Can National Guardsmen Deployed to US Cities Claim Conscientious Objection?

Sunday, October 05, 2025

Some veterans view National Guard deployments to US cities as unlawful. They argue that soldiers better uphold American values by resisting the controversial orders.

Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 07:32 PM | 25 COMMENTS | permalink

Some veterans view National Guard deployments to U.S. cities as unlawful and argue soldiers better uphold American values by resisting the orders.

[image or embed]
-- USA TODAY (@usatoday.com) Oct 3, 2025 at 10:01 PM

Comments

I think this is a good idea.

Going to take bravery, though.

Welcome to the Sixties, y'all.

Without any of the fun.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2025-10-05 10:57 AM

The Troops won't do it. They love Trump.

Disobedience is not nice, Trump won't approve. It's a good way to get in trouble.

The Civil Rights of Strangers are less important than no problems at Work or legal difficulties.

Expecting normal everyday people to be Heroes is not gonna make it.

They rarely are.

Where were the heroes in Germany before the military Defeat?

.....??

After the Defeat everyone claimed to be against Hitler.

Same thing this time.

As long as Trump is on top expect nothing Good,after he's Gone Nobody will admit to liking him at all.

Just like the NAZIS.

#2 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2025-10-05 11:53 AM

C.O. is a hard sell when you have joined the force voluntarily.
Might have more success for refusal of an unlawful order.

#3 | Posted by mattm at 2025-10-05 01:07 PM

Soldiers are supposed to have a hard time disobeying an illegal order.

That's why they spend so much time having them obey orders in the first place.

Eventually they forget the Constitution or Posse Comitatus ever existed.

And if you're a Boaz, you never really meant it when you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution or Posse Comitatus in the first place.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-05 01:11 PM

That's why they spend so much time having them obey orders in the first place.

Snoofy, what type of units did you serve in to make that statement with such certainty?
Depending on the unit we would meet annually for a couple of hours as BTN or Brigade staff to discuss what constitutes lawful/unlawful orders.
When I was with an aviation brigade it was twice a year. At least in the N.G. it was a topic we took seriously.

#5 | Posted by mattm at 2025-10-05 03:17 PM

Ali:

www.youtube.com

38 secs

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-05 04:33 PM

"Snoofy, what type of units did you serve in to make that statement with such certainty?"

I didn't serve in any military unit.

Which military unit were you in when you disobeyed an unlawful order?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-05 04:42 PM

Hey MattM.

Do you think it was a legal order to blow up that Venezuelan "drug" boat the other day?

Yes or no.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-05 05:00 PM

I was in a medical unit. E Co. 434 MSB, 3- I.D. We were ordered to 'carry' a crew served weapon, ie. mounted 60 cal machine gun. That is not allowed, we refused, it was given to a transportation company that was part of our movement order. Medical personnel are only allowed personal arms such as a pistol or M16.
The topic of this thread is the National Guard, I don't believe they were involved in blowing up that boat.

#9 | Posted by mattm at 2025-10-05 08:55 PM

"If you are willing to be part of an armed force but just don't like this moment, then you don't qualify," Steve Woolford, a GI Rights Hotline worker, told USA TODAY.

"For those people, the military considers that a political objection."

They are objecting to an unlawful political use of the US Military on American soil, so it should be allowed.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-05 09:16 PM

They are objecting to an unlawful political use of the US Military on American soil.
#10 | POSTED BY CORKY

Alabama said the same thing during the enforcement of the Civil Rights act.

#11 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-10-05 10:21 PM

#11

Whataboutism logical fallacy:

"Whataboutism is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation. This tactic deflects attention from the original issue, often by alleging hypocrisy, rather than directly addressing or refuting the initial claim."

Without logical fallacies, you wouldn't be able to post at all, would you?

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-05 10:24 PM

IAMRUNT cheers as 6 year old leukemia patients are handcuffed.

#13 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-10-05 10:29 PM

"We were ordered to 'carry' a crew served weapon, ie. mounted 60 cal machine gun. That is not allowed"

Did the person giving you the order know that was not allowed, or were they just trying to move some equipment?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-06 12:37 AM

We were ordered to 'carry' a crew served weapon, ie. mounted 60 cal machine gun.

What the heck is a "60 cal machine gun"?

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-10-06 12:42 AM

And I know... I'm kind of backing up his point.

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-10-06 12:44 AM

Generally, takes two people to serve a 60-caliber machine gun. Can be on a tripod, mounted, or if really beefy carried on your hip. The ammo is heavy, and the second person carries several bandoleers.
The ordering officer was aware that medical units could not carry such weapons. They tried to get around it by putting it on our maintenance truck. It was a loud and profane staff meeting with the BTN commander and JAG involved. No, it wasn't just to move it from point A to point B. We have a transportation Company for such tasks.
Field Grade officers take a course, Command and General Staff Course, where these topics are thoroughly covered.

#17 | Posted by mattm at 2025-10-06 09:40 AM

Generally, takes two people to serve a 60-caliber machine gun.

I don't think there is such a thing. It's either (likely) an M-60 (.30 caliber) or (less likely) an M-2 (.50 Caliber).

#18 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-10-06 09:58 AM

"The ordering officer was aware that medical units could not carry such weapons. They tried to get around it by putting it on our maintenance truck."

So they were just trying to move some equipment with a creative interpretation of regulations.

What was the reprimand for the person who issued the illegal order?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-06 10:10 AM

"I think this is a good idea.

Going to take bravery, though.

Welcome to the Sixties, y'all.

Without any of the fun.

#1 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2025-10-05 10:57 AM | FLAG:

The Troops won't do it. They love Trump.

Disobedience is not nice, Trump won't approve. It's a good way to get in trouble.

The Civil Rights of Strangers are less important than no problems at Work or legal difficulties.

Expecting normal everyday people to be Heroes is not gonna make it.

They rarely are.

Where were the heroes in Germany before the military Defeat?

.....??

After the Defeat everyone claimed to be against Hitler.

Same thing this time.

As long as Trump is on top expect nothing Good,after he's Gone Nobody will admit to liking him at all.

Just like the NAZIS."

#2 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

STFU TRAITOR! I was in the Airborne and almost all my buddies were leftists in their politics and would be ashamed to be pawns in this orange pig's political stunts.

#20 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2025-10-07 05:12 PM

STFU TRAITOR! I was in the Airborne and almost all my buddies were leftists in their politics and would be ashamed to be pawns in this orange pig's political stunts.

#20 | Posted by Wildman62

Yeah?

Where are all of the military personnel refusing the blatantly illegal orders to murder Venezuelans?

NOPE, military "HONOR" won't save us.

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-10-07 05:16 PM

That's why they spend so much time having them obey orders in the first place.
Snoofy, what type of units did you serve in to make that statement with such certainty?
Depending on the unit we would meet annually for a couple of hours as BTN or Brigade staff to discuss what constitutes lawful/unlawful orders.
When I was with an aviation brigade it was twice a year. At least in the N.G. it was a topic we took seriously.

#5 | Posted by mattm a

What is the lawful basis for the order to fire munitions at a Venezuelan speed boat?

Why are no Generals, Admirals, captains, XO's, midshipmen, petty officers, chief petty officers, ordinary seamen refusing orders to murder Venezuelans?

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-10-07 05:20 PM

" don't think there is such a thing. It's either (likely) an M-60 (.30 caliber) or (less likely) an M-2 (.50 Caliber).

#18 | POSTED BY REDIAL "

No such weapon. The M60 fires 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges.

#23 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2025-10-07 05:46 PM

"Where are all of the military personnel refusing the blatantly illegal orders to murder Venezuelans?

NOPE, military "HONOR" won't save us.

#21 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS"

What BS nonsense. Who knows what those sailors were briefed on before they were ordered to blow up those boats. Quite a bit different than being deployed to US cities where they will face the truth of their actions in public with the public yelling in their faces. You do not know if they were Venezuelans or whom they were at all for that matter. You just saw some video and yet here you are acting like you were sitting in a boat ten feet away from them when they got whacked. Should the US military be blowing up boats out in the ocean? No. Should you believe anything coming from this administration? No.

#24 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2025-10-07 05:53 PM

#24 | Posted by Wildman62

Lots of obfuscation there.

Facts are facts

The Navy works under Rules of Engagement.

There is ZERO legal justification for blowing up a speed boat off the shores of Venezuela a thousand miles from America

None, nada, zilch.

Even assuming they were drug smugglers, drug smuggling is not a capital offense

And NO ONE up or down the chain of command has taken the OBVIOUS measure of saying NO I WILL NOT COMMIT MURDER

These officers and men should realize murder does not have a statute of limitations and ------- will not be in office for ever

Probably not likely but definitely possible that some future administration will want to hold these people accountable.

Could be sooner if, say, some photos emerge of blown up children floating the water, cause, you realize, that that is the logical response to what America is doing, right? Human shields I think is the term.

Oh and BTW, the NYTimes reported that in the first attack, the boat had turned around and was heading back to Venezuela before it was attacked MULTIPLE times by the US

So, logically, our sailors were strafing a derelict boat occupied by essentially unarmed individuals and certainly they were certainly shipwrecked.

that is a war crime and very close to what we prosecuted nazi submariners for.

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-10-07 06:18 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Survivors Clinging to Capsized Boat Didn't Radio Backup (140 comments)

Trump to Scrap Biden-era Fuel Economy Rules (53 comments)

Report: ICE New Hires Can 'Barely Read Or Write English' (32 comments)

Republican Predicts Threats of Violence as GOP Approval Dives (30 comments)

DOJ Orders Prison Inspectors to Stop Considering LGBTQ Safety Standards (17 comments)

Trump Wants Japanese Kei Cars Sold in U.S. (16 comments)

National Parks Prioritize Trump's Birthday Over Holidays Honoring Blacks (16 comments)

Russias' Putin Summit Talks with India's Modi in Delhi (15 comments)

New Architect for White House Ballroom (15 comments)

The Biggest Heist in America Is Being Sold as a Gift to Kids (14 comments)