BILL TO KEEP THE MARYLAND NATIONAL GUARD AT HOME
PENDING IN ANNAPOLIS, SUPPORTED BY CITIZEN CAMPAIGN

Annapolis--Maryland State Senator Richard Madaleno (D-Dist. 18) is introducing a bill that would limit the deployment of the Maryland National Guard into federal service only for legal purposes.

While that demand for legality sounds so obvious as to be unnecessary, in practical terms, it challenges the legal basis for sending members of the Maryland National Guard to Iraq.

“The legal rationale for the use of the Guard is no longer valid given what was included in the original authorization for the use of military force,” says Madaleno, whose bill would direct the governor to “withhold approval of transfer of the National Guard to federal control” in the absence of renewed explicit Congressional authorization or a declaration of war.

The bill further states that the governor may request the return of currently deployed Guard units if an authorization for the use of military force “has by its terms expired or is no longer valid authority for federal control. . . .”
Madaleno is joined in this effort by bill co-sponsor Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Dist. 20) and by Del. Jill Carter (D-District 41), who will introduce a similar bill in the House of Delegates.

There is also a statewide citizen Campaign to Keep the Maryland Guard at Home, a coalition of 22 broad-based groups prepared to spend a lot of time in Annapolis this session lobbying for Madaleno’s bill. The Campaign argues that Governor O’Malley has an obligation to prevent any more Maryland Guard members from being federalized under the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law passed by Congress that provided authority for military service in Iraq — including the federalization of the state national guards.

The 2002 AUMF authorized military action for two specific purposes: defending the national security from weapons of mass destruction and enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War that revolve largely around weapons of mass destruction.

“Those purposes have been achieved,” says Jean Athey, coordinator of PeaceAction Montgomery, a member of the Campaign coalition. “There never were any weapons of mass destruction, and all U.N. Security Council resolutions have been met or are irrelevant. Thus there is no legal basis to send the Maryland Guard to Iraq and they should stay home,” Athey says.

More than 1,300 Maryland Army National Guard and 250 Maryland Air National Guard personnel were deployed to Iraq last year, bringing to 5,900 the total number of the Maryland Guard cohort called up since September 2001.

The goals of the Campaign to Keep the Maryland Guard at Home are even broader than its name suggests, says Steve Lane, a member of the Campaign from Bethesda.

Since the now-expired AUMF is the basis for all deployment to Iraq, not just that of the state national guards, the same principles that would bring the guard home would also bring the rest of the troops home, absent a new AUMF to justify their continued presence.

“The military has continued its operations in Iraq for years, in the absence of any legal authority to do so,” Lane points out. Beyond the practical effect of ending the war in Iraq, he adds, the success of the Campaign would have the corollary effect of helping to restore the Constitutional sharing of war powers between the executive and legislative branches of the government.

Maryland is one of many states that together comprise a national movement to keep the guard home: At least 12 other states are considering similar legislation this year, and legislators in 11 others have expressed an interest in bringing the issue before their colleagues.

For more information on the Maryland Campaign, go to www.MDGuardHome.org. To join the lobbying effort, contact Steve Lane at atticlane-AT-yahoo.com.