By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following ICE raids in Los Angeles, protests erupted, prompting President Trump to illegally federalize the National Guard and deploy 2,000 Marines, despite Governor Newsom’s objection and the absence of any rebellion. This action, deemed unlawful by legal experts and military leaders, risks escalating the situation due to the Marines’ lack of crowd-control training. Newsom subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the deployment, while the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act further heightens concerns about the use of the military against civilians. This unprecedented mobilization presents a significant legal and ethical dilemma for service members.
Read the original article here
The prospect of a US military deployed against its own citizens is deeply disturbing. The very idea raises profound questions about the nature of our democracy and the role of the armed forces within it. This is not a hypothetical scenario; the potential for such a deployment, even under the guise of “temporary detention,” demands serious consideration of the implications for service members.
The oath sworn by every member of the military includes a pledge to uphold the Constitution. This oath is paramount. It is a sacred bond, binding them to the principles of liberty, justice, and the rule of law – principles that are directly threatened by any attempt to use the military against civilians protesting within our nation’s borders.
Many argue that this is a simple case of following orders. However, the notion of unquestioning obedience in the face of clearly illegal commands is profoundly misguided. Blind adherence to orders without considering their moral and constitutional implications is itself a dereliction of duty. The Uniform Code of Military Justice acknowledges that individual service members possess a right, indeed a duty, to disobey orders deemed illegal or unconstitutional.
Yet, the reality is far more complex. The military is a hierarchical organization, deeply structured around obedience to authority. This structure is designed for efficiency, but can easily be manipulated. This means that while the right to disobey illegal orders exists, exercising that right carries significant personal risk.
The potential consequences for a single service member who refuses an order to act against fellow citizens are severe. Court-martial and imprisonment are realistic possibilities. This is why the call for widespread disobedience is a necessary consideration, rather than reliance on individual acts of defiance.
The issue is not merely about legality; it’s about morality. Deploying the military against peaceful protesters represents a profound violation of the public trust. It erodes the very foundations of democratic society and serves to undermine the institution of the military itself. Any service member who participates in such actions would be complicit in the destruction of the very values they swore to defend.
Furthermore, the composition of the military is a key factor. It is not a monolithic entity. It has individuals who hold varied political beliefs, and varying levels of understanding of the situation. It’s inaccurate to presume unanimous support for any action. It is crucial to recognize the potential for internal divisions and disagreements among service members regarding the legality and morality of such actions.
The belief that the military will simply and unquestioningly obey any order, regardless of its illegality, ignores the complex dynamics within the ranks. It’s also an assumption that fails to account for the potential for internal dissent, especially if high-ranking officers recognize the unconstitutionality and illegality of such orders.
It’s tempting to believe that a few high-ranking officers refusing illegal orders would suffice to prevent a catastrophic situation. However, the reality is that the situation requires a much broader understanding, across all ranks.
This is a critical juncture, not just for the military, but for the nation as a whole. The very notion of a military turned against its own citizens represents a complete collapse of democratic principles. The responsibility to protect the Constitution rests not solely on the shoulders of elected officials, but on every citizen, including those serving in the armed forces.
It is the duty of each service member to carefully consider the implications of any orders received, particularly those that violate their oaths and threaten the fundamental rights of their fellow citizens. The potential cost of obedience in such a situation far outweighs the risk of disobedience. The preservation of democracy and the rule of law is worth far more than any potential personal repercussions. The future of American democracy may depend on it.