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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.