Should governors gain authority over all U.S. military forces in their states?

[flashl]

Governors' military powers debated

Should governors gain authority over all U.S. military forces in their states — not just National Guard troops — during terrorist attacks, hurricanes and other domestic disasters?

A congressionally chartered commission last week recommended just that, expressing “great confidence in our governors.”

While some say it’s a good move, Pentagon officials have assailed the proposal, claiming it violates the Constitution, undermines presidential power and “invites confusion” over military command during emergencies. The National Governors Association (NGA) isn’t sure whether to back the plan, and the commission itself anticipates resistance.

Debate over the recommendation — and 94 others included in a Jan. 31 report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves — continues today (Feb. 7), when the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee questions commission members about the study. Congress created the 12-member panel in 2005 to examine the challenges facing the nation’s military reserves as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan continue; more than 600,000 National Guard members and reservists have served in the two wars.

Stateline

[TomInTib]

1. I don't like it at all.

Just because the current bunch of saps are criminally inept, I firmly believe that the U.S. military is just that, "United".

You get a couple of egomaniac, nutcase Governors out there and all kinds of crap could happen.

[thunder rising]

2. posse comitatus ... US troops cannot be used. So if they must be "donated" to the National Guard;

hence the Governors have control. This is great blue states can welcome the troops and red states better fear the bullets.

[angrycarpenter]

3. Martial law suspends all local governments

When imposed by the president. That is one power they will not give up.

[williesgirl]

4. Definitely NOT. This is scary. rec'd

[aquart]

5. It really doesn't matter.

It was a problem after Katrina, when NO needed the troops and wasn't allowed them. I can see why no one wants to see that happen again. BUT it wouldn't have been necessary if Bush weren't using the National Guard for his international ventures. THAT is what needs to be removed from the president's greedy grasp.

This is really going to be an issue when our coasts are flooded and millions of refugees try to escape inland. Which is when chain of command won't matter and the issue will decide itself. Either we will rescue our people or let them die. Either we will remain one nation or break up into separate states. The magnitude of the emergency will make the decision.

[flashl]

8. There is some Katrina hangover ....

Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard

Jan 2007

A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.

A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change "a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders."

The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II. Shortage of the Guard’s military equipment – such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado – also is a nagging issue as much of units’ heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home.

[bowens43]

6. No, of course not. nt

[Doctor Cynic]

7. So this would mean the governor of Alabama would get control of nukes

in Alabama jurisdiction. That will make me sleep tight at night...