US Military Servicemembers vow to protect Muslims who are afraid of being illegally deported

[Borgholio]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-22/u ... ia/7047228

US military service members and veterans have used social media to offer their support to a young Muslim girl who was scared she and her family would be forced to leave America, after she heard about Donald Trump's call to ban Muslims from the country.

Melissa Chance Yassini said her daughter, eight-year-old Sofia, was terrified Mr Trump wanted to kick her and her family — who are Muslim American citizens — out of the country.

"She ran to me with a look of absolute fear on her face," Ms Yassini told Upworthy.

"It was the first time that it really drove home to me that we're in a dangerous place right now."

After comforting her distressed daughter, Ms Yassini expressed her frustration on Facebook.

"She had began collecting all her favourite things in case the army came to remove us from our home," she wrote.

"She checked the locks on the door three, four times. This is terrorism. No child in America deserves to feel that way."

Ms Yassini's post soon went viral on Facebook, where Army veteran Kerri Peek saw it.

"It bothered me all night," Ms Peek told Upworthy.

"This rhetoric and fear, hate and violence is not okay. It's not the United States that I would fight for."

Sofia's story inspired Ms Peek to take action — so she asked her friends to post photos of themselves in uniform with the hashtag #IWillProtectYou to assure Sofia that they would keep her safe.

"We are the force that stands between precious children and the bad guys," she wrote.

"Post a picture of you in uniform with the hashtag #IWillProtectYou to let these children know that we will not hurt them.

"That they are safe here in America. That we will protect innocents as we always have and by added benefit keeping our oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution."

The hashtag has since gone viral on Facebook and Twitter, with military service members and veterans pledging their support to Sofia, and all people of Muslim faith.

"The country I swore an oath to defend and give my life for accepts all," Darren Mott wrote.

Julie T wrote: "Sofia, I spent 22yrs serving not just my country, but our country to protect our rights."

Ms Yassini said she and Sofia had been overwhelmed by the show of support — and that Sofia was feeling much better.

"I read each and every message to [Sofia]," she told Upworthy.

"And now she understands that we're all part of a fabric which is America."

[cmdrjones]

This is probably the case. They are forgetting something though: The nation trumps the state... just ask the French, to name one example amongst many.

[Ralin]

Very heartwarming and inspiring. But isn't it against regulations/illegal for them to make political statements like that while in uniform?

This is probably the case. They are forgetting something though: The nation trumps the state... just ask the French, to name one example amongst many.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[cmdrjones]

Very heartwarming and inspiring. But isn't it against regulations/illegal for them to make political statements like that while in uniform?

This is probably the case. They are forgetting something though: The nation trumps the state... just ask the French, to name one example amongst many.

What the fuck are you talking about?

#1 yes, but i doubt they are posting in social media in uniform... that provides them with a small amount of "plausible Deniability" that they are making "political speech" What I think they COULD say in their own defense if called out is: hey man, i'm just stating that I won't follow illegal orders.


#2 Has the French nation had more than one government?

[Broomstick]

Well, they call the current French government "the Fifth Republic". There's probably a reason for that...

[Lord Revan]

Well, they call the current French government "the Fifth Republic". There's probably a reason for that...

yeah there's a reason but it's for the most part nothing as dramatic as Jones implies, consisting mostly of constitutional changes or relatively minor changes to the balance of power with in the French goverment.

also Vichy France wouldn't really count in this case as it was caused by clear and obvious external threat (namely Nazi Germany).

so either Jones made captain obvious level statement aka that democratic nations don't have the same people ruling forever or it's another case of masturbating over the prospect of a civil war.

[Steve]

I'm not sure you could shrug off the French changes as "relatively minor changes to the balance of power".

The First Republic was replaced by Napoleon's First Empire.
The Second Republic got itself voted out of existence by Louis Napoleon's bid to create the Second Empire.
The Third Republic lasted over sixty years until defeat in 1940 destroyed it.
The Fourth Republic, formed after World War II, found itself unable to cope with the tremendous strain of fighting to keep the French Empire, dealing with the defeat in Indochina and then the viciousness of the Algerian War of Independence, ultimately leading to France turning to De Gaulle for leadership and De Gaulle demanding a more powerful Presidency if he were to take charge. Hence the shift to the Fifth Republic, since that probably seemed a better idea than the status quo and the possibility of a coup or some other more violent change in political system.

[Lord Revan]

I stand corrected then.

that said the implication that this news event would or even could lead to a bloody civil war is unlikely at worst. (at best it's just Jones being intentionally dishonest for shock value).

[Ralin]

#1 yes, but i doubt they are posting in social media in uniform...

Sofia's story inspired Ms Peek to take action — so she asked her friends to post photos of themselves in uniform with the hashtag #IWillProtectYou to assure Sofia that they would keep her safe.

"We are the force that stands between precious children and the bad guys," she wrote.

"Post a picture of you in uniform with the hashtag #IWillProtectYou to let these children know that we will not hurt them.

that provides them with a small amount of "plausible Deniability" that they are making "political speech" What I think they COULD say in their own defense if called out is: hey man, i'm just stating that I won't follow illegal orders.

Suppose that works. Would suck if anyone's superiors decided to make an issue of it.

[Borgholio]

But isn't it against regulations/illegal for them to make political statements like that while in uniform?

I don't think so. The moment they are recruited they swear an oath to protect the people and the constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. That's not just rhetoric. They're not stating publicly that they're going to overthrow the president, but that they will uphold the constitution.

[Simon_Jester]

Depending on exactly what is said under #IWillProtectYou, an active-duty member of the armed forces making those statements in uniform might be okay, or it might not be okay.

Because political neutrality while in uniform really IS a big deal. I mean, how big an act of political intimidation would we consider it if soldiers in uniform started proclaiming their opposition to "allowing Muslim Arabs in the country due to their terrorist leanings" or some such? That is much worse than having random normal people say it- and having random people saying it is bad enough.

We can all agree that would be wrong, if soldiers said that. And that it would be worse than ordinary civilians saying it.

Why is it worse? Because the active-duty soldier in uniform represents the armed force of the state. By implication the armed power of the state stands behind their comments.

Likewise, ANY comment by an active-duty member of the armed forces which can be interpreted as an endorsement of some political view BY the armed forces is wrong on principle.

However, affirmation of their intent to uphold their oaths, including the constitutional rights of minority citizens, is NOT a political statement in this way. So that is a special and acceptable category of speech for active-duty members of the armed forces, an exception to the normal rule that they shouldn't even touch political speech in public with a ten-foot pole..

[Zaune]

So... Just how good is the US military chain of command at actually dealing with unlawful orders and the issuing thereof?

[Ralin]

However, affirmation of their intent to uphold their oaths, including the constitutional rights of minority citizens, is NOT a political statement in this way. So that is a special and acceptable category of speech for active-duty members of the armed forces, an exception to the normal rule that they shouldn't even touch political speech in public with a ten-foot pole..

I mean, in any sane world declaring that you won't stand by while the hypothetical Trump Gestapo kicks down the doors of Muslim families and forcibly deports innocent teenage girls shouldn't be a crime. But I can't help but consider that this is in response to things a major presidential candidate has said. And vowing to protect someone from the president is inherently political.

[Broomstick]

The US Military does not swear loyalty to either the President or Congress... they swear it to the constitution.

It is conceivable that at some point some political leader may need to be reminded of this.

[biostem]

The president cannot deport a US Citizen - their home country, by definition, is the US. If a person isn't a US citizen, then there are processes in place to deport them, legally. I don't see how there is actually anything to worry about. I suppose the president could try to propose a law, or write up an executive order, but even then, it isn't just his discretion that is the deciding factor...

[Borgholio]

However, affirmation of their intent to uphold their oaths, including the constitutional rights of minority citizens, is NOT a political statement in this way. So that is a special and acceptable category of speech for active-duty members of the armed forces, an exception to the normal rule that they shouldn't even touch political speech in public with a ten-foot pole..

I think they took great care to ensure this was the case, rather than simply outing Trump as a fascist and stating they'd oppose him.

It is conceivable that at some point some political leader may need to be reminded of this.

Hopefully peacefully, as in impeachment or act of Congress. Public refusal to obey orders, even if it didn't involve violence, would have messy political consequences.

So... Just how good is the US military chain of command at actually dealing with unlawful orders and the issuing thereof?

That might be a question for one of our resident military historians. From what I remember, I don't think there has ever been a large-scale refusal of orders or anything of the sort by US soldiers since a portion of George Washington's army deserted in while he was camped at Valley Forge. The closet thing that COULD have happened is if people refused to lock up the Japanese when Roosevelt gave the order to intern them...but of course they obeyed at that point.

[Ralin]

The president cannot deport a US Citizen - their home country, by definition, is the US.

You mean sort of like how the president can't execute an US citizen without trial on their own authority, or imprison them indefinitely without trial?

[biostem]

The president cannot deport a US Citizen - their home country, by definition, is the US.

You mean sort of like how the president can't execute an US citizen without trial on their own authority, or imprison them indefinitely without trial?

Are you referring to Guantanimo Bay or something else?

[Ralin]

The president cannot deport a US Citizen - their home country, by definition, is the US.

You mean sort of like how the president can't execute an US citizen without trial on their own authority, or imprison them indefinitely without trial?

Are you referring to Guantanimo Bay or something else?

The past decade and a half in general, though I was thinking about that dude Obama had drone striked in Yemen. I'm really not all that encouraged by being reminded of how the president totally can't violate the basic rights of American citizens.

And hey, at least with Obama I trust that he's smart and rational enough to have some system or criteria in place to decide who this happens to other than his whims. Even if it is a clearly a crappy one.

[biostem]

Wait, was the person in Yemen a US citizen? If so, were they intentionally targeted as part of that drone strike, or were they an unintended casualty? Was the person in a contested or warzone, and were they part of a military strike? It sounds like you may be conflating the president calling in a "hit" versus someone killed as part of a military action.

[Patroklos]

The past decade and a half in general, though I was thinking about that dude Obama had drone striked in Yemen. I'm really not all that encouraged by being reminded of how the president totally can't violate the basic rights of American citizens.

There was a time when "dead or alive" was a common federal edict.

The circumstances matter.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wait, was the person in Yemen a US citizen? If so, were they intentionally targeted as part of that drone strike, or were they an unintended casualty? Was the person in a contested or warzone, and were they part of a military strike? It sounds like you may be conflating the president calling in a "hit" versus someone killed as part of a military action.

No. No conflation. Two US citizens, father and son. One was arguably a legit target, the 16 year old boy was not. Both were on a US government kill list. The kid if I remember correctly was murdered in a drone strike in a civilian area. Killing him justified collateral damage apparently.

[biostem]

Wait, was the person in Yemen a US citizen? If so, were they intentionally targeted as part of that drone strike, or were they an unintended casualty? Was the person in a contested or warzone, and were they part of a military strike? It sounds like you may be conflating the president calling in a "hit" versus someone killed as part of a military action.

No. No conflation. Two US citizens, father and son. One was arguably a legit target, the 16 year old boy was not. Both were on a US government kill list. The kid if I remember correctly was murdered in a drone strike in a civilian area. Killing him justified collateral damage apparently.

This is what I found on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[jwl]

The US Military does not swear loyalty to either the President or Congress... they swear it to the constitution.

It is conceivable that at some point some political leader may need to be reminded of this.

So how would you feel if a group of soldiers went on social media making similar remarks about gun rights?

While his policies may not be terribly nice, if Trump were to win the Presidential election people certainly should not threaten a military coup for him trying to furfil his electoral promises. Of course, those electoral promises probably won't actually include deporting innocent US citizens, he's not that extreme.

[Broomstick]

It's not about keeping electoral promises, it's about the limits of power and the law. The PotUS is not above the law, and the military has sworn NOT to obey unlawful orders.