national guard nat'l
not deployed for hours 1/6 despite mult req; bUT
---
an 2 25
inspired by President Donald Trump’s call to round up immigrants who are in the country illegally, Republican governors would send their National Guard troops into Democratic-led states without those leaders’ permission.
It’s a scenario that was so concerning to Washington state Rep. Sharlett Mena that she introduced legislation that would make uninvited deployments of out-of-state troops illegal. Her bill cleared a committee last week and has the backing of Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, who pushed for the proposal in his inaugural address last month.
The legislation is about maintaining the state’s autonomy and authority, Mena, a Democrat, told her colleagues during last week’s hearing. “Without this bill, there’s nothing on the books to prevent this.”
Later, she added, “Other states may take matters into their own hands when they want to enforce federal laws.”
In December, 26 Republican governors — all but Vermont Gov. Phil Scott — vowed to assist Trump with deportations of immigrants “who pose a threat to our communities and national security.” Their pledge included the use of National Guard troops.
Mena has reason to be concerned, said Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning New York-based pro-democracy institute.
“The Trump administration has made it quite clear that they intend to use the military to assist with immigration enforcement,” he said. “States who are opposed to that would be wise to take what measures they can to protect themselves and their states.”
This week, Texas signed an agreement with the Trump administration giving the state’s National Guard troops law enforcement powers to arrest and help detain migrants. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s four-year Operation Lone Star program has until now used the National Guard only for surveillance and logistical support for federal agents.
Other states opposed to Trump’s deportation program could be inspired by Washington’s legislation and introduce similar measures in the months ahead, Nunn said. And Mena pointed out that Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas have laws that prevent other states’ National Guard troops from entering without permission.
‘Anything we can do to help’: This Texas county is poised to play a key role in deportations
But, as she noted to her colleagues last week, if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh dismisses Mena’s concerns.
“I believe that legislation is unnecessary,” he told Stateline in an interview. “I think it’s what is generally considered a statement bill, but you have to treat it seriously. I’m not sure what they’re getting at here other than a swipe at Donald Trump.”
Washington state law prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement — which Walsh described as “horrible” public policy. Mena’s legislation would only add to that “dumb” approach to immigration enforcement, he said.
Federal law
While the National Guard is generally organized at and operates under state command using state funding, it can be called into federal service, operating with federal funding and placed under the president’s control. But there’s a murky middle ground in federal law that would make a measure like Washington’s relevant.
Under one federal statute, Title 32, a state’s National Guard can be commanded by the governor but operate using federal funding on a federal mission at the request of the president. While the policy was originally crafted in the 1950s as a way for Congress to pay for extensive training requirements, presidents have since expanded its use.
Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump, in his first term, all deployed National Guard troops to the southwestern border to assist with migration deterrence.
Trump’s mass deportation plan could rely on state cooperation
Trump also used the statute in 2020 to request that states send National Guard units to Washington, D.C., when he wanted to suppress the Black Lives Matter protests happening there. Eleven governors voluntarily sent troops, despite objections from the district’s mayor. The district does not enjoy the sovereignty of states.
“No state is more sovereign than another state, and their sovereignty is also territorially limited,” Nunn said. “Illinois’ sovereignty stops at the Indiana state line and vice versa. Indiana cannot reach into Illinois and exercise governmental power there without Illinois’ consent, even if the president asked Indiana to do this and even if Congress is footing the bill.”
Put simply: No state can invade another state.
‘An insurance policy’
Because of this, Washington state’s legislation might be redundant, said William Banks, a professor emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law who has studied and recently written about National Guard deployments and Trump’s rhetoric of a migrant “invasion.”
“It’s like an insurance policy,” he said of the bill. “It may be a very good idea to call attention to the independence of the state government and its perspective that they’d very much like to be in charge of their own internal affairs, including migration or whatever else might be going on.”
Banks said the measure, if passed as expected, could be something that state leaders point to if, for example, Idaho or Montana were considering deploying their National Guard units to Seattle to carry out Trump’s immigration enforcement.
However, he said, the whole discussion becomes irrelevant the moment Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, which would allow for federal military intervention in a nonconsenting state.
State, local officials plan for potential immigration enforcement at schools
The 1792 law has been used occasionally in response to unexpected crises that overwhelmed civilian authorities or when a state was obstructing federal civil rights laws or other constitutional protections. In theory, though, the president could frame one of his policy priorities, such as immigration, as a national emergency in need of a massive troop mobilization. Trump has already asked his deputies to study the use of the law.
“The Insurrection Act is a euphemism for when all hell breaks loose,” Banks said. “It’s an extreme measure for extreme times.”
Until that occurs, Washington lawmakers would be wise to adopt preventive measures, said Nathan Bays, deputy policy director for Washington’s governor. He told committee members during the bill’s hearing that it is “precautionary” and would not harm the readiness or training of the state’s National Guard.
“Washington will continue to be a strong partner with our other National Guard units across this nation,” he said.
But Republican state Rep. Rob Chase told Stateline that the legislation is a solution looking for a problem — wasting time when the legislature should be focused on real issues, such as public safety, homelessness, a housing shortage, fentanyl and education.
“This seems like more fear mongering by the ruling party in Olympia over what they perceive to be happening in the other Washington,” he wrote in an email.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
---
omg
Unbelievably dangerous': Top Democrat slams Gov. Noem for using the National Guard as a 'private militia'
David Badash The New Civil Rights Movement
July 01, 2021
The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee is blasting South Dakota Republican **Governor Kristi Noem** for fulfilling the request of a wealthy GOP donor who asked her to deploy....nat'l gd in texas abbott border
trumpista gop govs ove to have pix foto opp w/?
an 3 22
Governor Greg Abbott‘s use of the Texas National Guard to protect “some of the wealthiest private ranches” as a part of his $2 billion a year border security mission is being blasted – by some of the very service members ordered to stand guard “outside ranches with wealthy or politically connected owners.”
“We really don’t understand why we are there,” one service member told The Texas Tribune. “We’re essentially mall security for ranches that already have paid security details to protect them.”
The Texas Tribune’s investigation into the program reveals the National Guard members deployed to protect those wealthy ranches “have widely decried the mission as aimless, political and oversized.” It reportedly was stopped last month after the Tribune started its investigation – and started filing document requests.
“Earlier this year,” in one example, “about 30 Texas National Guard members were ordered to stand watch outside some of the most prestigious private ranches in South Texas, more than an hour’s drive away from the Mexico border, as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s highly touted mission to curb illegal immigration,” the Tribune reports.
Included among those wealthy ranches being protected are “the sprawling and renowned King Ranch and the GOP-connected Armstrong Ranch.”
The Armstrong Ranch is “the property of a longtime Republican family that has hosted GOP leaders like Karl Rove, former Gov. Rick Perry and former Vice President Dick Cheney,” who made it infamous when, as Vice President, he shot his host, accidentally, in the face.
Overall, Abbott has deployed 10,000 troops for his wider “border security mission,” named “Operation Lone Star.” Many of them “have said they were not given a clear task or adequate training, equipment or lodging.”
These are not voluntary deployments nor are they full-time service members who would be performing regular duties anyway and just happened to get sent elsewhere.
“Abbott kicked off Operation Lone Star last March and ramped up its scale in September, leading to involuntary deployments with only a few days notice for part-time troops who have civilian jobs, lives and families.”
Should anyone think the presence of the National Guard is a good idea or necessary to nab migrants crossing the border, not only were many stationed 80 miles from the border, but they do not have legal authority to cross into the private land they reportedly are protecting to make arrests.
Another Guard member says it looks “crazy” to have them protecting rich ranchers.
“These ranchers have enough money to do private security or have private security guard these gates,” the Guardsman told the Tribune. “The optics are just kind of crazy.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/black-lives-matter/yes-trump-had-protesters-tear-gassed-much-fox-news-and-other-right-wing-media
Maj. Adam DeMarco, an Iraq veteran now serving with the D.C. National Guard, has become a whistleblower against the Trump administration’s denials that it had used tear gas — and specifically, chemical agent varieties — against Black Lives Matters protesters in Lafayette Square in a now-infamous episode on June 1.
The Washington Post reports:
DeMarco is scheduled to testify Tuesday before the House Natural Resources Committee, which is investigating the government’s actions in clearing protesters away from Lafayette Square with projectiles, gas, smoke and mounted police, including an apparent assault on Australian journalists by two Park Police officers. His statement was posted Monday on the committee’s website.
…
As the federal and local police waded into the protesters, DeMarco said he saw smoke being used and that he was told by a Park Police officer it was “stage smoke,” not tear gas. But DeMarco said, “I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or ‘tear gas.’" He said he found spent tear gas canisters on the street later.
The local CBS affiliate in Washington also found spent tear gas canisters at the scene, further giving the lie to the government’s claims.
CNN reported that Trump decided to tear-gas the crowd andstage the photo-op at St. John’s Episcopal Church because he was upset by earlier press coverage that he had been rushed into the White House’s underground bunker during earlier protests.
However, right-wing media personalities seized on early denials by the U.S. Park Police to insist that tear gas was never used at all. Such people included Fox News contributor Byron York, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, and Fox prime-time host Laura Ingraham. On her show, Ingraham called it a “lie” that tear gas was used, claiming that “not only did law enforcement not use tear gas, the supposedly ‘peaceful’ crowd may not have been.”
Trump himself tweeted an article by right-wing outlet The Federalist on June 2, carrying the denial that tear gas was used.
The Trump campaign also demanded a retraction from various outlets (even including Media Matters) of the claim that tear gas was used, hinging on a narrow parsing of words to argue that solid pepper balls — which, when combined with the smoke bombs also present, form a tear-inducing gas — did not constitute “tear gas.” (In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention includes pepper spray in the definition of “tear gas.”)
Fox News also waged an all-out propaganda campaign, keeping in sync with the Trump administration even as the party line kept shifting. While Fox’s early coverage glorified the use of tear gas and Trump’s walk to the church — calling it an “iconic moment” — within a day the network was parroting the administration’s denial that tear gas had been used, hinging on that supposed distinction of pepper agents.
Fox’s then-anchor Ed Henry even denied that “pepper spray and whatnot was used” at all, to which fellow news anchor Dana Perino responded: “Well, and I also think that when you're explaining ‘pepper balls’ versus ‘pepper spray,’ I mean, it's not necessarily a good one to have to do.”
And even that level of verbal quibbling was pointless because as the overwhelming mountain of evidence shows, chemical tear gas was used on top of the pepper agents — no matter how much right-wing media may try to deny it.
https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/another-trump-con-now-hes-cheating-frontline-workers-and-national-guard-troops/
89 day deploy? trms
==
North Dakota Army National Guard has deployed two surface-to-air missile-launchers near a critical work site for the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL.
Protestors spotted one of the Avenger missile systems on Jan. 16 and posted photos and videos on Facebook. “Anti-drone missile system confirmed on top of a hill guarding the DAPL drill pad,” Jon Ziegler, a self-described “citizen journalist,” wrote on Facebook.
North Dakota Guard spokesman William Prokopyk told The Daily Beast that the Avenger’s missile tubes aren’t loaded. “These systems have observation capabilities and are used strictly in the observation role to protect private property and public safety,” Prokopyk said.
“There’s no authority to arm them,” he stressed, adding that the two Avengers have been in Morton County—site of the drill pad—for more than a month without incident.
The drill pad the Avenger is “protecting” belongs to Dakota Access, LLC, the company building the nearly 1,200-mile-long pipeline meant to transport oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil field to a storage facility in Illinois.
Dakota Access had hoped to extend the pipe underneath Lake Oahe, which lies on federal land in southern North Dakota. A protest movement originating with the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which lies on Oahe’s western shore, successfully pressured the Obama administration to deny Dakota Access the easement it needed to drill underneath the lake.
But Dakota Access has vowed to complete the $4-billion pipeline, apparently via an alternate route. Work continues on private land. And it’s on this land that the Guard has stationed its missile launcher.
The Morton County Sheriff’s Department commented on the Avenger deployment on Facebook shortly after The Daily Beast began making inquiries. “MYTH: Law enforcement has [an] anti-drone missile system on the top of a hill to guard the DAPL drill pad and shoot down drones,” the department wrote.
“FACT: The N.D. National Guard does have an Avenger system employed in support of the Dakota Access Pipeline Protest,” the department continued. “These systems are used strictly for observation of ungoverned encampments to help protect private property and maintain public safety.”
Still, the presence of a missile launcher—even an unloaded one—will likely increase tensions between the Standing Rock protestors and authorities. Police in North Dakota have come under scrutiny for using violent, military-style tactics against peaceful, unarmed protestors.
The Avenger is foremost a weapon of war. It combines a Humvee truck chassis with a rotating turret that can be armed with eight Stinger missiles and a .50-caliber machine gun. The North Dakota Army National Guard’s 1st battalion, 188th Air Defense Regiment—which has companies in Bismark, Fargo and Grand Forks—operates Avengers.
When fully armed, the Avenger can engage airplanes, helicopters—and, yes, drones. On Oct. 23, 2016, the Morton County Sheriff’s Department announced it had shot down a protestor’s drone after it had approached a police helicopter “in a threatening manner.”
The drone’s operator denied endangering any aircraft. Nevertheless, the FAA subsequently established a no-fly-zone over the pipeline work site.
Prokopyk said the Guard sent the Avenger because it possesses night-vision equipment that many North Dakota Guard units lack, and because the Avenger has an enclosed, heated crew compartment. “With wind chill here, it’s been negative 45 degrees,” Prokopyk said. “I’m not kidding.”
Prokopyk declined to say whether the Avenger crew at the drill pad is using the vehicle’s night-vision equipment specifically to detect activists’ drones.
Around 200 “water-protectors” from the main Standing Rock protest camp reportedly cut through a fence and attempted to reach the drill pad on Jan. 16. Police and National Guardsmen stopped the protesters from reaching the pad. But the activists got close enough to spot an Avenger.
“Many water protectors made it further around the bend to the east closer to the drill site and were met with police and reports of mace used,” Ziegler wrote on Facebook. “We climbed up the hill on the west side right up next to the launcher.”
The Morton County Sheriff’s Office said three people were arrested during the Jan. 16 protest.
==
omfg
STAND DOWN
National Guard Pulls Missile Launchers Away From Standing Rock Protesters
A day after The Daily Beast reported heavy-duty weapons were brought to the Dakota Access Pipeline sight, they’ve been removed—for now.
David Axe
01.18.176:05 PM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/national-guard-pulls-missile-launchers-away-from-standing-rock-protesters
North Dakota National Guard is withdrawing the two unloaded missile launchers it had stationed near the Dakota Access Pipeline construction site in order to “observe” peaceful protestors, which The Daily Beast first reported on Tuesday.
“Its removal demonstrates our commitment to deescalating any tensions its presence may have caused,” Guard spokesman William Prokopyk said in a statement.
Two Avengers launchers, Humvee trucks with rotating turrets that can be armed with guns and eight Stinger surface-to-air missiles, were deployed a day after protestors from the nearby Standing Rock Indian Reservation had spotted one of them deployed on private landoverlooking a pipeline work site.
Several of the protestors were arrested for trespassing.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied Dakota Access, LLC an easement to extend its pipeline under Lake Oahe, which lies on federal land and borders Standing Rock. Dakota Access has vowed to continue building the 1,200-mile oil pipeline, most likely on private land in Morton County.
Jon Ziegler, a self-described “citizen journalist” covering the Standing Rock movement, described the Avenger as an “anti-drone missile system.”
On Oct. 23, 2016, the Morton County Sheriff’s Department announced it had shot down an activist’s drone after it had approached a police helicopter “in a threatening manner” —an accusation the drone’s operator denied.
But Prokopyk said Army Guardsmen—who have deployed alongside local police to guard the pipeline—were using the unloaded Avengers strictly as observation platforms. The Avengers boast sophisticated night-vision equipment that many other Guard vehicles lack.
“It was employed for over a month in a passive role to observe areas within Morton County where numerous incidences of criminal trespass and mischief have occurred,” Prokopyk said of the pair of Avengers.
“In the same vein as when we used unarmed Blackhawk helicopters to put out a fire near the protest camp in October of 2016, the unarmed Avenger was used in an observation only role to support public safety in southern Morton County.”
Not only were the Avengers not armed while stationed near the work site—there aren’t even any missiles for the vehicles anywhere in North Dakota, Prokopyk explained. “All munitions are strictly controlled by the United States Army.”
Prokopyk denied that authorities sent in the Avengers in order to intimidate anti-pipeline activists.
“If they were placed to intimidate anyone, it wouldn’t have taken a month for someone to notice them.”
The North Dakota Guard selected the Avengers for the “observation” mission not only because of the launchers’ night-vision equipment, but also owing to their enclosed, heated cabins, Prokopyk said. Taking into account wind chill, winter temperatures in North Dakota can dip below negative 40 degrees.
Having withdrawn the Avengers, Guardsmen will continue monitoring protestors using handheld night-vision equipment, Prokopyk said.
“Good thing we’re in a heat wave,” he added. “It’s almost 30 degrees!”
==