By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Two Illinois National Guard members have publicly stated they would refuse federal orders to deploy in Chicago as part of a controversial immigration enforcement mission. The guardsmen, a state legislative candidate and a congressional candidate, expressed concerns about being used against their community and questioned the legality of the orders. They both stated they would not obey orders, and they are facing retaliation for their statements, including a suspended security clearance and death threats. A federal judge has delayed the deployment until further notice, but the soldiers warn this is a dangerous precedent that could lead to further militarization of American cities.
Read the original article here
**2 Illinois National Guard members speak out: “I won’t turn against my neighbors”**
The voices of two Illinois National Guard members, Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek and Capt. Dylan Blaha, are resonating, and the implications of their stand are important to consider. They’ve made it clear: they won’t turn against their neighbors. This isn’t just about following orders; it’s about upholding the principles they swore to protect, even when faced with the potential consequences. It’s a testament to their integrity, and a reminder that individuals within the military have the power to choose loyalty to their community over blind obedience.
Their actions bring to light a broader conversation about the role of the National Guard in times of social unrest. The debate is often framed around the idea of “helping the police,” but the reality is much more complex. There’s a concern that the Guard could be used to suppress dissent or create an atmosphere of fear. The potential for the Guard to become a tool for political agendas is a serious one, especially when coupled with talk of “red state” guards being sent to “blue state” cities. This raises questions about federal overreach and the erosion of local control.
The very notion of “just following orders” is called into question. While military personnel are expected to obey lawful directives, there’s a crucial distinction between following orders and perpetrating actions that violate the Constitution or the fundamental rights of fellow citizens. It’s a point these two individuals seem to have grasped. They’ve recognized that there’s a line they’re unwilling to cross, a commitment to their community that trumps any command they might receive.
The fear of court-martial and potential jail time for refusing unlawful orders is a serious consideration. However, the comments suggest that the consequences for disobeying an illegal order might be preferable to participating in actions that violate one’s conscience and oath. The dilemma for members of the Guard is real: they’re caught between following orders and upholding their principles. This is a choice that many may have to consider as the political climate evolves.
Some may view the National Guard as an extension of law enforcement, while others are more critical of their potential deployment. There is a sense that the situation has the potential to escalate, possibly with agencies like ICE, and a fear of “testing the waters”. The response of the troops is what really matters. Do they follow orders or stand against them?
The fact that these two individuals are running for office adds another layer to this story. There may be a natural suspicion from the public in the face of politicians with military service records. It brings to mind questions of motive and how their service will be perceived. This raises an interesting dilemma regarding the perception of military service within the political arena.
The narrative of these two National Guard members is a stark reminder of the importance of individual conscience. It serves as a call for others to reflect on their own responsibilities. The discussion of illegal orders, and the willingness to refuse them, is a powerful statement. It’s a reminder that service members are not automatons, but individuals capable of independent thought, critical judgment, and ultimately, moral responsibility. It’s about remembering who their neighbors are and what they’ve sworn to protect.