As Trump Threatens to Send Military Into Cities, Some GIs Refuse to Comply
By Candice Bernd, Truthout
June 3, 2020
Some National Guard and active-duty GIs are refusing to deploy to U.S. cities rising up against police-perpetrated killings, saying no to complicity in the repression of the American populace and that they have not been properly trained in riot response or de-escalation tactics on domestic soil.
Veterans and GI rights organizations told Truthout that dozens of GIs are reaching out to assess their options as President Trump orders military and federal police onto the streets of Washington, D.C., and threatens to use the 1807 Insurrection Act to send active-duty military into cities across the U.S. if governors cannot repress dissent in their states.
The National Guard has already mobilized 20,000 members in at least 29 states, and some governors, including Minnesotas Tim Walz, have already declined Trumps offer to send in military police. Trump has the authority, however, to deploy the military to states under the Insurrection Act, which would represent a dramatic escalation of Trumps executive authority and likely spark pushback from state and local officials.
While the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the domestic use of military for law enforcement purposes without specific congressional authorization, the Insurrection Act gives the president authorization to do so under certain circumstances, according to legal experts. The Insurrection Act has been invoked dozens of times in the countrys history, most recently during the 1992 uprising over the Los Angeles police officers beating of Rodney King.
But its not the legality of the presidents and governors deployment orders that is weighing on Guardspersons and active-duty soldiers; its the potential moral injury of brutalizing their own communities.
https://truthout.org/articles/as-trump-threatens-to-send-military-into-cities-some-gis-refuse-to-comply/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a962aeb6-e3d6-40fb-a999-14ddbb137fd1
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)if I were still on duty and they asked me for a legal opinion, it would start with, this whole thing is illegal, and then ended there.
brewens
(13,588 posts)Chainfire
(17,539 posts)however, they are also taught that to refuse an illegal order, you damn well better be right in your decision. It is easier for soldiers to just leave the thinking to their officers and follow their orders; that is how they are trained and that is what the vast majority will do.
Do not think that the all volunteer army is a place where liberal ideals flourish either in enlisted or the officer ranks.
brewens
(13,588 posts)bigger tips for doing exactly that.
Get the troops signed off on that part of the training, then drill them on blindly following any order.
Chainfire
(17,539 posts)BGBD
(3,282 posts)there's never been a conviction in the US military for following an order, legal or not.
Chainfire
(17,539 posts)for which I don't have a good answer, however, William Calley argued that he was "just carrying out orders," but was convicted. I do not recall whether he offered credible evidence that he was ordered to massacre a village.
For those who are too young to remember, Calley was convicted of leading the massacre of a Vietnam village.
Budi
(15,325 posts)Wrong Trump!, governors did try to repress dissent in their states, they begged you to shut your mouth but you kept stoking the fires with your tweets & language.
They owe you nothing.
dreamland
(964 posts)There would be less violence. Which soldier would be the person known to fight his own?