5 ms·

The fact that the DoD time line of events shows it took Army officials in charge of DC National Guard 90 minutes to approve deployment after DC mayoral request

by beezle 6y ago

The fact that the DoD time line of events shows it took Army officials in charge of DC National Guard 90 minutes to approve deployment after DC mayoral request (while they watch it all in realtime on TV) certainly lends credence to the sympathy angle. ref: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/1/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC.pdf https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/1/PLA...

dgeiser13 6y ago
That is an amazing timeline.
mcv 6y ago
Note how they call it the "first amendment protest", and not "the assault on the Capitol".
- tjkoury 6y ago
  They changed it "to address the Violent Attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021". Check the link again.
  - mcv 6y ago
    The link doesn't work anymore.
belorn 6y ago
Who is the people in charge of keeping unauthorized people out of the capitol building. The police, or the army? Let say we have the worst case scenario where a bunch of criminals successfully enter the capital building and occupy it. Is the best response to send the army, or as many police units as needed to apprehend the criminals and put them in jail? By sending the army what we are saying is that there existed a creditable scenario that the people attacking could have taken control of the US government and ruled over the nation.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Who is the people in charge of keeping unauthorized people out of the capitol building. The police, or the army? The National Guard is not the Army, it's a dual-purpose force that is both a reserve for the Army and a reserve for civil authorities during emergencies including civil disorder. > By sending the army what we are saying is that there existed a creditable scenario that the people attacking could have taken control of the US government and ruled over the nation. No, even if we were talking about the Army proper, an existential threat to the government is not the criteria under the Insurrection Act for their use to disperse insurgents. The militia, armed forces, or both may be used (among other scenarios authorized in law) against “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” which “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws”. 10 USC Sec 253.
  - belorn 6y ago
    The National Guard is a military reserve force, trained in military combat. A few hundred years ago the roles of the police and the army might have been much more similar, but today we have better ideas in how to address an occupied building. History is full of examples and dead bodies where the military has been used against its own people who oppose or obstruct the execution of law. It many countries it also follows a period of regret and new laws in order to prevent something similar to ever happen again. Just because the government has a law that gives them authorization to send the military in order to secure a building, it doesn't mean it is a good idea. Would the military trained personnel have done a better job during the capital attack than the police trained one?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The National Guard is a military reserve force, trained in military combat. The Guard is a force whose missions include support for Civil authorities during disturbances, and it's training, equipment, organizations, planning, etc. reflect that. And, quite arguably, that are better than, and trained better than the police for, dealing with large scale civil unrest. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-elections-racial-injustice-1bf55880ceae5f3d8fa1d731003ec88e https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-elections-racial-in... https://www.ideastream.org/news/what-national-guard-training-can-tell-us-about-policing-protests https://www.ideastream.org/news/what-national-guard-training...

by beezle 6y ago

dgeiser13 6y ago

That is an amazing timeline.

mcv 6y ago

Note how they call it the "first amendment protest", and not "the assault on the Capitol".

tjkoury 6y ago
They changed it "to address the Violent Attack at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021". Check the link again.
- mcv 6y ago
  The link doesn't work anymore.

belorn 6y ago

Who is the people in charge of keeping unauthorized people out of the capitol building. The police, or the army? Let say we have the worst case scenario where a bunch of criminals successfully enter the capital building and occupy it. Is the best response to send the army, or as many police units as needed to apprehend the criminals and put them in jail? By sending the army what we are saying is that there existed a creditable scenario that the people attacking could have taken control of the US government and ruled over the nation.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Who is the people in charge of keeping unauthorized people out of the capitol building. The police, or the army? The National Guard is not the Army, it's a dual-purpose force that is both a reserve for the Army and a reserve for civil authorities during emergencies including civil disorder. > By sending the army what we are saying is that there existed a creditable scenario that the people attacking could have taken control of the US government and ruled over the nation. No, even if we were talking about the Army proper, an existential threat to the government is not the criteria under the Insurrection Act for their use to disperse insurgents. The militia, armed forces, or both may be used (among other scenarios authorized in law) against “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” which “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws”. 10 USC Sec 253.
- belorn 6y ago
  The National Guard is a military reserve force, trained in military combat. A few hundred years ago the roles of the police and the army might have been much more similar, but today we have better ideas in how to address an occupied building. History is full of examples and dead bodies where the military has been used against its own people who oppose or obstruct the execution of law. It many countries it also follows a period of regret and new laws in order to prevent something similar to ever happen again. Just because the government has a law that gives them authorization to send the military in order to secure a building, it doesn't mean it is a good idea. Would the military trained personnel have done a better job during the capital attack than the police trained one?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The National Guard is a military reserve force, trained in military combat. The Guard is a force whose missions include support for Civil authorities during disturbances, and it's training, equipment, organizations, planning, etc. reflect that. And, quite arguably, that are better than, and trained better than the police for, dealing with large scale civil unrest. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-elections-racial-injustice-1bf55880ceae5f3d8fa1d731003ec88e https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-elections-racial-in... https://www.ideastream.org/news/what-national-guard-training-can-tell-us-about-policing-protests https://www.ideastream.org/news/what-national-guard-training...