Probably Not A Crow, Unfortunately
@mefcorv.bsky.social
Catholic; lefty Iraq veteran; attorney-at-caw. Anti-fascist for life, come at me Bondi. Giant geek. Butlerian Jihad Now.
Opinions do not reflect the official positions of the DoD. You can tell because they are spelled right and reflect the rule of law.
Opinions do not reflect the official positions of the DoD. You can tell because they are spelled right and reflect the rule of law.
I think my problem is that the fediverse as it’s been explained to me is “like the small organization left, but on social media” and having been on the left for two decades and seen infighting destroy literally every small organization I’ve ever been in, it doesn’t feel like a great model.
November 27, 2025 at 8:53 AM
I think my problem is that the fediverse as it’s been explained to me is “like the small organization left, but on social media” and having been on the left for two decades and seen infighting destroy literally every small organization I’ve ever been in, it doesn’t feel like a great model.
Hard to say, because important material is paywalled. This is bad for the faith. I understand the need to sustain the reporting, but a story of this importance should be open.
November 27, 2025 at 8:48 AM
Hard to say, because important material is paywalled. This is bad for the faith. I understand the need to sustain the reporting, but a story of this importance should be open.
I think what it will actually take is a number of lawyers, who can sue at will basically forever for free, suing AI companies for allowing AI images of them to be generated against their will.
November 27, 2025 at 8:43 AM
I think what it will actually take is a number of lawyers, who can sue at will basically forever for free, suing AI companies for allowing AI images of them to be generated against their will.
I always have “the first was he could have given us a medal for being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn't very likely, and we didn't expect it” in my head whenever I’ve just finished making a soapbox speech and am about to get in trouble.
November 27, 2025 at 8:03 AM
I always have “the first was he could have given us a medal for being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn't very likely, and we didn't expect it” in my head whenever I’ve just finished making a soapbox speech and am about to get in trouble.
It’s not that the grey areas need to be sorted out, it’s that under legal precedent, for soldiers to be able to disobey, it has to be very obviously illegal. Not just something lawyers would understand.
November 27, 2025 at 7:22 AM
It’s not that the grey areas need to be sorted out, it’s that under legal precedent, for soldiers to be able to disobey, it has to be very obviously illegal. Not just something lawyers would understand.
The service people, meanwhile, will put double mortgages on their houses and sell their most valued possessions to find you lawyers or to get you planes out of danger zones.
Don’t worry, their government will fuck them over too.
Don’t worry, their government will fuck them over too.
November 27, 2025 at 6:28 AM
The service people, meanwhile, will put double mortgages on their houses and sell their most valued possessions to find you lawyers or to get you planes out of danger zones.
Don’t worry, their government will fuck them over too.
Don’t worry, their government will fuck them over too.
So, no. The National Guard doesn’t get to choose whether or not they deploy. Some units may seek volunteers for who to put on the deployment list, but if they are called to send 50 people, if only 3 want to go, then 47 will be sent against their consent.
Also, see above for “obviously illegal”.
Also, see above for “obviously illegal”.
November 27, 2025 at 6:25 AM
So, no. The National Guard doesn’t get to choose whether or not they deploy. Some units may seek volunteers for who to put on the deployment list, but if they are called to send 50 people, if only 3 want to go, then 47 will be sent against their consent.
Also, see above for “obviously illegal”.
Also, see above for “obviously illegal”.
I suspect you did not in fact write this song. ;)
…I am the monster who makes my kids listen to this song every Thanksgiving.
…I am the monster who makes my kids listen to this song every Thanksgiving.
November 27, 2025 at 6:03 AM
I suspect you did not in fact write this song. ;)
…I am the monster who makes my kids listen to this song every Thanksgiving.
…I am the monster who makes my kids listen to this song every Thanksgiving.
Nah, you can still CO but it’s *really* fucking hard. My buddy did it but he literally had a religious conversion experience during the war *and* was willing to deploy to combat without a weapon so they were like “oh yeah you’re fucking serious you psychopath”.
November 27, 2025 at 6:01 AM
Nah, you can still CO but it’s *really* fucking hard. My buddy did it but he literally had a religious conversion experience during the war *and* was willing to deploy to combat without a weapon so they were like “oh yeah you’re fucking serious you psychopath”.
Yeah. Now if they ask you to drag a mom away from crying children that’s when you go all “nah, sarn’t, I don’t think I can do that”
November 27, 2025 at 6:00 AM
Yeah. Now if they ask you to drag a mom away from crying children that’s when you go all “nah, sarn’t, I don’t think I can do that”
Wow, those must be some really old National Guard troopers they have in DC right now. They’d be what, about 75 now?
November 27, 2025 at 5:48 AM
Wow, those must be some really old National Guard troopers they have in DC right now. They’d be what, about 75 now?
None of those things are possible within the military structure without jail time.
If you’re saying people should be willing to go to jail to avoid standing in DC, that’s a position, but you should own that full statement.
If you’re saying people should be willing to go to jail to avoid standing in DC, that’s a position, but you should own that full statement.
November 27, 2025 at 5:46 AM
None of those things are possible within the military structure without jail time.
If you’re saying people should be willing to go to jail to avoid standing in DC, that’s a position, but you should own that full statement.
If you’re saying people should be willing to go to jail to avoid standing in DC, that’s a position, but you should own that full statement.
There is no process for conscientious objection to specific orders; only conscientious objection to all wars.
November 27, 2025 at 5:45 AM
There is no process for conscientious objection to specific orders; only conscientious objection to all wars.
Under UCMJ, you are responsible for the treatment of those under your control and under your orders. Mistreatment of prisoners falls under Article 93, and soldiers are regularly trained on the fair treatment of prisoners, because of the Geneva convention. They thus know ICE mistreats prisoners.
November 27, 2025 at 5:44 AM
Under UCMJ, you are responsible for the treatment of those under your control and under your orders. Mistreatment of prisoners falls under Article 93, and soldiers are regularly trained on the fair treatment of prisoners, because of the Geneva convention. They thus know ICE mistreats prisoners.
There is a difference, under military law, between an order being unlawful, and an order being obviously unlawful enough for a soldier to disobey. A soldier is not permitted to disobey an order unless it is obviously unlawful to a soldier of ordinary intelligence.
November 27, 2025 at 5:41 AM
There is a difference, under military law, between an order being unlawful, and an order being obviously unlawful enough for a soldier to disobey. A soldier is not permitted to disobey an order unless it is obviously unlawful to a soldier of ordinary intelligence.
It can be *within DC* if remaining *on federal property* and confined to the DC National Guard.
However, the fact that *some* guard deployment is legal, means that it’s not obvious to all guard members what’s legal and what’s not.
However, the fact that *some* guard deployment is legal, means that it’s not obvious to all guard members what’s legal and what’s not.
November 27, 2025 at 5:40 AM
It can be *within DC* if remaining *on federal property* and confined to the DC National Guard.
However, the fact that *some* guard deployment is legal, means that it’s not obvious to all guard members what’s legal and what’s not.
However, the fact that *some* guard deployment is legal, means that it’s not obvious to all guard members what’s legal and what’s not.
With DC, the use of National Guard troops is trickier than other places, because of its jurisdiction. It’s actually not as unambiguous as you might think.
The president has authority to deploy the DC guard for federal property, but not to use them for crime control or call from other states.
The president has authority to deploy the DC guard for federal property, but not to use them for crime control or call from other states.
November 27, 2025 at 5:38 AM
With DC, the use of National Guard troops is trickier than other places, because of its jurisdiction. It’s actually not as unambiguous as you might think.
The president has authority to deploy the DC guard for federal property, but not to use them for crime control or call from other states.
The president has authority to deploy the DC guard for federal property, but not to use them for crime control or call from other states.
Yep. And it doesn’t really gain much, honestly, from an organizing perspective.
November 27, 2025 at 5:31 AM
Yep. And it doesn’t really gain much, honestly, from an organizing perspective.
People are, IMO, focusing on trying to get the NG to disobey the *wrong* orders. Missing movement is a huge deal and there’s no good argument for it.
There are however good arguments under the UCMJ that they should not turn prisoners over to ICE, and that doing so is an illegal order.
There are however good arguments under the UCMJ that they should not turn prisoners over to ICE, and that doing so is an illegal order.
November 27, 2025 at 5:28 AM
People are, IMO, focusing on trying to get the NG to disobey the *wrong* orders. Missing movement is a huge deal and there’s no good argument for it.
There are however good arguments under the UCMJ that they should not turn prisoners over to ICE, and that doing so is an illegal order.
There are however good arguments under the UCMJ that they should not turn prisoners over to ICE, and that doing so is an illegal order.
There’s more - I just scratched the tip of the iceberg. Remember all that “we’re at war” talk Hegseth and Trump have been throwing around?
If they decide - and there’s an argument that *at least for the purposes of the UCMJ Hegseth gets to decide* we are at war, then maximum punishment is death.
If they decide - and there’s an argument that *at least for the purposes of the UCMJ Hegseth gets to decide* we are at war, then maximum punishment is death.
November 27, 2025 at 5:20 AM
There’s more - I just scratched the tip of the iceberg. Remember all that “we’re at war” talk Hegseth and Trump have been throwing around?
If they decide - and there’s an argument that *at least for the purposes of the UCMJ Hegseth gets to decide* we are at war, then maximum punishment is death.
If they decide - and there’s an argument that *at least for the purposes of the UCMJ Hegseth gets to decide* we are at war, then maximum punishment is death.
Precisely.
November 27, 2025 at 5:16 AM
Precisely.
There’s actually an answer for this.
“You go to jail.” The court has held that even if you *are* correct that the order was in fact illegal, the fact that courts disagreed means it cannot possibly have been obvious to a soldier of ordinary intelligence, which is the standard, so you lose.
“You go to jail.” The court has held that even if you *are* correct that the order was in fact illegal, the fact that courts disagreed means it cannot possibly have been obvious to a soldier of ordinary intelligence, which is the standard, so you lose.
November 27, 2025 at 4:54 AM
There’s actually an answer for this.
“You go to jail.” The court has held that even if you *are* correct that the order was in fact illegal, the fact that courts disagreed means it cannot possibly have been obvious to a soldier of ordinary intelligence, which is the standard, so you lose.
“You go to jail.” The court has held that even if you *are* correct that the order was in fact illegal, the fact that courts disagreed means it cannot possibly have been obvious to a soldier of ordinary intelligence, which is the standard, so you lose.
Does Pete Hegseth want to decide that we are in a time of war? Then all punishments ramp up significantly.
Also dishonorable discharges fuck you forever, and court martials count as felony convictions in civilian life.
Also dishonorable discharges fuck you forever, and court martials count as felony convictions in civilian life.
November 27, 2025 at 4:52 AM
Does Pete Hegseth want to decide that we are in a time of war? Then all punishments ramp up significantly.
Also dishonorable discharges fuck you forever, and court martials count as felony convictions in civilian life.
Also dishonorable discharges fuck you forever, and court martials count as felony convictions in civilian life.
Boy, fucking howdy. See above.
November 27, 2025 at 4:49 AM
Boy, fucking howdy. See above.
There are a number of consequences that they can pick from!
Article 87, Missing movement by design is the first one. Confinement from 1-36 months, a DD, TF, and reduction to E-1.
If they want to play fun games they could also add, say, Article 90, willlfully disobeying an officer.
Article 87, Missing movement by design is the first one. Confinement from 1-36 months, a DD, TF, and reduction to E-1.
If they want to play fun games they could also add, say, Article 90, willlfully disobeying an officer.
November 27, 2025 at 4:49 AM
There are a number of consequences that they can pick from!
Article 87, Missing movement by design is the first one. Confinement from 1-36 months, a DD, TF, and reduction to E-1.
If they want to play fun games they could also add, say, Article 90, willlfully disobeying an officer.
Article 87, Missing movement by design is the first one. Confinement from 1-36 months, a DD, TF, and reduction to E-1.
If they want to play fun games they could also add, say, Article 90, willlfully disobeying an officer.