• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

And it begins - federal troops to police US Citizens?

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
I was done with Chicago personally, when the city decided to go bankrupt, and still tried to get a stadium there.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Talking about the National Guard .. federal troops...
I'm not an expert, but aren't they under the command of the governor unless called to active duty by the President? Aren't they all residents of the state?

Are they federal troops when not called to active duty by the President? My guess is no.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
wrong, they are state soldiers not federal soldiers. unless called to duty by the President they are under authority of the laws of Illinois....

I'm not sure about Illinois, but in Washington the National Guard reports to the state military department, in under control of the governor, and is not subject to the UCMJ when in state service (they're subject to the Washington code of Military Justice RCW 38.38) furthermore the Federal government only funds the national guard for training, equipment, and one pay check a month for the drills. if the National Guard were called up by Governor Quinn then the State of Illinois would be paying their salaries as well as the cost of operations within the state.

so no, federal troops are not to police US citizens in this case.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs2.asp?ChapterID=5

scroll down to 20 ILCS 1805/1825, for the Illinois laws on the national guard... basically the national guard is subject to the THOSE laws when in state service.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Sooo... State troops policing citizens... Is that much better?

if the Governor feels it's nessecary....

the Illinois constitution specifically gives the governor the power to

IL constitution article XII (4)(a)
(a) The Governor is commander-in-chief of the organized
militia, except when they are in the service of the United
States. He may call them out to enforce the laws, suppress
insurrection or repel invasion.

he would be acting well within the constitution to do so.

Also the OP tried to claim that the governor wanted federal soldiers to patrol chicago, since the national guard are not federal soldiers the OPs thread title is misleading.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
wrong, they are state soldiers not federal soldiers. unless called to duty by the President they are under authority of the laws of Illinois....

WRONG.

Congress has the power to call forth the militias not the president.

Yep.

Article I, Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;...

Article II, Section 2:
The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...

Although I was under the impression that there exist two militias: the organized and unorganized militia. I can't find the post at the moment.
The organized milita can not be forced to work outside the boundaries of their state, and the unorganized militia?

Someone please shed some light on the militia situation. I would like to know if I am wrong, and what the ramifications of being correct entail.:)
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Chicago is out of control, I have no problem with him calling out the NG, as long as citizens rights are respected by the NG. The overall solution to the Chicago problem is cleaning up the graft by the CPD, and allowing decent citizens to be armed. The gangs will have to be brought under control for the arming of citizens to have a impact.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I DO NOT support this act. The National Guard troops are trained to fight in WARS, not to patrol and police the streets of our Republic. They are COMBAT trained. These troops are NOT trained in aspects of Constitutional law or Civil law. They are NOT educated in matters of State law and State court precedent. They are NOT educated in matters of Federal court precedent. They are trained to FIGHT in the defense of our nation, not to police the streets of it.

We already saw what will happen when we unleash them on the streets of America. I believe this is a bad idea. They need to give power back to the people and allow them to maintain the streets of Chicago with the help of the police. What they really need is to go in and completely restructure and reorganize the PD. They need to get all of the vermin out of the PD and establish a real police force that cares about the people they work for and not their bank accounts.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I DO NOT support this act. The National Guard troops are trained to fight in WARS, not to patrol and police the streets of our Republic. They are COMBAT trained. These troops are NOT trained in aspects of Constitutional law or Civil law. They are NOT educated in matters of State law and State court precedent. They are NOT educated in matters of Federal court precedent. They are trained to FIGHT in the defense of our nation, not to police the streets of it. ....

While I agree with you, the fact is that you could train these soldiers to a higher degree of Constitutional respect for civilians than the cops have in one afternoon.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I'm not well educated on how this would exactly work, and I'm sure it'd vary from state to state, but is it really possible to "call up" the NG without essentially enacting martial law? I mean, legally, how would they simply be able to bypass all of the standard requirements an officer must go through prior to being hired and assigned duties by the police department? The NG are not legally police officers, how can they legally be used as such without effectually having martial law? I understand that I may just not get it. Hoping someone knows what I mean and already knows the answer.

That would be my main concern... Whether or not "martial law" is actually "declared", I fear that's what it would essentially amount to. If someone is doing good police work, I wouldn't necessarily care who it was or what background they had. It's just, would soldiers being called to perform police work actually result in good police work being done? I don't think history would support that suggestion.

Edit: For some reason, I'm interested to see what PALO might have to say about this subject.

Edit: I think this answers the legal question. But still might leave the "actual effect" question open.

(20 ILCS 1805/83) (from Ch. 129, par. 220.83)
Sec. 83. Whenever there is a tumult, riot, mob or body of persons acting together by force with attempt to commit a felony, or to offer violence to persons or property, or by force or violence to break or resist the laws of the State, or when such tumult, riot or mob is threatened it shall be deemed that a time of public disorder and danger then exists, and it shall be the duty of the Governor thereupon to order such military force as he may deem necessary to aid the civil authorities in suppressing such violence and executing the law.
(Source: P.A. 85-1241.)

(20 ILCS 1805/84) (from Ch. 129, par. 220.84)
Sec. 84. Whenever any military force is so ordered out by the Commander-in-Chief, the commanding officer thereof may arrest any person or persons in view without process and hold them in custody until, by order of the Commander-in-Chief, such person or persons are discharged from custody or delivered over to the civil authorities. Such commanding officer may also use such force as he may deem necessary to suppress riots, disperse mobs, restore peace and execute the law.
(Source: P.A. 85-1241.)


Seems kinda dangerous to me.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
While I agree with you, the fact is that you could train these soldiers to a higher degree of Constitutional respect for civilians than the cops have in one afternoon.

This is true by the posts by active, retired, and former military. They have far more respect for the citizens than we have seen by police.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I'm not well educated on how this would exactly work, and I'm sure it'd vary from state to state, but is it really possible to "call up" the NG without essentially enacting martial law? I mean, legally, how would they simply be able to bypass all of the standard requirements an officer must go through prior to being hired and assigned duties by the police department? The NG are not legally police officers, how can they legally be used as such without effectually having martial law? I understand that I may just not get it. Hoping someone knows what I mean and already knows the answer.

That would be my main concern... Whether or not "martial law" is actually "declared", I fear that's what it would essentially amount to. If someone is doing good police work, I wouldn't necessarily care who it was or what background they had. It's just, would soldiers being called to perform police work actually result in good police work being done? I don't think history would support that suggestion.

Edit: For some reason, I'm interested to see what PALO might have to say about this subject.

Edit: I think this answers the legal question. But still might leave the "actual effect" question open.

(20 ILCS 1805/83) (from Ch. 129, par. 220.83)
Sec. 83. Whenever there is a tumult, riot, mob or body of persons acting together by force with attempt to commit a felony, or to offer violence to persons or property, or by force or violence to break or resist the laws of the State, or when such tumult, riot or mob is threatened it shall be deemed that a time of public disorder and danger then exists, and it shall be the duty of the Governor thereupon to order such military force as he may deem necessary to aid the civil authorities in suppressing such violence and executing the law.
(Source: P.A. 85-1241.)

(20 ILCS 1805/84) (from Ch. 129, par. 220.84)
Sec. 84. Whenever any military force is so ordered out by the Commander-in-Chief, the commanding officer thereof may arrest any person or persons in view without process and hold them in custody until, by order of the Commander-in-Chief, such person or persons are discharged from custody or delivered over to the civil authorities. Such commanding officer may also use such force as he may deem necessary to suppress riots, disperse mobs, restore peace and execute the law.
(Source: P.A. 85-1241.)


Seems kinda dangerous to me.

seems to me it would depend upon how the NG were to be deployed. would it be martial law if they deployed a few hunred military policemen with sidearms and Chicago Police radios in public parks and street corners with instructions only to call the police or to only intervene when a crime is in progress (much like a security guard) with the idea being to deter crime from occuring through visibility?

deploying the national guard doesn't nessecarily mean they're going to have trucks and APCs full of combat arms soldiers with rifles and grenades responding to burglary or police calls for service.

martial law is something Americans don't like that much unless nessecary. and even then it sucks, I doubt the governor would order curfews or shutdowns of city neighborhoods with military force and suspend habeus corpus unless there was true riot or disorder in the streets, more likely any NG soldiers would be used in support roles.

as far as training requirements for being a police officer, most states exempt individuals not employed as police officers but acting under the direction of a peace officer are allowed the same powers.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Last edited:

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
They are federal troops...


Exactly!

Our National Guard units nationwide have BEEN AT WAR for the last 12 years. Iraq and Afghanistan deployments have effeted every state.


Only a State apologist/Statist would actually try to tell people that National Guard troops are "State" owned/directed. Governors are practically loaned the units during "emergencies".


This move would put US Military on domestic streets in direct defiance of posse comitatus.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust


Exactly!

Our National Guard units nationwide have BEEN AT WAR for the last 12 years. Iraq and Afghanistan deployments have effeted every state.


Only a State apologist/Statist would actually try to tell people that National Guard troops are "State" owned/directed. Governors are practically loaned the units during "emergencies".


This move would put US Military on domestic streets in direct defiance of posse comitatus.

They have been federalized for years ... ya know, the feds don't give you $$$ for nothing
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know) posse comitatus act doesn't apply to the national guard or the coast guard, even tho the coast guard operates under the department of homeland security. Not that that makes it ok...

So I have a question.. In Texas we have a state guard that is part of the Texas military forces that cannot be called up by congress or president. Illinois may have something similar but regardless, would you feel differently about a state guard being called to police the streets? I know one person has already expressed their opinion on this, everyone agree? I have mixed feelings, personally. I don't believe a state guard is as likely to be corrupted or brainwashed, for one thing.
 
Last edited:
Top