Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jim Sangenberger here with you, filling in for Mandy Connall
on a whirlwind day for radio and everything happening in
the media. So much going on in the world, including
local news and more, and of course so much of
(00:20):
it is the backdrop of the riots in Los Angeles,
the use of the military to help maintain law and order,
protect military, or rather federal installations in Los Angeles, and
then protests breaking out all across the country, like last
night right here in Denver, whereas we heard earlier from
(00:42):
KOA reporter Tony Maynis, there was the use of pepper
spray at one point, and it appears that it was
as they were trying to get some protesters wanted to
get onto the highway, at least that's my understanding, but
either way, it was used, but things did not get
too overblown in Denver, and as of now, no indications
(01:07):
of any other cities where you might see the use
of the National Guard. But last night the Governor of California,
Gavin Newsom, gave a televised the dress that had a
lot of technical problems, including no sound for a while
at one point at least on the national feed cut
(01:27):
out more but He used very strong language in regards
to President Trump's use of military force against his wishes
and that of Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we
have feared has arrived. He's taking a wrecking ball, a
wrecking ball to our founding father's historic project, three co
equal branches of independent government. They're no longer any checks
and balances. Congress is nowhere to be found. Speaker Johnson
(02:01):
has completely abdicated that responsibility. The rule of law has
increasingly been given way to the rule of don.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
The rule of don.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
What are we to make of this, especially now that
we do have the use of the military. What is
their role, what is the limitations? And what are some
of the political implications and more? There are so many
different aspects to this story and angles we can take,
which is why I am very pleased and privileged to have.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Two past guests.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Of yours truly right here on KOA joining me with
their perspective. We have retired Brigadier General Doug Slocombe, call
Sign Odie, an author of the book Violent Positivity, A
Fighter Pilot's Journey leadership lessons on caring for people and
syndicated columnist Rubin Never Read, a host of the Ruben
(02:55):
in the Center podcast, and he lives in California and
has perspectives from the immigration side as well. Let's dive in. Gentlemen,
welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Great to be here with you today, Jimmy, I'm looking
forward to the discussion.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Thank you, General and Ruben.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
Good to talk with you, sir, go to be with you,
thanks to me.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
So let's kind of look at this from the fifty.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Thousand foot as to what's happening from the view of
a Californian.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
You are there in that state.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Ruben Navaretti, let's start with you and from your perspective,
and you've been very critical of President Trump here and
on the immigration issue, written large, give us your fifty
thousand foot take, sir.
Speaker 6 (03:37):
So, the fifty thousand foot take is that at the
beginning of this administration, even the beginning before the beginning,
when dal Trump was running for president, Trump and his
supporters made two.
Speaker 7 (03:49):
Promises that could never be kept. At the same time,
there were.
Speaker 6 (03:52):
Two promises that were going to clash their incongruent and
the two promises were, hey, look, we're not going to
go after the Gardner's the housekeeper.
Speaker 7 (04:00):
You know, people who are here without documents.
Speaker 6 (04:01):
We're going to focus on hardened criminals, violent criminals.
Speaker 7 (04:05):
We have their names.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
We're going to issue warrens who happened them directly.
Speaker 6 (04:09):
The other promise was, and Steve Miller and others said
this as well, we're going to deport every single on
document immigrant in the country.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
Because those two things are in conflict.
Speaker 6 (04:18):
It became clear within about let's say, thirty days into
the administration that ICE was not arresting enough people to
get to those kinds of goals. You're not going to
they claim that there are twenty million people in the country,
and there's no way you're going to gear of twenty
million people. So the ICE director was fired. People don't
remember that story, but the the current ICE director is
(04:39):
ICE director number two. The first one was fired because Trump,
Miller and Holman thought he wasn't working fast enough, wasn't
deporting enough people. They brought in the second guy, and
he said, look, you're going to go the way of
the first guy if you don't retch up the numbers.
And Stephen Miller imposed a quota of three thousand deports
these apprehensions per day. They put this in perspective, Jimmy,
(05:00):
the record is held currently by Democrat President Barack Obama, the.
Speaker 7 (05:03):
Deporter in chief. He got out a thousand people a day.
They want to do three thousand. There's only one way
to do three thousand people a day. You need to
break the rules.
Speaker 6 (05:12):
You need to violate the laws, you need to violate
people's human rights and civil rights. You need to turn
traditional norms upside down. And that's what they are doing now.
So the fifty thousand foot level perspective is that the
people wants angelus. For the last three or four weeks
leading up to the protests, they knew something was wrong
because they knew that typically ICE agents do not go
(05:35):
to hospitals or schools or churches or courthouses and all
that was happening. They know typically that people don't get
arrested when they show up for their for their hearing
at ICE, which they.
Speaker 7 (05:46):
Got all the rules.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
So if you are following the rules and showing up
for their appointment, they're being arrested. So because they knew
something was a myth, they couldn't put into work.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
They didn't understand what was going on or why, but they.
Speaker 6 (05:56):
Knew this was not business as usual, and that's what
ultimately a rough into the streets.
Speaker 8 (06:01):
Flock angelis General Doug Slocum joining us as well, and
so sort of from your vantage point, and I want
to talk especially get some of your perspective on the
issues of using the military and the National Guard and
so forth.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
But I want to just sort of get your take
on this and what you're seeing from your vantage point
with regards to the immigration issue in some of the
things breaking out in cities like Los Angeles.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Well, to me, I mean, a lot of this is
very politically charged. It's political, it's personal, and I think
a lot of it runs then as unfortunate filters of
a real story of what's happening. I take everything with
a grain of salt. You know, they spent enough time,
I guess in DC, knowing that a lot of stuff
that comes out on the news is put there for
(06:49):
a purpose, by who, for what reason, And I guess,
you know, just wanting to try and make sure I
understand the truth of what's going on.
Speaker 7 (06:57):
Sure, you know, you.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Can see some of the truth in the video doesn't
take interpretation. When there's destruction of property. I've read different
cases of violence. Maybe not violence, I don't know, but
I don't think in anybody's book that would be okay.
And you know that ended up with the president's interpretation,
whether you agree with it or not, to employ the military. Uh,
(07:21):
and two very different aspects that that would be, you know,
the National Guard, which has an entirely different chain of
command and role in statutes that apply there. And then
of course the use of the United States Marine Corps
from the bases there in California also, So there's lots
of subtleties of how you know, the devil in the
(07:43):
details from the legal side of what's going on, and
that then is completely separate than the optics and perceptions
of what's going on, which can be a whole other topic.
So I'll let you kind of push this discussion. Where
do you want to go with this?
Speaker 5 (07:57):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Well, I want to ask you for a moment a
general slocum about the Possecommatitis Act from the very early
or late rather nineteenth century. In the year eighteen seventy eight,
it was passed, and this generally prohibits the use of
the US military for any kind of domestic law enforcement purposes.
(08:19):
What is your understanding hasn't always been in terms of
the role of the military visa via policing role in
poscomatitis and the ability for the president to call up
military troops in order to help enforce law in order
or protect federal property.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Okay, two great things you brought up, you know, poscomatatus
act itself and no law enforcement. Again, the double in
the details of what is law enforcement, you know, deeply
personal to me. My last assignment as a commanding general
of the base, my security forces were not law enforcement.
I mean they were the ones that were charged with
(08:56):
security in the base. So most you know, example, if
somebody ran the front eight, my security forces could detain them,
but not arrest them. We would then call the local
law enforcement in our case the sheriff in most cases
to come out and be the law enforcement part of that.
(09:16):
So there are things that you can do that are
not considered law enforcement. And there was just an article
I was reading about how the Marine Corps is allowed
to detain but not arrest, and that's fall is writing
too the category of what I was just talking about
right there. Now, back to the National Guard part of
your question that there are I don't know, dozens and
(09:39):
dozens of different ways that guardsmen can be activated. It's
very confusing law. But the one that's being talked about
is called Title ten twelve four h six, where the
president can activate national Guard from the different states to
the Federal Mission. And then there's the three reasons that
it can be done under that particular statute, and basically
(10:04):
they're citing that as a reason to be able to
access the National Guard. And then all of that can
get overridden BYuT the Insurrection Act. And I don't know
if you were going to bring that up, but that
bypasses poss coomatadis and you know President Bush used that
in nineteen ninety two in the La riots very specifically
for the same reason. Now President Trump, from my understanding,
(10:25):
has not invoked the Insurrection Acts at this point, but
the military is acting has been given very clear direction
from what I've seen, to act within the legal constraints
of the pose Coomatatis Act as well as that titled
TIM four h six mobilization.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Let's talk for a moment about the politics and related
issues around this. Rubin never ready against syndicated columnists. I
think you shared this quote. I've been referencing it too,
because well, I broadly speaking am supportive of President Trump's
use of the National Guard and Marines in this particular instance.
I think we need to have clear limits that are
(11:07):
guided by, for example, this quote from the Great Commander
William Adama Battlestar Galactica. There's a reason why you separate
military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state,
the other serves and protects the people. When the military
becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to
become the people, especially given some of the political blames
(11:28):
that are being thrown about saying that the use of
the National Guard is escalating the situation there, Rubin. In
that context and with that quote in mind, how do
you look at the use of the military at this moment, Jamie.
Speaker 6 (11:41):
I'll give you another quote round of popular culture.
Speaker 7 (11:43):
And from a movie. It was a movie from years.
Speaker 6 (11:45):
Ago called The Siege that star Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis.
Bruce Willis with an army general and there was some unrest.
It was an anti terrorism movie, post terrorism movie, and
Denzel Washington.
Speaker 5 (11:58):
Was the lead FBI agent.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
And there's a great.
Speaker 7 (12:00):
Quote from the Bruce Willis character of the general.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
He says, if you pull the army into this city
to control this terrorist unrest, this unrest terrorism at them
the States. He said, the army is not a surgical tool.
The army is a broad sword. And I put another way.
I spoke this morning to a differriend of mine who's
a retired full bird.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
Marine colonel, and he and I have lunches together.
Speaker 6 (12:26):
We talk about this stuff all the time, and he
wanted me to remember and to impress upon people that
the Marines speak a different language. Hell, they speak a
different language from other branches of the military, let alone
non military. Marines are exceptionally well skilled and trained at
two things, breaking things and killing people. That's what they do,
that's in their job description. And the idea somehow that
(12:47):
they would be unleashed on Los Angeles, on their own people,
on their own citizens and residents, there is really an abomination.
I'm against both the deployment of the National Guard over
the governor's wishes, which is different from what happened then
I eighteen sixties. It's different what happened after burned the
La riots. It's an important distinction.
Speaker 7 (13:06):
It's one thing.
Speaker 6 (13:06):
To federalize the National Guard when you're trying to secure
people's rights. It's another thing when you're trying to deny
people's rights. It's also a difference between John F. Kennedy
federalizing the National Guard naeteen sixty three against George Wallace
and Alabama because Alabama was one rogue under a racist
governor Or Eisenhower in nineteen fifty seven, not only sending
(13:29):
in the Hunterred and first Airborne into Low Rock into
Central High School to esports students who are being harassed
and threatened, but also nationalizing federalizing the Arkansas National Guard.
Why rogue state?
Speaker 7 (13:40):
Do you have alcohols and.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
Oranges between the those historical examples and this one, because.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
California is not a rogue state.
Speaker 7 (13:46):
La is not a rogue.
Speaker 6 (13:47):
City, and we are not trying to de fite people
of the rights the opposite.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Rubinred, though, I would push back and say, I don't
think that this is a denial of rights, because when
we're talking about illegal immigration, it is the case that
these people are here illegally, and so it is the
right of a country to deport them if, of course,
you need to go through the due process. And there's
no indication that the Trump administration is not going to
(14:11):
do that with people being arrested number one. Number two,
and this I think goes a little bit to General
Slocum's points about the role of the military in this respect.
My understanding is that this is more about protecting federal
property and aiding law enforcement, not unleashing on the people
or engaging in any type of you know, suppressive activity
(14:32):
and what have you, but something very different and more
limited in scope, which is exactly what it should be
if the military is being used.
Speaker 7 (14:40):
I'm glad you brought that up. In fact, we don't
have to speculate as to.
Speaker 6 (14:43):
Whether or not the Trump administration would you not people
their due process.
Speaker 7 (14:46):
They already have.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
You have the case of because on Christia, you know,
shipped to.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
Alfalbador without due process and now brought back to face
federal federal charges.
Speaker 5 (14:59):
This is not a speculation.
Speaker 6 (15:01):
In fact, the administration has already shown that it will
and will continue to done people do process. Here's the
problem I have with the way you began that question, Jimmy.
Speaker 7 (15:08):
There the tendency to.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
Kind of lump together everybody who's a protester and say, well,
they're all in documented immigrants, and this somehow people who
are afraid to be deported because they're here with that document.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
The first thing they.
Speaker 6 (15:20):
Do is stick up a Mexican pointag and go up
there and taunt police. Okay, that's illogical, that's not happening.
I'll show you in on something. The people who are
protesting in the streets are the in some cases Mexican
American born children of immigrants. And so those people who
are protesting are in fact US citizens, they are legal residents,
they do.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Have green cards, or they're like.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
Me, born in this country, the parents who were born
in this country. That's the problem because in the shorthand
of looking at this, we've decided that every single protester
in Los Angeles must be on documented ergo, they don't
have rights. In fact, some of those people are US citizens.
They have every right and so and again to the
point of a marine. They are there, ultimately, as you say,
(16:04):
to protect federal buildings. Here's the important part of the story, Jimmy.
When they pivot from protecting federal buildings, which is completely permissible,
to actually protecting ICE agents in commission of their duties,
then in that case they are accomplices to the enforcement
immigration laws. You're not going to see a differentiation between
(16:24):
the Marines and the actual.
Speaker 7 (16:26):
I stations for apprehending people.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
I don't care if a Marine doesn't lay hands on
undocumented immigrant.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
If they're there with a rifle to.
Speaker 7 (16:33):
Protect them, they're an accomplice to that act.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
So district attorneys in Denver apard you for robbing.
Speaker 7 (16:39):
A bank, even if you're only driving the car.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
So I want to bring in General slocom here, and
we're getting low on time here in this segment. I
do want to note there's a lot more to the
Brigo Garcia story than suggested they're Reuben, But we can
talk about that another time.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
General Slocum, As you look at.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
The military and the use here and what might be
coming and some of what Rubin said there in terms
of the Marines, and you yourself for the Air Force
and the Air National Guard, of course, the different branch
of the military, I'm sure speak your own language in
many respects.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
How do you respond to some of.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
What Ruben said in look at the picture of what's
happening in terms of the use of the military and expectations.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Thereof Well, there's some that I think my interpretation would
be different than his, But there's some that I think
we have some very common ground on. You know, when
it comes to the military. The perception, I mean, especially
in the National Guard, that was always is we protect
the citizens. We don't ever want to mess up that
(17:40):
optic and find we don't want the citizens of the
United States ever to think that their National Guard is
the one who they're facing off.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
Against and a marine subtle Tea or the Marines.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
You're correct, you know, I'm just speaking from my personal
knowledge because there is a lot more domestic response type
of things that the National Guard gets involved with that
the active duty does not. But that subtle difference again
to the perceptions of exactly what he was talking about,
is are they protecting the citizens? Well, a lot of
people are going to say those are all undocumented or
(18:15):
illegal immigrants. Others are going to say, you know, no,
there are citizens there, and everybody's right in that case,
you can't say that it's not all one or the other.
So are the military, you know, being put into a
position where they're at least appearing to be facing off
you know, back to your first quote that you were
(18:36):
talking about with the citizens that they're there to protect,
and I think it's an interesting line of trying to
enforce the laws versus what is that perception of the public,
be it right or wrong. That is the perception out
there right now, and I think it's a very interesting,
dangerous gray area that we're wandering into here.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
So with that in mind, and unfortunately I have to
end here, but I think it's informational and helpful general.
What do you think would be the expectation that we
could have, yes, walking in that dangerous line. But at
the same time, given what the military knows and understands
as far as training, I mean, what chances are there
for something to go awry?
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Well, I would hope that it's very, very small. I mean,
you got to remember, the National Guard works on a
day to day basis, integrating with a lot of these
state agencies that they're dealing with now. So this should
not be a first introduction of these organizations merging their
capabilities to help out the community. To me, if I
was in a position right there, I would be stressing,
(19:40):
you know, the positive part of what I was just
saying there, We're here to help the community. We're here
to you know, just restore peace whatever is going on
out there. It's just let's all calm down. Let's just
you know, get to a position where there's not that
threat of violence, there's not that threat of property destruction
and everything going on. You know that would you might
(20:00):
take on the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Actually, Rubin, never ad a thirty seconds talk about the
politics of this real quick, my friend, because we are
seeing polling data indicate that the American people are broadly
on the side of Trump and the Republicans on this
issue unit at this moment, and not the Democrats.
Speaker 6 (20:16):
Yeah, but be careful with that because I think ultimately,
as Trump goes too far, as Trump tends to do,
for instance with Paris, if he goes too far and
goes to part analyne, he's gonna do that support.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
Ultimately, I think your right is.
Speaker 6 (20:29):
A strong carper him to play. But Trump tends to
be his own worst enemy. We learned a long time ago, Jimmy,
that no Democrats can beat Donald Trump. Only Donald Trump
can beat Donald Trump. And he does it all the
time with frequency and real efficiency.
Speaker 7 (20:41):
I gotta to thank he's good at it.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
If that's probably what going.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
To happen, if the politics swing against Trump, he will
have been something.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
He did that will have undone it and so we'll
see what happens.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Ruben never att a syndicated columnists, Retired Brigadier General Doug
Odie Slocomb, thank you both so much for your time
and insights today.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Really appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
Thanks.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Thank you once again, General Slocum. Rubin Everrette joining us
on the program. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Mandy
Connell with so much more to go.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
What's your reaction to that conversation?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Five six six nine zero is the KOA Common Spirit
health text line?
Speaker 3 (21:21):
Keep it right here on KOA
Jim Sangenberger here with you, filling in for Mandy Connall
on a whirlwind day for radio and everything happening in
the media. So much going on in the world, including
local news and more, and of course so much of
(00:20):
it is the backdrop of the riots in Los Angeles,
the use of the military to help maintain law and order,
protect military, or rather federal installations in Los Angeles, and
then protests breaking out all across the country, like last
night right here in Denver, whereas we heard earlier from
(00:42):
KOA reporter Tony Maynis, there was the use of pepper
spray at one point, and it appears that it was
as they were trying to get some protesters wanted to
get onto the highway, at least that's my understanding, but
either way, it was used, but things did not get
too overblown in Denver, and as of now, no indications
(01:07):
of any other cities where you might see the use
of the National Guard. But last night the Governor of California,
Gavin Newsom, gave a televised the dress that had a
lot of technical problems, including no sound for a while
at one point at least on the national feed cut
(01:27):
out more but He used very strong language in regards
to President Trump's use of military force against his wishes
and that of Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we
have feared has arrived. He's taking a wrecking ball, a
wrecking ball to our founding father's historic project, three co
equal branches of independent government. They're no longer any checks
and balances. Congress is nowhere to be found. Speaker Johnson
(02:01):
has completely abdicated that responsibility. The rule of law has
increasingly been given way to the rule of don.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
The rule of don.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
What are we to make of this, especially now that
we do have the use of the military. What is
their role, what is the limitations? And what are some
of the political implications and more? There are so many
different aspects to this story and angles we can take,
which is why I am very pleased and privileged to have.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Two past guests.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Of yours truly right here on KOA joining me with
their perspective. We have retired Brigadier General Doug Slocombe, call
Sign Odie, an author of the book Violent Positivity, A
Fighter Pilot's Journey leadership lessons on caring for people and
syndicated columnist Rubin Never Read, a host of the Ruben
(02:55):
in the Center podcast, and he lives in California and
has perspectives from the immigration side as well. Let's dive in. Gentlemen,
welcome to the show.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Great to be here with you today, Jimmy, I'm looking
forward to the discussion.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Thank you, General and Ruben.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
Good to talk with you, sir, go to be with you,
thanks to me.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
So let's kind of look at this from the fifty.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Thousand foot as to what's happening from the view of
a Californian.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
You are there in that state.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Ruben Navaretti, let's start with you and from your perspective,
and you've been very critical of President Trump here and
on the immigration issue, written large, give us your fifty
thousand foot take, sir.
Speaker 6 (03:37):
So, the fifty thousand foot take is that at the
beginning of this administration, even the beginning before the beginning,
when dal Trump was running for president, Trump and his
supporters made two.
Speaker 7 (03:49):
Promises that could never be kept. At the same time,
there were.
Speaker 6 (03:52):
Two promises that were going to clash their incongruent and
the two promises were, hey, look, we're not going to
go after the Gardner's the housekeeper.
Speaker 7 (04:00):
You know, people who are here without documents.
Speaker 6 (04:01):
We're going to focus on hardened criminals, violent criminals.
Speaker 7 (04:05):
We have their names.
Speaker 5 (04:06):
We're going to issue warrens who happened them directly.
Speaker 6 (04:09):
The other promise was, and Steve Miller and others said
this as well, we're going to deport every single on
document immigrant in the country.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
Because those two things are in conflict.
Speaker 6 (04:18):
It became clear within about let's say, thirty days into
the administration that ICE was not arresting enough people to
get to those kinds of goals. You're not going to
they claim that there are twenty million people in the country,
and there's no way you're going to gear of twenty
million people. So the ICE director was fired. People don't
remember that story, but the the current ICE director is
(04:39):
ICE director number two. The first one was fired because Trump,
Miller and Holman thought he wasn't working fast enough, wasn't
deporting enough people. They brought in the second guy, and
he said, look, you're going to go the way of
the first guy if you don't retch up the numbers.
And Stephen Miller imposed a quota of three thousand deports
these apprehensions per day. They put this in perspective, Jimmy,
(05:00):
the record is held currently by Democrat President Barack Obama, the.
Speaker 7 (05:03):
Deporter in chief. He got out a thousand people a day.
They want to do three thousand. There's only one way
to do three thousand people a day. You need to
break the rules.
Speaker 6 (05:12):
You need to violate the laws, you need to violate
people's human rights and civil rights. You need to turn
traditional norms upside down. And that's what they are doing now.
So the fifty thousand foot level perspective is that the
people wants angelus. For the last three or four weeks
leading up to the protests, they knew something was wrong
because they knew that typically ICE agents do not go
(05:35):
to hospitals or schools or churches or courthouses and all
that was happening. They know typically that people don't get
arrested when they show up for their for their hearing
at ICE, which they.
Speaker 7 (05:46):
Got all the rules.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
So if you are following the rules and showing up
for their appointment, they're being arrested. So because they knew
something was a myth, they couldn't put into work.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
They didn't understand what was going on or why, but they.
Speaker 6 (05:56):
Knew this was not business as usual, and that's what
ultimately a rough into the streets.
Speaker 8 (06:01):
Flock angelis General Doug Slocum joining us as well, and
so sort of from your vantage point, and I want
to talk especially get some of your perspective on the
issues of using the military and the National Guard and
so forth.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
But I want to just sort of get your take
on this and what you're seeing from your vantage point
with regards to the immigration issue in some of the
things breaking out in cities like Los Angeles.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Well, to me, I mean, a lot of this is
very politically charged. It's political, it's personal, and I think
a lot of it runs then as unfortunate filters of
a real story of what's happening. I take everything with
a grain of salt. You know, they spent enough time,
I guess in DC, knowing that a lot of stuff
that comes out on the news is put there for
(06:49):
a purpose, by who, for what reason, And I guess,
you know, just wanting to try and make sure I
understand the truth of what's going on.
Speaker 7 (06:57):
Sure, you know, you.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Can see some of the truth in the video doesn't
take interpretation. When there's destruction of property. I've read different
cases of violence. Maybe not violence, I don't know, but
I don't think in anybody's book that would be okay.
And you know that ended up with the president's interpretation,
whether you agree with it or not, to employ the military. Uh,
(07:21):
and two very different aspects that that would be, you know,
the National Guard, which has an entirely different chain of
command and role in statutes that apply there. And then
of course the use of the United States Marine Corps
from the bases there in California also, So there's lots
of subtleties of how you know, the devil in the
(07:43):
details from the legal side of what's going on, and
that then is completely separate than the optics and perceptions
of what's going on, which can be a whole other topic.
So I'll let you kind of push this discussion. Where
do you want to go with this?
Speaker 5 (07:57):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Well, I want to ask you for a moment a
general slocum about the Possecommatitis Act from the very early
or late rather nineteenth century. In the year eighteen seventy eight,
it was passed, and this generally prohibits the use of
the US military for any kind of domestic law enforcement purposes.
(08:19):
What is your understanding hasn't always been in terms of
the role of the military visa via policing role in
poscomatitis and the ability for the president to call up
military troops in order to help enforce law in order
or protect federal property.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Okay, two great things you brought up, you know, poscomatatus
act itself and no law enforcement. Again, the double in
the details of what is law enforcement, you know, deeply
personal to me. My last assignment as a commanding general
of the base, my security forces were not law enforcement.
I mean they were the ones that were charged with
(08:56):
security in the base. So most you know, example, if
somebody ran the front eight, my security forces could detain them,
but not arrest them. We would then call the local
law enforcement in our case the sheriff in most cases
to come out and be the law enforcement part of that.
(09:16):
So there are things that you can do that are
not considered law enforcement. And there was just an article
I was reading about how the Marine Corps is allowed
to detain but not arrest, and that's fall is writing
too the category of what I was just talking about
right there. Now, back to the National Guard part of
your question that there are I don't know, dozens and
(09:39):
dozens of different ways that guardsmen can be activated. It's
very confusing law. But the one that's being talked about
is called Title ten twelve four h six, where the
president can activate national Guard from the different states to
the Federal Mission. And then there's the three reasons that
it can be done under that particular statute, and basically
(10:04):
they're citing that as a reason to be able to
access the National Guard. And then all of that can
get overridden BYuT the Insurrection Act. And I don't know
if you were going to bring that up, but that
bypasses poss coomatadis and you know President Bush used that
in nineteen ninety two in the La riots very specifically
for the same reason. Now President Trump, from my understanding,
(10:25):
has not invoked the Insurrection Acts at this point, but
the military is acting has been given very clear direction
from what I've seen, to act within the legal constraints
of the pose Coomatatis Act as well as that titled
TIM four h six mobilization.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Let's talk for a moment about the politics and related
issues around this. Rubin never ready against syndicated columnists. I
think you shared this quote. I've been referencing it too,
because well, I broadly speaking am supportive of President Trump's
use of the National Guard and Marines in this particular instance.
I think we need to have clear limits that are
(11:07):
guided by, for example, this quote from the Great Commander
William Adama Battlestar Galactica. There's a reason why you separate
military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state,
the other serves and protects the people. When the military
becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to
become the people, especially given some of the political blames
(11:28):
that are being thrown about saying that the use of
the National Guard is escalating the situation there, Rubin. In
that context and with that quote in mind, how do
you look at the use of the military at this moment, Jamie.
Speaker 6 (11:41):
I'll give you another quote round of popular culture.
Speaker 7 (11:43):
And from a movie. It was a movie from years.
Speaker 6 (11:45):
Ago called The Siege that star Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis.
Bruce Willis with an army general and there was some unrest.
It was an anti terrorism movie, post terrorism movie, and
Denzel Washington.
Speaker 5 (11:58):
Was the lead FBI agent.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
And there's a great.
Speaker 7 (12:00):
Quote from the Bruce Willis character of the general.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
He says, if you pull the army into this city
to control this terrorist unrest, this unrest terrorism at them
the States. He said, the army is not a surgical tool.
The army is a broad sword. And I put another way.
I spoke this morning to a differriend of mine who's
a retired full bird.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
Marine colonel, and he and I have lunches together.
Speaker 6 (12:26):
We talk about this stuff all the time, and he
wanted me to remember and to impress upon people that
the Marines speak a different language. Hell, they speak a
different language from other branches of the military, let alone
non military. Marines are exceptionally well skilled and trained at
two things, breaking things and killing people. That's what they do,
that's in their job description. And the idea somehow that
(12:47):
they would be unleashed on Los Angeles, on their own people,
on their own citizens and residents, there is really an abomination.
I'm against both the deployment of the National Guard over
the governor's wishes, which is different from what happened then
I eighteen sixties. It's different what happened after burned the
La riots. It's an important distinction.
Speaker 7 (13:06):
It's one thing.
Speaker 6 (13:06):
To federalize the National Guard when you're trying to secure
people's rights. It's another thing when you're trying to deny
people's rights. It's also a difference between John F. Kennedy
federalizing the National Guard naeteen sixty three against George Wallace
and Alabama because Alabama was one rogue under a racist
governor Or Eisenhower in nineteen fifty seven, not only sending
(13:29):
in the Hunterred and first Airborne into Low Rock into
Central High School to esports students who are being harassed
and threatened, but also nationalizing federalizing the Arkansas National Guard.
Why rogue state?
Speaker 7 (13:40):
Do you have alcohols and.
Speaker 6 (13:41):
Oranges between the those historical examples and this one, because.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
California is not a rogue state.
Speaker 7 (13:46):
La is not a rogue.
Speaker 6 (13:47):
City, and we are not trying to de fite people
of the rights the opposite.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Rubinred, though, I would push back and say, I don't
think that this is a denial of rights, because when
we're talking about illegal immigration, it is the case that
these people are here illegally, and so it is the
right of a country to deport them if, of course,
you need to go through the due process. And there's
no indication that the Trump administration is not going to
(14:11):
do that with people being arrested number one. Number two,
and this I think goes a little bit to General
Slocum's points about the role of the military in this respect.
My understanding is that this is more about protecting federal
property and aiding law enforcement, not unleashing on the people
or engaging in any type of you know, suppressive activity
(14:32):
and what have you, but something very different and more
limited in scope, which is exactly what it should be
if the military is being used.
Speaker 7 (14:40):
I'm glad you brought that up. In fact, we don't
have to speculate as to.
Speaker 6 (14:43):
Whether or not the Trump administration would you not people
their due process.
Speaker 7 (14:46):
They already have.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
You have the case of because on Christia, you know,
shipped to.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
Alfalbador without due process and now brought back to face
federal federal charges.
Speaker 5 (14:59):
This is not a speculation.
Speaker 6 (15:01):
In fact, the administration has already shown that it will
and will continue to done people do process. Here's the
problem I have with the way you began that question, Jimmy.
Speaker 7 (15:08):
There the tendency to.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
Kind of lump together everybody who's a protester and say, well,
they're all in documented immigrants, and this somehow people who
are afraid to be deported because they're here with that document.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
The first thing they.
Speaker 6 (15:20):
Do is stick up a Mexican pointag and go up
there and taunt police. Okay, that's illogical, that's not happening.
I'll show you in on something. The people who are
protesting in the streets are the in some cases Mexican
American born children of immigrants. And so those people who
are protesting are in fact US citizens, they are legal residents,
they do.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Have green cards, or they're like.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
Me, born in this country, the parents who were born
in this country. That's the problem because in the shorthand
of looking at this, we've decided that every single protester
in Los Angeles must be on documented ergo, they don't
have rights. In fact, some of those people are US citizens.
They have every right and so and again to the
point of a marine. They are there, ultimately, as you say,
(16:04):
to protect federal buildings. Here's the important part of the story, Jimmy.
When they pivot from protecting federal buildings, which is completely permissible,
to actually protecting ICE agents in commission of their duties,
then in that case they are accomplices to the enforcement
immigration laws. You're not going to see a differentiation between
(16:24):
the Marines and the actual.
Speaker 7 (16:26):
I stations for apprehending people.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
I don't care if a Marine doesn't lay hands on
undocumented immigrant.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
If they're there with a rifle to.
Speaker 7 (16:33):
Protect them, they're an accomplice to that act.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
So district attorneys in Denver apard you for robbing.
Speaker 7 (16:39):
A bank, even if you're only driving the car.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
So I want to bring in General slocom here, and
we're getting low on time here in this segment. I
do want to note there's a lot more to the
Brigo Garcia story than suggested they're Reuben, But we can
talk about that another time.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
General Slocum, As you look at.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
The military and the use here and what might be
coming and some of what Rubin said there in terms
of the Marines, and you yourself for the Air Force
and the Air National Guard, of course, the different branch
of the military, I'm sure speak your own language in
many respects.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
How do you respond to some of.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
What Ruben said in look at the picture of what's
happening in terms of the use of the military and expectations.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
Thereof Well, there's some that I think my interpretation would
be different than his, But there's some that I think
we have some very common ground on. You know, when
it comes to the military. The perception, I mean, especially
in the National Guard, that was always is we protect
the citizens. We don't ever want to mess up that
(17:40):
optic and find we don't want the citizens of the
United States ever to think that their National Guard is
the one who they're facing off.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
Against and a marine subtle Tea or the Marines.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
You're correct, you know, I'm just speaking from my personal
knowledge because there is a lot more domestic response type
of things that the National Guard gets involved with that
the active duty does not. But that subtle difference again
to the perceptions of exactly what he was talking about,
is are they protecting the citizens? Well, a lot of
people are going to say those are all undocumented or
(18:15):
illegal immigrants. Others are going to say, you know, no,
there are citizens there, and everybody's right in that case,
you can't say that it's not all one or the other.
So are the military, you know, being put into a
position where they're at least appearing to be facing off
you know, back to your first quote that you were
(18:36):
talking about with the citizens that they're there to protect,
and I think it's an interesting line of trying to
enforce the laws versus what is that perception of the public,
be it right or wrong. That is the perception out
there right now, and I think it's a very interesting,
dangerous gray area that we're wandering into here.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
So with that in mind, and unfortunately I have to
end here, but I think it's informational and helpful general.
What do you think would be the expectation that we
could have, yes, walking in that dangerous line. But at
the same time, given what the military knows and understands
as far as training, I mean, what chances are there
for something to go awry?
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Well, I would hope that it's very, very small. I mean,
you got to remember, the National Guard works on a
day to day basis, integrating with a lot of these
state agencies that they're dealing with now. So this should
not be a first introduction of these organizations merging their
capabilities to help out the community. To me, if I
was in a position right there, I would be stressing,
(19:40):
you know, the positive part of what I was just
saying there, We're here to help the community. We're here
to you know, just restore peace whatever is going on
out there. It's just let's all calm down. Let's just
you know, get to a position where there's not that
threat of violence, there's not that threat of property destruction
and everything going on. You know that would you might
(20:00):
take on the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
Actually, Rubin, never ad a thirty seconds talk about the
politics of this real quick, my friend, because we are
seeing polling data indicate that the American people are broadly
on the side of Trump and the Republicans on this
issue unit at this moment, and not the Democrats.
Speaker 6 (20:16):
Yeah, but be careful with that because I think ultimately,
as Trump goes too far, as Trump tends to do,
for instance with Paris, if he goes too far and
goes to part analyne, he's gonna do that support.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
Ultimately, I think your right is.
Speaker 6 (20:29):
A strong carper him to play. But Trump tends to
be his own worst enemy. We learned a long time ago, Jimmy,
that no Democrats can beat Donald Trump. Only Donald Trump
can beat Donald Trump. And he does it all the
time with frequency and real efficiency.
Speaker 7 (20:41):
I gotta to thank he's good at it.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
If that's probably what going.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
To happen, if the politics swing against Trump, he will
have been something.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
He did that will have undone it and so we'll
see what happens.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Ruben never att a syndicated columnists, Retired Brigadier General Doug
Odie Slocomb, thank you both so much for your time
and insights today.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Really appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
Thanks.
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Thank you once again, General Slocum. Rubin Everrette joining us
on the program. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Mandy
Connell with so much more to go.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
What's your reaction to that conversation?
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Five six six nine zero is the KOA Common Spirit
health text line?
Speaker 3 (21:21):
Keep it right here on KOA
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.