5
5
0
From: Army Times
FERGUSON, Mo. – The smoke has cleared here in this riot-battered city, but the answer to one burning question remains hazy: where was the National Guard on the night of the riots?
Governor Jay Nixon had called up 700 members of the Missouri National Guard in advance of the grand jury decision. His order and the accompanying press release made it clear the primary mission of the soldiers was to secure "command posts, fire stations, and other locations" to "free up law enforcement." In short, they were there in a support role.
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay made it even clearer. "The Guard is not going to be confronting protesters and is not going to be on the front lines interacting directly with the demonstrators," Slay said in the days before the decision.
Slay had asked for 400 Guard members, and he got them. They could be seen protecting empty buildings and landmarks in the downtown area at the very same time rioters faced no resistance lighting fires in a dozen buildings in Ferguson and Dellwood.
Ferguson Mayor James Knowles was clearly upset when he assessed the situation the next morning. "It was my understanding they would be deployed when needed to maintain order and protect businesses. They were not," Knowles said.
The question remains: why call up the National Guard and then keep them garrisoned outside Ferguson, the prime target of demonstrators?
The person to answer is the commander in chief of the Missouri National Guard, Governor Nixon. Gannett investigators filed public records requests with the Guard and the governor's office. The Guard responded that all of its records are exempt from disclosure under Missouri law. The governor's deputy chief of staff responded that his officer was working on the request, "you should expect to hear back about the status of your request by no later than December 23, 2014."
We requested an interview with Governor Nixon, driving to Jefferson City after giving his staff a day's notice. "The governor won't be available tomorrow, but we're also not scheduling any interviews at the current time," his spokesperson replied.
We did find one person at the state capital willing to talk about the deployment. Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, a Republican, is a political rival of the governor, a Democrat. Kinder supported using the National Guard, but not the way Nixon deployed the soldiers.
"Missourians are asking what intervening event caused the governor to withhold them," Lt. Governor Kinder said, "and we don't have an answer to that question."
Governor Nixon confirmed his own criticism by reversing the decision the morning after the Ferguson riots. "The violence we saw in the areas of Ferguson last night can not be repeated," he told the TV cameras. "That is why to protect lives and property, we are bringing more resources to Ferguson and other parts of the region to prevent a repetition of the lawlessness experienced overnight," the governor added.
Nixon tripled the number of soldiers to more than 2,200. They were deployed to Ferguson and Dellwood where there a stunning image developed – armed soldiers guarding the smoldering remnants of buildings no longer in need of saving.
"I have another question for the governor," Kinder said. "Where were you Monday night? Were you at the command center? Were you back in the mansion in Jefferson City? Where were you?," Kinder asked.
When we asked the National Guard for numbers to confirm the deployments, the Department of Public Safety sent us a governor's press release from two weeks earlier. Lt. Governor Kinder said his staff was also given a press release when he wanted more information before appearing on a national TV news network.
Kinder is calling for public hearings at the state capital. "There's no question the governor can not hide forever," Kinder said. "The legislature convenes the first week of January with subpoena power, and there will be all his department heads brought to the table, and they will be put under oath. They can appear voluntarily, or they can appear pursuant to a subpoena."
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/12/04/ferguson-where-was-the-national-guard/19932493/
FERGUSON, Mo. – The smoke has cleared here in this riot-battered city, but the answer to one burning question remains hazy: where was the National Guard on the night of the riots?
Governor Jay Nixon had called up 700 members of the Missouri National Guard in advance of the grand jury decision. His order and the accompanying press release made it clear the primary mission of the soldiers was to secure "command posts, fire stations, and other locations" to "free up law enforcement." In short, they were there in a support role.
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay made it even clearer. "The Guard is not going to be confronting protesters and is not going to be on the front lines interacting directly with the demonstrators," Slay said in the days before the decision.
Slay had asked for 400 Guard members, and he got them. They could be seen protecting empty buildings and landmarks in the downtown area at the very same time rioters faced no resistance lighting fires in a dozen buildings in Ferguson and Dellwood.
Ferguson Mayor James Knowles was clearly upset when he assessed the situation the next morning. "It was my understanding they would be deployed when needed to maintain order and protect businesses. They were not," Knowles said.
The question remains: why call up the National Guard and then keep them garrisoned outside Ferguson, the prime target of demonstrators?
The person to answer is the commander in chief of the Missouri National Guard, Governor Nixon. Gannett investigators filed public records requests with the Guard and the governor's office. The Guard responded that all of its records are exempt from disclosure under Missouri law. The governor's deputy chief of staff responded that his officer was working on the request, "you should expect to hear back about the status of your request by no later than December 23, 2014."
We requested an interview with Governor Nixon, driving to Jefferson City after giving his staff a day's notice. "The governor won't be available tomorrow, but we're also not scheduling any interviews at the current time," his spokesperson replied.
We did find one person at the state capital willing to talk about the deployment. Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, a Republican, is a political rival of the governor, a Democrat. Kinder supported using the National Guard, but not the way Nixon deployed the soldiers.
"Missourians are asking what intervening event caused the governor to withhold them," Lt. Governor Kinder said, "and we don't have an answer to that question."
Governor Nixon confirmed his own criticism by reversing the decision the morning after the Ferguson riots. "The violence we saw in the areas of Ferguson last night can not be repeated," he told the TV cameras. "That is why to protect lives and property, we are bringing more resources to Ferguson and other parts of the region to prevent a repetition of the lawlessness experienced overnight," the governor added.
Nixon tripled the number of soldiers to more than 2,200. They were deployed to Ferguson and Dellwood where there a stunning image developed – armed soldiers guarding the smoldering remnants of buildings no longer in need of saving.
"I have another question for the governor," Kinder said. "Where were you Monday night? Were you at the command center? Were you back in the mansion in Jefferson City? Where were you?," Kinder asked.
When we asked the National Guard for numbers to confirm the deployments, the Department of Public Safety sent us a governor's press release from two weeks earlier. Lt. Governor Kinder said his staff was also given a press release when he wanted more information before appearing on a national TV news network.
Kinder is calling for public hearings at the state capital. "There's no question the governor can not hide forever," Kinder said. "The legislature convenes the first week of January with subpoena power, and there will be all his department heads brought to the table, and they will be put under oath. They can appear voluntarily, or they can appear pursuant to a subpoena."
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/ferguson/2014/12/04/ferguson-where-was-the-national-guard/19932493/
Posted in these groups: 
Ferguson
Army National Guard
Ferguson Army National Guard
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
Maybe its the fact that I really stopped following this whole mess but honestly, I feel this whole situation went from bad, to worse, to out of control all because of the action or lack of action of certain people. Put aside how you feel about the court ruling. Go back further. This was a soup sandwich from the start. Way too much finger pointing and he said/she said.
Now lets look at this article. Just think of the reaction the media would have had IF a protester got mixed up with the National Guard. People would be screaming about the militarization of states and all this other stuff. There is no clear lines anymore in that city. There is no perfect "exit plan". Things will only continue to get worse until the people look around and realize that what they are doing is only making the situation worse.
Now lets look at this article. Just think of the reaction the media would have had IF a protester got mixed up with the National Guard. People would be screaming about the militarization of states and all this other stuff. There is no clear lines anymore in that city. There is no perfect "exit plan". Things will only continue to get worse until the people look around and realize that what they are doing is only making the situation worse.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Why call in the National Guard for something that is a Police matter? Did we forget Kent State? Last time I looked protesting is not an INSURRECTION so why? I am not in any way defending what those idiot protesters are doing but to ask our Guardsmen to potentially fire on US citizens is irresponsible. Just another wrong use of power. It is a State police and local PD matter. If the Governor thinks that is ok then he should be there with them. I am so tired of the Guard being used for civilian matters. The real reason is money. It costs far less to pay the Guard then to pay police overtime. Stupid Governor.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Peter Ludlum, the lesson of Kent State was not to keep the Guard away from protests, but to provide appropriate training and equipment sets to the Guard for dealing with protests. At Kent State, the Guardsmen arrived with weapons and ammo--no shields, no batons--and ultimately used what they had as the protest began to evolve into a riot. "Stomp and drag" training for the Guard came out of that event.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
"To uphold the constitution and defend against all threats, foreign or domestic". If it can cause a body count, the guard needs to be sent to negate it
(0)
(0)
SSG Peter Ludlum
SPC (Join to see) 1SG (Join to see) SGT (Join to see) I do understand, What I was trying to say is If your going to use the Guard then use them and get the Police out of there. When you mix chains of command you get trouble. I have first hand experience with this. The Governor was not using the Guard to enforce anything he was using them as a scare tactic. This is evident by them guarding burnt buildings and other places of non importance. It was nothing more than a show of force which could have ended terribly. As for the rioters they would have gotten what they deserved since it was not about what happened but more a chance to show anger against people who had nothing to do with the incident. Personally I would have used Bradley's and CS gas. CS tends to knock the fight out of anyone not trained with it. As a grunt I am on the front line don't tie my hands and make me a pawn let me do my job.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
What I saw was they were ordered in and held back. Nothing shy of the governor being waylayed by POTUS. So really, they were told "no violence" because then you know a minority group would scream. And yes Staff Sergeant, I agree, but because this became race in the first place, no on wants to continue "injustices"
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have been reaching out to RallyPoint members in that area for the last week trying to get the non-media point of view. Has anyone talked to people in the area?
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Weeell, I did go in and to quote them "get the -expletive- out of my -expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive- before I -expletive- your expletive- you -expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive--expletive- honky
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google