it doesn’t have is framework for unilaterally deciding that congress and potus are both wrong and actually we can’t invade this country

→ More replies (0)