Untitled

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 4, 2009

Bill to Keep the Maryland Guard at Home Introduced in State Assembly

Grassroots Coalition Urges Quick Approval

Olney--A coalition of 24 organizations across the state of Maryland is urging the Maryland General Assembly to pass legislation requiring that the Maryland National Guard be used for legal purposes, and no other. The legislation, introduced by Senator Richard Madaleno (D-18) in the Senate and Delegate Jill Carter (D-41) in the House of Delegates, states that the governor shall refuse to release the Maryland National Guard into federal control without either a legal justification or a declaration of war. If the Guard is called into federal service for a legal reason, and that reason expires, then the governor shall request return of the Guard to his control. Cosponsors in the Senate include Jamie Raskin (D-20), Paul Pinsky (D-22), David Harrington (D-47), Catherine Pugh (D-40), and Michael Lenett (D-19).

The legal basis for calling the National Guard to serve in Iraq is the 2002 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was limited to the purposes of defending the national security from Iraqi threats and enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions left over from the 1991 Gulf War. The purposes set forth in the AUMF have been achieved: Clearly, Iraq does not pose a threat to our national security, and no UN Resolutions remain to be enforced. Neither the AUMF nor any other law authorizes an indefinite assignment of State Guard members to the National Guard of the United States. Thus, there is no legal basis for sending any National Guard members to Iraq.

"With the war in Iraq, the President unilaterally changed the basic mission of the National Guard, from protection at home to military adventurism abroad," commented Jean Athey, coordinator of PeaceAction Montgomery, one of the Campaign member groups. "This change came at a steep price, for National Guard members and for the state of Maryland. Guard deployments have caused financial and emotional disruption to many Maryland families. Multiple deployments have made the situation worse. Moreover, we believe that Maryland's civil defense and emergency response capabilities have been severely undermined by requisition of the National Guard. We also believe that the National Guard should not take the place of regular soldiers. The primary purpose of the Guard, in our view, is to defend the state of Maryland, not serve as a back-door draft."

The bill, SB 501, has been assigned to the Judicial Proceedings Committee and will be considered in February. The Maryland Campaign to Keep the Guard Home is organizing a Lobby Night for Feb. 23. Information on the the bill's status is available at http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/SB0501.htm.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 11, 2009

Maryland Campaign to Keep the Guard at Home

Contact: Steve Lane, 571-221-4120 (cell), atticlane@yahoo.com;

Jean Athey, 240-688-5481 (cell), jeanathey@verizon.net;

Fran Pollner, 301-585-7493, franpollner@yahoo.com;

Bill to Ensure that National Guard Deployments are Constitutional Introduced in Maryland House of Delegates

Bill Garners 16 Co-Sponsors

Olney--Delegate Jill Carter (D-41), joined by 16 co-sponsors, has introduced legislation, HB 907 , in the Maryland House of Delegates to require that the Maryland National Guard be used for legal purposes, and no other. Senator Richard Madaleno (D-18) submitted identical legislation, SB 501, in the Senate on February 4.

Over 1,300 Maryland Army National Guard and 250 Maryland Air National Guard personnel were deployed in Iraq last year. Approximately 5,900 Maryland National Guard members have been called up since September 2001. The Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and he may use them to defend our country. Title 10, USC, gives the President authority to deploy the National Guard, as well as the Army and Navy, in time of war or emergency. However, in order to legally use any military services--including the Guard--the President needs either a Congressional declaration of war or an authorization from Congress for the use of military force. In the absence of either a declaration of war or a valid authorization for the use of military force, the President has no legal basis for sending our troops to war.

The Congressional declaration of a state of emergency authorizing sending the National Guard to Iraq was the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). It was limited to two purposes, and two purposes only: defending US national security from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions relating to the 1991 Gulf War. Those purposes have been met, and the 2002 AUMF can no longer legitimately be invoked to Federalize the National Guard and send its members to Iraq. "It is our view that it is time to enforce the law and keep the Guard at home," commented Norman Oslik, co-chair of Progressive Cheverly and a supporter of the legislation.

Jean Athey of PeaceAction Montgomery stated these reasons for promoting the legislation: "We believe that this legislation will help restore the rule of law and the premise that even the government must follow the law. We want to reinstate the Constitutional principle that war powers are shared between Congress and the President."

A coalition of 24 organizations across the state of Maryland is urging passage of this legislation. Twenty-two states now have grassroots campaigns similar to Maryland's, and in several of these, legislation has already been introduced this year designed to enforce Federal law and keep the Guard at home--as is required by law.