They’re supposed to walk around (with loaded rifles?). What else are they told to do, if anything? What are they told they’re authorized to do? If someone throws something at them, have they been told how they’re allowed to respond? How are they allowed to respond?
I’ll let someone from Washington talk about what’s happening there.
In Chicago, it sounds like they’re moving a bunch of ICE agents to the near-by naval base, and National Guard will help protect them. Not sure if they’ll also be “patrolling” Chicago streets; I’ll keep you posted.
Last I read, they were going to be deployed to the Mexican Independence Day celebrations. In other words, being sent in to start a riot in order to justify their existence. Saturday and Sunday, Sept 13 & 14.
Pritzker believes ICE raids are being planned around Chicago Mexican Independence Day celebrations - CBS Chicago.
[Moderating]
This is inappropriate for FQ.
And where they will be deployed is a part of the answer to the OP’s question, but only a small part. What are they told to do once there?
Sorry, I was answering @Dr.Winston_OBoogie’s post. (ETA: also forgot what category we’re in!)
The thing is, if the NG is Federalized, they’re pretty much forbidden from acting in a law enforcement capacity (Posse Comitatus act) and they report to the actual military. If they’re not, then they’re under the command of their respective state’s governor. That’s why Eisenhower’s EO worked in Little Rock; the National Guard was deployed by order of Gov. Orval Faubus, then Eisenhower just issued an executive order Federalizing the Arkansas National Guard, and voila, they reported to him.
What I had read was that there are shenanigans going on to give Trump some sort of legal fig leaf by which they’re basically under his control, but somehow nominally under the command of their state’s governors. What I don’t quite get is if say… Pritzker says “Nope, no Texas NG troops can deploy in Illinois.”, how does that work?
He should send Illinois NG troops to occupy the Alamo…Fly them out of Midway to San Antonio on southwest. Sneak them in like Putin did with his little green men in Sevastopol.
From past history, what Ill. Gov. Pritzker says doesn’t matter – the troops still obey the President’s orders. Like in the prior example in your post – the Arkansas Gov. certainly didn’t want federalized NG troops, but they came anyway under Pres. Eisenhower’s orders.
And “how does that work?” – well, if bad things happen, Trump will blame Gov. Pritzker.
<that part isn’t factual – yet.>
Right, but if they’re Federalized, they’re legally forbidden from doing any sort of law-enforcement activity.
Seems like either illegal orders, which the Texas NG officers should refuse or cause for an injunction on the part of a Federal judge at that point.
My suspicion is that they’ll “deploy”, but be limited to doing nonsense like picking up trash, guarding Federal facilities that don’t need guarding, or otherwise just standing around. It’ll be something he can crow about, but it won’t actually have any meat to it.
And I bet he leaves Texas holding the bill as well, as the shenanigans leave them under State command and presumably pay/expenses.
I worry about the members of the National Guard. Are most of them still in college and using their benefits? The ones on active duty are missing this semester.
The Guard has to be careful not to get drawn into policing demonstrations and get accused of using excessive force to protect Federal property. I’m not sure how well protected they are by law.
Well the federalization and deployment to places other than DC hasn’t happened yet so it’s not possible to answer how that might happen (the deployment of NG in California was a different scenario and deemed illegal. I have not read the decision). In DC there is no governor. The president has sole control of the DC Guard. So any out of state troops that are called up by their governor and sent to DC are automatically put under Trump’s control (through the SECDEF).
Some of them? Sure. Most of them? Not by a long shot. The Guard units I’ve been in that were very close to large universities had a higher percentage of college students but not a majority. In my experience Guard units on average tend to skew older than comparable Army units.
From this article:
US District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of the federal government to use military force for domestic matters.
Which is what I’m getting at; according to the Posse Comitatus Act, the Federal government can’t use the Federal military to do domestic law enforcement, except in the case of some sort of emergency. National Guard troops are legally part of the military proper when Federalized, and can’t be used for those purposes either.
And if they’re not Federalized, they’re under the command of their State’s governor and can be used for law enforcement purposes. DC is a special case, in that in effect its governor is the President.
There are three statuses that activated NG units can be in- Title 10, which is fully Federalized/integrated into the US Military, Title 32, which is basically under State command but Federally funded, and State Active Duty, which is under State command and funding.
NGB-Fact-Sheet-Duty-Status-Reference-FINAL.pdf
For example, Texas NG units used in Kerr County were almost certainly State Active Duty, but those deployed to Louisiana after Katrina were Title 32.
I think the weirdness is that I believe that State governors can essentially place their units under the temporary command of others- that’s what happened after Katrina, for example. NG units from all over were under the command of Task Force Katrina/GEN Honore for practical purposes, but were still technically under the command of their state’s governors, who had presumably delegated that authority.
In fact, Texas NG units were withdrawn on orders from Gov. Rick Perry from Louisiana to assist in Texas with Hurricane Rita recovery efforts. This wouldn’t have been possible had they been Title 10 federalized.
So to me, the question is more what happens when say… Greg Abbott delegates command authority to some Federal person who wants to deploy Texas NG troops to Chicago, but Pritzker says “There’s no emergency here, fuck off and go home. We don’t want the Texas NG or anyone else here.”
Related to this thread. Trump is sending NG troops to Chicago reportedly because of the crime there. But federalized troops cannot, by law, be used to enforce laws. So what would they be doing there?
I can’t speak for their current orders, but I can say that when airports first re-opened to commercial air traffic after the Twin Towers attacks, the National Guard patrolling those airports were toting firearms that were not loaded. If you knew what to look for, you could tell the mags were empty. It’s possible their sidearms were loaded, but IMO it was largely a pantomime show of force.
So far I have not seen the troops in DC doing law enforcement. Walking around doing prescence patrols is not law enforcement. Raking leaves and picking up trash is stupid but it’s not law enforcement. So far what I’ve seen has been about what I expected, performative pandering. A show of force with no force used. The president is happy because he thinks they are doing what he asked and the military leadership is keeping their troops out of trouble by keeping them visible but not doing anything illegal. There may be worse stuff happening but so far I’m not seeing it.
That was part of Operation Noble Eagle. At least the ones around NYC. I was activated several times for Noble Eagle. We were at the bridges and tunnels. For the first time in my career we were issued ammo. No way of knowing exactly what ROE those airport troops were under. They may have had live mags on them to load if the threat level increased.
Moderator Note
This is in FQ, so stick to the facts, please.
I realize that this is a highly charged political issue, but everyone please keep responses in this thread appropriate to FQ.
Pritzker seems to believe that If the National Guard foment unrest during the Mexican Independence Day celebrations, Trump will claim a state of emergency.