U.S. won't allow governors to direct military

[madfloridian]

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates has rejected a proposal to let governors command active duty troops responding to disasters, officials said Wednesday, though the Pentagon will grant National Guard leaders more authority to coordinate with other military and homeland security agencies.

Gates told Congress Wednesday he had approved 20 of the 23 changes recommended recently by an independent commission in an effort to improve Guard funding, equipment and coordination in emergencies.

His comments came just days after tornadoes in Kansas highlighted deficiencies with Guard equipment and gaps in planning that were exposed by the Gulf hurricanes more than 18 months ago.

Gates did not reveal which recommendations from the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves that he rejected. But two defense officials familiar with the matter told The Associated Press he didn't agree with the panel's suggestion that governors be allowed to direct active duty troops responding to emergencies in their states.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18582104/

[Kagemusha]

1. Uh no, the issue was never GOVERNORS commanding troops.

I had no idea there was such a proposal and that it had been met with anything but mocking laughter.

[Monkeyman]

2. K&R

[madfloridian]

3. I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I thought in emergencies governors had been able to call out needed Guard troops?

The title is from the article, not me. :shrug:

[Toots]

30. This isn't about National Guard, it is about regular military

Since there are not enough Guardsmen around now Bush* will aid by sending in regular military but will not let the Governor corordinate and run the rescue and clean up. Bush* has broken our real Homeland Defense and has inserted Military control over our country..

[loudsue]

33. Bush isn't sending "the military". They're sending BLACKWATER.

And I don't want those fucking nazis in MY neighborhood!

What happened to the constitution in all of this? What about the States being able to run their own affairs?

:kick::kick::kick:

[Toots]

34. "What about the States being able to run their own affairs?"

The NeoCon Extreme Court took care of that little matter in 2000 in Bush* vs Gore. Only case in the History of the Supreme Court that went against it's entire basis of existence. To establish Legal Precedent. This is the only case ever that can not be used as precedent because it was so flawed and they knew it was at the time...Never in their entire history have they ever said their ruling could not ever be brought up again....A one shot affair only good for that particular case... :shrug: As long as the NeoCons rule there will be no rights for the states or anyone else for that matter..

[Trillo]

4. There appears to be at least two different types of State militia

The National Guard, and State Defense Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

I can't shed further light on this, I've never studied the relevant laws. It appears that, perhaps, State Defense Forces will need to be called by states in the event of natural disasters, not the National Guard.

[BushOut06]

5. I served in the National Guard for several years, I've never heard of this at all

State Defense Forces? Never heard of such a thing. The National Guard is under the control of the state, except when it is mobilized by the President in times of war. It's the National Guard's responsibility to react to state disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, riots, etc. The unit I was in was activated several times for state disasters.

[madfloridian]

8. I must be interpreting this paragraph wrong.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates has rejected a proposal to let governors command active duty troops responding to disasters, officials said Wednesday, though the Pentagon will grant National Guard leaders more authority to coordinate with other military and homeland security agencies."

I gathered National Guard would only be able to coordinate with military and homeland security agencies.

If there has not been a change why would they put up an article like this.

It is confusing and not very clear.

[Trillo]

10. One of those wikipedia pages has all the relevant laws cited

Here's one referenced offsite cite (an "offcite"?):

Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

Backers of the new rules, including U.S. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the changes were needed to clarify the role of the armed forces in responding to serious domestic emergencies.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

I'd never heard of "State Defense Forces" either, but that doesn't mean much, I have heard of State Police.

[Thothmes]

16. State Defense Forces

The State of Virginia does have an organization called the Virginia Self Defense Force (Think that is the correct term) Have only seen them called officially during a particularly bad Hurricane a few years back. Most of its members appeared to not be qualified for membership in the NG or Reserve.

[madfloridian]

6. So...does this mean governors can not call in national guard for emergencies?

This article tells Charlie Crist to Think Kansas..and it says Sebellius was trying to call out National Guard but half were in Iraq. Then she changed her tune apparently and quit questioning Bush.

What is going on?

Florida, think Kansas

President Bush and the Pentagon have promised the nation's governors that extended duty in Iraq and Afghanistan won't prevent the National Guard from responding capably to disasters at home.

But Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius learned firsthand on Saturday what Washington's promise is worth. She tried to mobilize Guard troops after the tornado that all but wiped the town of Greensburg off the map. The Guard had only 40 percent of its equipment allocation on hand; the rest was in Iraq. Gov. Sebelius said the Guard's depleted resources are "really going to handicap this effort to rebuild." A government study has found the Guard's readiness nationally at a 35-year low, with 88 percent of units "not ready" to deploy.

"Gov. Crist and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., have implored the Bush administration to shore up the Guard in Florida before hurricane season. The Florida Guard began the year with only about 25 percent of its equipment on hand, but has raised its stockpiles to about 50 percent of authorized levels.

As Gov. Sebelius would agree, Sen. Nelson is right to believe that's not good enough. He wants the Pentagon to allow the state to open federal military storehouses at Army bases so the Guard and first responders can get what they need quickly if storms hit. Florida would have to sign an agreement with the Defense Department to get access to the federal equipment. Gov. Crist runs the unacceptable risk of leaving Florida vulnerable if he doesn't learn from Kansas' problems and work with Sen. Nelson to pressure the administration to back promises with real commitments.

I think Crist is being very trusting. He was told all was ok.

Crist should watch how they blamed Sebellius.

[eridani]

9. If Crist thinks that being a Repub will exempt him from blame--

--he really needs to think again.

[rodeodance]

7. "dual command" during a crisis is the issue:

Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said, "The governor doesn't believe the best structure is dual command during a time of emergency."

"He thinks there needs to be further discussion and review of whether a governor and adjutant general should be given command of all troops assisting in the response during a time of emergency," said the spokeswoman, Anna Richter-Taylor.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, chairwoman of the National Governors Association, had no immediate comment on the development, spokesman Jeanine L'Ecuyer said.

[madfloridian]

11. I found a little more about it, but still confused.

It does sound to me like governors will not be able to deploy the national guard....but still not sure.

National Guard Authority

Gates rejects emergency command proposal

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Officials say Defense Secretary Robert Gates will reject a plan to let governors command active-duty troops responding to disasters in their states.

Defense officials tell The Associated Press that instead Gates has approved nearly all the changes recommended by an independent panel aiming to improve Guard funding, equipment and coordination in emergencies.

That word comes a few days after tornadoes in Kansas spotlighted the fact that gaps in Guard preparedness are still a problem -- 18 months after the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

Gates told a Senate panel today his department is "trying to deal" with the Guard's problems.

It is not worded clearly enough for me.

[krispos42]

25. I think it's about the governor commanding the reg. army troops

In an emergency, the governor activates the state's national guard. If it's a really bad disaster, the President can send in Regular Army troops, like, say, some of the the 101st Air Assault, to help out.

I think the governors wanted the ability to fold the Regular Army troops into the same command structure as the National Guard, State Police, etc. This way the governor can order the Regular Army troops around like he can the Guardsmen. The Pentagon rejected this, so now there will have to be some sort of liason from the Pentagon that the governor can make requests to for the Regular Army.

In other words, the Regular Army can't 'loan' any units to the governor. Any Regular Army units helping in the state will still be under federal command and control.

[davhill]

12. Isn't this what the Second Amendment is REALLY all about

That the Federal government cannot prevent the states from having a "well ordered militia". Bush has trampled on every single article of the Bill of Rights as well as several in the Constitution itself.

[grasswire]

13. this is it, the big kahuna

Time for conservatives to take to the streets.

This is a direct attack on states' rights.

This is as important as Bush v. Gore.

Unthinkable.

We've been waiting for this day. Here it is.

[CK_John]

14. We are at "WAR". The Governor may not know it and most people don't

know it. But the Fed's know it. We are legally at war and the Governor should get a better lawyer.

[okoboji]

18. please refresh my memory ....

on what day did congress, declare war?

[Orsino]

27. Not.

It's useful to think about it as a de facto state of war, but declaring war according to the Constitution means something different. Congress has not declared war in sixty years.

Here's hoping they find the courage to pull the plug on their non-war war.

[TheWatcher]

28. You should get a better clue.

This was never a fomally declared war. If you can find for me some proof of that I would greatly appreciate it.

We are only at a state of war because a few criminals call it a war.

It seems our Status as a Rogue Nation has clouded your perspective of things.

Hope you feel better soon. :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. So right you are.

The federal government has declared war on the US constitution. We need to recognise that, and prepare to defend ourselves against the government.

[Screwfly]

15. I believe

their was a U.S. Army base near that Kansas town which got wiped out a tornado. I guess the proposal was to give state governors the authority to take command of federal military units in their state, and have them assist in disaster recovery.

I'm no legal expert, but I think using regular army troops in a domestic capacity would violate the Posse Comitatus Act; the president of United States is only suppose to use U.S. Army forces on American soil if some part of the country is in state of rebellion.

[merh]

17. Thank you, that is how I read the article and the law.

The National Guard is not the "active duty troops" that this law deals with - it's the active military, separate from the Guard. I think there was some law created at the beginning of this mess that made a certain number of the Guard "active duty" to be used in this war, but I have to look.

And yes, it's about the use of the military (more than just the guard) on the American soil (possibly against her citizens should the emergency necessite).

[madfloridian]

20. I am still confused at what this article was about.

Not sure what changes took place.

[merh]

21. It is a change as to the Pentagon's policy regarding the use

of the active military - it is not about the Guard.

After Katrina, Bush wanted to bring in the military, there are laws against use of the military on American soil, to protect us from being persecuted by our government using the military. I wouldn't put it past this bunch of crooks to have their crafty, crooked lawyers to rewrite the Pentagon's policy to circumvent the law, just as they have done with torture and the war and every other structure of government and control.

[madfloridian]

22. Thanks.

Does it appear to bypass Posse Comitatus? Or can you tell?

[merh]

23. I need to look at it closer and can't do that until this evening

But it concerns me in light of this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x860772

You may want to cross post your article in that thread :scared:

[entanglement]

19. The National Governors Association wasn't too pleased with the Defense Authorization Act

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.cb6e7818b34088d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=0a05e362c5f5d010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

[slackmaster]

24. Governors have their own state militias

Both the National Guard and the unorganized militias (i.e. everyone).

[loudsue]

26. Looking at all the posts on this thread & over at DailyKos...it becomes CLEAR

that the chain of command has been intentionally BROKEN, and that, just as on this thread, everyone is CONFUSED about chain of command, and what in the hell should actually HAPPEN should a catastrophe take place.

This makes chaos inevitable during a time of emergency, and what better time to implement martial law and a complete, totalitarian take-over of all malitia personnel to turn them against a chaotic citizenry.

In other words, there are NO CLEAR LAWS IN PLACE to protect us from our government, but only to protect our government from US.

What I'm trying to say is, basically, our Democracy under the republicans is now officially DEAD.

:kick::kick::kick:

[RiDuvessa]

29. I'll see if I can make this a little more clear.

There was a proposal in the above group of changes that would let governors call out Federal troops stationed in their state. For example, if the proposal had gone through, then Georgia's governor would have the authority to call on federal Army infantry troops at Fort Benning during a state crisis. The Defense Secretary turned down that portion of the proposal.

Currently if federal troops are used without very specific circumstances, then it's a violation of the Posse Comatis Act.

Currently governors can only call out National Guard troops in their state, unless they have been federalized for some reason. Then they fall under the federal chain of command just like federal troops. It can be hard to understand because the National Guard troops have and always have had two chains of command.

[Javaman]

31. I just started a 4 volume set on WWII. I just got to the part where

hitler took over power in 1933.

"The Enabling act was passed by the Reichstag which gave Hitler the power to pass laws without parliamentary approval and from then on he legislated by decree. Swiftly, he used his increased powers to consolidate his rule and crush the opposition. Speedily, and in turn he destroyed the state and local governments, liquidated political opposition, purged the judiciary, intimidated the civil service bureaucracy, and dissolve the unions."

-Abraham Rothberg