Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

[berg80]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

 

[martybegan]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

Why not use the term "partially violent" for the protests?

D.C. is a unique case as it is not considered a State.

 

[Meathead]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

Do you understand what "out of state" means?

 

[DOTR]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

Oy Vey schlomoe..DC isnt a state so any and all mobilizations are "out of state". DC is federal terriroty.

 

[progressive hunter]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

DC isnt a state you ignorant twit,,,

 

[Nostra]

This one went south on Berg in a hurry.

 

[berg80]

D.C. is a unique case as it is not considered a State.

Your point being.............................?

 

[HereinVirginia]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

Oy Vey schlomoe..DC isnt a state so any and all mobilizations are "out of state". DC is federal terriroty.

The president overrides the mayor of DC on these matters, is my understanding. Correct that it is federal property.

 

[berg80]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

DC isnt a state you ignorant twit,,,

So? DC being a federal territory in no way changes the law with respect to how out of state Guard units are deployed, who has authority over them, and who has the authority to have them deployed to any federal territory or state.

 

[martybegan]

D.C. is a unique case as it is not considered a State.

Your point being.............................?

That rules that apply to how to use the guard from one State to another don't apply.

Plus the DC guard is only 3,400 people total, many of which probably aren't trained for riot control.

 

[martybegan]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

DC isnt a state you ignorant twit,,,

So? DC being a federal territory in no way changes the law with respect to how out of state Guard units are deployed, who has authority over them, and who has the authority to have them deployed to any federal territory or state.

Actually it does because you aren't taking the guard from one State and using in or against another State, as D.C isn't a State.

 

[DOTR]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

DC isnt a state you ignorant twit,,,

So? DC being a federal territory in no way changes the law with respect to how out of state Guard units are deployed, who has authority over them, and who has the authority to have them deployed to any federal territory or state.

Quote the law schlomoe.

 

[progressive hunter]

"Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states across the country arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration’s response to the largely peaceful protests taking place across the city. After a great deal of controversy—including an argument over and whether troops were allegedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser—they have now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the first place? The answer was not obvious, and the administration initially remained silent as to its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleared up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops were there under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).
In solving one mystery, however, Barr unearthed several more. One of two things is true: Either § 502(f) does not authorize the use of out-of-state National Guard troops in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington last week, or it does—and is therefore a stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, including as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Simply put, either Barr is wrong, or he’s right—in which case Congress should immediately close the loophole he’s identified (and, apparently, seized upon)."

Why Were Out-of-State National Guard Units in Washington, D.C.? The Justice Department’s Troubling Explanation

Either the Justice Department’s legal reasoning is wrong, or it’s right—in which case Congress should close the loophole immediately.

www.lawfareblog.com

...................................................................................................................................
Anyone expecting this admin to act in a way to limit the "stunningly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason" just isn't paying attention.

DC isnt a state you ignorant twit,,,

So? DC being a federal territory in no way changes the law with respect to how out of state Guard units are deployed, who has authority over them, and who has the authority to have them deployed to any federal territory or state.

so youre going to dbl down on being an ignorant twit,,,,

 

[berg80]

The president overrides the mayor of DC on these matters, is my understanding. Correct that it is federal property.

The prez has authority over the Guard from DC, but not necessarily NG troops being brought in from out of state. The vagueness of the law is what the article addresses.

 

[DOTR]

The president overrides the mayor of DC on these matters, is my understanding. Correct that it is federal property.

The prez has authority over the Guard from DC, but not necessarily NG troops being brought in from out of state. The vagueness of the law is what the article addresses.

So the law is what is wrong schlomoe?

 

[berg80]

so youre going to dbl down on being an ignorant twit,,,,

I get the distinct feeling you are either too lazy to read the article or too stupid to comprehend its meaning.

 

[HereinVirginia]

The president overrides the mayor of DC on these matters, is my understanding. Correct that it is federal property.

The prez has authority over the Guard from DC, but not necessarily NG troops being brought in from out of state. The vagueness of the law is what the article addresses.

So the law is what is wrong schlomoe?

I reckon I dunno. I’m learning like everyone else.

 

[berg80]

So the law is what is wrong schlomoe?

"I’ve emphasized the critical text. Whereas § 502(f) is principally about training, it appears to authorize use of state National Guard troops, in their Title 32 status, for any “operations or missions undertaken ... at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.” This provision was added to § 502 in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, the legislative history of which is somewhat less than clear as to its purpose and scope. And the regulations promulgated under § 502(f)(1) do not appear to provide any further illumination. (The Army’s 2018 Domestic Operational Law Handbook is a bit more insightful, but not as to using § 502(f) like this.) The two things that are clear, in context, are that (1) the provision is voluntary (leaving it up to individual governors whether to provide the requested support); and (2) any National Guard troops so activated would be in Title 32 status—meaning that they would remain under the command and control of the state, not the federal government."

I was going to ask if you typically comment on things you know nothing about but that appears to be self-evident.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The president overrides the mayor of DC on these matters, is my understanding. Correct that it is federal property.

The prez has authority over the Guard from DC, but not necessarily NG troops being brought in from out of state. The vagueness of the law is what the article addresses.

Does it really matter?

.

 

[DOTR]

So the law is what is wrong schlomoe?

"I’ve emphasized the critical text. Whereas § 502(f) is principally about training, it appears to authorize use of state National Guard troops, in their Title 32 status, for any “operations or missions undertaken ... at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.” This provision was added to § 502 in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, the legislative history of which is somewhat less than clear as to its purpose and scope. And the regulations promulgated under § 502(f)(1) do not appear to provide any further illumination. (The Army’s 2018 Domestic Operational Law Handbook is a bit more insightful, but not as to using § 502(f) like this.) The two things that are clear, in context, are that (1) the provision is voluntary (leaving it up to individual governors whether to provide the requested support); and (2) any National Guard troops so activated would be in Title 32 status—meaning that they would remain under the command and control of the state, not the federal government."

I was going to ask if you typically comment on things you know nothing about but that appears to be self-evident.

Oh "it appears" schlomoe?