Skip to main content

View Diary: Overnight, all hell broke loose in Ferguson, Missouri (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Time to stand down the local paramilitaries.... (11+ / 0-)

    ....and call in the Guard to protect the protesters.  I normally am loathe to the idea, but if the Governor won't do it; then Obama must Federalize the MS NG.

    This space for rent -- Cheap!

    by jds1978 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 06:08:15 AM PDT

    •  You can forget that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CWinebrinner

      The President is not going to Federalise the National Guard for crying out loud. And even if he was inclined to do so, the process is not as easy as a routine executive order, he must have statutory authority to do so, it can't be done on a whim. So unless he's willing to ignore the law and create a Constitutional crisis involving the military, that's not going to happen.

      The Governor can and may do so, but you might not like the results.

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 06:21:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Breaking newsThe NAtional Guard IS a federal unit (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kingfishstew, dewtx, chrisculpepper

        Theyre only nominally "state" units. They're in the federal chain of command, theyre paid and equipped by the federal government. And commanded by them

        Wiki

        The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.
        ....In 1933, with passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force.
        .....The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard of the United States[1] and the Air National Guard of the United States respectively.[1]
        ......The National Guard is administered by the National Guard Bureau, which is a joint activity of the Army and Air Force under the DoD
        .....Many states also maintain their own state defense forces. Although not federal entities like the National Guard of the United States, these forces are components of the state militias like the individual state National Guards.

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 06:46:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CWinebrinner, white blitz

          Familiarise yourself with the law that lays out when the National Guard can be Federalised (start with 10 U.S.C. § 12406) and get back to me.

          Yes, as I said, it can be done, but not on a whim. And it won't be happening here.

          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

          by Pi Li on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 06:57:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Correct, previous presidents have federalized (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tikkun, dewtx

          the national guard, and any president is within his rights to assume direct control of any state's national guard if he deems it necessary. It last happened famously in Katrina, I believe, and of course there was when it was done to enforce desegregation. Generally speaking, its done when local police are either unable or unwilling to serve the local populace.

          •  Where are you getting this stuff? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jts327

            Part of the issue with Katrina was that Bush was supposedly waiting for clearance from Blanco to Federalise the NG, for several days (though ultimately he had the authority, under very different circumstances).

            But what's rationale here? You're going to, what, have the National Guard running around out there with their military hardware at the same time as the local police is running around with their military hardware? All in the midst of angry civilians? What's the purpose of having Federal troops in such a mix?  You can't have them engaging in crowd control and possibly shooting at civilians. Or perhaps you think the NG is going to be called to reign in the local cops...and if you President is going to call up the National Guard to do that, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

            Or are you going to order the local cops to stand down? And if so, who's going to do that?

            No one is saying the President doesn't have the authority, certainly he does under certain circumstances. But the President can't just say "Gee, things look bad down there. I'll just Federalise the National Guard and send them on down to take care of it" every time he doesn't like the way local law enforcement is doing its job. Doesn't work that way.  

            And it's moot, because it's not going to happen. And if the Guard does come in, it would be via the Governor's office anyway.

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:10:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whether it would happen or not is a political (0+ / 0-)

              question, as is largely what they'd do down there if they were federalized. The issue, I believe, was the idea that one the federal government couldn't legally do it, and two its inconcievable that the national guard could push local police out of the way. These two idea kind of fly in the face of how the NG has been used in this country within living memory.

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                I never said that the National Guard could never be Federalised, clearly it can and has been in the past. In fact I referenced the statute in which that could be done.

                Again, it's moot, it won't be happening here and the President won't even attempt it.

                Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                by Pi Li on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  He wouldn't "federalize" the NG, they ARE federal (0+ / 0-)

              I got that stuff right out of wiki---read it yourself, I provided the reference. The NG is a FEDERAL unit. Obama would never federalize them, they ARE federal troops. he has the authority of them in EVERY circumstance. I have no idea what Bush was talking about and I bet he didn't either. Maybe he misunderestimated

              You're going to, what, have the National Guard running around out there with their military hardware at the same time as the local police is running around with their military hardware?.....Or are you going to order the local cops to stand down? And if so, who's going to do that?
              I am considering whether sending the NGs is the right thing to do, haven't decided yet. When I do I'll get back to you before I send them. As to ordering the local cops to stand down, I've already done so.
              I was in the Army in the 60s, we practiced crowd control. At that time many federal units were better trained in crowd control than local ones and may still be.
              Consider what happened in Little Rock 1954. Ike sent in the 101st because he didn't trust the loyalties of the AR NG  
              in Detroit '67 LBJ sent in the 82d because the MI NG was part of the  Problem.

              What I'm saying is that the NG is a federal unit already---no need for a constitutional crisis to make it so.

              Happy just to be alive

              by exlrrp on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:33:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When people say "federalize" they are refering to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, white blitz

                the command structure. Their CnC can be the state's governor, or it can be the President of the United states. It may be more accurate to say that they have two CnCs, but federalizing basically the process by which the President not only 'officially' but in 'reality' takes his presedence of command over the Governor, to the point where a governor who might wish to, can't countermand the orders comming from Washington.

                •  Although, I'll add the only time I know of this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  white blitz

                  has ever been an issue was with desegregation in the 50s, and maybe some scuffles with West Virginian miners earlier, if I remember correctly. Usually the Governor wants the same thing for his people that the feds do.

        •  10 U.S.C. § 12406 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chrisculpepper, OldDragon

          Whenever—

          (1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

          (2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

          (3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

          the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

      •  You are right, of course, (4+ / 0-)

        but can you see how the pattern of these incidents and the dead-end investigations and the lack of accountability of the police lead to reasonable people no longer granting legitimacy to police forces, and by extension, the judicial system?  

        The facts in this particular case can't be known... yet... and I think you do provide a useful function by urging caution.  

        I just hope that as a former prosecutor you can realize how severely this pattern of police shootings that never result in accountability erodes confidence in the system itself.  At least acknowledging that would help people to take your other comments and your cautions about vigilantism more seriously.  

        Nobody in Ferguson - or in the country - can trust this particular police force any longer.  When the facts come out it may be that in this particular case that the shooting was justified (although I really doubt it), but when dozens of these cases occur, when the police overreact as if this is a war zone, and when there is never accountability, one has to question the system itself.  

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:02:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (4+ / 0-)

          If you look at my comments, I've been very critical about how the local police has been handling this situation, from the investigation to crowd control. Few things are more scary than an out of control police force that is at war with its citizenry. It's been unacceptable.

          As you correctly point out, whether the shooting was justified or not, the reaction by these cops is something that's going to reverberate for a long time and there's going to have to be a reckoning...and then reform.

          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

          by Pi Li on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:15:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm glad to hear it... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, kingfishstew

            I'll confess to annoyance to some of your posts in the past, but also I think you are sincere and not some rw troll... and your discussion of the law usually has merit even if we've disagreed on refugee law. Acknowledging the anger and fear people feel helps people consider your comments on their merits.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:38:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You mean the MO NG (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, limpidglass, CenPhx, jds1978

      Its already a federal unit. (so is the MS NG)

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 06:23:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama barely believes in federalism (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TJ, kingfishstew, tikkun, chrisculpepper

      it took him five years and the Republicans twice bringing us to the brink of worldwide economic disaster before he would even acknowledge that we should have a federal government. Don't expect much from him.

      The ACA is yet another tacit admission that he doesn't really believe in federalism--it punts huge swaths of responsibility for health care (which is fundamentally a federal problem) to the states. Another huge concession to the neo-Confederates.

      Obama is not going to go very far out of his way to stand up for the law. If it costs him politically--and this is an election year, remember--he won't do it.

      The people who really run this country don't want the federal government to step in and limit the power of local police authorities. It sets a horrible precedent as far as they're concerned.

      It's not that they're necessarily racist, it's just that they want absolute freedom of action for police. Because when it comes time for the police to crack down with a hard hand to protect the 1% from the rest of us, the 1% don't want inconvenient rules and regulations getting in the cops' way.

      If Obama shows signs of intervening in anything more than a token fashion, they're going to put pressure on him. And as I said, this is an election year.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 06:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site