Illinois National Guard Soldiers Speak Out on Recent Troop Mobilizations
Around 500 military troops stationed in Illinois are currently awaiting further instructions following a judge's recent decision to prevent their deployment in Chicago. As they wait for the courts to finalize their orders, three individuals associated with the Illinois National Guard have shared their thoughts on the situation.
Two active-duty members and one retired member, despite typically being restricted from media interactions, openly expressed their views due to their public-facing political careers. These individuals include a pair of political candidates and a former serviceman who finished his service in 2018.
Guard Members Voice Their Opinions
A staff sergeant who has served in the National Guard for 12 years and is now vying for a state representative position, made her stance clear: if asked to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, she would not obey the order.
"I would absolutely refuse. I am also encouraging my fellow National Guard members to do the same," she said emphatically. "We joined the service to provide humanitarian aid and protect our citizens, not to be used as weapons against our own communities."
Her position is also influenced by her personal background, as her mother hails from Mexico.
As per the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members are required to obey lawful orders and reject unlawful ones. Unlawful orders are defined as those that breach the U.S. Constitution, international human rights norms, or the Geneva Conventions.
Different Perspectives
A fellow candidate, who has served in the Illinois National Guard for 11 years, expressed a slightly different viewpoint. According to him, refusing orders is not always the best or easiest course of action.
"If the soldiers are asked to station outside a federal building, it might be better for them to stay put and follow orders as much as possible. If they are given an order that appears to cross a line, that's when they should take a stand," he advised. "But stepping aside might pave the way for someone more compliant to take over."
However, he admitted that determining the legality of an order is often not straightforward.
"Although soldiers are required to disobey illegal or unlawful orders, it's often a gray area. Most of the time, the legality of an order is determined retrospectively, so a lot depends on individual judgment," he added.
The retired serviceman, who served for 10 years with the Illinois National Guard, concurred with this perspective. He speculated that geographical factors might influence the troops' inclinations to help or refuse.
He also expressed his personal standpoint: if he were still in service, he would refuse to protect ICE agents.
"The National Guard should not be tasked with protecting federal agents. That responsibility should fall on other law enforcement agencies," he stated.
Support for Legal Ruling
Recently, the two political candidates participated in a protest near an ICE detention facility. Clad in sweatshirts commemorating journalists lost in Gaza, they expressed their satisfaction with the judge's ruling.
"I'm pleased that the judge recognized violations of the 10th and 14th Amendments and the Posse Comitatus Act," one of them said.
The other expressed her hope that the president would not invoke the Insurrection Act, which would empower him to deploy the military to quell public unrest and assist law enforcement.
She also raised concerns about the fact that National Guard members are not receiving pay during the government shutdown, with the promise of back pay once the shutdown is lifted.
"If they're not getting paid, are they just going to hang around here? Then we'll have to pay for their idle time. It's a strange situation," she commented.
