Families of active-duty military personnel are expressing deep concerns as their loved ones are deployed to Los Angeles to manage protests, highlighting the emotional toll and health emergencies faced by families left behind.
Brandi Jones, the organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, emphasized the impact of the Trump administration’s decision on military families during a virtual news conference.
She stated, “We’ve heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected.”
As Veterans Day approaches, legal scholars, veterans, and advocates for active-duty troops are voicing their alarms regarding the militarization of American cities, with many underscoring the implications of deploying troops for civil unrest management.
This deployment raises questions about the adherence to a 147-year-old law that prohibits federal troops from being utilized for civilian law enforcement.
Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel and current law professor, articulated that the current deployment echoes the very circumstances that led to America’s fight for independence.
He criticized President Trump’s actions, stating that they contribute to making America “militarized again.”
While U.S. Northern Command reported the release of 150 National Guard troops on a recent Tuesday, approximately 3,950 National Guard members and 700 Marines remain stationed in Los Angeles.
Their primary role involves safeguarding federal properties amidst growing unrest surrounding actions taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Defending the troop deployment, President Donald Trump asserted on his social media platform that without the troops, Los Angeles would have been engulfed in chaos.
He hinted at the potential for similar deployments across other U.S. cities, referring to the Los Angeles situation as “the first, perhaps of many.”
The troops in Los Angeles are federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, which limits their authority.
They are permitted to detain individuals only until handing them over to local law enforcement and are not authorized to arrest anyone.
Despite this, reports have emerged indicating that Marines were involved in detaining a U.S. Army veteran in early June, underscoring the fine line between their designated role and law enforcement responsibilities.
Maurer expressed concern about the blurring lines of military involvement in civilian law enforcement, stating, “Using the military as a police force in all but name is a very dangerous place to be.”
The deployment of troops has also raised alarms among service members who are placed in scenarios for which they have not been appropriately trained.
Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran, voiced his discomfort with the current situation, arguing it is inappropriate for Marines, trained for combat and not for domestic civil unrest, to be utilized in this capacity.
He poignantly highlighted the challenges faced by service members, many of whom come from diverse backgrounds and share familial connections with those impacted by ICE’s actions.
Plenzler observed, “Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they’re being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions.”
The training received by Marines sharply contrasts with that of civilian law enforcement, a fact Plenzler underscored, stating, “We are not cops. Marines aren’t trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing.”
Looking to historical precedents, he recalled the tragic events during the 1992 L.A. riots when a misunderstanding led to Marines inadvertently opening fire, highlighting risks associated with military involvement in civilian situations.
Christopher Purdy, founder of The Chamberlain Network, reiterated the challenges faced by troops, noting that National Guard units often have minimal preparation before undertaking such missions.
Purdy explained that unlike combat deployments, where extensive training for cultural competency and local laws is essential, the current deployment does not afford troops the same rigorous preparation.
As each speaker addressed the issue, they underscored the need for accountability regarding the federal government’s treatment of active-duty troops and their intended use in domestic operations.
Brandi Jones reflected on the significance of family stability in maintaining a ready military force, urging that family readiness is crucial for operational readiness.
According to Jones, “You can’t keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians.”
Maurer echoed this sentiment, claiming that the rule of law loses its meaning if those entrusted to uphold it act contrary to its principles.
The dialogue around the deployment in Los Angeles raises critical questions about the role of military forces within civilian populations and the protection of democratic norms in the face of unrest.
image source from：latimes
