Well at least we got past the domestic territory thing. It isn't the "military's point of view"; as you pointed out the military is under civilian control and all the restrictions and training on those restrictions comes from the civil law that governs the military's actions. We didn't do all that noise with the Coast Guard detachments because the Navy and Coast Guard got together and decided it was a great idea! Yes, once in our history a President did what would probably be determined illegal if it had been taken to the supreme court in an extraordinary circumstance. One could do so again, but unlikely that PR rises to the level of extraordinary circumstance for a President to risk falling on their sword over, especially when Marines are such an inappropriate choice of tool to use in that circumstance.
I would just add this. You did it because of the Military's Brass interpretation of the law. And as we both know that is not the definitive interpretation. (There is no question however that the original PC act leaves out the Coast Guard, and the Air Force and Marines too. But later interpretation, probably never tested in court, extended application of the Act to the Air Force which was originally part of the Army.
No, this is actually a crucial thing. The military brass doesn't decide how to interpret something like PC. Most decidedly, definitely not! The military is under civilian control, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. No-one in uniform makes interpretations on items like that. No flag officer or group of flags would be able to unilaterally decide to stop using Coast Guard personnel and start using Navy personnel for law enforcement because they decide to reinterpret PC! I think that's sadly a common misperception among Americans, again probably from movies where the General sternly orders in the troops, but the civilian control of the military is a bedrock doctrine both inside the military and outside. That kind of thing would fall squarely on the Secretary of Defense and in this case Homeland Security, and they wouldn't make a change on something like this without complete concurrence of POTUS. They would have implemented and continued to implement law enforcement in this manner through many Presidents of different parties because it is in fact the accepted definition of the law. Obviously any law can be reinterpreted if there is enough pressure to do so, again look at Bush and torture, but there is literally no-one inside government or the military who share your interpretation of PC today, and again little reason to change the current widely accepted definition.
Well that's a relief! Who does it then, The Sec. of Defense? I must have been watching too many movies!
Sig, please see my post #30 above. I added a few examples that I found on the Net. They surprised me. Apparently, much to our chagrin, the PC act isn't worth more than the paper it is written on even when it comes to domestic disturbances, let alone those in our territories.
Forget about Puerto Rico. Notice Trump's Tweet last week about Chicago? "If the Mayor can't do it, the Federal Govt will". Martial law in the Windy City. Its gonna happen.
For whatever reason (one can imagine why), the discussion about gun violence in Chicago rarely, if ever, mentions how it's largely "gang related". There is a tendency by the media to act as though much of it is "random", when it really isn't.