Has the United States has become a “Rogue Nation”?

I do not think ICE shooting people, American citizen 'or immigrant, will gain them support.

Therefore it is not something they should be 'wanting to do,

Therefore, incompetence.

And even evil people should fear to be incompetent.

Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved,

But I do not think significant number of Americans 'fear ICE. This is not certain South American country with police as kill squads.

ICE does not have means to put boots on American throats.

Machiavelli said it was 'important not to be hated.

It is 'foolish to make the people hate you.

ICE shooting Americans so casual, not punishing the incompetent members or mending it's ways. Worries me.

Such actions as shooting Americans is more likely to have American's shoot politicians and members of ICE, than fearfully obey or cooperate with them.

. . .

To have some 6 people and the guy on the ground and not be able to contain him, incompetence,

To shoot an unarmed man, incompetence,

To shoot someone in a car driving by, incompetence.

Being seen as competent is 'valuable.

Villains for example,

People often like the cool and competent, but despise the lame and weak.

Also I think you edited your comment,

Though it is possible I did not read carefully enough.

What you say now in #30 I find absurd.

It is posts such as this I do not engage with you as much as I do with some others.

Such. . . I. . .

I have nothing more to say.

I do not think ICE shooting people, American citizen 'or immigrant, will gain them support.

Just wait till mob rule starts killing ICE officers. Then I suppose we can have a talk about democracy and how it should matter when enforcing laws.

If ICE doesn't want mobs of angry civilians killing them, then they should not be frequently and openly killing unarmed American civilians.

Not that ICE should be killing 'anyone.

And not that mobs of people 'necessarily should kill ICE or certain ICE members.

But this is why I consider ICE incompetent,

You should not 'commit actions that anger the people as this.

it’s pretty hard to deny that the United States has become a Rogue Nation.

"Rogue nation" has no official status as an international legal term that has any official standing. It's not statutory, nor policy, it's just political, and that means it's only critical, which means it's undesirable as nomenclature.

A rogue nation is a term applied to countries perceived as threatening to world peace by violating international laws , sponsoring terrorism, restricting human rights, or pursuing weapons of mass destruction. America is a rogue nation according to this definition.

You should not 'commit actions that anger the people as this.

Such as freeing the slaves? Upholding the law? Mandating Desegregation with federal officers shooting the violent mob? Victim blaming didn't work out well for the Confederacy, you know.

Didn't work out well with any mob rule when they did not like the federal laws.

I'm unsure what you mean and refer in #37, can you expand upon that in more detail?

He is following a different set of standards.

What you’re really up against in that “You shouldn’t do actions that anger people” line is the assumption that governing is about "never offending anyone." But that’s not how law, order, democracy, or a civil society works. You don’t need uniform popularity to enforce the law; you need clear rules and consistency from a majority. Trying to avoid all anger will always hand the agenda to whoever’s loudest and least constrained. Everything in governance is a trade-off, and a choice to prioritize uniform comfort is worse than no solution at all. People need clear rules and consequences, not "social justice" that has arbitrary rules depending on your signals. They need simple justice, reliable, predictable, and no modifiers.

History is filled with examples where laws were upheld despite anger and where retreat from enforcement invited longer, wider disorder. Mobilizing federal officers to uphold constitutional law is simply the mechanism a republic uses when the rule of law is challenged. What doesn’t work is turning every breakdown of order into a moral indictment of enforcement itself. Victim blaming the law officers after they are obstructed by vigilantes.

Right now, that is what’s happening in Minnesota. Federal agents have been deployed to enforce immigration laws, and that operation has led to multiple confrontations and fatal shootings of civilians, sparking widespread protests and criticism. Local leaders are calling for accountability and even withdrawal of federal forces, while the national debate is intensifying over tactics, transparency, and the proper balance between local sovereignty and federal enforcement. Essentially, a fight over the constitutional Supremacy clause, like your Civil War. Democracy dies when lawful protest is treated as equivalent to insurrection. Law enforcement isn’t there to avoid anger; it’s there to maintain order while freedom of expression and due process co-exist. Don't want to find out? Then don't FA with democratic due-process.

They don't need to "never offending anyone."

They need to not enrage people.

The Kent State shootings as an extreme example,

It's not about "never offending anyone.", it's about not committing moronic actions that anger a significant number of people.

This loses you support for your aims.

"You don’t need uniform popularity to enforce the law"

I agree, but popularity 'helps immensely.

You need at least 'some popularity to enforce the law, if the people hate you enough, they will 'NOT conform.

"you need clear rules and consistency from a majority."

YES,

But when you escalate a situation and shoot unarmed American civilians, this is 'breaking clear rules and consistency.

Killing American civilians this often and so carelessly is 'not the consistency Americans expect.

"History is filled with examples where laws were upheld despite anger and where retreat from enforcement invited longer, wider disorder."

The law 'should be upheld, and situations such a riot 'should be contained and stopped by the police.

But police should 'not take actions that 'cause people to riot.

"Democracy dies when lawful protest is treated as equivalent to insurrection."

Did you use AI to generate this?

Because that seems more along the lines of 'my thought.

You don't 'shoot lawful protestors or people recording you with their phone.

"Law enforcement isn’t there to avoid anger"

It is there to establish order,

Causing anger creates disorder.

"Don't want to find out? Then don't FA with democratic due-process."

I don't know what FA means.

F*** All?

Americans have the right to protest, the right to record, the right to carry guns.

YES,

But when you escalate a situation and shoot unarmed American civilians, this is 'breaking clear rules and consistency.

Killing American civilians this often and so carelessly is 'not the consistency Americans expect.

What happened was a person broke the law by standing too close to a federal agent during an arrest. That's a felony. The person who brought a gun to a place and knowingly committed a felony escalated the situation. Victim blaming the ICE agents dealing with a felon doesn't change the fact that laws need to be defined and enforced in a lawful society, regardless of whether or not you feel you can get up in an arresting officer's face armed with a camera and a Sig Sauer.

The situation didn’t begin with ICE enforcement. It began when someone chose to insert themselves into an active arrest zone. Proximity rules around arrests aren’t vibes-based. They exist precisely because chaos spikes fast when crowds compress a crime scene. Standing too close to a law-controlled scene isn’t symbolic 1st amendment speech; it’s physical interference. Because your law defines that as a felony, it’s no longer a gray area. It's FAFO.

I don't know what FA means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOPZuXh-f5M

America fits the definition of a rogue nation led by a convicted felon Trump.

I don't consider what you say in #42 to be worth responding to.

You should ask him to see the videos available on the shooting incident which proves the officials were lying. The victim did not draw his gun as seen in the video.

It's the law, you just need to know it exists, response isn't necessary.

You need at least 'some popularity to enforce the law, if the people hate you enough, they will 'NOT conform.

Which is why 300,000 Confederate soldiers died, but the survivors eventually conformed.

America has been historically severe and harsh with vigilantes regarding the Federal Law and the Supremacy Clause. This isn't a new trend.

The law is on the side of the victim, so are the evidence seen in the video. The victim was licensed to carry a firearm and the video shows he did not draw it before the ICE agents.

What happened was a person broke the law by standing too close to a federal agent during an arrest. That's a felony.

Nonsense, “standing too close to a federal agent during an arrest” is not illegal, you just made that up. Obstruction, interference, or disobedience of a command to move back are illegal, and Alex Pretti did none of those things. Even if he did, none of those things are punishable by execution.

The person who brought a gun to a place and knowingly committed a felony escalated the situation.

Nonsense, it is not illegal that he “brought a gun to a place” and Alex Pretti did not escalate the situation, ICE did, which is precisely what they are doing there.

Victim blaming the ICE agents

Oh please, the ICE agents executed an innocent man and you think the ICE agents are the victims? Such blatant rhetorical hyperbole eliminates any reason to take you seriously.

dealing with a felon doesn't change the fact that laws need to be defined and enforced in a lawful society,

Thanks for that insight Captain Obvious, of course it’s irrelevant since they were not “dealing with a felon”.

regardless of whether or not you feel you can get up in an arresting officer's face armed with a camera and a Sig Sauer.

More nonsense, Alex Pretti was completely within his rights to record ICE agents with his phone, recording ICE agents lawlessness is seen as a matter of civic duty and protestor self-defense. He had a concealed weapon which was licensed and accompanied by a concealed weapon permit, again, not illegal.

The situation didn’t begin with ICE enforcement. It began when someone chose to insert themselves into an active arrest zone.

Nonsense, ICE was the aggressor in this situation, it was an unlawful response to a legal and peaceful protest.

Proximity rules around arrests aren’t vibes-based. They exist precisely because chaos spikes fast when crowds compress a crime scene.

You obviously don’t even have a clue what “Proximity rules” are, they have nothing to do with proximity to agents, proximity rules apply to search and seizure during an arrest, in general proximity rules allow an arrest if an officer witnesses a crime in their immediate vicinity, and defines the perimeter of the legal search zone, it establishes the immediate area within the suspects control (typically wingspan), which can be searched and secured.

Standing too close to a law-controlled scene isn’t symbolic 1st amendment speech; it’s physical interference. Because your law defines that as a felony, it’s no longer a gray area. It's FAFO.

Nonsense, you have completely made up your absurd “Standing too close” law, and "standing too close" is not physical interference, physical interference during an arrest involves using force, blocking, or obstructing law enforcement, which did not occur, and even if it did occur, physical interference typically results in charges of resisting arrest or obstruction, neither of which are punishable by execution.

Obstruction, interference, or disobedience of a command to move back are illegal,...yep

Alex Pretti did none of those things....maybe

Even if he did, none of those things are punishable by execution... like I said, your country has a long history of dealing harshly with vigilantes where the federal law is concerned.

Yes, but the words have zero official, legal status. It's use "officially" belongs to the media, thus, layman.

Yes, but the words have zero official, legal status. It's use "officially" belongs to the media, thus, layman.

LOL, since the term is used extensively by American Presidents, including your own cult leader (I mean Trump, not Oaks), maybe you should let him know his use of the term is "unauthorized". I'll bet he doesn't even know he's using a phrase that doesn't even belong to him,

That happens to most Trump supporters. Trump is a cult figure.

So, you mean "fix" as in arbitrarily alter a situation, rather than as in necessarily repair a problem.

What has that got to do with bollocks?

Recent Minneapolis shooting keeps looking worse for ICE so far. Maybe.

I'm not sure there even 'was a protest,

Might have just been an impromptu gathering of people going about their day, but recording and observing ICE suddenly appearing somewhere.

Not that protesting is illegal anyhow.

Hearsay mentions Alex Pretti directing traffic a bit before his death.

Though bit unrelated, I am doubtful of the wisdom of loud noises and screaming at protests or group gatherings.

And despite myself, I have to admit, 'yes one can stand too close to law enforcement when they are doing their job, and that such is unwise.

But law enforcement can also advance and stand too close to people, also unwise. One has higher expectations of law enforcement.

It is often said that history is a dialog between past and present. America involved in the wars fought in foreign countries.in the long history of America. The main object was to transfer and expand the idea of democracy, freedom and liberty. The U.S. took a military involvement in

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent those countries from being invaded by anti-American countries or authoritarian leaders and

being dominated by the idea of communism and authoritarian regime.

Those countries were liberated from the threat of communism and authoritarian anti-American government by American power.

The ultimate object of American military involvement was to help those countries build a nation with social order and stability.

Considering from the different angle, the U.S. aimed for making the allied countries as much as possible by offering economic and military aid

not only in Asia but in Europe after the World War Second.

Th3 countries that were invade by America and had their economies devastated will disagree with your conclusion. They are still struggling to recover from Americas invasion.

Yep, I'm not sure at all that ICE is bona fide law enforcement.

US has been a rogue nation since WWII.

Not that protesting is illegal anyhow.

And this is what is going to get many, many more killed...all over again. Protesting isn’t illegal. Obstructing law enforcement is.

When people block officers from executing democratically enacted law, when they physically charge an officer or put their hands on an officer lawfully detaining people for questioning, that stops being a protest and becomes illegal mob coercion.

These people are obstructing the law, and you call it protesting... and legal.

That's mob rule, not democracy, and mob rule always means dead people. Mobs are rarely the majority; they are mostly loud, frequently violent, and always obstructing law enforcement and the democracy that created law enforcement.

And for you to call that "legal"...well, historically, when mobs substitute themselves for lawful authority, people get hurt or killed. That pattern is boringly consistent.

The Constitution was never made to shield mob rule from democratic law enforcement. Mob rule is pre-constitutional. It’s the state of nature the Constitution was written to prevent. Madison, Hamilton, all of them were obsessed with the possibility of factions, crowds, passions overriding law. The Constitution is designed to slow, channel, and civilize power, and not to sanctify whoever shouts loudest in the street while obstructing Law Enforcement. Activism should mean getting a consensus to change legislation...democracy in action should never include felony mob rule....

Trump will be impeached again if the Democrats win control.