Historically, this country has sort of an allergic reaction, for good reason, for having the military being overly involved in policing. So what’s happening now is concerning. It’s sort of an escalatory measure with the 4,000 National Guard as well as 700 Marines. What makes this somewhat unique is that the governor doesn’t really want the National Guard there, or at least the California National Guard federalized in that capacity—in most instances, the governor is consenting, or even requesting, the president to assist in enforcing the law in that situation. Most famously, you saw that in 1992, when [Republican] California Gov. Pete Wilson, at some point during the LA riots, essentially requested President Bush to sort of come in and help him out.
There’s different terminology and just different ways to think. We talked about [rules of engagement] vs. what’s called “rules for use of force.” In LA [in 1992], there were Marines who were accompanying the Los Angeles Police Department for a domestic situation and LAPD officers knocked on the door and they asked the Marines to essentially “cover me,” which means one thing in a law enforcement context. Essentially, it means take your gun off of safety and be ready to take action if needed. And in the military context, “cover me” means, essentially, lay down covering fire to cover the advancement of troops.
So the Marines did what they thought was required, which was laying down covering fire into this person’s apartment in Los Angeles. I think 200 bullets were splayed. Thank God no one was hurt or injured, but it just kind of shows a disconnect between the combat versus law enforcement. I don’t think that was ever known until much later.
I love ya, Mother Jones, but Marines sign up to follow orders. If they're ordered to shoot me, they'll shoot me.
This didn’t actually sign up to follow illegal orders
Then why are they all still there following illegal orders?
It is entirely possible that they were idealistic when they joined about what they were doing and have since changed their mind. Which is why it is possible to become a conscientious objector even after enlisting. Tho most people who regret joining will do something else to get kicked out or just wait out their time.
Until the push really comes to shove we won't know if they will "defect"
I had a buddy who earnestly tried to get kicked out of the Coast Guard, supposedly the most notorious for dishonerable discharge. Rather than court marshalling or even taking a rank, they kept promoting him until his term was up, hoping to retain him. He was really good at his job. This was some 30ish years ago and just anecdotal, but it doesn't exactly inspire my confidence that any branch has any integrity.
It's not 1970. If the Marines decide to shoot you, it'll be for reasons slightly more complex than "They were ordered to", like "They were ordered to and believe that shooting you is in line with their values." Unfortunately, you're probably looking at a 50/50 split as to whether they're Trump bootlickers or not
Or you catch one of the Corps' pet psychopaths, that can happen too.
They signed up not to follow illegal orders.
I thought marines were generally trump voters?
As in my assumption is they're mostly on board with Trumps agenda and happy to serve.
The only realistic comment in this thread