Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Edge-]

Better yet, both times they should have been armed with fixed bayonets.

Because that went so well at Kent?

[Kellhound]

Because that went so well at Kent?

The bayonets actually did.

[Machismo]

Which would have minimal effect on their ability to provide security. Neither group had any offensive means. Guys in nothing but shorts and sandals but armed with night sticks would have been a massive upgrade to either force. Better yet, both times they should have been armed with fixed bayonets.

That's not true at all. Read the full list. They cannot actually interact with protesters, cannot seek assistance from any of the other government personnel who were there, and couldn't actually do any law enforcement whatsoever.

They were ordered to be traffic control.

They were completely hamstrung, and you know it. So, feel free to keep being ridiculous in the name of fascists, I expect nothing less from you.

[Edge-]

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/02/...apitol-window/

And add another in the bucket of, "These people are too stupid to be a serious threat."

We already had the guy who wore his company badge, with his name, picture, and company name on it.

We also have a guy who wore his work jacket to the riot, which has the name and phone number of his employer.

Seriously, these chucklefucks should have spent less time yelling about wanting to find and fight antifa and more time paying attention to how antifa operates. I can't remember the last time one of those idiots did something this deeply stupid.

[DarkTZeratul]

That's not true at all. Read the full list. They cannot actually interact with protesters, cannot seek assistance from any of the other government personnel who were there, and couldn't actually do any law enforcement whatsoever.

They were ordered to be traffic control.

They were completely hamstrung, and you know it. So, feel free to keep being ridiculous in the name of fascists, I expect nothing less from you.

I'm still taking Thekri's explanation as being accurate (he's generally right about this sort of stuff), which is essentially that this IS standard... But also that the BLM stuff was decidedly beyond standard:

The national guard is not supposed to have such authority. The use of the US military against US citizens is a VERY big deal, and the military was extremely upset about their forced involvement in 2020. Everything on that list is barred by default from use against US citizens, although I disagree with holding the release authority at the DoD level, it does need to be held at some level.

The two main issues here are:
1) We did see the employment of several of these things the next day, which means that either Miller did release his hold, or else this order was ignored.
2) We did see the use of these things in the Capital last year, where it prompted considerable negative attention.

To me the most troubling aspect to compare this crisis with the previous federal response to BLM protests wasn't the use of the Guard (Which was severely, and appropriately, limited), it was the presence of all those unnamed federal assets in response to the BLM protests. We saw the deployment of uniformed personnel with no identification, we saw the employment of ISR assets with no public awareness of where the information was going, or who could see it. We saw people being arrested or struck by people who had no legally declared authority to do so (Since we don't know who they were). I absolutely want to see all that investigated. But the use of the Guard in both scenarios seems mostly ok.

[Machismo]

I'm still taking Thekri's explanation as being accurate (he's generally right about this sort of stuff), which is essentially that this IS standard... But also that the BLM stuff was decidedly beyond standard:

Some of the things are standard, but not others. The dude is an officer, and knows his stuff. But, not being able to interact with law enforcement, including asking for assistance, that's not normal. The other issue was the refusal to allow body armor and helmets.

I absolutely get not arming them with firearms, that is very common. But, the way it's worded means that they cannot do much of anything. By the wording, they cannot even detain a violent protestor, and hold them for arrest by actual law enforcement.

And let's not forget, the Guard wasn't even used. They wanted to be, and DC, Maryland, and Virginia were trying to use them... but were denied, even under those limited orders.

[D Luniz]

Picture seems to show unarmed MPs in normal military body armor, not riot gear (beyond CBR masks in pouches).

Not pictured was the use of tear gas, the low flying helicopter, the ATVs. But the guys in the picture got helmets and vests. Things denied for the Jan 5th-6th attempted coup.

- - - Updated - - -

Which would have minimal effect on their ability to provide security. Neither group had any offensive means. Guys in nothing but shorts and sandals but armed with night sticks would have been a massive upgrade to either force. Better yet, both times they should have been armed with fixed bayonets.

Tell that to all the officers with TBI

[DarkTZeratul]

Some of the things are standard, but not others. The dude is an officer, and knows his stuff. But, not being able to interact with law enforcement, including asking for assistance, that's not normal. The other issue was the refusal to allow body armor and helmets.

I absolutely get not arming them with firearms, that is very common. But, the way it's worded means that they cannot do much of anything. By the wording, they cannot even detain a violent protestor, and hold them for arrest by actual law enforcement.

And let's not forget, the Guard wasn't even used. They wanted to be, and DC, Maryland, and Virginia were trying to use them... but were denied, even under those limited orders.

Oh, there were absolutely problems with how the NG was (and especially was not) utilized, I'm just not sure this letter in and of itself is the smoking gun some people seem to think it is.

[Machismo]

Oh, there were absolutely problems with how the NG was (and especially was not) utilized, I'm just not sure this letter in and of itself is the smoking gun some people seem to think it is.

The smoking gun was the refusal to allow for them to be deployed in the first place.

This just shows the absolute hamstringing of their usage. It turned them into traffic control, that's it.

[Felya]

Just a reminder... Trump had unmarked vans snatching people off the street, during BLM protests.

[Kellhound]

That's not true at all. Read the full list. They cannot actually interact with protesters, cannot seek assistance from any of the other government personnel who were there, and couldn't actually do any law enforcement whatsoever.

They were ordered to be traffic control.

They were completely hamstrung, and you know it. So, feel free to keep being ridiculous in the name of fascists, I expect nothing less from you.

Not having offensive weapons and full riot gear is a massive constraint on effectiveness no matter how you look at it, and my comment was strictly based on equipment not orders. But I don't expect you to notice such things.

- - - Updated - - -

Not pictured was the use of tear gas, the low flying helicopter, the ATVs. But the guys in the picture got helmets and vests. Things denied for the Jan 5th-6th attempted coup.

- - - Updated - - -



Tell that to all the officers with TBI

Don't get me wrong, I believe all rioters should be dealt with via extreme force.

[Machismo]

Not having offensive weapons and full riot gear is a massive constraint on effectiveness no matter how you look at it, and my comment was strictly based on equipment not orders. But I don't expect you to notice such things.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't get me wrong, I believe all rioters should be dealt with via extreme force.

It shows they were objectively more restricted than before... which is the point.

Or, did you not notice that?

[Kellhound]

It shows they were objectively more restricted than before... which is the point.

Or, did you not notice that?

I noticed that I pointed out equipment and what it means to their effectiveness.

There is also the question of the legality of using NG troops as law enforcement in DC under the current command structure (they are under the control of the military when mobilized for any reason).

[Machismo]

I noticed that I pointed out equipment and what it means to their effectiveness.

There is also the question of the legality of using NG troops as law enforcement in DC under the current command structure (they are under the control of the military when mobilized for any reason).

This isn't just about using them as "law enforcement. They weren't even allowed to do much of anything.

They have been deployed numerous times in the past, to all sorts of locations. they have been called to quell riots, act as security, and disaster relief. But, as has been pointed out, they were more restricted than in the picture.

[Kellhound]

This isn't just about using them as "law enforcement. They weren't even allowed to do much of anything.

They have been deployed numerous times in the past, to all sorts of locations. they have been called to quell riots, act as security, and disaster relief. But, as has been pointed out, they were more restricted than in the picture.

The grey zone is the use of the NG in DC " for the purpose of executing the laws", as they are under the control of the federal government.

[Machismo]

The grey zone is the use of the NG in DC " for the purpose of executing the laws", as they are under the control of the federal government.

yes, they are under the control of the federal government. DC has their own National Guard. They were hamstrung.

[Kellhound]

yes, they are under the control of the federal government. DC has their own National Guard. They were hamstrung.

Posse Comitatus does not allow the us of NG troops under federal control to be used for the purpose of executing the law unless the Insurrection Act is evoked (and it has been 28 years since it last was).

[Machismo]

Posse Comitatus does not allow the us of NG troops under federal control to be used for the purpose of executing the law unless the Insurrection Act is evoked (and it has been 28 years since it last was).

And as has been pointed out, they are objectively more restricted than they were... at the same location... just a few months ago.

I have made no claims as to what you are talking about.

[Thekri]

And as has been pointed out, they are objectively more restricted than they were... at the same location... just a few months ago.

I have made no claims as to what you are talking about.

Not sure where you got the idea they were more or less restricted then they were during last year. The actual actions of the NG in both cases were very simular. The major differences are 1) You didn't see the use of force memo last time, and 2) Last time they had a LOT of support by other federal agencies, where they had almost none this time.

The first is not a big deal, the second absolutely is. As I mentioned in my earlier post on the topic, I am EXTREMELY concerned by the actions of numerous federal agencies during the Washington protests last year. Many of these agencies cannot even be identified, such as who was operating surveillance aircraft over the crowd, or who was providing the "Goon Squads" we saw in both DC and Portland. Other agencies we can identify, such as the National Park service, were operating WAY outside the scope of their authority, and tear gassing crowds. But I can't find any evidence that the National Guard itself was particularly misused in those cases (If you remember the iconic picture of them on the Washington Monument, they had no guns, no riot shields, and weren't advancing on protestors).

As far as the memo itself, you seem to completely misunderstand what it is. It is a very standard use of force format, I dealt with similar documents hundreds of times. When it says "You can't do this thing without asking permission" that is exactly what it means. It doesn't mean you can't do it, it just means you have to ask the person assigned to approve such things. In Afghanistan we had mountains of these memos, restricting all sorts of things. "Don't use Aerial munitions within X distance of a structure", "Don't obstruct civilian traffic along roads", "Don't enter agricultural areas", but none of those were hard rules, each of them had a person you had to ask before you did something like that. They don't want Soldiers doing donuts in some poor farmers fields, but if one of my Platoons needed to go after a mortar emplacement or something, I was the one authorized to approve that. For something more serious, like Aerial Munitions near a residential structure, if we absolutely needed to do it, I had to ask my boss first (Or provide a really good reason after the fact!)

That is all this memo is. "Don't do shit that is going to rile up the media unless you ask me first". Of course, Soldiers are ALWAYS allowed to do what they need to defend themselves, and since we saw the NG doing several of the things on that list, clearly they did ask for, and receive, permission to do it. They weren't actually used as traffic control, we saw them in a shield wall moving rioters away from the capital.

[Kellhound]

And as has been pointed out, they are objectively more restricted than they were... at the same location... just a few months ago.

I have made no claims as to what you are talking about.

And the restrictions are not effectively significant given the equipment authorized in both cases.

Again, I would have preferred to see them armed with fixed bayonets both times because it is very effective at moving people.