| Yes, they should know that now, in 2025. But last year, or 10, 20, 30 years ago? Nobody joined a federal law enforcement agency expecting the president to utilize them for political goals. And for sure nobody joining the national guard was expecting that. I hope that someday we will put this genie back in the bottle and return to the previous normal. |
| |
| ▲ | aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Nobody joined a federal law enforcement agency expecting the president to utilize them for political goals. And for sure nobody joining the national guard was expecting that. I don't buy this. These folks literally swear an oath. National Guard troops are literally flag bearers. Those US flag patches on their uniforms mean that they don't get to decide that an order that is otherwise lawful is "political" in nature and therefore invalid. If they don't want to do their jobs, as ordered, they should resign. These are not private employees, they are public servants. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you that they swore to uphold lawful orders. Yes, that is drilled into us from the first day of bootcamp, over and over and over and over. But you were saying they signed up with the expectation of being political pawns. That is not the argument you seem to be making now. | | |
| ▲ | aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > But you were saying they signed up with the expectation of being political pawns. That is not the argument you seem to be making now. I am still making that argument. They don’t have the authority to decide if they’re pawns, political or otherwise. They’re part of an unbroken chain of command. I don’t see the contradiction that you are implying, as I’m not trying to change my position to my reading. I can’t speak to realities perhaps as you can if you have served, as I have not served, though I am seeking to do so. No disrespect to you or to any service member intended by anything I have written. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I'll take one last shot at clarifying my viewpoint, but then we'll just have to let this one rest ;-). I think people who joined the military, or the FBI, or some other federal agency, expected to be serving their country, not the whims of the sitting president. They went in to catch criminals, or defend the nation in combat, etc. Of course they know that orders are orders, but it's perfectly reasonable, before 2025, to assume that the commander-in-chief is generally working in the best interests of the country, and what you will be ordered to do will therefore be serving that interest. I don't get how knowing that they could be ordered to do something legal-but-blatantly-political means that they should have expected that eventuality. That has not been broadly true in the recent history of this country; the military I was in considered itself a professional organization and we hated politics. | | |
| ▲ | aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree with your post, but this part is kind of wishy-washy. > I don't get how knowing that they could be ordered to do something legal-but-blatantly-political means that they should have expected that eventuality. Most folks who are in the military or are considering it have heard of the honor guard. This is the most obviously political post one can have, but it is arguably one of the most important, due to the virtues such a post embodies, and the highly visible, public nature of the post. Many folks would leap out of their seat to have such a post, though I can see how some would rather decline if given the option, due to the importance of the job and perhaps their own feelings of unsuitability, or desire to not interact with the public, or whatever. I think it's an inherently political job, and everyone should know that going in. What you do in uniform reflects directly on the nation whose flag your uniform is emblazoned with. |
|
|
|
|
|
