Military feared mistakes in LA deployment could have 'far-reaching' implications

H

Hume

Verified User
Aug 29 (Reuters) - As President Donald Trump began his push to send the National Guard and Marines to U.S. cities, military leaders privately questioned whether the troops had received proper training and warned of the "far-reaching social, political and operational" risks of aiding law enforcement, according to a Reuters review of military records disclosed in court.

U.S. Army officials planning an operation in MacArthur Park during the June deployment in Los Angeles determined that using troops to protect agents carrying out Trump's immigration crackdown posed an "extremely high" risk to civilians, troops and the military's reputation, according to an internal document.

www.reuters.com

Exclusive: Military feared mistakes in LA deployment could have 'far-reaching' implications, records show

A trove of internal military reports and messages offers a rare inside look at concerns from commanders.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
the trump administration does not care if the troops received any training. the courts have made it very clear that it is the individual military members responsibility to know and abide by the laws and court precedent, even to the point of disobedience of an order form their direct superiors. the elected officials and high commanders have made it so that US jurisprudence protects them above that of the foot soldier
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the trump administration does not care if the troops received any training. the courts have made it very clear that it is the individual military members responsibility to know and abide by the laws and court precedent, even to the point of disobedience of an order form their direct superiors. the elected officials and high commanders have made it so that US jurisprudence protects them above that of the foot soldier
Click to expand...
As a general rule, enlisted men have very limited requirements to know all the laws. "Just following orders" is often a good defense for them. It is the commissioned officers who are supposed to know better.

For instance, a sniper might get an order to kill a child walking along with a backpack. That sure sounds like an illegal order, but maybe that backpack contains a bomb that will kill hundreds. The enlisted man is supposed to just follow orders. His commanding officer is supposed to be asking some of the questions.
 
Walt said:
As a general rule, enlisted men have very limited requirements to know all the laws. "Just following orders" is often a good defense for them. It is the commissioned officers who are supposed to know better.

For instance, a sniper might get an order to kill a child walking along with a backpack. That sure sounds like an illegal order, but maybe that backpack contains a bomb that will kill hundreds. The enlisted man is supposed to just follow orders. His commanding officer is supposed to be asking some of the questions.
Click to expand...
you speak of how things SHOULD be. But reality says the exact opposite. As an example, look at the outcome of the illegally arrested nurse when she legally refused to draw blood on an unconscious patient. The cop that arrested her was given an order by his LT to effect the arrest. That cop was fired, the LT was reprimanded and demoted.
 
Posse Comitatus prevents the president from using the military inside the US. Trump and the right were planning on doing it if they won the election. Trump went into DC because it was an anomalous area, somewhat under Federal powers. They figured they could get away with doing it there. Once in there, they sawit as a possible it was a precedent for troops in other cities. They even started their own army, ICE, that is only loyal to Trump. They could pretend it was not sending the military in, but a something else army. This whole thing was planned by those who started project 2025. We are in more trouble than most people think,
 
SmarterthanYou said:
As an example, look at the outcome of the illegally arrested nurse when she legally refused to draw blood on an unconscious patient. The cop that arrested her was given an order by his LT to effect the arrest. That cop was fired, the LT was reprimanded and demoted.
Click to expand...
That was a police officer, not a soldier. If an enlisted soldier had gotten the order to arrest her illegally, he would not have been expected to know the law.

Soldiers do need training in US law enforcement if they are expected to be law enforcement in the USA. It has not been done for the regular Army, because it was not thought necessary.
 
Walt said:
That was a police officer, not a soldier. If an enlisted soldier had gotten the order to arrest her illegally, he would not have been expected to know the law.

Soldiers do need training in US law enforcement if they are expected to be law enforcement in the USA. It has not been done for the regular Army, because it was not thought necessary.
Click to expand...
irrelevant. government agents do not have to know the laws, per the SCOTUS, however, police can get away with not knowing the law, soldiers cannot. Following unlawful orders will get a private a court martial quickly, while the officer that gave the order will simply get a letter of reprimand.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
tell that to SCOTUS, or is that going to be the straw that breaks your back???????
Click to expand...
I am unaware of any Supreme Court decision that all government employees do not need to understand the law. Judges and some other lawyers are government employees, and are required to have a good understanding of the law. If you can give me some idea of what you are talking about, it would help.
 
Walt said:
I am unaware of any Supreme Court decision that all government employees do not need to understand the law. Judges and some other lawyers are government employees, and are required to have a good understanding of the law. If you can give me some idea of what you are talking about, it would help.
Click to expand...
Heien vs. north carolina.

Now, the crucial point about whether you accepting the reality of that case or the cognitive dissonance you'll need after this case will explain everything.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Heien vs. north carolina
Click to expand...
It does not say that there is no requirement to know anything about the law.

The police officer pulled over a car carrying cocaine because it only had one working brake light. The police officer mistakenly thought that only one working taillight was an infraction. As it turns out one break light was legal in that state at that time. So the pull over was based on a mistaken understanding of the law.

As it turns out, an honest mistake in reason for pulling over is good enough. For instance, if a car matches the description of a car at a bank robbery, but was not the car at the bank robbery, it is still legal to pull over the car.

That has not been extended to searches. If a search is predicated on a mistake, then it all falls apart. But being pulled over is considered a minor enough inconvenience that they are willing to allow it based on a mistake.

Or that is my understanding of Heien V North Carolina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top