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.
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.
Lawful isn’t decided until the end of the lawsuit, and just following orders isn’t a valid defense.
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
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.
There’s a decent chance they signed up to hurt brown people, though.
A lot of them are brown.
The number of corrections officers deputized is more concerning to me. The violent and newly-badged are the most often filmed violating civil rights.
Marines do what they’re told. That is all.
I love ya, Mother Jones, but Marines sign up to follow orders. If they’re ordered to shoot me, they’ll shoot me.
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 wonder if they pulled anyone from LA or Hispanic out of those units first.
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
