According to nearly a dozen retired officers and current military lawyers, as well as scholars who teach at West Point and Annapolis, an intense if quiet debate is underway inside the U.S. military community about what orders it would be obliged to obey if President-elect Donald Trump decides to follow through on his previous warnings that he might deploy troops against what he deems domestic threats, including political enemies, dissenters and immigrants.

Archived at https://archive.is/He9O6

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 hour ago

    This is an important step in establishing a police state, which will be crucial for when trump doesn’t want to end his term peacefully.

  • @SoftTeeth
    link
    474 hours ago

    Every person in the US military has a right to defy orders they see as inhumane or unethical

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I wonder how many people using social media today have gone back and actually watched the beating of Rodney King.

    It is really horrifying. And VHS video recorders are the only reason the police were caught.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      73 hours ago

      There are countess stories like this one that never ended in riot’s. One that comes to mind is Kelly Thomas a mentally I’ll man, schizophrenic if I remember correctly. I remember Thomas cried out for his mother as they beat him to death.

      These atrocities sadly are commonplace here.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    74 hours ago

    On the plus side, it would be the first time in several decades the military is deployed in a terrorist rogue state

  • @FiremanEdsRevenge
    cake
    link
    1227 hours ago

    The constitution is your oath, not the president. Acknowledge that this administration is a domestic threat and deal with it.

    • @ChonkyOwlbear
      link
      406 hours ago

      The Praetorian Guard killed something like 13 emperors. Food for thought.

      • @Kyrgizion
        link
        61 hour ago

        In their defense, they killed more terrible emperors than good ones.

        Pertinax though… I’ll never forgive them for that. Who knows how the entire world would look now if he’d been emperor for a decade or more…

      • @rottingleaf
        link
        104 hours ago

        Also installed its own. All power goes both ways.

        In any case, even in US history military has been used against US citizens too. Not many things can really be new.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy
      link
      44
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Didn’t you hear? Apparently if we vote for it, a domestic threat is allowed to just walk on in and do his thing.

      • HubertManne
        link
        fedilink
        145 hours ago

        eyup. surprisingly voting for hitler gets you hitler. I was surprised pikachu as anybody about it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    130
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    “There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”

    -Commander Adama

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      424 minutes ago

      Trump literally calls anyone who disagrees with him an “enemy of the state”, so yeah, we’re way past that.

    • @Boddhisatva
      link
      387 hours ago

      The reason is that one is trained to (supposedly) keep the peace and prevent and investigate crimes. The other is trained to kill people. Military methods are incompatible with effective police work.

      • @PalmTreeIsBestTree
        link
        83 hours ago

        Ironically the American military is better at it than the police are. They usually only kill someone if they were being fired at first. It’s called rules of engagement. American police have zero concept of it.

    • @givesomefucks
      link
      English
      -327 hours ago

      If that guy truly believes cops “serves and protects the people”…

      Then we shouldn’t be listening to anything they have to say.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
        link
        fedilink
        English
        487 hours ago

        The guy is a fictional character in a TV show, and he is arguing that his military troops should not be used for police work.

        • @givesomefucks
          link
          English
          -607 hours ago

          Ah, so it’s not relevant at all because it’s literally not even based on our own universe…

          Thanks!

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
            link
            fedilink
            English
            297 hours ago

            It’s a hypothetical scenario on a military warship in space with refugees in tow.

            Also, it’s not even praising the police, just stating its purpose.

            • @givesomefucks
              link
              English
              -317 hours ago

              it’s not even praising the police, just stating its purpose

              Maybe in that universe…

              In ours “serve and protect” was never what the police were for, it was just a PR slogan they put in cruisers

              That’s what I’m talking about, our universe is not the same, although you seem to not be sure about how our universe works…

              If not youd see why the quote isn’t applicable.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            136 hours ago

            Science Fiction is largely used as an allegory to explore the real human condition in a way that is parallel to political and cultural topics of the day without the inherent baggage that people would bring to exploring the real topic.

            While the original quote and topic is about deploying a military as a policing force, it actually also holds true in the reverse as well, as policing forces shift towards an adversarial militarization against their community, leading directly to the issues you raised in the first comment about the failure of them to live up to the “protect and serve” motto.

            While fictional events aren’t real, they are written by real people with views, desires and goals. Good writers will have internal consistency for their characters and try to ensure their external interactions have the authenticity of the ring of truth, because that’s how people will relate to the characters and story.

            Good fiction is just a random meaningless story, it’s a platform for education and safe exploration of the real human condition.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              Also, just to add some context for the specific example of Battlestar Galactica: the show premiered in 2004. The 9/11 attacks were still fresh in peoples’ minds. Congress had passed the Patriot Act giving law enforcement and intelligence services new directives to surveil and police US citizens and look for signs of future terrorist plots. We were entrenched in two new wars, and there were lots of protests. There were scandals involving the president and his advisors misleading the public about the nature and quality of intelligence they had.

              The plot and themes of B:G were a direct response to all of this. The idea of martial law being declared and rights being suspended was not some far-fetched idea the show writers were playing with. People were really concerned that it might happen to squash public unrest.

            • @givesomefucks
              link
              English
              -166 hours ago

              Yeah, but in the real America police have literally never had “serve and protect” as part of their duties…

              It was just a PR slogan.

              Invalidating the whole analogy.

              It’s just not relevant, and I’m sorry I can’t communicate that in a way you can grok

              • masterofn001
                link
                fedilink
                75 hours ago

                Good thing you’ll never read 1984, or animal farm, or brave new world, or anything by P.K. Dick, because, yep, completely irrelevant.

                • @givesomefucks
                  link
                  English
                  -74 hours ago

                  No idea why you would make that assumption…

                  Or why you think that would be meaningful to the discussion…

                  Just sounds like a bad attempt at an insult which resulted in demonstrating ignorance. If that was your goal, then well done.

  • @givesomefucks
    link
    English
    41
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    “There was real sensitivity about keeping federal troops away from the front lines,” said Ollivant, who was ordered in by President George H.W. Bush as rioters in central-south LA set fire to buildings, assaulted police and bystanders, pelted cars with rocks and smashed store windows in the aftermath of the videotaped police beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist. “They tried to keep us in support roles, backing up the police.”

    Important to note the real reason they kept military and cops “from the front lines” is they kettled Black protestors into Koreatown and then just let the two groups of minorities to fight it out while cops, ambulances, and firefighters were forming a barrier to protect the white neighborhoods.

    I stopped reading the article as soon as the author showed they didn’t understand that. It’s been over 30 years, if the author didn’t know by now it’s because they didn’t bother to research what they’re writing about.

    • @gAlienLifeformOP
      link
      148 hours ago

      I think the senior military types will only talk about this stuff to journalists who have swallowed at least a little bit of American propaganda, but yeah thank you for getting the correct version of history out there

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      18 hours ago

      I mean, both explanations can be right. The military leaders could have had severe objections about deploying domestically, because they are well versed in history and understand why that is simply not done here. However, they no doubt understood what the local police were doing, and also looked at that policy as permission to take a back seat and not get more involved in the controversy directly.

      • @givesomefucks
        link
        English
        177 hours ago

        What?

        The “controversy” was manufactured by authorities…

        There was no violence, no looting, no destruction until police attacked the protestors, then they drove them into another minority area after using violence to antagonize them…

        Like, this was 30 years ago, lots of people have investigated this by now.

        We knew it the year it happened

        “In April, for whatever reason, there was no government assistance in this area. For three days we tried to find police officers. There were none,” he said. “There were conscious efforts to move officers from this area to other areas.”

        https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-09-12-me-298-story.html

        Cops are still doing it, when there’s a peaceful protest they instigate violence so they can label protesters as violent looters and use that as an excuse to not listen to their demands.

        Everyone who was sent to LA to help with the riots then just stood at the border where “white neighborhoods” started instead of actually going to where the riot was knew what they were doing and why.

        It doesn’t take a fucking genius to put it together. Yet the author and some commenters appear to be having a lot of difficulty…

        • @dhork
          link
          English
          16 hours ago

          My point is that even now that we know all that stuff happened, that doesn’t mean that the military held back because it was directly complicit. Their justification is a solid one, and backed up by years of military history and tradition in this country. Yes, the justification is convenient, but that doesn’t make it less valid. I would have much preferred that the police did their jobs back then without all the overt racism, but sending the military in to do the police’s job would not have been the correct answer, either.

          You seem to be lumping in “cops” and “the military” in the same category, where the whole point of this discussion is that they are not, and if Trump tries to use them in that fashion the military ought to stop him (for as long as they can, until Trump purges all the military leaders who are loyal to the country over him.)

    • @Kyrgizion
      link
      31 hour ago

      End of the line yes. This is no longer something that is recoverable within a single generation. There’s some hope that our grandchildren or thereabouts can put things right, but I’m halfway through (40’s) and I fully expect every year after this to get objectively worse until I die.

  • @TokenBoomer
    link
    117 hours ago

    When military coup? Asking for a friend.

    • @dhork
      link
      English
      136 hours ago

      I seriously wonder whether this is the real reason they are putting so much effort into keeping the Classified Documents case report totally secret, without even disclosing it to Congress.

      As absurd as the thought that the US military would rise up and depose a duly elected President is, ask yourself under what circumstances might it happen? Perhaps it would happen if it came out that there was incontrovertible proof that duly elected President sold that military’s secrets to foreign parties (or, worse yet, freely gave them away in exchange for compliments, and plauditudes.) And that two (possibly all three) branches of government refuse to do anything about it.

      It’s not the most absurd conspiracy theory I’ve heard.