National Guard

[cwbuff]

I am not sure this is the right forum for this, but here goes. I know some people are saying that in order for a state governor to call up the guard units in his/her state, they first must get approval from the President. However, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the states National Guard, unless it has been Federalized. Does this mean they can call them up when needed? Do they have to ask the President before hand?

The following are some items I pulled off of this web site. It would appear to me as if the governor has the authority to call up units as needed, without prior approval. What say the rest of you?

www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/arng.htm

"When the NG is in a nonfederal status, the governor serves as commander-in-chief of the NG in his state or territory and exercises command through the state adjutant general (TAG). While serving in state status, the NG provides military support to civil authorities, including law enforcement, in accordance with state law. "

"The ARNG is organized with each state having command and control over their state National Guard. State Governors and the TAGs direct all National Guard actions and accomplishment of training for the state."

"The Guard has a unique dual mission, with both Federal and State responsibilities. During peacetime, the Governor through the State Adjutant General commands Guard forces. The Governor can call the Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, and civil disturbances, to name a few."

[101ABN]

cwbuff said:

I am not sure this is the right forum for this, but here goes. I know some people are saying that in order for a state governor to call up the guard units in his/her state, they first must get approval from the President. However, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the states National Guard, unless it has been Federalized. Does this mean they can call them up when needed? Do they have to ask the President before hand?

The following are some items I pulled off of this web site. It would appear to me as if the governor has the authority to call up units as needed, without prior approval. What say the rest of you?

www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/arng.htm

"When the NG is in a nonfederal status, the governor serves as commander-in-chief of the NG in his state or territory and exercises command through the state adjutant general (TAG). While serving in state status, the NG provides military support to civil authorities, including law enforcement, in accordance with state law. "

"The ARNG is organized with each state having command and control over their state National Guard. State Governors and the TAGs direct all National Guard actions and accomplishment of training for the state."

"The Guard has a unique dual mission, with both Federal and State responsibilities. During peacetime, the Governor through the State Adjutant General commands Guard forces. The Governor can call the Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, and civil disturbances, to name a few."

The people that are saying this would include that incomparable moonbat, History Minor.

In other words, people without a clue.

[jaber1]

OK, 101. Include me in the clueless group with respect to the question asked by cwbuff, and to which I add my own:

Now that the U.S. is in a permanent state of "War" are all NG units subject to Federal or State control in the first instance?

Are the NG units in Iraq serving there at the pleasure of their State or the DoD?

Who gave the order for 300 men to return stateside from Iraq for 'Katrina duty'?

Watching Chertoff bumbling his way through several interviews, this issue of Federal vs State appeared to be part of his excuse for the poor response from FEMA.

I would appreciate a response to the questions asked, not some half-arsed partisan diversionary tactic.

[LorSpi]

jaber1 said:

I would appreciate a response to the questions asked, not some half-arsed partisan diversionary tactic.

Would that happen to be any response you disagree with?

State versus Federal standing squabbles have a long history in the US - and is still ongoing. Caused a Civil War, as a matter of fact.

I'm not sure which part you cannot understand? National Guard troops can be used at the pleasure of either the governor of the state - or the POTUS. National emergency trumps state.

[101ABN]

Jaber, you can find find your answers here.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/arng.htm

If you want any civil response from me in the future, please avoid remarks like this:

"I would appreciate a response to the questions asked, not some half-arsed partisan diversionary tactic."

Otherwise you can go pound sand in your ass.

[tits]

jaber1 said:

OK, 101. Include me in the clueless group with respect to the question asked by cwbuff, and to which I add my own:

Now that the U.S. is in a permanent state of "War" are all NG units subject to Federal or State control in the first instance?

Are the NG units in Iraq serving there at the pleasure of their State or the DoD?

Who gave the order for 300 men to return stateside from Iraq for 'Katrina duty'?

Watching Chertoff bumbling his way through several interviews, this issue of Federal vs State appeared to be part of his excuse for the poor response from FEMA.

I would appreciate a response to the questions asked, not some half-arsed partisan diversionary tactic.

they remain under state control. All budget items unless deployment for war or federal disaster relief are under the individual states. Forty years ago, the Vietnam war was fought with minimal USNG help. Somewhere around a total of 9800 National Guard personal were activated for that war out of the 1.6 million who served in country and 2.4 million who served during the conflict. Those that were, were primarily Air National Guard units for airbase operations. During that time we had several major hurricanes and one colossal flood that nearly took our farm. The National Guard was activated by the individuals governors at that time.

Second, I was a reservist for 16 years. Unlike the Guard we were and are federal military units. I was activated twice, both times the same rules applied to both the NG and R. That is unless a Presidential decree, members are given 72 hours to get their affairs in order and to report.

The real problem down south is that none of the officials realized just how immense the destruction was going to be. We are not talking about New Orleans only, as many of the Democratic leaders would have you to believe. We are talking about an area roughly the size of Great Briton. The shore line destruction itself is almost 300 miles long. When the Louisiana State Governor asked the President to declare a Federal State of Emergency for the Gulf coast on Saturday August 27, the governors should have immediately issued an activation order. This was not done for several reasons, but let it suffice that Bush could be guilty of one thing. Not immediately following the order with the declaration of the motivation of Federal troops. However, this would have created the image of Marshall law and would have been a possible violation of Posse Comitatus Act of 1876. That Congressional Act was passed during the reconstruction after the US Civil War to limit the use of the US military upon its civilian population. Basically, the President cannot activate the military unless it is in support of:

"only applies to forces in federal service, and therefore, the National Guard is not limited by the PCA in its normal status of state service. Because the National Guard is the modern militia, this distinction actually follows the intent of the PCA, which was not meant to limit militias. The courts have also implicitly limited army to the official military establishment rather than its broader plain meaning"

Further: "Disaster relief, another common use of the military, does not seem to violate the PCA because it is not a mission executing the laws"

I agree that many in positions of authority here were caught with their pants down. If we were dealing with a single city or a smaller area, the outcome would have been different. The only thing that I could imagine that would be similar in the EU would be something suddenly knocking flat that elaborate dike system in Holland flat. Or a major earthquake in the Med causing a massive Tsunami.

Most Americans do not understand just how terrible this is. Check the satellite images and you will begin to understand. We lost our farm in the 1993 Missouri/Mississippi rivers (500 year flood event). In fact, our neighbors found a house in the woods on his farm that came from a home over 30 miles away. Six family members (separate families) lost their homes in that event. The entire river valley effected (1500 linear miles). That event as terrible as it was pales in comparison to this disaster.

Sorry for babble.

[jaber1]

Thanks, Tittus, for the informative response.

I don't recall seeing a reference to the Posse Comitatus Act before so I really learned something.

I watched as much as I was able to see on CNN while I was away, and mostly on Fox News since I have been back, in addition to the various Internet news sources I commonly use, so I have seen the extent of the devastation they have broadcast.

I also check out Cagle's Cartoons regularly [ cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/ ] and see in there a vast number of 'blame' and 'feckless FEMA' observations.

What I find puzzling as an outsider is that immediately after the FSoE declaration on 27th - two days ahead of Katrina actually making landfall - neither the state nor FEMA apparatus seemed to do anything at all in terms of mobilisation - even to organise the basic 'chain of command'.

I also don't find convincing Chertoff's excuse that this was a 'two disaster' situation but 'plans' had only been prepared for each happening independently, not collectively. That was unbelievably weak in my view.
While the 'hurricane plan' must have had some provisions for possible flooding, once the levees were known to have been broached it would be clear that the 'broken levee flood plan' had to be the one implemented.

But all that aside, what I found most puzzling of all was the attitude of the people 'left behind' - they appeared to simply sit, wait and bitch for 'someone' to do something for them, even though they knew they had no water, no food, no sanitation and no 'information'.
In Europe, when an event like this occurs people - even entire communities - organise themselves to help themselves until told to stop doing so by the authorities.
The only ones in New Orleans who seemed to develop any form of spontaneous 'survival action plan' were the looters.

I realise that may simply be an impression derived from the reporting that I saw, but there were hours of images on CNN, FOX, BBC and Sky of people sitting among piles of rubbish perched above fetid floodwater and doing nothing.

[tits]

jaber1 said:

But all that aside, what I found most puzzling of all was the attitude of the people 'left behind' - they appeared to simply sit, wait and bitch for 'someone' to do something for them, even though they knew they had no water, no food, no sanitation and no 'information'.
In Europe, when an event like this occurs people - even entire communities - organize themselves to help themselves until told to stop doing so by the authorities.
The only ones in New Orleans who seemed to develop any form of spontaneous 'survival action plan' were the looters.

Jaber, many aspects of this situation really anger and trouble me. The chief of which is the finger pointing by the Bush Bashers and the second is the focus on New Orleans. There were four cities of over 100,000 that were destroyed, however, the press has focused only on New Orleans. The press and Black leaders are making it appear that the federal government allowed the city to die for race. However, nearly 60% of the city is Black. The fact that the city was destroyed had nothing to do with race at this point. The infrastructure was built upon that minority and therefore it can be aruged that the race card was laid in the city culture. The problem is that most of the Blacks in America still have the victim mentality and are wanting to inflict harm on the oppressors. Unfortunately, according to the 1990 census, only 22% of the Blacks in American today can trace their ancestory back to slavery and only 0.8% of the whites can trace ancestory back to slave owners. However, we are guilty of racism. Bigots are not limited to any particular race.

As a psychology student I find little use for victim game. In fact most psychosis that are considered dysfunctional have some foundation in the victim mentality.

This is hindered because many of those people were third and fourth generation welfare recipients.