Question about the US

In the real world
Post Reply
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Question about the US

Post by Graham Kennedy »

I'm writing a story, part of which is set within the US. The premise is that an event leaves a large number of what might be termed dangerous sites around the country, almost two thousand of them. The government wants to keep people away from these places.

Question is this. As I understand it, the law in America prevents the US army from operating within the country, is that right? So the other option would be to use the National Guard, but isn't that under the control of individual state governors? Can the President tell the governors what to do with the National Guard in an emergency situation like that, and if so what's involved?

Just looking to inject a little realism...
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15380
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Question about the US

Post by Teaos »

I believe marshal law lets the army do what ever they want...
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Question about the US

Post by Mikey »

Teaos wrote:I believe marshal law lets the army do what ever they want...
No, the marshals are tied directly to the Department of Justice. Martial law would do that, but good luck controlling the mass riots if that were ever to happen.

I honestly don't know the legal technicalities involved, GK. National Guards are tied to their states, but I'm not sure I've ever heard about the Army being disallowed to operate within the U.S. There's enough movies, etc., showing that happening, although those certainly aren't evidence of the truth; but the Corps of Engineers is an organ of the U.S. Army, and they operate within the U.S. on a regular and overwhelming basis.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Question about the US

Post by Deepcrush »

GK, SoP states that whichever agency is in charge of the sites will be in charge of protecting them.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Question about the US

Post by BigJKU316 »

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm writing a story, part of which is set within the US. The premise is that an event leaves a large number of what might be termed dangerous sites around the country, almost two thousand of them. The government wants to keep people away from these places.

Question is this. As I understand it, the law in America prevents the US army from operating within the country, is that right? So the other option would be to use the National Guard, but isn't that under the control of individual state governors? Can the President tell the governors what to do with the National Guard in an emergency situation like that, and if so what's involved?

Just looking to inject a little realism...
Nothing prevents the US Army from operating under orders in the United States. I am not sure where one would get this impression from. There is a law against forcing people to quarter troops in their homes. But the US military could operate in defense of Federal sites or dangerous sites under the direction of the commander in chief.

The National Guard is under the control of governors in only the most ceremonial of senses. It takes a single order to nationalize them and place them in federal service.
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6026
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Question about the US

Post by Sonic Glitch »

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm writing a story, part of which is set within the US. The premise is that an event leaves a large number of what might be termed dangerous sites around the country, almost two thousand of them. The government wants to keep people away from these places.

Question is this. As I understand it, the law in America prevents the US army from operating within the country, is that right? So the other option would be to use the National Guard, but isn't that under the control of individual state governors? Can the President tell the governors what to do with the National Guard in an emergency situation like that, and if so what's involved?

Just looking to inject a little realism...
The National Guard, to my understanding, is under control of the Govenor's inasmuch as: when the Federal government doesn't need them the governors can use them should the need arise in their own state. As BIG said, the Federal Government can nationalize them and call them up to regular duty. I'm not sure about a law preventing the army from operating within the U.S. --i doubt it exists -- but even if it did, if the circumstances were correct (i.e. 2000ish "dangerous sites") i don't think anyone would think of that law.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Question about the US

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Okay, thanks! I'm not sure where I got that idea from, just had a vague memory of reading somewhere that there was a constitutional protection about the army not being used against the citizens or something. Must have got it wrong.

Story is progressing nicely... 10,000 words in and going strong :)
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Nickswitz
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Home
Contact:

Re: Question about the US

Post by Nickswitz »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Okay, thanks! I'm not sure where I got that idea from, just had a vague memory of reading somewhere that there was a constitutional protection about the army not being used against the citizens or something. Must have got it wrong.

Story is progressing nicely... 10,000 words in and going strong :)
The only one I can think of is that the citizens can't be forced to quarter a military. Other than that I can't think of any.

Although now that you mention it, I have a nagging feeling about something like that that we talked about in U.S. History back in 11th grade, but I have no idea what it could possibly be.
The world ended

"Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world" - R.D.Lang
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15380
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Question about the US

Post by Teaos »

I think its more of the fact that it is political suicide to try it.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nickswitz
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Home
Contact:

Re: Question about the US

Post by Nickswitz »

Ah, that may very well have been the discussion...
The world ended

"Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world" - R.D.Lang
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Question about the US

Post by Deepcrush »

Its that our armed forces cannot act within the United States (minus on federal property) without the approval of the CiC and Congress after which the orders are then reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 17671
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Question about the US

Post by Mark »

Which is why we don't have APCs rumbling through the city ;)

And most bases themselves are protected by MP/SPs and Base Police Officers depending. Unless you wanna start snooping around say Area 51, in which case you may never even see who shoots you.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6230
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Question about the US

Post by IanKennedy »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Okay, thanks! I'm not sure where I got that idea from, just had a vague memory of reading somewhere that there was a constitutional protection about the army not being used against the citizens or something. Must have got it wrong.

Story is progressing nicely... 10,000 words in and going strong :)
I'm not sure you are not thinking of the CIA, there is a law to prevent them from operating with the US, or to be totally accurate about it there is an often quoted fact in films that the CIA is not allowed to operate in the boundaries of the US.
email, ergo spam
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Question about the US

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Ahhhh, that sounds right. May well be I was thinking of that.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
SteveK
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:55 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: Question about the US

Post by SteveK »

Are you thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Post Reply