Several service members told advocacy groups they felt like pawns in a political game and assignment was not necessary

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.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      They can be court martialed either way. Literally an entire movie about it and a phrase that gets used everyday. Cache 22

      • nik9000@programming.dev
        0·
        2 days ago

        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?

        • tmyakal@infosec.pub
          0·
          2 days ago

          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.

      • Zenith@lemm.ee
        0·
        2 days ago

        Sure and once the military court sees the order was illegal you’re not going to be held responsible

          • Habitforming@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 days ago

            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.