General Discussion

Sgent

(5,858 posts)

74. I'm not quite sure

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 06:23 AM

Jun 2012

Its a concept that has only existed since the 1880's. In addition, federalized national guard troops were routinely used during the Kennedy & Eisenhower administrations to enforce federal court orders regarding desegregation of schools (see Little Rock, Olemiss, etc.).

The most recent cases are the border patrol, and probably more interestingly from a constitutional POV, the issues surrounding federal involvement in Hurricane Katrina.

Bush wanted to federalize the Guard, and put them under the command of a military officer (Marine Corp or Navy I think). Governor Blanco refused and tried to get the troops placed under the guard's adjunct general. The question was never resolved which delayed assistance to New Orleans and surrounding areas.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Domestic use of military forces is not an uncommon thing around the world. [View all] RB TexLa Jun 2012 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author woo me with science Jun 2012 #1

There should be an aversion (and there usually is) in the countries morningfog Jun 2012 #2

... woo me with science Jun 2012 #3

Hard to believe garbage like this is posted here DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2012 #4

It's RBTexMex. HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #59

seconded La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2012 #65

Well, the national guard is used a lot during disasters and the like. MineralMan Jun 2012 #5

Very true. I just don't get what craziness fuels it. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #9

Or for suppressing strikes, demonstrations, etc. Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #14

The national guard is usually local people who are called up in those emergencies not an army of jwirr Jun 2012 #16

Not federal. Igel Jun 2012 #58

bu$h sent the National Guard to Iraq Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #72

Because if all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail JHB Jun 2012 #6

If someone needs to explain it to you... 99Forever Jun 2012 #7

Notwithstanding the infamous undoing of Posse Comitatus IDemo Jun 2012 #8

Do you have examples of military forces being used against domestic populations morningfog Jun 2012 #10

I do. Igel Jun 2012 #64

What kind of domestic use are you talking about? I think Syria's military is getting a lot of TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #11

Don't expect a serious dialog. This OP is stupid flamebait. morningfog Jun 2012 #12

I just want to know why people oppose it. If we have it why not use it. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #15

'If we have it why not use it.' Same question applies to chemical weapons. We got them.... Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #19

And that mentality.. 99Forever Jun 2012 #25

In what situations are you even talking about? morningfog Jun 2012 #28

If the republicans have it, why don't they use it? See how that works? cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #37

Who is arguing against police departments using drones? RB TexLa Jun 2012 #40

Everyone with half a brain. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #41

What other technology do you want to prevent them from using? Computers? Cars? RB TexLa Jun 2012 #42

No problem... we can now safely put RB TexLa's name in the "Give them drones!" column. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #43

use it for what? spanone Jun 2012 #47

Read. Some. Fucking. History. PavePusher Jun 2012 #56

Here's a suggestion. This will help answer your question. Zalatix Jun 2012 #67

Oppose what usage and in what situations, RB? TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #73

You mean like Syria's military? GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #13

Show me anyplace on Earth where the use of military forces domestically is welcome by the people. Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #17

Here RB TexLa Jun 2012 #18

That looks like the US. If it is, it kind of disproves your entire point. morningfog Jun 2012 #20

that is in the US. They were welcomed RB TexLa Jun 2012 #24

So, there isn't an aversion in the US? That is counter to your OP. morningfog Jun 2012 #27

Look at the thread, there is much aversion. The same thing done with disasters can be done RB TexLa Jun 2012 #29

Now we are getting somewhere. You are talking about military as law enforcement. morningfog Jun 2012 #30

Obviously you get rid of Posse Comitatus. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #31

Where in the world is that welcomed by the citizens on the receiving end? morningfog Jun 2012 #32

And with this post, the thread is so stupid as to merit no more replies... cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #38

So if you meant 'as law enforcement' why post the off topic disaster aid photo, which shows Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #33

Uh, the National Guard delivering emergency supplies in the US.... Bluenorthwest Jun 2012 #26

In Canada we use ours in disaster situations quite a bit, but I doubt that's what the OP means. (nt) Posteritatis Jun 2012 #69

Too many people are stupid and will feel whatever emotions the TV tells them to Taitertots Jun 2012 #21

Tonight, on a very special episode of The RB TexLa Show. . . nt Codeine Jun 2012 #22

. . . RB . . . will drink with her. HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #61

A truly fine example of what is wrong this country.... RegieRocker Jun 2012 #23

Uh, not here. And especially not under a progressive President. Zax2me Jun 2012 #34

You might want to read some US History nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #35

Surely someone here remembers Kent State Ohio? cbrer Jun 2012 #36

What's worse is that two of the victims had nothing to do with the protest. HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #62

Amen brother cbrer Jun 2012 #71

it is unconstitutional here Marrah_G Jun 2012 #39

Military function is best kept separate from domestic police function kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #44

OMFG. EFerrari Jun 2012 #45

We could probably resolve this difference of opinion with a ncie centrist compromise kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #46

The cops Meiko Jun 2012 #48

I was suggesting they trade in their tasers kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #51

How in the blue fuck is this in any way a progressive/liberal suggestion? Occulus Jun 2012 #49

I'm going with "permanent shit stirrer". HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #63

It worked ever so well in Chile, Honduras, Guatamala, South Africa, and at Kent State. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #50

It is an attitude we inheired from Britian. Odin2005 Jun 2012 #52

Britain had large standing armies tasked with keeping the peace FarCenter Jun 2012 #55

It's sad the way British and Anglo thought has been preserved in this country. RB TexLa Jun 2012 #60

You might ask the Mexicans how having the military do law enforcement is working out. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2012 #53

Historically a powerful standing army has been used to centralize and cement power 4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #54

Adama said it best in Battlestar Galactica backscatter712 Jun 2012 #57

there isn't an aversion if it were used to manage emergencies La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2012 #66

The founding fathers did not want military to have such power. Dawson Leery Jun 2012 #68

This is silly. Ceteris paribus, you're right. Igel Jun 2012 #70

I'm not quite sure Sgent Jun 2012 #74