« The German BND tapped Kerry and Clinton - The Hindu and Der Spiegel | Main | Who’s Zoomin’ Who in Novorossiya? - TTG »

18 August 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill H

I don't read the callup into federal service as the sole method of activation for the NG. It seems to me that the governor can still call them up for local service, in which case the state pays the cost. As far as I can tell, this is the case in Missouri.

From Wiki: "The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to "State Active Duty" in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. State Active Duty is based on State statute and policy as well as State funds. Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. The federal Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) does not apply under state active duty status or Title 32 status."

When called up into federal service they certainly don't have arrect power, but what about when called in by the governor for local service, when they are not under federal command? Don't they have whatever power the governor delegates to them?

jonst

Well, my experience with this is fairly varied and extensive. I lived in Elizabeth during the Newark Riots, and Plainfield during the Plainfield New Jersey riots. In both cases the Guard was called in. Lot of them...down to APC's and such. In the end, nobody wanted to F with the Guard for long. A bit of posturing and shadow boxing when they first came. But things stopped fairly quickly. One could hear the sniper rounds...followed by a hail of rounds in response. All night law. I can still recall, in the Plainfield riots, the men on my block outside, at 3AM, packing. In case the riots spread. It was a hell of feeling seeing that.

It all depends on how hamstrung they may be here by officials that want to put soldiers on the front lines of trouble, but want them to be social workers, at the same time. Tough situation. And in general, as a lawyer judging a lawyer, I think AG Holder is incompetent. Period. So, I will assume he will try to introduce his incompetence here, in this situation.

turcopolier

jonst

My reading of the tea leaves leads me to believe that Obama/Holder are seeking a way to push the state government aside and take control of the situation. Whether they will try to declare that the state government is ineffective as a basis I don't know but they are gong to come up with something like that. IMO this is a risky thing for Obama to do. He may lose control of the senate and a majority in SCOTUS do not like him. pl

shege

If the NG contingent has some Iraq/Afghanistan vets with experience in crowd control, and clear RoE, I think they would do a much better job than the local police.

The optics of having NG on the streets are not good, but given how the police look with all their body armor and assault weapons I think the optics are already pretty messed up.

turcopolier

shege

I do not recall that there were "crowd control" situations in Iraq. Clear R0E are essential but I will bet that they don'r get them. pl

turcopolier

Bill H
In "Rick Perry and the National Guard" I went over the business of the Guard having the power of arrest when under state control and paid for by the state. That is clear. What I am saying in this post is that if a state of insurrection is implied by Governor Nixon's "State of Emergency" then IMO the federal government can pay and PCA does not come into effect. WRC can tell us. He was a FEMA lawyer. pl

William R. Cumming

Bill H! The Missouri NG has NOT been federalized in whole or in part. They are not subject to PCA and are funded solely by state.

There has been no federalization of state NG forces for riots or civil disorders since 1992 when President did so for the LA riots.

William R. Cumming

PL! Agree but SECDEF Hagel has to request any federalization of NG forces and that request has to go through AG Holder to President!

At least that is the way it used to be. There have been some changes to Title since I retired 15 years ago and NO President I know of wants the so-called Insurrection Act [10 USC 301-303] declared as a trigger by any subordinate even the SECDEF.

But as PL speculates there may well be much scurrying around in Washington on these events.

turcopolier

WRC Thanks. Given his track record on racial matters I doubt that Obama will be content to leave this matter in state hands. since murder is a state crime and federal the federal government will be limited to a civil rights prosecution unless they try to do some constitutionally tricky thing. pl

turcopolier

WRC

I don't know, Bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_act
IMO this law gives Obama the lawful right to seize control of this situation. pl

William R. Cumming

PL! Correction and Extract from Wikipedia and agree the President will tamper with state role:

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

Contents [hide]
1 Relation to Posse Comitatus
2 Amendments of 2006
2.1 Differences between old and new wording
2.2 Flowchart illustrating differences in application
2.3 Comparison of differences
2.4 Opposition
3 Repeal of amendments
4 References
5 External links

William R. Cumming

PL! Agree but in the past President's were skillful in getting Governor's to request federal help! Is Governor Nixon a Republican or DEM?

swampy

According to this, the Missouri Nat. Guard doesn't have the best rep. Also, some handwringing about it's many overseas deployments and general background of the guardsmen.

https://storify.com/billmon1/the-national-guard-does-ferguson

you know who

Simply another thug, who was "clearly caught on video" to have stolen cigarettes dead? Right? That's one step further than Trayvon, who was only suspected to have bought cigars that can be used for drugs.

I don't approve of vandalism, by the way. But that is a completely different issue.

turcopolier

ykw

The policeman who shot him did not know he was a suspect in a robbery. Zimmerman was not a policeman. what's your point? pl

turcopolier

Nixon is a Democrat in a very rural, very conservative state. I don't think he will be willing to ask Obama to intervene in state business. pl

John Minnerath

Public law applying in a situation like this is very hard for a layman to follow.
I seem to read an implied waiting period before POTUS can take Federal control of NG units called up by a state governor.
Is this in fact written law?, Is POTUS required to wait and see if the state operations will work?

If this remains in state hands, what is the chain of command?
ie, does the NG follow the MO State Police lead?

jonst

This link just seems like because of a bad apple here and there, their trying to tarnish all members of the NG. I think it is nonsense....comparing them to Hitler and all that crap.

Tyler

Sir,

You're right, the policeman didn't know. The thing is that Michael Brown didn't know that the policeman didn't know. All he knew was he had just committed strong arm robbery and saw a police officer getting out of his car. To Brown, he thought he was going to get arrested, and so the sequence of events described (attacked officer, tried to get his gun, bum rushed the officer) makes a lot more sense in light of the fact that Brown was a violent felon fresh off a crime.

This is a scenario that was drilled into us at Artesia during vehicle stops, where you think you're pulling over someone because they went off the shoulder twice and its going to be a health and welfare stop. Turns out the guy behind the wheel is an illegal alien sex offender who thinks you're pulling him over to send him back to prison and has made up his mind he ain't going back. You might be thinking one thing but you have no idea who or what the other guy is thinking.

In this case, I'm glad water was thrown on the fire with this video before the John Coffey/gentle giant narrative took hold and we got Trayvon Part Deuce: Electric Boogaloo. I know this is problematic to a DoJ that's all about using its office as a racial club, but oh well.

The beaver

@ykw

Watch the 3rd video on this site - from beginning to the end:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-the-surveillance-video-allegedly-showing-michael-browns-robbery/

What was he doing at the cash?
Why was he waiting for the woman to get to the cash, hands behind his back and what ever he wanted to purchase on the counter?

If someone stole something, it is the first fellow who came in before the two guys ( Brown and his friend in the blue T-shirt)- watch his moves.

The beaver

@ ywk

video: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-the-surveillance-video-allegedly-showing-michael-browns-robbery/

Tyler

Something I'd like to point out IRT "the new police" is that enforced diversity of the sex based sort is behind why a lot of policies have been rewritten to give a giant amount of latitude to police officers.

Back in the day when deputies were 6'3, 300 lb good ol boys who baled hay on the weekend, they didn't need tasers and OC and the like. Being big and tough was enough to handle the situation.

However when enforced diversity came down from the federal mandarins and law enforcement agencies were ordered to "not discriminate" against 5'4, 100 lb females, that's when you started seeing more and more "less lethal" devices hitting the market so that the female officers/deputies could avoid having to get into clinches/brawls with men. The thing is that "less lethal" can work or it won't - have seen people wade through OC, I've worn out my arm with my baton, and generally thought to myself more than once "Am I going to have to shoot this son of a bitch" trying to apprehend someone who's fighting me.

So because agencies tend to look askance at dead or raped officers, the policies are rewritten to give the broad latitude that some find problematic. However you can't say "this is if you're a tiny female who has no business fighting grown ass men" so they couch it in terms like "articulable facts" and "totality of the circumstances". Just another facet of life turned upside down by forced equality coming out of the Imperial City.

Of course if I was dealing with a giant (6'4, 298 pounds) who was charging me, I wouldn't let him clinch me either. I'd shoot too, but I imagine that is distasteful to Eric "My People" Holder, who's still all about using the DoJ Civil Rights Division as a weapon against YT.

William R. Cumming

Thanks PL!

Fred

It seems quite a stretch to call this an insurrection. Are the roiters calling for over throwing the government?

turcopolier

Fred

If you read the law you will see it applies to a lot of situations short of insurrection. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad