- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Several service members told advocacy groups they felt like pawns in a political game and assignment was unnecessary
California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join.
Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.
“The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for,” said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans.
You must log in or register to comment.
They shouldn’t be there. The national guard is for fighting wildfires and vaccinating hundreds of thousands of people during the pandemic. They are not to be abused for idiotic political reasons, especially for protests with very few bad apples.
The national guard, if i understand it correctly, is meant to be the well-regulated militia of the states as outlined in the 2nd amendment. They shouldn’t even be under federal control at all.
Maybe it’s time to stop “just following orders”.
One day these guys will have to pick a side between their neighbours and the oligarchy.
They’re welcome to come defend the American people from the criminal gangs known as the police and ICE.
Pawns of political games feel like pawns of political game? No fucking way, at this rate, they will get self-conscience faster than they predict it for ai.
I mean didn’t a court just said this deployment is illegal? Just use that as an excuse and be like: “fuck this, I’m out”. Like literally just start holding a poster and go to the protester’s side.
A judge ruled the troops can remain there for now.
Their orders are illegal, thus disobeying them is not insubordination or illegal.
Not just not subordination following them is specifically illegal and historically “I was following orders” has NEVER been justification or gotten anyone off their charges. You follow illegal orders YOU are a criminal as much as your commanding officer.
Unfortunately for the most part with only a few exceptions “I was following orders” has in fact, always worked to get people off scott free for war crimes except in cases where they were committed by a nation that lost the war.
These orders will be made legal as judges have no more basis in us of a
If that were true, why do they keep getting their asses handed to them in court, and why do they keep complying with those rulings?
That’s not how military orders work.
It is 100% how military orders work. Members have an obligation to not carry out unlawful orders. I’ve yet to hear of any NATO aligned force where this isn’t drilled into people’s heads from the get-go.
Granted, given the state of the law in the U.S. these days…we’ll have to see how things go down.
Except the army’s own government website explicitly says otherwise
Any member of the military has a commonly understood obligation to disobey an illegal order;
https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking_ranks_dissent_and_the_military_professional
Odd that this page is still online…
Fascists are not the brightest
Tell me you never served in the military without telling me you never served in the military.
I think we are talking past eachother here. We can talk a lot about what an illegal order is; how there is training to disobey one, but that is talking about how things ought to be not how they actually are. For example, we all have agreed to not speed and taken training on it as well, yet it happens all too often. It is not unreasonable to believe that a soldier will follow an illegal order because they want to or there is enough coercion.
True, but this is abandoning their duty. Now, will there be immediate consequences for following an illegal order in the current (and coming) situation? We’ll have to see. Shit’s weird right now. But it remains the duty of servicepeople to refuse illegal orders, and the consequences are more severe if one is ultimately found to have carried out an unlawful order. This ain’t a speeding ticket - this is military prison, rank stripping, dishonourable discharge, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, it takes sand and a strong certainty to refuse unlawful orders, but it’s also not optional. It’s a requirement, one servicepeople are aware of and is generally taken seriously.
Doesn’t totally negate your point - there’s a good chance we’re going to see some awful shit from cowards in the ranks ‘just following orders’. We can only hope they are dealt with appropriately in that case.
I would argue that the deployment orders for the 2003 Iraq war were illegal, but the people who refused to follow them are the ones who got in trouble.
How do they work?
Is it possible to refuse to follow an order because you believe it is illegal?
Yes.
They can be court martialed either way. Literally an entire movie about it and a phrase that gets used everyday. Cache 22
There’s a book called Catch 22. Looks like the made a movie of it. The book is the funniest thing I’ve ever read. Made me think about how crazy fighting is. Sort of like a funny Slaughterhouse-Five.
Neither mentioned illegal orders as far as I remember. Was the movie quite different?
We read very different books. I thought the first half was hilarious, but it lulled me into a comfort of the absurdity and the banality that set up an absolutely devastating second half.
I think it’s one of the greatest books I’ve ever read, but I don’t think it was a comedy.
Sure and once the military court sees the order was illegal you’re not going to be held responsible
I hope military court works more fairly than civilian court.
Pretty much the opposite. Civilian courts generally offer more constitutional protections. Military courts can say something was contrary to “good order and discipline” aka my favorite article of the UCMJ - Article 134 - and lol, you’re fucked.
Catch 22 isn’t about illegal orders. The contradiction is more about your own sanity/safety.
Surely it’s a Catch 22, not a hidden supply of 22s stashed away somewhere?
No thats actually cache 21, duh!
Basically yeah, you can refuse, but that’s the more absolute form. What you should do if you suspect the legality of an order is to ask it in writing, register that you don’t want to follow, but will comply.
Then afterwards you’ll be less responsible. Depends on what it’s about, you can’t just register a complaint about killing kids and then do it anyway, but like for milder illegal orders.
They should be feeling like shit. They are acting like shit and following unconstitutional orders. Grow a goddamn spine and frag any officers who give you unconstitutional orders.
If you have been trained to follow orders under extreme pressure, in an organisation that has done exactly this stuff for decades overseas to ‘other people’. And if actually you consider immigrants ‘other people’, how big a leap is it really?
they also have a dilemma, if theyw ere to shoot a citizen, then once they get out of the military, people will know who shot them and then there will be constant guilt/harrasment, or doxxing eventually.
The instant they shoot a civilian they are an outlaw. Outlaws are beyond the protection of the law. They are beyond the protections of the law. They are kill on sight.
The troops are not issued ammunition.
I keep looking for cries for help on their shields.
I can totally see a scenario where they deploy but have protest messages on their shields, and maliciously comply to orders.
You got the choice to stand up and say no. No I will not use my weapons on my own fucking people because some geriatric PoS is having a terrible twos tantrum because everyone hates his ass.
Do what’s right or be remembered as the ones who did wrong.
Maybe this will be what wakes up Americas military to the fact that everything they do is political. Apparently its harder to trick people into hurting their own country though so thats good to hear.
Please. Please. Please. Come on boys, just read the Constitution, you didn’t sign up for this shit.
deploying military force against our own communities isn’t the kind of national security we signed up for
Then refuse those illegal orders and stand down.
It’s a nice idea but the military makes it really hard to do that.
As much as i hate what Trump is doing, I don’t expect any enlisted man to refuse orders to go somewhere. The legality of that order is debatable, but following it does not cause any immediate harm. It’s not a good risk to take.
Refusal to follow orders will come when the order is so clearly illegal that there can be no question, and when following that order is something that can’t be undone. An order to fire into the crowd, for example.
Of course, no such order will be given. I assume we have all seen Andor, yes?
I agree, I think there’s clear limits. This isn’t like Russia where they were being told they were being sent to a training exercise, this is an event where everyone being deployed knew exactly the reason and are able to be kept up to date by sources that don’t include their superiors. Being deployed doesn’t mean anything other than they’re getting a bigger paycheck each, and the legality of a domestic deployment for the purpose of crowd control is debatable. The real test of these men will be whether they take the life of a civilian.
There’s a lot of doomers who will base current events off of a TV show they watched, but there is no media in existence nor any historical event that mirrors these circumstances. There are non political guardrails, such as societal conventions, that will realistically play a much bigger role in the coming conflict than people think.
One thing is very clear however: The price of true change is blood.
No historical event that mirrors these circumstances?? Are you joking?
Trump is essentially playing by the Fascist Dictatorship For Dummies playbook.
Maybe they are specifically talking about the event of an orange russian agent rampaging in the US government. This exact thing has not happened yet. Talking about the broad circumstances though, this is probably the most common historical event since humans exist.
deleted by creator
The Great Orange Baboon’s (TGOB) parade is this Saturday. Lots of protests are going to happen on Saturday specifically because of this, and many other things. TGOB has repeatedly alluded to using armed forces against protesters on Saturday.
People are going to die on Saturday.
I really hope this event will be a good opportunity to escalate things. I am shocked that most US citizens have just been watching as their formerly democratic country (which they supposedly are so proud of) was turned into a fascist dictatorship. I guess the lack of organisation is a big factor and now may be a good time to finally show the fascists that the people are able to fight back. It will cost lives and I feel a little bad that I indirectly wish for those deaths by wishing for escalation, but I believe they wont be in vain and could prevent millions of deaths.
Try watching Winter on Fire on Netflix. It documents Ukraine overthrowing their dictator. It wasn’t a clean process. But hopefully the ending will be the same, with our dictator also fleeing back to Russia.
If you haven’t seen andor what are you doing with your life
Not living for TV.
What’s the takeaway from Andor in this context?There was a scene involving some vey angry, but peaceful protesters surrounding a government building. A small team of police was ordered into the crowd. Not to attack, just to patrol, to open a little corridor so people could pass. But that was six guys in riot gear pushing their way through the people.
Even in the best possible circumstances, that’s gonna cause a little trouble, and these were not the best possible circumstances. Fruit was thrown. Maybe a bottle or two. The police are tense. The people are tense.
And a government agent, working for the guy who ordered the cops out there, shot one of them. The cops reacted defensively, and struck at the crowd, trying to get to safety. The crowd fought back. Things quickly got out of hand.
And the stormtroopers were standing by, waiting for the word.
It was a setup. An incident was forced to happen. It might have happened even without the sniper. Just force the police into the crowd, and sooner or later, someone will do something stupid.
On the same way, the NG troops might be deliberately pressed into a position where they legitimately think they are defending themselves, but no single order will seem like “crossing the line” to them. Stand here. Hold the line. Push the crowd out of this area.
I hope it doesn’t happen. But the metaphor of boiling the frog is apt.
The Empire is fascist and comes for all including its loyal servants
That’s been the takeaway from Star Wars since A New Hope.
Some don’t like Star Wars or any Sci-fi. Others like fascism and hate things that say fascism is bad.
Not necessarily mutually exclusive. Always room for a little overlap in that Venn diagram.
Yeah one of my family members fits both
In what ways are you able and going to support troops who do that to then face court martial? Are you a lawyer willing to go pro bono? Are you willing to house the ones who are discharged, or later released from prison, with few to no job prospects? Do you already or are you planning to donate to service member advocacy groups?
If troops could feel sufficiently supported by the rest of the community when the military’s judicial hammer hangs above their head, it may help them gather the courage to do the thing you’re suggesting they do.
Most troops signed up to do a job with good benefits and gud-nuff pay and hopefully learn some skills, make lifelong friends, and maybe do some interesting or adventurous things in the process. Few of them are very financially well-set and “standing down” from orders they personally deem illegal could ruin their life. Big decision for 18-25 y/o’s to be making and glib comments like “just stand down” kind of gloss over the total psychology of the situation.
https://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/conscientious-objection-discharge/
There are programs in place to provide help to troops considering Conscientious Objection. Every single law is up to personal interpretation, so I don’t know why you feel the need to emphasize it here. When I was asked to join the military during Bush II, I refused and am proud of that decision. Probably would have made my father proud. Probably would have gotten a lot of respect in my community. Probably would have helped pay for a college degree I wouldn’t actually get a job with. But fuck traveling half way across the planet to kill civilians to protect an oil company’s profits. If that was an easy decision for me at that age, not violating the rights your own countrymen should be even easier.
I never knew about this. I actually hope all our troops know about this also.
The ACLU seems like it should also cover this sort of thing.
It is I believe
I just checked their website. They need to add a Conscientious Objection section to make that more explicit.
Any military member who is court marshaled has a JAG representing them, just like there is a JAG prosecuting them. A system that gives you someone with far more time to deal with your case than a public defender, and even some private attorneys.
Like the movie A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise is a JAG
Do we need to have our commitment to them in writing in the presence of a lawyer in order for them to do the right thing and not follow illegal orders and threaten fellow Americans?
They took an oath.
That has nothing to do with our support.
That being said, the support of the public tends to be more consistent than the support of the leadership we find ourselves with in recent history. That’s made obvious by all the people getting help from others via GoFundMe type donations to cover their medical bills or simply for doing the right thing and being punished for it.
Do we need to have our commitment to them in writing in the presence of a lawyer in order for them to do the right thing and not follow illegal orders and threaten fellow Americans?
No idea how to get the point across effectively, but some general assurance of a soft landing on/from the side for which they’re putting their personal future at risk would probably be pretty helpful. The more ostracized and hated they feel in these early stages would probably just push them toward the other side, based on a rough risk-reward analysis.
If anyone is actually depending on those sworn/affirmed oaths to keep the troops on their side, then they’re living in a naive fantasy world. Those oaths are beautiful in their intent, but crumble pretty quickly in the harsh reality of viable livelihood and expected future compensation. Sorry, but I’m cynical and in my view loyalty is most easily purchased via material guarantees than ideology. Within limits, of course, and there’s different thresholds of tolerance toward unpalatable orders vs living conditions for everyone.
Yeah, a lot of people are all talk but actually chickens out when you tell them to practice what they preach or help in some way to the cause. I was arguing in an anarchist community why it is a bad idea to fire the first shot and kill soldiers and police, because it makes it look bad on the protestors and it will finally provide reason for the government to invoke the insurrection act. Unsurprisingly, anarchists know little of the practical reality and are too trigger happy baying for blood. When I dared one to go to California and shoot the authorities if they believe that Trump and co. broke the social contract, unsurprisingly he/she made up excuses and chickened out. Said going about on social media and targeting far right leaders is just as effective. Right, as if bullying Trump on social media will make him quit the White House lol.
It reminds me why i am not fully on board with anarchism despite having inherent and deep disdain on authority and hierarchy. Sorry my anarchist friends, but you are just as fantasists as any ideologues. I don’t completely condemn violence when it comes to it, but you don’t get the final sympathy when you break the promise of peaceful demonstrations and kill the authorities first. I mean, the world has sympathy on Syrian rebels, because Assad’s forces fired on peaceful demonstrators first. Many people actually soured on the French Revolution at the time, when The Terror started with indiscriminate executions of many individuals deemed enemies of the revolution. Conflicts are won on public relations as well.
A lot of people may or may not be the protesters in the streets, but don’t feel like incriminating themselves on a public forum for internet clout if they are. This isn’t the War Thunder forums.
One of leftist, especially for anarchists, core beliefs is praxis or putting into practice what you preach. I can see where you are coming from, but the interlocutor was literally calling for violence and for himself to raise an army. But when I told him why won’t he do what he says, he basically backed out. That’s not praxis lol.
Well said
Removed by mod
Or deploy on orders, then stand with the protestors against ICE
Right?
This isn’t complicated. You either choose to obey an illegal order and threaten/attack other American citizens, or you don’t.
Clearly they have generally chosen, so far, to break the law and betray their fellow Americans.
This isn’t complicated. You either choose to obey an illegal order and threaten/attack other American citizens, or you don’t.
Would you be willing to risk ten years in prison that a military judge will agree that an order to go stand somewhere is illegal?
Or to put it another way, do you expect our enlisted men and women to uphold the high moral virtues of honor, self sacrifice, and protection of innocents?
After seeing what horrors American soldiers are capable of, I’m not holding my breath.
Again, it’s one thing to expect them to reject orders they know are illegal, such as firing on civilians. It’s another thing entirely to expect them to reject orders the legality of which may be a supreme court case next week.
Yeah, nobody here knows what they are talking about. “I won’t go, I refuse to go.” Cool, here come the MPs, you go straight to jail. This shit happened quick. It wasn’t like these units had time to talk and maybe try to form a unified front. They got mobilized quick, and so any choice you make, you’re doing it on your own.
And so is it right to disobey? Maybe. Is it easy? Absolutely not, and to suggest that is foolish, but easy to do from behind a desk.
And so I think they’ll do what they must. They’ll show up, they’ll stand in a line, and they’ll hope they don’t need to do any more than that. And it goes unsaid that there’s some morons who want to beat on people, but they’re the 10%. The rest of them don’t want to be there.
I was just following orders.
Also even if there are 10% who just want to beat people, are the other “good guys” stopping them? One of these cowardly cunts shot a reporter point blank and the ones areund him were more like: good job than: wtf, you can’t do that. Go lick their boots and thank them for their great service.
It seems we are in agreement then, the troops are self-interested rational actors; all of the supposed virtues are propaganda.
But I think there is a moral imperative that says “do not obey immoral orders”, and that imperative does not come with a clause that says “unless there is a pending court case”.
But I think there is a moral imperative that says “do not obey immoral orders”
Is it immoral to get on a plane, and go sleep on the floor somewhere?
No, plane rides and sleepy time are not immoral in my opinion :)
There’s probably a good argument about plane emissions and climate change tho
Curious to know what horrors you’ve seen?
There’s far too many to name, but the first things that come to mind are Collateral Murder, Haditha Massacre, and literally anytime the US military has been involved in the Gazan genocide of the past year.
There was the whole thing in Guantanamo Bay. And the awful treatment of civilians in Afghanistan. And in Iraq. And we can’t forget the Vietnam war.
I think the guy you’re talking to is a duck, but he’s not all wrong.
Yeah, those are good examples. I wasn’t trying to challenge him, but was genuinely curious to know if he’d personally seen shit.
In theory, the next administration would pardon them. In theory.
Think for themselves? That’s not what they signed up for!
this is a good thing to hear
Similar when they were doing border patrol in Texas.
Military training is kinda big on threat identification and assessment. You don’t have to like the military to appreciate some of the stuff you can learn from it.
Protesting is not a threat to America. It’s a threat to the people who are in charge.
That’s why it’s essential we keep it peaceful while we increase our numbers. If we are non-violent, we cannot be determined to be a domestic threat, and it’s the military’s duty to protect us.
If we are non-violent, TACO will just say “They’re violent!” and a majority of this country, including our military, will believe him. Things can only go downhill from here.
Arm yourselves.
And if we’re still non-violent, someone will join who isn’t and ensure some violence exists. It’s Plan 1A in the dictator playbook.
Yup, that too. There is no happy ending.
It’s not the military’s duty to protect protestors. Just as the police have no obligation to protect and serve citizens.
I wholeheartedly agree with regards to the cops and ICE.
But I actually completely disagree on that statement being applied to the NG and Marines.
I’d argue that the armed forced have a rather explicit duty to protect their own fellow citizens as best they can.
And if some dipshit commander orders the marines or CANG to actually open fire on US civilians, I really do think that the E4 mafia might have something to say about that, and that the commissioned officers and cops and ICE fascists might very quickly find themselves staring down the barrels of the deployed troops.
Put another way: if active duty troops are ordered to fire on unarmed protesters, I would not at all be shocked if the enlisted and noncoms refuse the orders and mutiny, up to and including fragging the officers who gave the orders if they keep pushing.
Orangeboi et al seem to think the troops are robots. They’re absolutely not.
I really hope you’re right
One way or another, I feel like we’re all gonna see the answer to that question before this bullshit settles down in any meaningful way
It’s not the military’s duty to protect protestors.
The path of enlistment starts like this:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
Peaceful protest is our constitutional right.
The swearing-in of the President starts with something very similar, if not identical.
And yet, here we are.
Just because Trump isn’t performing his duty doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a duty.
My point was that that also applies to the military. Just because they have a duty to uphold the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that they will perform that duty.
Police rules of engagement is shockingly 0, cops kill anyone for any reason if they perceive even the slightest chance of a threat to themselves. The military has a rigorous 5-6 steps for using increasing amounts of violence from shouting to actually firing.
Maybe they can identify the actual threat and neutralize him.
You means the person(s) funding all of this?
/s
deleted by creator
It’s not. Unhappy people can lash out. You put a bunch of angry people on the riot control line, and they might start hitting people. It’s all downhill from there.
You’re right, it would be so much better if they were happy to be there. I would much prefer knowing that all of the soldiers are excited to suppress our constitutional right to protest. WAY better than the chance of one lashing out because they’re mad at their boss, right?
Low morale/dissatisfaction =/= anger. They’re more likely to be uncomfortable and unwilling to use violence against protesters, especially since they are significantly more trained to identify threats than police are. They know these protesters are not a threat, and all their training and rules of engagement tell them to not engage.
While I generally agree that dissatisfaction != anger, soldiers who are repeatedly given orders they know are bullshit and that they strongly disagree with typically tend to get pissed at the people issuing those orders.
“Man we don’t want to be here this is stupid, guess I’ll just fucking murder a bunch of people to feel better”
You’re making a lot of wild leaps from “I don’t feel good about being here and being used life this” to “I want to hit people!” even if they did, the people they want to hit are the ones who sent them there. And that’s also good.
MobHerd mentality
