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.
The number of corrections officers deputized is more concerning to me. The violent and newly-badged are the most often filmed violating civil rights.
arnt COs in prisons? kinda wierd to deputize them as LEO.
It’s as alarming, but turning a war machine on anyone, especially your own people, is a declaration of war, and Congress not addressing it as such, and impeaching/court marshalling the responsible parties is another bullet in the dead Constitution.
They did sign up to defend the constitution from all domestic threats - the oath they took doesn’t say “unless it’s the president” so if y’all could do your fucking job please, that’d be outstanding.
In hindsight, relying on an oath to prevent a prisoner’s dilemma wasn’t the best plan.
They’ve had over 8 years to do that job, with 4 of them, their commander in chief talking about what a huge threat to democracy (freedom) he will definitely be. And here we are.
They have to follow legal orders, but even if they’re following legal orders, they can still act in accordance with their oath.
Hell, they can even continue following his legal orders posthumously.
They can and they should otherwise they are pansy ass shitbags who’d rather ruin everyone elses lives.
And yet we have zero reports of Marines or the Corps as a whole refusing to do so, meaning they’re endorsing policing LA.
I used to have a lot of respect for the federal government, to federal LE, and for Marines.
Used to.
You have a complete misunderstanding of what it means to defy lawful orders. Legal Eagle does a great job of explaining it.
These are interesting times. Americans by and large have always insisted that they can overthrow a tyrannical government because their troops would “refuse” to uphold tyranny against their own people.
As we get closer to that situation becoming more than a hypothetical, more realistic arguments are beginning to receive prominance.
I think we passed “more than hypothetical,” a few months ago.
I think it is going to get a lot worse, but I certainly take your point.
There’s the law and there’s what’s right. They don’t always overlap
Lawful isn’t decided until the end of the lawsuit, and just following orders isn’t a valid defense.
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.
If they’re ordered to shoot me, they’ll shoot me.
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.
The only realistic comment in this thread
I thought marines were generally trump voters?
As in my assumption is they’re mostly on board with Trumps agenda and happy to serve.
Marines should be required to watch A Few Good Men:
Downey: [anxiously] What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!
Dawson: Yeah we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn’t fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy.
“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 William Adama
I imagine a lot of them have. Problem is far too many of them agree with Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson):
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like “honor”, “code”, “loyalty”. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then QUESTIONS the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “thank you”, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN what you think you are entitled to!
Yup. Unfortunately, they couldn’t exactly have Nicholson end the speech with “I am a huge piece of shit and everything I just said is naked cope”, so we’re stuck with huge pieces of shit sharing that speech as naked cope.
You want the truth?
You can’t handle the truth!
No truth handler you!
I highly deny your truth handling abilities.
-Mayor Side show bob
Interesting comment in that speech on why people vote republican too.
Marines do what they’re told. That is all.
Who keeps telling them to eat crayons?!
crayola advertisement.
The voices
I wonder if they pulled anyone from LA or Hispanic out of those units first.
Is this a reference to Roman auxiliaries?
Not sure if I’m remembering this correctly but I think they never allowed auxiliaries to be posted in their home region because it would inevitably enable armed rebellion.
Policy was mixed on that - sometimes they kept auxiliaries near their home regions (because they knew the land and because they were less prone to ‘acting out’ when they were posted near home), and other times, especially after mutinies or revolts, they’d post them far from their home province, like sending North African and Sarmatian (near modern Ukraine and Romania) auxiliaries to the sunny reaches of the northern borders of Britannia.
Oh wow it’s you, PugJesus.
I love the photos you post in the various ~historyporn communities.
There’s a decent chance they signed up to hurt brown people, though.
A lot of them are brown.
Some of them, maybe. A lot of people fail to realize that joining the armed forces provide a lot of opportunities that wouldn’t be afforded to most of the kids joining. People growing up in poor families without an “out” can join and have higher education paid for and job training when they leave. Im not sticking up for any of the boot lickers out there, but I have to believe that the majority of our armed forces are good, normal people.
Opportunities that can cost life and permanent disabilities, physical and mental.
Back before I stopped partying, I was out with some women friends, pretty high on some dank dank (I wasn’t driving) and we stopped at the gas station for gas, restroom, and sodas. I was the first out of the store and there was the saddest looking, really haggard old guy outside, and we exchanged hellos. It was plain to see her was in some sort of emotional distress, and I asked if I could be of any assistance. He said no and burst into tears, telling me he’d done horrible things during his service overseas and wasn’t allowed to talk about them, during the first Gulf invasion. All those years later. He said he’d have taken his life, if not for his wife and adult kids.
The rest of that evening wasn’t fun for me. I asked to be taken home.
But not these brown people!
Then go home. What’s so hard about that?
Fuck it, go home.
Posse Comitatus Act
Is there any source on this “cover fire” incident other than this guy spinning yarn? Cuz that sounds outlandish even in 1992 and contrary to actual training. Marines have known how to enter a building for a while.
Yes. A shotgun was fired through the door at the officers, prompting the request for “cover”. Luckily, no one was injured as there were kids inside. This except comes from the Army War College in Pennsylvania.
Police officers responded to a domestic dispute, accompanied by marines. They had just gone up to the door when two shotgun birdshot rounds were fired through the door, hitting the officers. One yelled cover me!’ to the marines, who then laid down a heavy base of fire. . . . The police officer had not meant ‘shoot’ when he yelled ‘cover me’ to the marines. [He] meant . . . point your weapons and be prepared to respond if necessary. However, the marines responded instantly in the precise way they had been trained, where ‘cover me’ means provide me with cover using firepower. . . . over two hundred bullets [were] fired into that house."[1]
Fantastic source. Doing better journalism and research than pros over here. Thank you.
Tbf I’m pretty sure journalists only link to other news sites as sources because of corporate. Monetary interests and all that. Bounce the traffic and misinformation around.
Your source is a California state museum entity. Hardly a news competitor. And much more substantial than some guy telling a story with no citation at all.
Right. I just mean that the actual journalist may not be allowed to cite actual sources. Corporate might forbid it like how they restrict so many other things.
Edit: One of my personal conspiracy theories as an alternative to Hanlon’s Razer.
Ah, gotcha
And yet they decided to anyway instead of objecting to the order.
They didn’t? So they do it for fun?
