SEPT 24TH MUST BE NON-VIOLENT - Governor Blanco Blackmailed?

Nictuku

(907 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-05-05 02:50 PM
Original message

SEPT 24TH MUST BE NON-VIOLENT - Governor Blanco Blackmailed?

Edited on Mon Sep-05-05 02:52 PM by Nictuku

I posted this in another thread, but it is such an important issue, I feel the urgent need to get the word out to anyone who may be involved in upcoming protests:

I'd like to know what the official system for directing the National Guard is. I don't think that the Louisiana Governor can 'call other states National Guard' into Action, I think that through FEMA, they can be requested from other states.

The Louisiana Governor requested Federal assistance on 8/28, thereby activating FEMA and her own National Guard. In her request to the Federal Government she said that the local assets would be overwhelmed.

I've been collecting information at another site, some of it from DU, some from other sources. I've been trying to figure out what the delay was caused by.

I think I have figured it out, and it is big.

It is going to be relevant to the protests on 9/24. I think we need to get the word out that non-violence in our protests has never been more important, because this administration is trying to declare Marshall Law on the entire country, using the disaster as a precurser.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html
Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.
******
Political Blackmail? There is a bit of history to be found on Bush trying to Federalize the National Guard:
*****

http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/ngaletterrelease3602.asp
Governors Urge President Not to Federalize Guard Troops
(March 6, 2002) - The nation's governors have urged President Bush not to federalize National Guardsmen for border patrol missions and to reaffirm the vital role the state chief executives play in meeting challenges of securing and defending the homeland.
<snip>
The governors object to using Guardsmen in federal Title 10 status not only because they would lose their control over the personnel, but because it will interfere with soldier training in addition to "effective force management of the states' military personnel." They say it will also "prevent certain personal accommodations of soldiers' and civilian employers' special needs during the term of federal service."
<snip>
The governors also warned the president that he may be on shaky legal ground using federalized Guardsmen for border duty. Guardsmen under Title 10 are subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of federal troops in law enforcement.

****

Guard Leaders Urge President to Keep Guardsmen Under State Control in Homeland Security Missions
For immediate release
Contact: John Goheen or Kristin Patterson - (202) 789-0031

WASHINGTON (March 4, 2002) - National Guard leaders from across the country have urged the president to leave Guardsmen under state control for most homeland security missions-most notably and urgently, U.S. border patrol.
<snip>
They are concerned by Office of the Secretary of Defense attempts to "federalize" Guardsmen to assist non-Defense Department federal agencies. Doing so would lead to the "unwise and unacceptable precedent" of eliminating the nation's governors from their role in homeland security, Guard leaders say.

It could also violate prohibitions of using federal troops in law enforcement, they warn. Guardsmen serving at commercial airports receive federal pay but are under state control. Guard leaders urge using their personnel in this status, or "Title 32," for all homeland security missions.

"We are trying to prevent what could develop into de facto national policy," said Maj. Gen. John Kane, Adjutant General Association president and Idaho adjutant general. "Routinely federalizing the Guard for homeland security missions erodes the control of the governor over our soldiers and airmen. It also degrades our training and readiness for other state emergencies and for overseas missions in support of the Army and Air Force."
<snip>
In addition, Guardsmen serving under Title 32 do not fall under the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 law that prohibits the use of federal troops in law enforcement.

The generals' request comes as the OSD plans to begin federalizing Army National Guardsmen for U.S border patrol this week. Defense officials issued call-up orders Feb. 22.
***********

These are very very serious matters, which all citizens of the U.S. should be concerned about.

This is what the the 'right to bear arms' is all about. We do not want the government to be able to use its military against its citizenship, as expressed in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

The main concern back then was that the military was overseeing elections. Think about it.

I believe the Govenor of Louisiana was blackmailed into allowing the federalization of the National Guard, this is what she needed time to think about. But it is political blackmail.

Did Bush 'withold' assistance and support to the City of New Orleans so that the situation would degenerate into such a desperate situation that the Governor would have no choice but to allow the Federalization of her National Guard?

Is this why FEMA (under the control of Homeland Security) was TURNING AWAY WATER, GAS, BOATS, FOOD brought in by American Citizens?

And think about it, if the upcoming protests turn violent (and even if we are all non-violent, they could plant agents provacateur in the crowds, purposly causing the violence.

I already believe that the violence we are seeing in New Orleans would have not been as prevelant had they had water and food. (I'm sure there would be some looting, so I'm not saying that). But the varying stories of the shooting on the bridge yesterday...

Anyway, I digress.

Blianco was very smart:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law.

Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

*******

So.. withold, and PREVENT assistance, until the dehydrating masses rioted, so they could justify Military Takeover?

******

Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state's victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.

Bush, who has been criticized, even by supporters, for the delayed response to the disaster, used his weekly radio address to put responsibility for the failure on lower levels of government. The magnitude of the crisis "has created tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities," he said. "The result is that many of our citizens simply are not getting the help they need, especially in New Orleans. And that is unacceptable."
*********

So..... the only way any city can expect help from the National Guard, FEMA, even other citizens, is if we relinquish all State authority to the Government?

This is wrong. It goes against the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

America needs to open its eyes and see what is really going on here.