Friday, July 25, 2014

When the NYT speaks - Babies cry









“

What kind of training would the Feds give them?
The Feds will not let this happen without formal training because they might start apprehending members of the officially sanctioned cartel smuggling operation. Without training they very well might arrest the wrong drug smugglers, thereby directly affecting the Governments Bottom Line, and The War on Drugs in a negative way for Government at all Levels.
Got it?
5 posted on 7/25/2014 9:44:46 AM by eyeamok


Hmmmm.......I might be the only one on this thread that might agree with the Slimes, but for completely different reasons.
I'm not worried about "potentially fatal encounters with illegals"...I'm thinking more along the lines of a bad precedent being set. Namely, the same argument for deploying troops along the border of TX can (and would, do you trust Gov. 'Moonbeam' Brown?) be used by other state governors to deploy troops against protesters at "Send the @$#@$@ illegals home" rallies.
You're absolutely correct on the ROE. That'll tell the tale.
Truly, we're living in interesting times. 
10 posted on 7/25/2014 9:55:29 AM by wbill


”
7/25/2014 10:26:00 AM 4 Comments

"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. "
Argus Hamilton


Posted by at
Labels: ,

This will be the comment box

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Last time I looked, Nat'l Guard belonged to the governors, until and unless they are federalized.
Guardsmen are trained, by the same folks who train the Regular forces; many Guard units are combat veterans of the WOT.
As to the second comment, Guard troops have been deployed by State and Fed govt against rioters - Watts, Detroit, MLK riots, peace marches in the 60's.
What's the big deal? Because a Republican governor is doing it?
I'm sure the NYT would think it just fine if Moonbeam sicced them on a Tea Party meeting.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

7/25/14, 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...

FWIW, some think posse comitatus prevents the Guard from doing anything more than admin tasks like in the last Guard border callup, where the Guard was not armed and had no arrest powers.
I was in the Washington DC NG '67-70, and since it was the NG of a Federal District, we were in fact Federal troops.
We were called up for state occasions and also for every riot and peace demonstration that hit DC in that period.
For all the riots and peace demos:
1. We were armed to the teeth, although newspapers tried to infer we were not, and we had ROE's that allowed lethal force under certain conditions, and
2. We were sworn by the mayor of DC as Special Police and had arrest powers.
Unless Buraq federalizes the Texas Guard, Gov Perry, as their commander, can allow them to be armed and can give them arrest powers assuming there's no conflict in Texas law.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

7/26/14, 12:12 AM
Anonymous said...

Without federal training how will they know the correct way to change shitty diapers on the little illegals?

7/26/14, 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...

Posse comitatus only applies to troops in federal status (i.e., acting under Title 10 U.S.C.) The National Guard, when called up by a governor, falls under Title 32, and since they're not federalized, posse comitatus does not apply. They then can assume whatever duties the governor gives them, including law enforcement. However, if the Feds activate the Guard, then they're operating under Title 10, and posse comitatus applies. They cannot do law enforcement directly, but they can provide support to law enforcement (logistics, communications, etc.).

Then there's the money angle. If a governor calls out the Guard, the state has to pay for them. That gets pricey in a hurry. That's why Gov. Perry has been after Obama to call up the Guard -- so the Feds pick up the tab.

7/26/14, 8:07 PM

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)