As of approximately 2 hours ago, the US and the UK launched missile strikes into Yemen as a counteroffensive to the houthi attacks in the Red Sea that have disrupted trade. I believe this could reasonably be considered an escalation. And it seems that if the UN ratifies South Africa's genocide charge, all signatories of the UN would be not only required to condemn said genocide, but would also be required by international law to do whatever they could to prevent said genocide. This would make who the attacks in the Red Sea on trade bound for or from Israel justified under international law. And if the US and the UK were to make those same advances after that decision it would be considered aid to a genocide, and thus US would be in violation of international law too.

2021 1.6m crossed the border, 2022 2.2m, and 2023 2.5m. that's 6.3m in 3 years. It's an obsession of mine to do as little presumption as possible. However that isn't the same thing as just needing to have incontributable proof and evidence before I can reasonably believe a thing most probable. It has been documented that potential terrorist threats have been stopped at the border before. So out of 6.3 million people over the last 3 years I can't say how many would be potentially dangerous, but I can say with strong confidence that number is not zero. So doing the math, if 0.1% of that number is potentially dangerous That's still 6,300 people, if 0.01% of that number is potentially dangerous that's still 630 people. Another way of saying that would be 12.25 potentially dangerous immigrants per state. What is that, one in 63,000? Now say a percentage of those take orders from Iran, or Iranian allies. And say that the UN ratifies the charges of genocide brought by South Africa. And say that the US persists in efforts to prevent the houthis attempt at preventing genocide as per international law, and is thus considered to be aiding genocide and in violation of international law. In this case I believe then by international law all other signatories of the UN, including Iran and Russia and China and on and on, would be obligated to do whatever they could to prevent genocide as well. Now if some agent aligned with the Palestinian cause, and emboldened by and with the justification of the UN had agents inside of America, who have just conveniently been shipped all over the country, would they not be obligated to activate said "sleeper cells"? I think it would be safe to call this scenerio world war 3, and if there's acts of war all over the country might be conceivable to have some sort of martial law imposed. This could mean a suspension of elections. This could mean a restriction of freedoms, and the suspension of specific rights. Such as the freedom of speech, for the freedom from a legal search and seizure, or the right to bear arms.

I don't think all cops are bad, I think that they're mostly just good people that want to do the best thing for their community. However, implicit in the agreement to be a cop is the abdication of one's own volition in moral and ethical determination. One must agree to defer their own judgment to another authority. Anyone with this ability, of which I do not have, makes me nervous. It's not that I don't think that cops have a necessary and important job. I do believe that this is a non-intuitive consequence, and not necessarily thought of when making the choice to be a cop.

My question is how my local authorities view this scenario. How do the local departments feel about the possibility of having to act on a determination that does not align, hopefully, with their moral and ethical positions? If a higher authority were to ask my local departments to infringe upon Long Held American rights what would they do? I desperately would like some clarification from the quad Cities variety of Police departments, local governments, political leaders, or any type of authority that may apply.

Please advise.

*Edit was to remove typo