Nah, it’s just a rumor started most likely by Musk himself. Pretty sure it was a ploy to halt the Tesla stock sell offs. It started around the same time another rumor that the Tesla board was going to ask him to step down.

It’s the same trick trump was doing his last term, lie to publishers and then accuse them of not being trustworthy for printing unsubstantiated rumors.

anarcho-capitalist libertarian utopia?

I hate that edgelord libertarians are trying to rebrand themselves as “anarcho-capatalist”. Anarchy and capitalism are antithetical to one another. It doesn’t have anything to do with anarchy if you aren’t evaluating hierarchy, and capitalism is literally one of the most hierarchical organizational structures possible.

I mean, they know it’s not “legal”, they are just testing the boundaries of judicial oversight. They are going to push boundaries and whenever they get any kind of push back they are going to scream about persecution and claim judicial over reach.

The point is to overwhelm the system to the point of breaking and then claim we don’t need to listen to the judicial system, because look how broken it is.

These people aren’t stupid, they’re just fascist who know things like legal systems are social contracts that depend on good will and trust to operate. If they can break that good will and trust them they can rewrite the social contract.

It is dangerous to assume these people are just stupid.

Yeah… Unless things have significantly changed since I lived in Dallas 10 years ago, I’d say this is just dpd not wanting to add additional work on their plate. Getting them to respond to anything short of murder was like pulling teeth.

Moving the goal posts, yet again. Ah yes, ad hominem.

Btw, attempting to frame everything as a logical fallacy isn’t a fucking harry potter spell that automatically wins an argument. For it to be considered an actual logical fallacy the claim has to be logically flawed.

Meaning that for me to “attempt to move the goal post” means that my argument needs to shift in an illogical way as a way to confuse or obscure the original intent. If the argument adds or further expands the original claim then it’s just adding to the body of evidence.

An ad hominem isn’t just calling someone a bad name, it’s an argument based on calling someone a bad name. As in don’t listen to this guy, he’s an idiot. I’m just calling you an idiot because I think you have reddit brain and it’s upsetting.

They’re not prisoners, they’re not charged with a crime.

You fucking moron… Anyone being held against their will is a prisoner.

Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.

Moving the goal posts, yet again.

A rebuttal isn’t a logical fallacy you dolt. They just aren’t transporting federal agents they are transporting prisoners, which the military isn’t allowed to do.

Their issue is they don’t even realize they are transporting human beings with innate rights, they just equate them as equipment.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

Lol, yeah… And I am denying your and the administrations claim that this is a legal use of the US military. I’m not making an affirmation as I have no power to order the US military to do anything.

Providing transportation for other federal agencies is a lawful use of military equipment under 10 U.S. Code § 2642(a)(3):

Ahh yes, they’re only transporting ice agents right … It’s not like there are civilians on the plane who may or may not have been given due process.

The problem is that you don’t even consider the cargo humans.

You’re quoting things with footnotes but not linking the footnotes.

And…? So you have a logical retort, or lack the ability to use google?

The Air Force isn’t executing the laws. Saying that it is semantics isn’t an argument that.

And you don’t have the authority to make that claim. Nor are you providing any evidence to support your claim.

The people in ICE custody were captured by ICE. ICE executed the laws. Once the people were identified as foreign nationals, by ICE, and determined to require deportation, by ICE, then they are transported, by ICE, to their country of origin.

Ice doesn’t have the physical ability to transport people to their country of origin.

The Air Force simply operates the aircraft and provides all of the required logistics to do so.

And military members have been sanctioned for support roles under the act in the past.

This is no different than ICE using Delta to return people to their country.

Except Delta is a private company and has the ability to not comply.

According to DoD policy, the armed forces are prohibited from performing the following law enforcement activities:

This article is limited to national guard personnel, active duty troops have even more limitations to domestic operations. Which is why national guard units were utilized to “secure the border”, and not actual active duty service members.

Applies to National Guard (NG) personnel in Reference (d) status only. e. Applies to civilian employees of the DoD Components and the activities of DoD contractors performed in support of the DoD Components.

You’re moving the goal posts. The Air Force isn’t enforcing domestic policy. They’re operating an aircraft to provide logistics for other federal agencies.

That’s a semantic dispute, and service members have received sanctions for even support roles that are not directly excluded in the act .

"The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits using active duty personnel to “execute the laws”; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement.[1]

On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a shooting spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance, nor did President Barack Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received “administrative actions”.[22][23] "

Still a bit hard to tell, but the guy is wearing a headset unlike any other of the border patrol guys, so he very well may be part of the flight crew. The point is that there’s going to be at least 3 flight crew not in multicam.

The Air Force is not enforcing domestic policy here. If you see Airman out on the streets arresting people then you’d have a point.

I don’t think you have any kind of authority to really substantiate that particular semantic dispute.

I’m sure we’ll probably see it brought before a court at some point, but I would argue that if the policy isn’t possible to execute without the logistical support of the military then the military is crucial to the enforcement of the policy.

Then you would know that not everyone on the plane would be wearing multicam.

It’s a bit too blurry to be sure, but I’m pretty sure the guy standing to the right in the back next to the console with what looks like a patrol cap is more than likely the loadmaster and would be wearing a flight suit and over jacket.

Lol, do you think the plane is flying itself? The security of the plane isn’t a problem, the problem is the mission of the plane in the first place.

There are a lot of people in OPs image but only 4 are Air Force personnel, see if you can spot them.

What does the percent of people in the picture being in the service have to do with anything…? We’re talking about federal military members being ordered by the executive to enforce domestic policy, which is illegal.

Are you purposely being obtuse, or are you really this dumb?

And yes, I can spot the Air Force personnel… I’ve spent 18 years living on AFB all over the country and abroad, my dad was a SMSgt.

Who said anything about aircraft security…?

They are being ordered to enforce domestic policy on us soil, which is exactly what the law is made to prevent.

I think the main problem people are having is that they are being used to enforce domestic policy within the United States, which is not normal at all and is arguably illegal.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.