NATIONAL GUARD QUESTION

[El Paso Eagle]

First, let me say I hope things calm down and further intervention is not needed, but in case...

I would think the line of responsibility would be 

• City
• State
• National Guard

Does the Governor have to request/allow then National Guard in? I ask since it seems like places such as NYC with it's large police force do not seem to have the numbers to cover all areas. Stories saying how bands of people are going from area to area and looting stores before police are able to arrive (sound well organized). Since most of these areas are strong Dem areas and their Governors  and Trump are not seeing eye to eye what happens if things get worse and the help of the National Guard is not requested?  Are the Governors allowed to decide how many troops they will allow? If a Governor does not request and the Federal Government send them in anyway??

[keith]

It's my understanding that the state national guard force is under the control and direction of the state's governor.  It's up to the governor to request, call-up and direct the national guard in his or her state.  NYC has plenty of police (or so they say).  It is a large force with significant capabilities under the command of the chief and ultimately mayor of NYC.  The NYC police force should be capable of protecting citizens and property if they are so directed. 

Edit:  I believe the governor has state police under his/her command as well, so state and local officials have quite a few resources at their disposal.  Sheriffs are at the county level, I think.  I believe they report up to the governor  as well.

Edited June 2, 2020 by keith

[GBarksdale]

1 hour ago, keith said:

It's my understanding that the state national guard force is under the control and direction of the state's governor.  It's up to the governor to request, call-up and direct the national guard in his or her state.  NYC has plenty of police (or so they say).  It is a large force with significant capabilities under the command of the chief and ultimately mayor of NYC.  The NYC police force should be capable of protecting citizens and property if they are so directed. 

Under the Insurrection Act the president can also federalize the National Guard -- and deploy the regular military -- in situations where a state is unable or unwilling to end civil disorder and insurrections.   

[El Paso Eagle]

So why are the Governors not requesting additional help? How much destruction is acceptable? Seems like they are trying to force Trump to send in troops so they can say he is trying to take over.

[GBarksdale]

1 minute ago, El Paso Eagle said:

So why are the Governors not requesting additional help? How much destruction is acceptable? Seems like they are trying to force Trump to send in troops so they can say he is trying to take over.

I think a lot of governors are calling up the Guard -- my state has.  My guess is that Trump won't have to invoke the Insurrection Act.  I think that governors who haven't yet called up the National Guard will be forced to by situations on the ground if they keep deteriorating. 

[Coach Andy Mac]

57 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

So why are the Governors not requesting additional help? How much destruction is acceptable? Seems like they are trying to force Trump to send in troops so they can say he is trying to take over.

I think it is because they don't want to disrespect the police departments in their own cities.  For instance NYPD is the size of a small army and should be able to deal with anything that the rioters bring.

[THOR]

2 minutes ago, Coach Andy Mac said:

I think it is because they don't want to disrespect the police departments in their own cities.  For instance NYPD is the size of a small army and should be able to deal with anything that the rioters bring.

who cares about disrespecting a police department. the city's obviously need help.  people said the government reacted to slowly to the coronavirus, we don't need to say the same thing about the governors if they don't help prevent the looting/vandalizing. 

[Censored by Laurie]

#privatepropertymatters

[ColoradoEagle]

 

[97and03]

14 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

#privatepropertymatters

Just like #haircutsmatter during lockdowns. 
The number of people I have seen willing to kill people over property damage is shocking. It is largely unnecessary property damage but it isn’t worth opening fire on unarmed people. And if you bring in the military that is what they would be there to do. The army isn’t a police force and it isn’t trained to pacify crowds. Soldiers are trained for combat not crowd control. 

[Censored by Laurie]

2 hours ago, 97and03 said:

Just like #haircutsmatter during lockdowns. 
The number of people I have seen willing to kill people over property damage is shocking. It is largely unnecessary property damage but it isn’t worth opening fire on unarmed people. And if you bring in the military that is what they would be there to do. The army isn’t a police force and it isn’t trained to pacify crowds. Soldiers are trained for combat not crowd control. 

how quickly the same people go from "masks are tyranny" to "send in the military"...with zero awareness of what they're actually advocating...is astounding to me. 

[eulessismore]

On 6/2/2020 at 2:35 PM, El Paso Eagle said:

So why are the Governors not requesting additional help? How much destruction is acceptable? Seems like they are trying to force Trump to send in troops so they can say he is trying to take over.

I'm pretty sure the Governors are not "trying to force Trump to send in troops". I was in the 82nd Airborne Division when they were deployed to Andrews AFB during the May Day Demonstrations of 1971 to back up law enforcement and National Guard. My unit was not sent in to the scene of protests, but it is my understanding that some Airborne and Marine troops were. Now, D.C. is not a state, so is different in some respects.

That May Day military response is not viewed as favorably in hindsight by many as some of those calling for deployment of active duty troops might wish. Honestly, all I can remember of our "riot training" was fixing bayonets and marching in close formation down the streets of Fort Bragg before being loaded on C130  aircraft and flown to Andrews. From reading about it afterwards, it seems that the active duty troops who were sent in were stationed around some of the most significant monuments in D.C., not for crowd control.

I agree with what one commentator said this morning re the remarks from Sec. of Defense Espey's comments, that he almost certainly wanted to say something that would be reassuring to the large number of African American troops in the U.S. Military, may of whom, I'm sure, probably agree with at least the peaceful protests. I do remember from being a member of the 82nd then what it was like (as a white man) to be part of a minority group. I'm glad I was drafted and served, although never in combat, for the experience of such diversity.

I and a fellow soldier (a young black guy from Jamaica, I'm not sure now whether from that country or that part of NYC) were so disturbed by some of the tension among those surrounding us that we decided to go into our tent and pray that no one would get hurt in all this. And fortunately, no one was killed in the May Day demonstrations, and for that we can be grateful. However, I do not trust that we are as capable of peaceful behavior nowadays. Compensation was paid to many of those arrested in mass (12,000 or so).

Oh, and I am glad to see that such joining together in prayer is now done more openly. If anyone thinks that speaking our for what they see as right will make them less a man in the view of some, remember that you won't always be around those others, but you'll always remember what you did or failed to do in taking a stand.

Edited June 3, 2020 by eulessismore

[El Paso Eagle]

4 minutes ago, eulessismore said:

I'm pretty sure the Governors are not "trying to force Trump to send in troops". I was in the 82nd Airborne Division when they were deployed to Andrews AFB in 1971 to back up law enforcement and National Guard. My unit was not sent in to the scene of protests, but it is my understanding that some Airborne and Marine troops were. Now, D.C. is not a state, so is different in some respects.

That Mayday military response is not viewed as favorably in hindsight by many as some of those calling for deployment of active duty troops might wish. Honestly, all I can remember of our "riot training" was fixing bayonets and marching in close formation down the streets of Fort Bragg before being loaded on C130  aircraft and flown to Andrews. From reading about it afterwards, it seems that the active duty troops who were sent in were stationed around some of the most significant monuments in D.C., not for crowd control.

I agree with what one commentator said this morning re the remarks from Sec. of Defense Espey's comments, that he almost certainly wanted to say something that would be reassuring to the large number of African American troops in the U.S. Military, may of whom, I'm sure, probably agree with at least the peaceful protests. I do remember from being a member of the 82nd then what it was like to be part of a minority group. I'm glad I was drafted and served, although never in combat, for the experience of such diversity.

One fellow soldier and I (a young black guy from Jamaica, I'm not sure now whether from that country or that part of NYC) were so disturbed by some of the tension among those surrounding us that we decided to go into our tent and pray that no one would get hurt in all this. And fortunately, no one was killed in the Mayday demonstrations. Compensation was paid to many of those arrested in mass (12,000 or so), and for that we can be grateful. However, I do not trust that we are as capable of peaceful behavior nowadays.

Thank you I appreciate your feedback

[97and03]

In Union There Is Strength

I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that
 our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we
 should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare
 occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we
 witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—
 between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground
 that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and
 the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are
 a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders
 who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more

forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our

Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

James Mattis
 

[97and03]

[97and03]

 

[Rudy]

On 6/2/2020 at 3:34 PM, Coach Andy Mac said:

I think it is because they don't want to disrespect the police departments in their own cities.  For instance NYPD is the size of a small army and should be able to deal with anything that the rioters bring.

In most of those cities that are seeing the rioting, the city leaders have ZERO respect for their law enforcement. 

[RBP79]

The Texas National Guard is under Gov. Abbott's control. When activated by the State Governor they are normally under Title 32 orders. Normally the Feds pay for this and the Governor retains control. If the POTUS wants control they are placed on Title 10 orders and are considered active duty and can be moved at his discretion to any location. The state can also pay out of pocket but this decreases the service members pay ( possibly down to minimum wage) and would kill recruiting.

At this point any active duty units deployed (82n A/B Division Ready Brigade if given a mission) are mainly protecting federal property not engaging protesters unless they start trying to force there way on to federal property.

POTUS has already provided funds for states to use for Title 32 orders.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by RBP79

[El Paso Eagle]

5 hours ago, 97and03 said:

 

I have not seen one person who has an issue with people peaceably assembling. However, when it turns to looting, attacking people, and vandalizing I am fairly confident those are not protected rights.

[97and03]

Looting is not a protected right.

You are missing the point that current and former military leaders think military interference in the current crisis is a bad idea. 
You are also missing that they understand we have a systemic racism problem.

[El Paso Eagle]

22 hours ago, RBP79 said:

The Texas National Guard is under Gov. Abbott's control. When activated by the State Governor they are normally under Title 32 orders. Normally the Feds pay for this and the Governor retains control. If the POTUS wants control they are placed on Title 10 orders and are considered active duty and can be moved at his discretion to any location. The state can also pay out of pocket but this decreases the service members pay ( possibly down to minimum wage) and would kill recruiting.

At this point any active duty units deployed (82n A/B Division Ready Brigade if given a mission) are mainly protecting federal property not engaging protesters unless they start trying to force there way on to federal property.

POTUS has already provided funds for states to use for Title 32 orders.

 

See where the DC mayor wants the guard kicked out the hotels in DC. She is referencing the 3rd Amendment :

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

And these same liberals talk about Trump trying to bend the Constitution.If you want to disrespect Trump that is her/your call, but do not disrespect the Guardsmen who are following orders.

Question; in the case of DC which is not a state and does not have a Governor, does the mayor have the authority like the Governor is states?

PS - If there is a hotel that wants the troops out I would make sure they are cut off from every future Government "approved vendor" list.

 

 

[UNTLifer]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:42 PM, 97and03 said:

Looting is not a protected right.

You are missing the point that current and former military leaders think military interference in the current crisis is a bad idea. 
You are also missing that they understand we have a systemic racism problem.

If looting isn't a protected right and the crowds are overwhelming/taunting/not following orders of the local police, then what option is left?  Poor leadership in the areas of mass looting is a main problem.  If they don't want the National Guard or troops, then let them live with the results, but I don't want my federal tax dollars being spent to fix the problem that they are letting happen.

The Constitution allows for people to protest in a peaceful manner.  It also allows for people to protect their personal property from douchebag looters.

Edited June 6, 2020 by UNTLifer

[UNTLifer]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:00 AM, 97and03 said:

Just like #haircutsmatter during lockdowns. 
The number of people I have seen willing to kill people over property damage is shocking. It is largely unnecessary property damage but it isn’t worth opening fire on unarmed people. And if you bring in the military that is what they would be there to do. The army isn’t a police force and it isn’t trained to pacify crowds. Soldiers are trained for combat not crowd control. 

Can you clarify this statement?  I think I am misunderstanding your point

[El Paso Eagle]

34 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

If looting isn't a protected right and the crowds are overwhelming/taunting/not following orders of the local police, then what option is left?  Poor leadership in the areas of mass looting is a main problem.  If they don't want the National Guard or troops, then let them live with the results, but I don't want my federal tax dollars being spent to fix the problem that are letting happen.

The Constitution allows for people to protest in a peaceful manner.  It also allows for people to protect their personal property from douchebag looters.

It's amazing that people are still seeming to be OK with looters and vandalism but if it's a conservative protest, no matter how peaceful, they think they are evil. 

[ColoradoEagle]

29 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

It's amazing that people are still seeming to be OK with looters and vandalism but if it's a conservative protest, no matter how peaceful, they think they are evil. 

I don't think they're evil. They just protest for things like getting haircuts, not getting vaccines that helped us get rid of diseases decades ago, and their 'rights' to not bake a cake.