SB 0175 Michigan military act

[Tallbear]

SB 0175 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0175)
Military affairs; generally; Michigan military act; modify. Amends secs. 105, 151, 155, 159, 171, 179, 300, 302, 306, 316, 328, 354, 368, 372, 374, 376, 378, 380, 382, 382a, 384, 388 & 410 of 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.505 et seq.) & repeals secs. 133, 360, 362, 364, 366 & 390 of 1967 PA 150 (MCL 32.533 et seq.).
Last Action: 2/12/2013 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON VETERANS, MILITARY AFFAIRS AND HOMELAND SECURITY

[LibertyComrade]

So...does this act really do anything other than remove some restrictions on the roles and functions of state military forces as well as consolidating power under the Adjutant General?

[MP Miller]

I noticed is the TAG has more power but the big change is it expands the situations that state troops can be used to detain citizens on military bases and removes limits on what the National Guard can be used for.

(the word "Solely" is removed from the law enforcement mission of the national guard)

[Roundballer]

I don't understand it all, but it also looks like it gets rid of the "military board" and creates an "armory manager" for each facility. And changes things about the retirement of the Adjutant General.

[LibertyComrade]

I noticed is the TAG has more power but the big change is it expands the situations that state troops can be used to detain citizens on military bases and removes limits on what the National Guard can be used for.

(the word "Solely" is removed from the law enforcement mission of the national guard)

Yeah, this is what I gathered. It seems to be giving the state military establishment broader, less-restricted power.

Also, I never realized the governor had power to conscript people into the state national guard or defense force.

[luckless]

I am confused as to what this legislation actually does for us or why we need it. Can anyone elaborate on this?

[MP Miller]

The only useful part is it ties he TAG to national military standards for pay and qualifications.

[IraqVet1982]

From what I gather...
1. TAG gets more control; removing State Board control (this may already exist)
2. Adjusts pay/retirement for TAG and a/TAG
3. Redefines "Armory" and creates a "new" position of Armory Manager (they could already exist for all I know, this just makes it official)
4. Defines/clarifies "controlled substance"

[rs12]

I learned some interesting things today that I really do not like. For instance, I never knew that the Gov. could use the Guard in the War on Drugs, and I really dislike the part about how the National Guard is a Law Enforcement agency (pg 5, #3) or that they enjoy immunity from prosecution when acting with the police.

I knew about the last one but in conjunction with calling them a Law Enforcement agency and allowing them to be mobilized for the War on Drugs there is potential for massive abuse of power. The National Guard is NOT a Law Enforcement Agency, it is a militia for national defense and a guard against insurrection. We have an ever growing number of Law Enforcement Agencies, (Local PD, State PD, FBI, DEA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc..), we do not need to turn the People's defense force (the National Guard) into another group of cops. Just my opinion.

[LibertyComrade]

I learned some interesting things today that I really do not like. For instance, I never knew that the Gov. could use the Guard in the War on Drugs, and I really dislike the part about how the National Guard is a Law Enforcement agency (pg 5, #3) or that they enjoy immunity from prosecution when acting with the police.

I knew about the last one but in conjunction with calling them a Law Enforcement agency and allowing them to be mobilized for the War on Drugs there is potential for massive abuse of power. The National Guard is NOT a Law Enforcement Agency, it is a militia for national defense and a guard against insurrection. We have an ever growing number of Law Enforcement Agencies, (Local PD, State PD, FBI, DEA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc..), we do not need to turn the People's defense force (the National Guard) into another group of cops. Just my opinion.

Quoted for truth.

I also never realized the governor had the power to conscript people into the state defense force. SMH

[MP Miller]

Quoted for truth.

I also never realized the governor had the power to conscript people into the state defense force. SMH

This is one of the few powers the founders would approve of. Not sure what you expected.

[LibertyComrade]

This is one of the few powers the founders would approve of. Not sure what you expected.

No, no they wouldn't have. Not in the slightest. The Founders were EXTREMELY wary of centralized governmental authority, even within the states. State Constitutions, much like the national constitution, are documents specifically crafted by the people to delegate specific powers unto the state and to protect themselves from abuse of those delegated powers.

If the Founders approved of conscription, they would have included it in the Constitution as a delegated power.

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government." - Daniel Webster, during the War of 1812

[LibertyComrade]

Military conscription also violates both the State and Federal Constitution's prohibitions upon slavery and involuntary servitude:

Article XI of Michigan Constitution
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be introduced into this state, except for the punishment of crimes of which the party shall have been duly convicted."

Section 1, 13th Amendment, United States Consitution
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

[DP425]

I learned some interesting things today that I really do not like. For instance, I never knew that the Gov. could use the Guard in the War on Drugs (This is far from new- it's been this way since the war on drugs began. And yes, MI-NG has a narcotics-LE support program), and I really dislike the part about how the National Guard is a Law Enforcement agency (pg 5, #3) (Nothing new here either; it is nothing more than a status that allows for certain in-state uses during emergencies which would otherwise require a different, more severe declaration by the governor. Also, are you really saying Military Police are not a law enforcement agency???) or that they enjoy immunity from prosecution when acting with the police. (Lets get real here- this is no different than martial law or the rare occasion federal troops are used for disaster recovery. The Government carries the burdon of lawsuits, not the police officers or the men and women in the military. Think about that for a minute- how willing do you think a member of the guard would be to render aid to someone if they could be sued? This prevents the attitude that would otherwise be prevalent of "your life is not worth my entire financial well-being" (and I hate to say it, but as an NCO in the guard, if this were the case, I would do my best to prevent my soldiers from rendering aid.). And finally, when members of the military are acting under the authority of the military (within the limitations of their job), any "criminal" acts are prosecuted through the military justice system. Not the civilian justice system. This is the standard that has universally true for a LONG, LONG time.)

I knew about the last one but in conjunction with calling them a Law Enforcement agency and allowing them to be mobilized for the War on Drugs there is potential for massive abuse of power. (We have literally been doing it for 30 years. There IS significant over-sight and there has never been an issue with it thus far) The National Guard is NOT a Law Enforcement Agency, it is a militia for national defense and a guard against insurrection. (this is factually incorrect; there are virtually no constitutional limitations on how a governor may employ the NG. As a matter of fact, there have been periods where in the state of Michigan, NG soldiers were assigned to be paired up with MSP officers for LE duties, even housing in the same MSP barracks, across the entire state. I believe this dates back to 30's-50's Either way, as per MI law, the NG IS an LE agency, and it has acted in such capacity for at least the last 80 years). We have an ever growing number of Law Enforcement Agencies, (Local PD, State PD, FBI, DEA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc..), we do not need to turn the People's defense force (the National Guard) into another group of cops. Just my opinion.


See above.

Just because you are only recently informed of the capabilities of and laws governing the MI NG... And are lacking historical context and information... does not mean it is wrong or counter to the law. It is highly unlikely that there will be an abuse of power- there hasn't been before... Not to mention, it is entirely too costly to employ the NG for law enforcement duties on a widespread, long-term basis. Further, intimately knowing the politics in the state of Michigan in concern with civilian use of the guard... If the narc program weren't fenced money appropriated by congress, the 1.5 million or so budget would be used in aviation or MP's... Or hire more retired E-9's and O-6's for made up technician positions so their buddies can sit at a desk doing nothing and collect a paycheck while in retirement. Really, the LAST thing on their mind is utilizing the NG in-state for LE activities. I don't think you realize how risk adverse and politicized the culture of that institution actually is... and the way the MI NG works, that will never change; it is a very small community and along the officer branch, only those who toe the line see meaningful career progress. The culture is "fixed" as a result of the small size preventing a diverse span of views among top leadership.

You really have nothing to worry about...

[LibertyComrade]

It is highly unlikely that there will be an abuse of power- there hasn't been before...

Orly? The '67 riots say otherwise.


You really have nothing to worry about...

Until you do. Which is the inherent problem with the "just trust us" culture that Americans have been indoctrinated to hold with regards to law enforcement and military force for far too long.

[rs12]

See above.

Just because you are only recently informed of the capabilities of and laws governing the MI NG... And are lacking historical context and information... does not mean it is wrong or counter to the law. It is highly unlikely that there will be an abuse of power- there hasn't been before... Not to mention, it is entirely too costly to employ the NG for law enforcement duties on a widespread, long-term basis. Further, intimately knowing the politics in the state of Michigan in concern with civilian use of the guard... If the narc program weren't fenced money appropriated by congress, the 1.5 million or so budget would be used in aviation or MP's... Or hire more retired E-9's and O-6's for made up technician positions so their buddies can sit at a desk doing nothing and collect a paycheck while in retirement. Really, the LAST thing on their mind is utilizing the NG in-state for LE activities. I don't think you realize how risk adverse and politicized the culture of that institution actually is... and the way the MI NG works, that will never change; it is a very small community and along the officer branch, only those who toe the line see meaningful career progress. The culture is "fixed" as a result of the small size preventing a diverse span of views among top leadership.

You really have nothing to worry about...



There are a lot of assurances in your response that do nothing to make me feel any better. I was a soldier, I am an Iraq war veteran, and I know how quick career officers and politicians are to sell out the interests of those they are supposed to be safeguarding for their own advancement. Many tyrants were supported by risk-averse men who received an order that was wrong but executed it anyway because the were averse to risking their career.

Prosecuting the Drug War is different than Disaster relief or Martial Law, and I completely disagree with your contention that the National Guard is a Law Enforcement Agency. What it has become since our grandfather's time is NOT what it was meant to be. Using Soldiers and Paramilitary organizations to enforce laws is a trick as old as time and as wicked as bin Laden's soul. Every crappy dictatorship I have ever been to you cannot distinguish the police from the soldiers and vice versa. When I was a kid the police didn't wear body armor or carry M-4 rifles; I see them doing it quite often now. Hell, I even saw the Ann Arbor PD deploy their M113 APC on a suicide call, they were kitted up just like I was in Iraq.

Expanding the number of situations where Soldiers can be brought into internal civil matters is a mistake. Giving NG commanders power and authority to take any necessary measures/force and to detain people in more situations runs counter to many people's ideas of the seperation between Law Enforcement and Military. Have you noticed the definition of an "unlawful assembly" has expanded recently? Check out the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, HR 347. Trusting people's assurances that this is necessary and we are only going to help you is foolish. The use of Military and Paramilitary forces in Law Enforcement needs to be severely restricted for the safety and security of a free state.

P.S.- the Military Police are indeed police..to police the Military ONLY. Martial law is needed to use MP's against civilians, or at least that is the way it was intended.

[MP Miller]

No, no they wouldn't have. Not in the slightest. The Founders were EXTREMELY wary of centralized governmental authority, even within the states. State Constitutions, much like the national constitution, are documents specifically crafted by the people to delegate specific powers unto the state and to protect themselves from abuse of those delegated powers.

If the Founders approved of conscription, they would have included it in the Constitution as a delegated power.

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government." - Daniel Webster, during the War of 1812

I am anti conscription but if the governor should not activate the militia in an emergency, im not sure what he should be able to do.

Also nothing in the constitution was originally ment to limit the powers of the several states, that is what their constitutions were for

[LibertyComrade]

I am anti conscription but if the governor should not activate the militia in an emergency, im not sure what he should be able to do.

I'm not saying the governor should not be able to activate the organized militia. I am saying the governor should not be able to order the unorganized militia into involuntary servitude within the state defense force as per:

Sec. 155. The governor may order into the defense force any

members of the unorganized militia in case of riot, tumult, breach

of the peace, resistance of process, or for service in aid of civil

authority, whether state or federal, or in time of ACTUAL OR

IMMINENT public danger, disaster, crisis, catastrophe or other

public emergency within this state.




Also nothing in the constitution was originally ment to limit the powers of the several states, that is what their constitutions were for

Correct. That's why I quoted the Michigan Constitution. The U.S. Constitution only began applying to the states after the civil war and with the activist court concept of "incorporation" due to the 14th Amendment. I don't really agree with that interpretation in the slightest, but it is what it is. And a lot of gun rights advocates use it to try to make the 2nd Amendment apply to the states as well, which was not the intent of the original document either.

[G22]

I have one question.

Is there any reason to oppose this legislation?

Thanks!

[MP Miller]

I'm not saying the governor should not be able to activate the organized militia. I am saying the governor should not be able to order the unorganized militia into involuntary servitude within the state defense force as per:

Sec. 155. The governor may order into the defense force any

members of the unorganized militia in case of riot, tumult, breach

of the peace, resistance of process, or for service in aid of civil

authority, whether state or federal, or in time of ACTUAL OR

IMMINENT public danger, disaster, crisis, catastrophe or other

public emergency within this state.






Correct. That's why I quoted the Michigan Constitution. The U.S. Constitution only began applying to the states after the civil war and with the activist court concept of "incorporation" due to the 14th Amendment. I don't really agree with that interpretation in the slightest, but it is what it is. And a lot of gun rights advocates use it to try to make the 2nd Amendment apply to the states as well, which was not the intent of the original document either.

Then we agree

[luckless]

I have one question.

Is there any reason to oppose this legislation?

Thanks!
The one reason I can think of is that it should be opposed because it expands the size and scope of state government. This certainly doesn't expand liberty.

[DP425]

Orly? The '67 riots say otherwise.



Until you do. Which is the inherent problem with the "just trust us" culture that Americans have been indoctrinated to hold with regards to law enforcement and military force for far too long.


67 riots were not an abuse of power... people were firing on police from roof-tops before the NG was called in... When the police are denied access to areas due to gunfire, just what do you expect to happen??

[DP425]

There are a lot of assurances in your response that do nothing to make me feel any better. I was a soldier, I am an Iraq war veteran, and I know how quick career officers and politicians are to sell out the interests of those they are supposed to be safeguarding for their own advancement. Many tyrants were supported by risk-averse men who received an order that was wrong but executed it anyway because the were averse to risking their career.

I have a feeling you are not familiar with the culture of the higher command for the state of michigan. Selling out for their own interest is the ONLY thing they do; they are also highly adverse to risk. We wouldn't have infantry in this state if they could swing it. Getting actively involved in LE is literally the opposite of the culture. As long as we continue to have an elected government, they are VERY resistant to employ the guard in such manor either. It's all about careers, and turning Michigan into a massive militant state will do their careers nothing but bad. (And not that it's important, but you felt required to mention your vet status so... yeah I've been in 13 years and have three tours through RA and NG...)

Prosecuting the Drug War is different than Disaster relief or Martial Law, and I completely disagree with your contention that the National Guard is a Law Enforcement Agency. What it has become since our grandfather's time is NOT what it was meant to be. Using Soldiers and Paramilitary organizations to enforce laws is a trick as old as time and as wicked as bin Laden's soul. Every crappy dictatorship I have ever been to you cannot distinguish the police from the soldiers and vice versa. When I was a kid the police didn't wear body armor or carry M-4 rifles; I see them doing it quite often now. Hell, I even saw the Ann Arbor PD deploy their M113 APC on a suicide call, they were kitted up just like I was in Iraq.
You can disagree all you like- the FACTS are that the NG WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED in law enforcement since "our grandfather's time"... and before. You are making an argument that is not supported, nor has ever been supported by law. Governor's have the lee-way to use the NG in very expansive manor; the state constitution is the limiting factor as federally, there are virtually no limitations. And again, since the NG is and has been legally classified as a LEA, your argument there is moot. Again, that is up to the legislator and governor's discretion. As for the police- yes they have considerably militarized themselves. I wouldn't call their kit equal to what we use; most of their plates are about twice as heavy and are not rated for AP... no side plates, kevlar in the carriers is about twice as thick. Make no mistake, they are well armed and armored, but it is not on part with mil issue.

Expanding the number of situations where Soldiers can be brought into internal civil matters is a mistake. Giving NG commanders power and authority to take any necessary measures/force and to detain people in more situations runs counter to many people's ideas of the seperation between Law Enforcement and Military. Have you noticed the definition of an "unlawful assembly" has expanded recently? Check out the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, HR 347. Trusting people's assurances that this is necessary and we are only going to help you is foolish. The use of Military and Paramilitary forces in Law Enforcement needs to be severely restricted for the safety and security of a free state.
Trust me when I tell you- the roles have not expanded; they've been clarified so articulation for a mission is easier. What you are concerned about has been going on for decades. It might even shock you to know that AD US troops conduct counter-narc support on US soil and have been for 30 years or so. This was a primary reason the Joint Task Forces' were created. Everything you are concerned about and interpreting as new developments are FAR from new.

You may even find it interesting to learn that, prior to MSP being stood up in 1917... the national guard did their job. MSP was first stood up as the Michigan Cavalry or Michigan Mounted (and dismounted) Troops, this name only lasted for two years before getting permeant status which is when the name changed. Actually, the entire reason the MSP was created was because with the outbreak of WWI, the NG was federalized and could no longer be used for protecting, serving and securing the state.

P.S.- the Military Police are indeed police..to police the Military ONLY. Martial law is needed to use MP's against civilians, or at least that is the way it was intended.
Not entirely true. The way this works without martial law is the troops are placed under the command of the LEA they are working with; this allows habeas corpus to continue where with martial law it is suspended. The way to understand this is to think of troops as equipment; they are "loaned" out the same as mil equipment is loaned out. The civilan and civil liability of the troops "loaned" is essentially the exact same as that of the LEA they are working for. However, as you should know, they can still be brought up on charges under the UCMJ. A good example would be if a bystander was shot during an exchange with a criminal by a member of the NG working for MSP on an authorized mission, within the confines of the mission. Unless intent can be proven, it is unlikely the troop would see criminal charges in civilian court. However, it is entirely plausible that they may be brought up under the UCMJ for any number of offenses. The troops know this as it is gone over in detail in the legal briefs that are required to be given to civil support troops. They ASSUME their leadership will do the right thing if something so horrible were to happen... however, the reality is that they would be hammered by everything in the UCMJ they can get to stick.

Above

[rs12]

Above


I have a feeling you are not familiar with the nature of man and his lust for power. Individually these Acts and Laws seem fine; when taken in aggregate they are setting the stage for big things. You can try to justify them all you want, I have stated my position and nothing you have said has changed my beliefs one bit. It astounds me to think that many Americans believe that we are immune to the same problems that have effected every nation since the dawn of time. Tyranny is ALWAYS lurking right around the corner, it is in the nature of man to be tyrannical. It is in the nature of man to oppress and restrict in any way imaginable. 70 years ago we fought a devastating war against those who let their tyranny have free rein; do you honestly think the nature of man has changed so drastically in 70 years? Do you realize that up until about 100 years ago Kings and Emperors still ruled Europe? Do you realize that they still rule much of the world today? Many may be called "President for Life" or whatever but they are still despots.

Since I was a boy I have seen freedoms restricted and restrained in ways people couldn't believe at the time. After a few months of bitching and complaining everyone settles down and things become the new normal. I have watched the War on Drugs destroy our nation and devastate our young people. I have watched our schools become holding pens for criminals in training. I have watched our politicians drain every last resource they could out of the people for their own benefit and now, when the Gov. wants to expand the role of NG SOLDIERS in Law Enforcement, you want me to trust and believe that things will be fine? No dice brother. Pick up your history books and get back to me.

P.S. I'm not saying the people currently in charge will abuse their authority in the way I have described, but what about their successors? How about in 20 years, or 50? Power once given away is never regained without a fight.

[LibertyComrade]

67 riots were not an abuse of power... people were firing on police from roof-tops before the NG was called in... When the police are denied access to areas due to gunfire, just what do you expect to happen??

Oh yeah, you're right how silly of me. Shooting at phantom threats in populated streets, making arrests with no legitimate basis, spray-firing apartment buildings with machine guns, etc. were definitely not an abuse of power in the slightest. Neither were the murders orchestrated at the Algiers Motel.

History, ****'s important.

[DP425]

Oh yeah, you're right how silly of me. Shooting at phantom threats in populated streets, making arrests with no legitimate basis, spray-firing apartment buildings with machine guns, etc. were definitely not an abuse of power in the slightest. Neither were the murders orchestrated at the Algiers Motel.

History, ****'s important.


Phantom threats? Who are you to say it was a phantom threat? Arrests with no legitimate basis? When a curfew is put in place during a declared emergency, arresting a rioter is not without legitimate basis. Machine gun fire may have been appropriate; It would depend on the situation.

Algiers Motel... well that is by all accounts a crime.

But ultimately, you are missing the point here. The issue isn't if there were isolated events of individual soldiers over-stepping their bounds. The issue is that the NG and AD Army were sent in. You're taking this from a macro topic down to a micro situation. The subject was not if individuals may have acted inappropriately- the subject was the appropriateness and legality of deploying troops in the first place. By all accounts, it was both appropriate and legal, thus it was NOT an abuse of power.

It is ironic that you cite a violent RIOT started when police tried to shut down an unlicensed bar as an example of an abuse of power. Had the retards in detroit not decided to go acting a fool, rioting, there would have been no cause for troops to have been sent in. Even the event that spurred the riot was perfectly legal. I won't dispute that actions by DPD for years prior had helped to create an environment primed for a riot, but that does not excuse the actions of those participating in the riot, and it does not render illegal the measures taken by the governor and president in returning order to the city.

Your whole premise of "the actions of individuals renders the entire operation an abuse of power" is asinine. I guess by this logic, WWII was an abuse of power... we most certainly had individuals, and units committing acts which were clearly wrong and illegal...

[DP425]

I have a feeling you are not familiar with the nature of man and his lust for power. Individually these Acts and Laws seem fine; when taken in aggregate they are setting the stage for big things. You can try to justify them all you want, I have stated my position and nothing you have said has changed my beliefs one bit. It astounds me to think that many Americans believe that we are immune to the same problems that have effected every nation since the dawn of time. Tyranny is ALWAYS lurking right around the corner, it is in the nature of man to be tyrannical. It is in the nature of man to oppress and restrict in any way imaginable. 70 years ago we fought a devastating war against those who let their tyranny have free rein; do you honestly think the nature of man has changed so drastically in 70 years? Do you realize that up until about 100 years ago Kings and Emperors still ruled Europe? Do you realize that they still rule much of the world today? Many may be called "President for Life" or whatever but they are still despots.
This ranting is getting old... there are no expanses in power here; you are getting worked up because you just now found out the way things have been for a very long time. It isn't new... You also don't seem to be paying one bit of attention to the LAWS that govern our country and state. You have this belief and theory of how things SHOULD be. That's fine, but you are confusing YOUR opinion for fact. The constitution of the state of Michigan allows for EVERYTHING we've been talking about. Federally, there is almost no legislation or limitations on the NG. If you are so concerned about our country becoming Germany, circa 1938, maybe you should be calling your representatives to voice your support for legislation to restrict the use of the NG instead of getting on here preaching about what YOU think it should and should not be used for. No one cares what you THINK- your opinions are not law, and everything you've been complaining about on here has never been illegal.

In terms of tyranny, of course it can happen anywhere given the right conditions; that just means you need to be mindful of your vote. There are actually people in this world who have no desire to gain authority or absolute power... men like them created our country and they still exist today. You ensure tyranny doesn't come knocking by keeping these kind men and women in office... railing against a status quo of the NG which is literally as old as the NG itself will get you no where.

Finally, yes the culture of the NG can be changed- it does not however, happen in one or even two generations without a wholesale purge of leadership. The NG is NOT the government. Government can make large changes in one election. But when you have a handfull of people in charge who choose their own predecessors, you end up with an unchanging culture because only those who toe the line see promotion. Thus, the MI NG will for an indefinite period of time continue to resist any and all risk.

Since I was a boy I have seen freedoms restricted and restrained in ways people couldn't believe at the time. After a few months of bitching and complaining everyone settles down and things become the new normal. I have watched the War on Drugs destroy our nation and devastate our young people. I have watched our schools become holding pens for criminals in training. I have watched our politicians drain every last resource they could out of the people for their own benefit and now, when the Gov. wants to expand the role of NG SOLDIERS in Law Enforcement, you want me to trust and believe that things will be fine? No dice brother. Pick up your history books and get back to me.
You are surprisingly thick headed here... one more time THIS IS NOT AN EXPANSION OF THE PURVIEW OF THE NG; THEY HAVE BEEN DOING EXACTLY THIS FOR THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD. Perhaps you should pick up YOUR history books, because the history of the NG you are preaching is a figment of your imagination.

The rest of this paragraph isn't really relevant; no one is arguing anything about this but you.
P.S. I'm not saying the people currently in charge will abuse their authority in the way I have described, but what about their successors? How about in 20 years, or 50? Power once given away is never regained without a fight.

^^^^

[LibertyComrade]

Phantom threats? Who are you to say it was a phantom threat?

I may not be, but multiple witnesses are "someone to say" they were phantom threats.


Arrests with no legitimate basis? When a curfew is put in place during a declared emergency, arresting a rioter is not without legitimate basis.

Declaring an emergency does not form a legitimate basis. The state's only instrument to force compliance is violence. Violence can only be justified through extremely narrow parameters. Because some individuals are acting violently does not legitimize the deprivation of individual freedom of those not acting violently who happen to be within a certain proximity.


Machine gun fire may have been appropriate; It would depend on the situation.

Again, witness accounts (of not just rioters or residents, but journalists that entered the area to cover the riots) give evidence that such actions were not warranted.

So what if there was a sniper shooting at cops or NG? Their lives are no less valuable than the innocents residing in the same building (who *have* to be there due to curfew laws) that is being peppered with their return fire.


But ultimately, you are missing the point here. The issue isn't if there were isolated events of individual soldiers over-stepping their bounds. The issue is that the NG and AD Army were sent in. You're taking this from a macro topic down to a micro situation. The subject was not if individuals may have acted inappropriately- the subject was the appropriateness and legality of deploying troops in the first place. By all accounts, it was both appropriate and legal, thus it was NOT an abuse of power.

A.) You cannot arrive at macro-level policy decisions without considering the realities of micro-level actions that might arise from them.

Now, it's true that I had been arguing that abuses of power occurred during the '67 rather than the overall use of the NG to suppress the riots was an abuse in-and-of itself. However, it can't be argued that such a power *cannot* or *has not* been abused in this country. Look at the use of NG during the Civil Rights segregation conflicts or in the suppression of Kent State protests.

B.) Legalizing something doesn't mean it's not abusive. The Nazi's confiscations of weapons was legal. The takeover of industry in the Communist world was legal. Slavery was legal in America. Not only were they legal, but the cases were made that such actions were "appropriate" and even necessary.

That doesn't legitimize the force used to make those things come about.


It is ironic that you cite a violent RIOT started when police tried to shut down an unlicensed bar as an example of an abuse of power.

Hell, I'll argue that the police trying to shut down the bar in the first place was an abuse of power, let alone the resulting effects. Who cares if it was unlicensed? Why must we have licenses to conduct business?

I suppose then that you would support the ban of the private sales of firearms, and that everyone must comply with that ban or otherwise the government is just in using violence against those that don't? It's the exact same thing.


Had the retards in detroit not decided to go acting a fool, rioting, there would have been no cause for troops to have been sent in. Even the event that spurred the riot was perfectly legal. I won't dispute that actions by DPD for years prior had helped to create an environment primed for a riot, but that does not excuse the actions of those participating in the riot, and it does not render illegal the measures taken by the governor and president in returning order to the city.

So you concede there were legitimate grievances by the people of Detroit against the established authorities and how they were treated. However, you say, that alone does not justify civil unrest nor does it render authoritarian measures of suppression unjust or illegal.

From that train of logic the American Revolutionaries were in error. Regardless of how they were treated by British authorities they could not justify rising up against them. Also, that the actions of the Crown to suppress the uprising were legal and just.


Your whole premise of "the actions of individuals renders the entire operation an abuse of power" is asinine.

I don't think asinine means what you think it means. Simply because someone disagrees with your views of justified totalitarianism doesn't make an argument asinine (re: stupid, foolish). There are some serious flaws in your own line of reasoning, as noted above.

The '67 riots example both includes individual abuses of power by individual members of the NG and other law enforcement agents, but it also exemplifies a general abuse of power by those overarching agencies. This is overarching abuse is because of the systemic injustices that led up to the riots which led to a degree of justifiable civil unrest, which were then met with authoritarian violence and suppression.


I guess by this logic, WWII was an abuse of power... we most certainly had individuals, and units committing acts which were clearly wrong and illegal...

There absolutely were abuses of power which lead to our involvement in WWII. If you don't understand that, I again advocate you brush up on your history lessons. And I'm talking about objective history, not what you find in our propagandist history books in public schools and the like.

Finally, I want to clarify I do not support the violent destruction of private property or the taking of innocent lives by rioters. I do think civil unrest was justified, but not to the extent it was taken or who the violence of the riot was directed at. However, I also do not support the authoritarian use of force to suppress the riot either due to the fact that it arose from an unnecessary use of force as well as decades of maltreatment.

[DP425]

I may not be, but multiple witnesses are "someone to say" they were phantom threats.



Declaring an emergency does not form a legitimate basis. The state's only instrument to force compliance is violence. Violence can only be justified through extremely narrow parameters. Because some individuals are acting violently does not legitimize the deprivation of individual freedom of those not acting violently who happen to be within a certain proximity.
police powers during a declared insurrection are considerably expanded, to include controlling the flow of the populace. Refusal to comply is disturbing the peace.


Again, witness accounts (of not just rioters or residents, but journalists that entered the area to cover the riots) give evidence that such actions were not warranted.

So what if there was a sniper shooting at cops or NG? Their lives are no less valuable than the innocents residing in the same building (who *have* to be there due to curfew laws) that is being peppered with their return fire.
"I will always defer judgement on appropriate use of force to journalists"... said no one ever.



A.) You cannot arrive at macro-level policy decisions without considering the realities of micro-level actions that might arise from them.
Okay, I see your point- none of us should ever drive a car... because we MIGHT lose control and kill a pedestrian. Or, the governor should never use NG to stop a riot because individual soldiers may at some point be abusive... far better of an idea is to continue allowing them to cause millions of dollars in property destruction, attacking police, and murdering each other.

Now, it's true that I had been arguing that abuses of power occurred during the '67 rather than the overall use of the NG to suppress the riots was an abuse in-and-of itself. However, it can't be argued that such a power *cannot* or *has not* been abused in this country. Look at the use of NG during the Civil Rights segregation conflicts or in the suppression of Kent State protests. No argument here on the civil rights front... Kent State however was a communist lead, violent riot in which buildings, vehicles and police had been firebombed. Rioters tossed bricks and molotov-cocktails at troops and attempted hitting them with boards with nails driven through them. The NG troops who opened fire fell back three times from the violent rioting students, dodging bricks and fire-bombs. They fired warning shots with no results because the organizers had told everyone the troops did not have live ammunition, only blanks. As the belligerents continued to advance, un-detoured, the troops were forced to finally use lethal force as they had no where else to go.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

B.) Legalizing something doesn't mean it's not abusive. The Nazi's confiscations of weapons was legal. The takeover of industry in the Communist world was legal. Slavery was legal in America. Not only were they legal, but the cases were made that such actions were "appropriate" and even necessary.

That doesn't legitimize the force used to make those things come about.
If it is legal and you do not like it... Maybe you should do your best to change it. Seems it was successful for the civil rights movement... But even aside from that, do you really have a better way to put a stop to a riot?


Hell, I'll argue that the police trying to shut down the bar in the first place was an abuse of power, let alone the resulting effects. Who cares if it was unlicensed? Why must we have licenses to conduct business?

I suppose then that you would support the ban of the private sales of firearms, and that everyone must comply with that ban or otherwise the government is just in using violence against those that don't? It's the exact same thing.
What keeps our society civilized? Laws... and the willingness to follow them. Void of laws you have chaos. If you run a bar that does not have a license, you are breaking the law- it doesn't really matter if you believe it is just to have a license requirement. It is not the fault of the police for enforcing the laws passed by elected officials... elected by the public.

It takes an awfully big leap in logic to say that I somehow support a ban of firearms from this... actually, I would say such a leap borders on retardation. First, I never said I support licensing for establishments serving alcohol... second, how does selling alcohol related to a constitutionally protected right? Third, I do not have to agree with a law to acknowledge that violating the law has consequences.



So you concede there were legitimate grievances by the people of Detroit against the established authorities and how they were treated. However, you say, that alone does not justify civil unrest nor does it render authoritarian measures of suppression unjust or illegal.

From that train of logic the American Revolutionaries were in error. Regardless of how they were treated by British authorities they could not justify rising up against them. Also, that the actions of the Crown to suppress the uprising were legal and just.
The victor writes the history. But even beyond that, yes, the actions of the revolutionaries was illegal. They recognized that themselves and they understood what failure in their cause would result in. This is a self-awareness that rioters seldom posses. And even going further, yes the actions of the crown were legal and justified. Such is usually the case in wars of independence- those fighting for independence are clearly wrong and violating the law and those defending are clearly in the legal "right". But when you win a war of independence, you are never wrong...

So, moving along to the first part about detroit specifically... It seems you are arguing that the riot was justified. And thus as it was justified, sending in troops was not justified. So, lets change the scenario... Your neighbor got beat up by a cop last week--- his family decides they are angry and need to act out against authority. So his family robs four of your neighbors, shoots your kid and burns down your house... then the husband, who spends most of his time in his detached garage, goes and burns down his own house because that's where his wife usually stays and they've had a couple arguments before. Oh, and your neighbor manages to set a police car on fire. At the end of the day, your neighbor has destroyed his neighborhood, even destroying things owned by people just like himself, killed the neighbor boy and managed to burn one cop car... all because he was mad at the police beating him stupider last week. Now, tell me why the sheriff SHOULD NOT roll in 25 deep, lock down the neighborhood and arrest his entire family? You want to play taking this from Macro to Micro... there you go.

Or would you rather I talk about American Revolutionaries burning down not only loyalists homes, but also the homes of each other, shooting at anyone and everyone, to include each other?

"Legitimate" acts of public dissent or "revolution" do not include attacks on innocence and your own people. That is called a riot. I actually find it disturbing that you would compare a riot to the American Revolution. As crazy as that Dorner wack-job in CA was, even he didn't go harming those not involved or not associated. So yes, the State's response is entirely justified.

There also seems to be this widely spreading idea that the government should never attempt to suppress an uprising. Just what then is the government supposed to do? Roll-over for every feeble attempt at revolution? No, it is the government's job to resist and suppress insurrection; our founders knew and realized this as well. They wrote in the 2A to give us the ability to fight a revolution or to throw off a tyrannical government... But can you find anywhere in our constitution where it says the government has no duty to or is expressly prohibited from suppressing an insurrection? I'll answer that for you- no, it does not exist. Actually, there are parts, specifically concerning the role of the commander in chief that REQUIRE the government to move to suppress an insurrection. Vindication is only received through success. Failing makes you nothing more than a common criminal. Without these opposing principles- the duty and ability of the people to throw off tyranny and the duty of the government to preserve itself and provide for a stable society, we would have an imbalance resulting in a loss of freedom.



I don't think asinine means what you think it means. Simply because someone disagrees with your views of justified totalitarianism doesn't make an argument asinine (re: stupid, foolish). There are some serious flaws in your own line of reasoning, as noted above.

The '67 riots example both includes individual abuses of power by individual members of the NG and other law enforcement agents, but it also exemplifies a general abuse of power by those overarching agencies. This is overarching abuse is because of the systemic injustices that led up to the riots which led to a degree of justifiable civil unrest, which were then met with authoritarian violence and suppression.
If the "civil unrest" was justifiable, it would be unjustified for a home owner to defend themselves or their property... or a business owner to do the same? The destruction was heavily slanted to the side of private property; civilians killed many more of each other than they did of government employees. So tell me again how these criminal acts against each other are justifiable?

You keep citing these supposed "overarching abuse" incidences... Yet there is no legitimate evidence of such claims other than the hotel murders. How did the 82nd or the NG as organizations conduct themselves in a way that supports your assertion that they exhibited a "general abuse of power" and were "overarching"? Are there any records of orders given by high leadership to murder or abuse citizens? Was there a policy in place to murder or abuse citizens? Is there a record of reports indicating a widespread problem with such incidences which was subsequently ignored?

Why did I say asinine? Because it is a fitting word. You are using isolated incidences that mostly don't even have any factual evidence to support they actually happened to prop up a claim that the entire action as a whole was unjust, abusive and over-reaching. Yes, that is an asinine claim. It makes as much sense as saying because of the Biscari, Canicattì, and Dachau massacrers, that the entire US war effort was unjust, abusive, criminal, murderous and over-reaching. To put in plainly- it's down right stupid.


There absolutely were abuses of power which lead to our involvement in WWII. If you don't understand that, I again advocate you brush up on your history lessons. And I'm talking about objective history, not what you find in our propagandist history books in public schools and the like.
Oh yeah... the "propagandist" history books... Yup- the REAL history tells how it was the fault of the Great Satin, USA. What next, Hitler and the Emperor were good guys who just needed a hug? The topic was never what lead up to our involvement in WWII.

Finally, I want to clarify I do not support the violent destruction of private property or the taking of innocent lives by rioters. I do think civil unrest was justified, but not to the extent it was taken or who the violence of the riot was directed at. However, I also do not support the authoritarian use of force to suppress the riot either due to the fact that it arose from an unnecessary use of force as well as decades of maltreatment.
Oh okay... You don't support destruction of private property or killing of innocent people... but you don't want anything done to stop it either. Yup, that's logical. Or maybe the rioters just needed hugs and they'd all go home?? I think it's becoming clear now...


^^^^

Nothing left to discuss with you- That last paragraph says it all.

[LibertyComrade]

Someone has drank very deeply from the Kool-Aid bowl of authoritarianism. Have fun when they come for your guns. Then again, you'll probably be goose-stepping with the confiscators because it will be "legal" and "authorized by elected officials".

Unjust "laws" are no laws at all and deserve to be resisted. Period.

[Crow Buster]

Could also point out that it has been the NG that was responsible for the shooting at Kent State and was involved in the house to house searches/gun seizures/arrests in New Orleans after Katrina. While popular belief is these home grown heroes would be the least likely to step on their neighbors rights, history has proven otherwise. Orders are orders, don't get in their way.

CB