Not the full military, per say- National Guard is controlled by each State’s Governor, but can still be called on and used on the Federal level. This was a State level issue. Not always for “defensive” issues either, usually humanitarian, etc.
I’m not advocating one way or another on the WHY they are there, just pointing out that those armored vehicles are NOT police.
thank you for the insight. In my country Germany it is prohibited to use the military in the interior, except for relief in natural catastrophes. Unfortunately this is something where the right wing nut jobs love to “open the debate” every decade or so.
Don’t know if that is still holding up, but the German ministry of defence put terrorist attacks on the same list as natural disasters in their „Weißbuch“ around 2016. So theoretically we could have, what for historical reason we should never see again: The military enforcing inland. And while in Bavaria climate crisis protesters are held in detention under anti terror law, the picture discussed here could become reality in Germany faster than we might think.
The national guard is normally used in disaster relief, like floods. But the Governor is like a tiny president, (sorta, kinda) and as such has some powers over the military force from their state (hand waving a lot here).
As such they can declare a protest or other interior event a “disaster” or public safety risk, and temporarily deploy national guard to support.
If I remember correctly, the guard have to abide by additional federal military rules, compared to state employees, so they are usually carefully used. and again I might be wrong but if the state deploys em, the state pays em,… Not the federal government
So using the military against its own people? Thats the same thing in blue imo.
When the military becomes the police, the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
Not the full military, per say- National Guard is controlled by each State’s Governor, but can still be called on and used on the Federal level. This was a State level issue. Not always for “defensive” issues either, usually humanitarian, etc.
I’m not advocating one way or another on the WHY they are there, just pointing out that those armored vehicles are NOT police.
thank you for the insight. In my country Germany it is prohibited to use the military in the interior, except for relief in natural catastrophes. Unfortunately this is something where the right wing nut jobs love to “open the debate” every decade or so.
Don’t know if that is still holding up, but the German ministry of defence put terrorist attacks on the same list as natural disasters in their „Weißbuch“ around 2016. So theoretically we could have, what for historical reason we should never see again: The military enforcing inland. And while in Bavaria climate crisis protesters are held in detention under anti terror law, the picture discussed here could become reality in Germany faster than we might think.
Technically that’s true here too.
The national guard is normally used in disaster relief, like floods. But the Governor is like a tiny president, (sorta, kinda) and as such has some powers over the military force from their state (hand waving a lot here).
As such they can declare a protest or other interior event a “disaster” or public safety risk, and temporarily deploy national guard to support.
If I remember correctly, the guard have to abide by additional federal military rules, compared to state employees, so they are usually carefully used. and again I might be wrong but if the state deploys em, the state pays em,… Not the federal government