538
Father of USS Lincoln sailor taken into ICE detention while son deployed in Middle East (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Is the implication that ICE and DHS is a domestic enemy? How does that square with the rest of the oath

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    If those orders are illegal you have a sworn duty to disobey them.

    I understand there will be a lengthy court martial and perhaps many will not win. But if we ever get to the point of holding people accountable for all that is going on (and they better hope it’s us and not some outside forces), they will be held as co-conspirators.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I feel like I am missing something, what orders? I know I mentioned ICE in my reply but it was in a general sense, like ICE is part of the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Orders to arrest and detain US citizens without due process if they aren't white enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    The US military is ordered to do this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents take an official oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, just like all other federal civil service and law enforcement personnel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    You were just talking about ICE.

    Okay Grandpa, time to get you to bed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Yes, I said the US military protects ICE. But the thread you are replying to is about the enlistment oath for the military. Is ICE military?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (1 child)

    Yes, I said the US military protects ICE

    So: if the US Military protects ICE, and ICE is following illegal orders, that would mean the military is being ordered to protect criminals doing crimes, which would therefore be an illegal order.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago

    I was concerned this is how my question would be interpreted which is why I specified:

    I feel like I am missing something, what orders? I know I mentioned ICE in my reply but it was in a general sense, like ICE is part of the US.

    My question was what illegal orders have the military been given. I wasn't aware that they had been given an order to protect ICE directly. Based on the other replies it doesn't seem like they have or at least that it hasn't been made public. However, because people have been kind enough to explain what they mean to me I understand that they mean two separate things:

    1. The US military has been given illegal orders such as firing on disabled ships.

    2. ICE also swears an oath to "will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

    I don't think that I would have made the jump that ICE has a duty to disobey illegal orders (because that's from the military legal code and ICE isn't subject to that) but my opinion doesn't matter in the slightest and I'm just happy to have a better understanding of how people view this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    ...meaning you're not supposed to obey unlawful orders, which includes anything that violates the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    What are the unlawful orders though? That's the part I'm not understanding..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    If you think ICE and DHS haven't violated the constitution multiple times over at this point, then you need to pay more attention...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I'm not american.

    I'm trying to understand if americans think the military should have a coup or something. I've never understood the culture around the military in the States so I was a little surprised to hear this.

    I'm not sure anyone is being super serious, and that it's mostly hopefully or hyperbole. (That's intended as a neutral statement).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It squares away in the UCMJ. Generic 'You' used throughout, below this point:

    You are supposed to have the balls/constitution/wherewithal/spine to disobey an order you believe or know to be illegal, despite the harsh automatic penalties that will presume you guilty until innocent for doing so, as you accept those possible consequences as readily as you accept taking an artillery shell for your country.

    You are to hold this inhuman (as in, literally against psychological norm) stance deeper than the other stances programmed (with full use of psychological norms) into you in the course of being shaped for military services during training.

    Because you are a warrior and are expected to hold yourself to standards far above and beyond those of the common population that you are (on paper, says every military of everywhere really) sacrificing your service for, so they don't have to.

    Does it work?

    Eh. Maybe if a standing military was full of the mythical Warrior Poets envisioned by the glories in the marching songs.

    They pretty much universally never are, and usually never were except for brief periods fostered by singular individuals as driving forces.

    And thus, here we are.

    Given what Kegsbreath has been doing to reshape the US military under his toddler level understanding of what a "warrior" is, I wouldn't expect much of the requisite spine to still be enlisted for service for long.

    They exist still, and hopefully the ones that are already out, the ones still in, and their neighbors are doing some common sense mathematics, but that is simply not something that can be expected and accounted for, and historically when things get to that point, it's a bad time for everyone regardless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    Thank you for the efforts to explain. I think I understand the point people are trying to make with respect to disobeying an order but I didn't get the connection to the issue in the article or what I interpreted as the other reply suggesting (that the military should/would/could stop ICE/DHS).

    I did recently watch a video essay on the Port Chicago disaster and what folks went through after refusing the dangerous work that only Black soldiers were expected to perform. That's different from than unlawful I guess, and was during wartime (I have no idea if the US is perpetually at war now?) which was used to explain the harshness beyond just plain racism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It squares because the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. The people currently occupying these offices come and go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I'm not american so I think you might need to explain like I'm 5 if you are willing.

    The oath is to protect the country against enemies (domestic and foreign) and obey the president and the chain of command. I read that as the president and chain of command are identifying the enemies and the military is to carry out those orders.

    I feel like I'm not understanding what everyone else is seeing. In what situation would individual soldiers decide that other government employees are the enemy unless they receive these orders? I guess I'm not expecting the current admin to say ICE and DHS are enemies?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago*

    I mean I don't think this is a universally American belief, but my point is that they're pledging their oath to the Constitution and the office of the presidency, but also swearing to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Basically the office is what you're swearing an oath to, the person holding that office is only there temporarily and that person can make themselves an enemy of both the title they hold and the Constitution that rules over all (or is supposed to in a sane world).

    Think of it like when you have a substitute teacher or temporary manager, you're not going to hold them in as high of a regard as someone who's permanently holding that title or role because they're just the current placeholder who will be gone before long much like Trump.

    And even if people in the military hold similar beliefs, they're not necessarily protected if they act on it because as our current president shows on a daily basis, the law only has teeth if the people in power want it to, so while someone may think they're acting within the bounds of the law, there's nothing to stop a corrupt, criminal administration from throwing the book at them anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent