# Policing Chicago - With the National Guard



## Cryozombie (Jul 18, 2008)

Illinois Governer Rod Blagojevich is proposing using the Illinois State National Guard as police units in the city of Chicago to handle the "out-of-control" crime rate in the city.  He has also proposed using the State Police in this manner as well.

Chicago which has a tougher ban on firearm ownership than even DC now, is suffering from a wave of violent crime... but the solution our dear governer is proposing is TOUGHER GUN CONTROL LAWS in the city as well as using the Guard as police. 

Thoughts?


----------



## jkembry (Jul 18, 2008)

Sounds like an implementation of Martial Law to me....next will be the dusk till dawn curfew with violators shot at dawn.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 18, 2008)

I am Surge will be effective in the short term as it has been in other cities it was implemented in, and similar to Baghdad, cordoning off whole sections of the city with concrete barriers would probably be helpful.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2008)

For all but thirteen years of the last FIFTY-THREE, Chicago has had a Daley, and by the way a democrat, as mayor. If this, and Washington DC, and New Orleans are the way democrats run cities, why would anyone want a democrat to run the country?


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 18, 2008)

I understand involving State Police with dealing with an escalating crime rate, but the National Guard?

It brings up tons of scenarios. What will happen when some little kid gets shot in a cross fire between NG and violent offenders?

Will NG troops respond to every violent policing matter?

I don't think they'll all be equipped to handle the tasks. I just hope they end up being heavily armed scarecrows.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> For all but thirteen years of the last FIFTY-THREE, Chicago has had a Daley, and by the way a democrat, as mayor. If this, and Washington DC, and New Orleans are the way democrats run cities, why would anyone want a democrat to run the country?



Is it really that simple?

Red vs. Blue?


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> Is it really that simple?
> 
> Red vs. Blue?


There is, of course, more to it than that.
However, having had a Daley for a mayor for all but 13 years of the last 53, and both Daley's being staunch democrats, why did their policies, aside from the dead voting, fail so miserably that the governor thinks NG troops may be needed?
New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, and democrat, let a pretty large number of school buses that could have been used to evacuate people get flooded out instead, what success can he claim?
Washington D.C., our nation's  capital is a crime ridden hovel, in spite of Marion Barry's democratic leadership...
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome ignores laws he doesn't like.
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon, was, this week, pitching a fit because Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio does his duty and arrests illegals.
What great leadership[/sarcasm]


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome ignores laws he doesn't like.


 
So does Daley.  Just ask all the airplane owners at Meigs Field. 

Erm, I mean, former owners.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 18, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Thoughts?


Give law-abiding citizens their guns back and take cover? :idunno:


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2008)

Bringing the National Guard out for this could be the start of a worrisome trend. That can't be the answer.


----------



## jkembry (Jul 18, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Bringing the National Guard out for this could be the start of a worrisome trend. That can't be the answer.



Let's NOT sugarcoat this...'worrisome trend' doesn't do this justice.  I am not sure what would do it justice...but I do know that once the precedent is set other jurisdictions will want to jump on the band wagon...just cause someone did it and got away with it.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 18, 2008)

jkembry said:


> Let's NOT sugarcoat this...'worrisome trend' doesn't do this justice.  I am not sure what would do it justice...but I do know that once the precedent is set other jurisdictions will want to jump on the band wagon...just cause someone did it and got away with it.



That's why Bush relocated them all to the mid-east, for safe-keeping to prvent this sorta thing


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 18, 2008)

I can think of little more demoralizing to the NG itself than to be used to police an American city.

Big D, quit being a troll.  This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I can think of little more demoralizing to the NG itself than to be used to police an American city.


 Good point, that isn't the purpose of the National Guard, they are supposed to be Citizen Soldiers, not Citizen Cops





> Big D, quit being a troll.  This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.


Really? What three Republican dominated cities have the same levels of crime and corruption as Chicago, New Orleans and Washington D.C.?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What three Republican dominated cities have the same levels of crime and corruption as Chicago, New Orleans and Washington D.C.?



There are no Republican dominated cities of that size, which you well know.  All large urban areas, with or without crime and corruption, trend Democratic.

Now get back on topic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 18, 2008)

It's all baby steps toward martial law.  I don't know how much time we have left, but people really need to see this for what it is before its too late.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 18, 2008)

How do you spell "Posse Comitatus" ?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 18, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> How do you spell "Posse Comitatus" ?



We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. - Barack Obama


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 18, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> How do you spell "Posse Comitatus" ?



I thought that too, but apparently it does not apply to NG units under command of the states, only under federal command.  Perhaps individual states have their own Posse Comitatus acts, but I am not aware of any.


----------



## MJS (Jul 18, 2008)

Every Summer, Hartford, CT., one of the larger cities here, is out of control, with shootings, drugs and gang violence.  And usually every Summer, the CT. State Police are brought in for a certain amount of time to help the PD.  They are usually paired up with officers in cars as well as extra foot patrols.  It usually has a good effect while it lasts.

In this case, is the NG paired up with Chicago Police Officers or are they operating on their own?  If things are that out of control, it may not be a bad idea to bring in extra help.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 18, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. - Barack Obama


 
Good find.  Where did this quote come from?  I've got a bunch of friends who are drooling over Obama.  I'd like to bounce this off of them to see what they say.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 18, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I thought that too, but apparently it does not apply to NG units under command of the states, only under federal command. Perhaps individual states have their own Posse Comitatus acts, but I am not aware of any.


 
If such a law were to exist at the State Level, then that State probably doesn't have a National Guard Unit in the first place. The NG is not meant to be an offensive "we go out and fight wars" kind of thing. This is actually what the Guard is meant to do. They are supposed to be a buffer for the police, and aid The State in times of disaster, civil unrest, and invasion.

So, really, this is just the Guard doing there job.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 18, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> If such a law were to exist at the State Level, then that State probably doesn't have a National Guard Unit in the first place. The NG is not meant to be an offensive "we go out and fight wars" kind of thing. This is actually what the Guard is meant to do. They are supposed to be a buffer for the police, and aid The State in times of disaster, civil unrest, and invasion.
> 
> So, really, this is just the Guard doing there job.


 
Please define *buffer for the police*.  I really dont understand what you mean by this.


So, is the governor declaring Chicago in a state of emergency due to crime.  That is traditionally when the National Guard is called into active duty.  And if so, how did it come to be this way in the first place. 

 I have yet to see armed military soldiers conduct law enforcement operations in any city of this country, and hope that I never do.  All I can say is that if they do, stand by.


----------



## Tomu (Jul 19, 2008)

Martial law can never be a good thing.  
As for the rantings about Red vs. Blue I happen to live in Illinois and can tell you that our last Gov who was republican was just as crooked as our current Dem.  Politicians are politicians.

My advice is to buy guns and ammo.
We're gonna need them sooner than we think.:shooter:


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Please define *buffer for the police*. I really dont understand what you mean by this.


 
Riots first and foremost. But, really, it could mean basicly anything you wanted.

As for the Governor declaring a State of Emergency, it isn't really needed. Are you aware fo the College Shootings during the Vietnam War? Same thing. The Armed Forces all report to the President, and if he says so, they have to go/do what ever he says. The Governor has basicly the same authority with the Guard within his/her State.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I have yet to see armed military soldiers conduct law enforcement operations in any city of this country, and hope that I never do. All I can say is that if they do, stand by.


I have seen it, and it wasn't pretty.  After Hurricane Andrew hit Miami, the Guard was called to assist with aid, organize volunteer teams, guard supplies, and make an armed presence to reduce looting.  IIRC, they were authorized to shoot looters.  I remember seeing one NG member trying to stop a kid who was trying to take a TV set - when the kid bolted, the NG member ran after him and caught him, but having had no training in how to restrain a resisting unarmed looter, he ended up in a tussle on the ground with the guy, with his M-16 dangling on the asphalt.  The 16-or-so-yr-old almost grabbed it from him in the strruggle - yikes!!!

NG were called out and patrolled the streets again after Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA).  In fact, they still were patrolling the streets, a full year after the fact, when I went with a church group on a summer work trip.  For that matter, I think parts of NOLA are still under martial law, with the right of habeas corpus suspended (I am aware of at least one individual who was held without charge for over a year, and was just released this past week).

Since 'Martial Law' means 'law under military rule', I would say that any time you call the Guard out for a policing action you are instituting martial law.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 19, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> So, really, this is just the Guard doing there job.


 
Speaking as a former member of the Illinois Army National Guard... No. It's not.

We were NEVER designed or trained for law enforcement in urban environments.  The levels of "Police" Training we had were limited to the discussions we had durring MOUT/Riot training on detention and transporation of suspects durring a riot.  Not local laws, not enforcement thereof, etc... Granted, we were all 11B and 11C in my unit, no MP, maybe an MP unit would be better suited to this, but it is NOT what the ANG was designed for, sorry.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 19, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Good find.  Where did this quote come from?  I've got a bunch of friends who are drooling over Obama.  I'd like to bounce this off of them to see what they say.



It made  the digg/reddit/etc... rounds a few days ago... can probably find a video with him saying it... it wasn't in the transcript sent to most of the news media outlets so it didn't make any of the majors

Here 




It's from about 16:30-17:00 minutes in.  In context his remarks seem to be a lot about increasing civilian presence overseas (peace-corps, etc...) but it was an interesting remark to put "civilian police" in there


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 19, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> How do you spell "Posse Comitatus" ?


 
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm



> To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[2] While the act applies to the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military manpower resources of the National Guard.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][3] The National Guard, when it is operating in its state status pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is not subject to the prohibitions on civilian law enforcement. (Federal military forces operate pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.) In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate. It is only when federalized pursuant to an exercise of presidential authority that the Guard becomes subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act.[/FONT]


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I have yet to see armed military soldiers conduct law enforcement operations in any city of this country, and hope that I never do. All I can say is that if they do, stand by.


 

I was living in Montreal during the October Crisis. The Army was called in to provide security. The sight of armored personnel carriers through residential neighbourhoods is not pretty. 

I was in grade school at the time. The father of a good friend was a Quebec Superior Court judge. His house was nder armed guard, and soldiers accompanied the kid to school. I'll never forget having armed soldiers outside my classroom.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 19, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Riots first and foremost. But, really, it could mean basicly anything you wanted.
> 
> As for the Governor declaring a State of Emergency, it isn't really needed. Are you aware fo the College Shootings during the Vietnam War? Same thing. The Armed Forces all report to the President, and if he says so, they have to go/do what ever he says. The Governor has basicly the same authority with the Guard within his/her State.


 

As a matter of fact, the mayor of Kent, Ohio did in fact declare an emergency during this situation.  He then asked the Govenor of Ohio to send in the National Guard.

As a law enforcement officer with training in the State Incident Management System and the National Incident Management System, certain things must arise before certain elements of the government are put into effect.  For the National Guard to be called into a situation, a state of emergency must exist.

So, just as the president has restrictions on what he can do with the Active duty military, so does the govenor of a state.



> I have seen it, and it wasn't pretty. After Hurricane Andrew hit Miami, the Guard was called to assist with aid, organize volunteer teams, guard supplies, and make an armed presence to reduce looting. IIRC, they were authorized to shoot looters. I remember seeing one NG member trying to stop a kid who was trying to take a TV set - when the kid bolted, the NG member ran after him and caught him, but having had no training in how to restrain a resisting unarmed looter, he ended up in a tussle on the ground with the guy, with his M-16 dangling on the asphalt. The 16-or-so-yr-old almost grabbed it from him in the strruggle - yikes!!!
> 
> NG were called out and patrolled the streets again after Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA). In fact, they still were patrolling the streets, a full year after the fact, when I went with a church group on a summer work trip. For that matter, I think parts of NOLA are still under martial law, with the right of habeas corpus suspended (I am aware of at least one individual who was held without charge for over a year, and was just released this past week).
> 
> Since 'Martial Law' means 'law under military rule', I would say that any time you call the Guard out for a policing action you are instituting martial law.


 
Interesting.  It was my understanding that in those situation, especially New Orleans, that private contractors were the ones enforcing the law of the state.  I was unaware that they had the national guard performing those functions.  That would be martial law.  But, I wonder if you are correct in your assesment.  As I have run out of time, I  will just point you to this link: 

http://www.slate.com/id/2125584/nav/tap1/


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I was unaware that they had the national guard performing those functions.


 
Well, it is there job. That they may not be trained for it doesn't matter.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jul 20, 2008)

papieren bitte


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 20, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Well, it is there job. That they may not be trained for it doesn't matter.


 
Very helpful comment.  I am glad you are here to help.  How about showing me that it is their job, using at least somewhat credible and verifiable sources, rather than trying to make me take your word for it.

But, again, it is not their job.  A more accurate assesment is that someone is making them do something that is neither in their job responsiblity or skill set.  A not uncommon occurrance when there is no one else available, and with the wide varitey of skills available to the military and national guard.  And, in enforcing the law, they are possibly in defiance of the law.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 20, 2008)

5-0, what are your thoughts on the deployment of guardsmen inside US airports immediately after 9-11?  I remember traveling with the family, and husband, kids, and I filed through security in Baltimore, MD past soldiers in BDUs with M-16s and working dogs.Was this to provide a uniformed 'presence'?  Where was the line of civilian-vs-military control, and was it crossed or just blurred?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 20, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Well, it is there job. That they may not be trained for it doesn't matter.


 
No, it is NOT. PERIOD. Daily Law Enforcement in high-crime cities Is NOT the Job of the National Gaurd. It's the job of Law Enforcement.

From Archangels post above:



> In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate.


 
Note that it only lists them as acting as law enforcement "during times of emergency"

"Mayor Daley's Policys suck and are making Chicago a ******** to live in" doesn't qaulify as a Time of Emergency to me.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 21, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> 5-0, what are your thoughts on the deployment of guardsmen inside US airports immediately after 9-11? I remember traveling with the family, and husband, kids, and I filed through security in Baltimore, MD past soldiers in BDUs with M-16s and working dogs.Was this to provide a uniformed 'presence'? Where was the line of civilian-vs-military control, and was it crossed or just blurred?


 

I think that the line is blurred, and there is no practical way around it.

I do not particularly have a problem with the military being used to, in a sence, reinforce the police.  I think that they can provide an effective deterent force.  Also, they can be used to protect life and property, but in their own fashion.

I do not agree with the military having powers of arrest over civilians.  The main reason is that I really do not trust the federal government.

But, also importantly, the military / national guard should not be used to enforce the common laws of the state.  They have neither the training nor experience to do so.  Neither, in my understanding, do they have the statutory authority to do so.  

Ultimately, it would be very difficult to get a prosecution for the crimes in court, which is the point of arrest in the first place.  First of all, again, where is their statutory powers of arrest?  Secondly, there are proceedural issues, preservation of evidence, reasonable force requirements, etc.  I just dont think that it would work out, unless we totally revamped our military into something it is not.

The military does two things very well: break things and kill things.  They should really stick to that which they do best.


----------

