Rebecca Roberts served 12 years in the National Guard. The 31-year-old now works for the organization About Face: Veterans Against the War, which notably opposes Donald Trump’s order to deploy military force in American cities.
“We recently launched a campaign on this concern linked to the deployment in our own cities and, more generally, to the moral crises of the army,” explains the head of the organization for About Face, reached by telephone in New Jersey. The organization positions itself “against militarism and endless wars”.
Founded in 2004 and then in opposition to the war in Iraq, About Face invites the military to refuse orders deemed immoral or unjust. Its members are also addressing governors to encourage them to oppose the National Guard deployment orders issued by the president. Trump cites security reasons for deploying these military reservists, following clashes between protesters and immigration police (ICE) in cities like Portland, Oregon and Chicago, Illinois.
The Democratic governors of the two states – currently in the administration’s crosshairs – claim to have the situation well under control. They accuse the president of adding fuel to the fire.
Courts
On Monday, the state of Illinois and the City of Chicago turned to the courts to try to prevent hundreds of military personnel from being deployed there. Last weekend, a judge temporarily blocked the sending of troops to Portland. Another judge concluded in early September that the deployment to Los Angeles violated the law which limits the scope of action of the military on American soil. They cannot, for example, be used as police officers, except in exceptional circumstances, such as when the insurrection law is invoked – usually because local civilian forces cannot contain the threat.
The administration is contesting these legal decisions. In a speech to hundreds of senior military personnel last week, Trump raised the possibility of using major U.S. cities as “training grounds” for the military and denounced a “war from within.”
Despite legal debates and temporary decisions, soldiers refusing an order face consequences.
“Contesting the legality of an order and proving its illegality are not the same thing. A soldier who refuses an order could be court-martialed for willful disobedience or refusal to obey,” explains Steven Levin, an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.
Special function
If the debates surrounding the use of the National Guard are so lively, it is because it is “one of the most constitutionally complex institutions of American public life, embodying both the sovereignty of the States and the authority of the federal government,” explains Mr. Levin, himself retired from the army and a lawyer.
Governors are considered the commanders in chief for their state’s National Guard. But these forces can be federalized and then fall under the authority of the federal administration.
Before Trump, the last time the federal administration ignored governors’ objections to send in the National Guard was in 1965.
President Lyndon B. Johnson then deployed troops to protect participants in the great civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. The state’s governor, known for his segregationist positions, opposed it.
“It’s a little ironic,” remarks John Hall, professor of military history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, noting that Southern governors then considered the federal law “too liberal or too progressive.” “Trump is now insinuating that Democratic elected officials, governors and mayors are obstructing federal law by tolerating or defending so-called ‘sanctuary cities,’ where local law enforcement does not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities,” he said.
Insurrection Act
President Johnson had invoked the Insurrection Act to send the troops to Alabama.
For months, experts have expected Trump to invoke this provision to circumvent opposition from local elected officials to his migration policies.
“I suspect he’s first testing the limits of the legal provisions on using the National Guard, because the bar is lower than for invoking the Insurrection Act,” Mr. Hall said.
On Monday, the president publicly said he was considering invoking it.
His appeal would be an “extraordinary step,” said William Banks, professor emeritus at Syracuse University. The law has only been used 30 times in 230 years, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
This would radically change the situation on the ground, giving the president the power to use all available military forces, whether the regular army, the National Guard or otherwise. This would give him emergency powers that would allow him to act as he sees fit.
William Banks, professor emeritus at Syracuse University
Rebecca Roberts resigned from the military almost two years ago because she opposed U.S. support for Israel. She says she has noticed an increase in questions asked to About Face with, at the top of the list of concerns, the deployment on American soil.
“Having the military ready to attack our own cities, especially the cities that Trump has a grudge against, is really worrying and not what we signed up for,” she denounces.
With BBC, The Washington Post
