TexasGranny Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 Defense 'We feel incredibly betrayed': Thousands of Guardsmen forced to vacate Capitol Guardsmen said they were not given a clear reason why they were asked to vacate the buildings. Some National Guardsmen sleep on the ground of a parking garage near the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. | POLITICO By LARA SELIGMAN, NATASHA BERTRAND and ANDREW DESIDERIO 01/21/2021 07:22 PM EST Updated: 01/21/21 Thousands of National Guardsmen were forced to vacate congressional grounds on Thursday and are now taking their rest breaks outside and in nearby parking garages, after two weeks of sleepless nights protecting the nation’s capital in the wake of the violent assault on Jan. 6. One unit, which had been resting in the Dirksen Senate Office building, was abruptly told to vacate the facility on Thursday, according to one Guardsman. The group was forced to rest in a nearby parking garage without internet reception, with just one electrical outlet, and one bathroom with two stalls for 5,000 troops, the person said. “Yesterday dozens of senators and congressmen walked down our lines taking photos, shaking our hands and thanking us for our service. Within 24 hours, they had no further use for us and banished us to the corner of a parking garage. We feel incredibly betrayed,” the Guardsman said. POLITICO obtained photos showing the Guard members packed together in the parking garage, sleeping on the ground. All National Guard troops were told to vacate the Capitol and nearby congressional buildings on Thursday, and to set up mobile command centers outside or in nearby hotels, another Guardsman confirmed. They were told to take their rest breaks during their 12-hour shifts outside and in parking garages, the person said. Prominent lawmakers from both parties took to Twitter to decry the decision and call for answers after POLITICO first reported the news Thursday night. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, tweeted: "If this is true, it's outrageous. I will get to the bottom of this." Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, called the move "absolutely unacceptable and despicable treatment of our brave and dedicated National Guard who answered the call to serve." And Sen. Martin Heinrich, Democrat from New Mexico, tweeted that he would personally offer his office to the Guardsmen and promised to rally the caucus to identify additional space. Guardsmen who spoke with POLITICO were not given a clear reason why they were asked to vacate the buildings. The first Guardsman said it may have been due to a complaint that some troops were not wearing masks, but denied that was the case. “We have strict guidance that masks are to be worn at all times unless soldiers are eating and drinking,” the Guardsman said. Capitol Police asked troops to move their rest area on Thursday, said Guard spokesperson Maj. Matt Murphy. “As Congress is in session and increased foot traffic and business is being conducted, Capitol Police asked the troops to move their rest area,” Murphy said. “They were temporarily relocated to the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center garage with heat and restroom facilities. We remain an agile and flexible force to provide for the safety and security of the Capitol and its surrounding areas.” Guard leadership did not make the decision and are “doing their best to provide rest shelter for troops who are still on 12-hour shifts protecting the Capitol and congressional grounds,” the second Guardsman said. “There really may be an important reason for us to vacate and it just hasn’t been well communicated yet,” the second Guardsman said. The troops are particularly concerned about being packed in tight quarters with limited bathroom access during a pandemic. At least 100 Guardsmen have tested positive for Covid, according to two Guardsmen. Some are quarantining in hotels. A spokesperson previously declined to provide a specific number for troops who have tested positive for Covid. After images went viral last week of troops sleeping on the floor in the halls of Congress, Guardsmen protecting the Capitol were initially provided cots, POLITICO first reported. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coorslite21 Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 The build up of Military in DC is close to 60,000.....and they arrived from every State and territory via C-130's....these troops are still there......why? CL 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddieman Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 10 minutes ago, coorslite21 said: The build up of Military in DC is close to 60,000.....and they arrived from every State and territory via C-130's....these troops are still there......why? CL 26,000 National Guard troops came to DC and protected the inauguration without incident. Now the drawdown begins About 10,600 troops remain on duty right now, Air Force Maj. Matthew Murphy, an NGB spokesman, told Military Times. The other 15,000 troops are in the process of heading back home now, he said. The planning and process may take several days, but arrangements are being made to return close to 15,000 troops as soon as possible and should conclude within a five to 10-day period,” Murphy said. “Demobilization is involved with equipment turn-in and accountability, travel arrangements, COVID screening and mitigation. Troops will leave by ground transportation, airlift provided by the Air National Guard and contracted commercial air as necessary.” But about 7,000 troops will remain through the end of the month, he said. “Some agencies are requesting continuity of operations, additional support and recuperation time for their forces to regroup. Approximately 7,000 National Guard personnel are anticipated to provide that assistance through the end of the month,” said Murphy. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/21/26000-national-guard-troops-came-to-dc-to-protect-the-inauguration-now-the-drawdown-begins/ 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosterbglee Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 Hopefully the troops can be treated a lot more respectful. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildeman Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 My bet is Trump would have seen to it they were treated better and respectful. Thanks TG, Thank you Guardsmen 3 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yota691 Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 Quote 26,000 National Guard troops came to DC and protected the inauguration without incident. Now the drawdown begins Always defending the corrupt, that don't give crap about Military, Police or Americans!!! 6 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLadiesDaddy Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 6 hours ago, yota691 said: Always defending the corrupt, that don't give crap about Military, Police or Americans!!! Birds of a feather. He hates the military like all good liberals. 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 5 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said: Birds of a feather. He hates the military like all good liberals. You should ask a liberal serving in the military what he thinks of it....just to be sure. GO RV, then BV 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyLadiesDaddy Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 10 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: You should ask a liberal serving in the military what he thinks of it....just to be sure. GO RV, then BV You mean those 60 thousand troops in DC who turned their backs on Bidens Motorcade? Watch "Military turns backs to Joe Biden's motorcade." on YouTube 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 Just now, ladyGrace'sDaddy said: You mean those 60 thousand troops in DC who turned their backs on Bidens Motorcade? Watch "Military turns backs to Joe Biden's motorcade." on YouTube There's a whole thread dedicated to that very video, as a Marine vet you should know better......Go ahead, check out that thread, see what CSM Thack has to say about the video.....as you would say, "I dare you". GO RV, then BV 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybake Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: There's a whole thread dedicated to that very video, as a Marine vet you should know better......Go ahead, check out that thread, see what CSM Thack has to say about the video.....as you would say, "I dare you". GO RV, then BV I am a retired vet and I would do the same thing these military personnel did. Most military personnel know that the DemonRats don't support military. They used military for their special agendas. lol 1 1 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 16 minutes ago, jaybake said: I am a retired vet and I would do the same thing these military personnel did. Most military personnel know that the DemonRats don't support system" rel="">support military. They used military for their special agendas. lol Just like Donald was treated.....I get it. Remember that one time he wanted to have a huge military parade to honor himself? GO RV, then BV 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new york kevin Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 27 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: Just like Donald was treated.....I get it. Remember that one time he wanted to have a huge military parade to honor himself? GO RV, then BV Nope . He wanted a huge parade to show Lil Kim in North Korea that you think your bad, this is a taste at what the USA has. Get it straight Mister . Get off of your Biden, Don't agree with me I'll put you in a CDC Humanitarian Center . 1 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, new york kevin said: Nope . He wanted a huge parade to show Lil Kim in North Korea that you think your bad, this is a taste at what the USA has. Get it straight Mister . Get off of your Biden, Don't agree with me I'll put you in a CDC Humanitarian Center . You talking to me or Lil' Kim? Then there's this.... GO RV, then BV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coorslite21 Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 I stand by my 60,000 number.....it was actually more than that......they were flown in from every State and territory......C 130's and C 17's...... A drawn down is in process.....but standing orders are for a force of 30,000 to be deployed in the area through Sept.....I trust my sources.... CL 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new york kevin Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 Shabs , the Conflater In Chief, how are you ? Here is the document regarding Heir Bidens Concentration Camps, Humanitarian Camps; whatever euphemism they want to use this time around . Zoom down to the " Camp/Sector Level" . Do not get me wrong , just pointing out the other side you don't seem to be mentioning . Trying to let you see how people that think like me, got to where we are . Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings Updated July 26, 2020 Print This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.1,2 This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates. What is the Shielding Approach1? The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents. Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5 For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population. In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence1,6,7, to protocol. Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations the approach is trying to protect. A summary of the shielding approach described by Favas is shown in Table 1. See Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in low-resource, displaced and camp and camp-like settings 1,2 for full details. Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach1 Level Movement/ Interactions Household (HH) Level: A specific room/area designated for high-risk individuals who are physically isolated from other HH members. Low-risk HH members should not enter the green zone. If entry is necessary, it should be done only by healthy individuals after washing hands and using face coverings. Interactions should be at a safe distance (approx. 2 meters). Minimum movement of high-risk individuals outside the green zone. Low-risk HH members continue to follow social distancing and hygiene practices outside the house. Neighborhood Level: A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households), within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals. Same as above Camp/Sector Level: A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranman Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 38 minutes ago, new york kevin said: Shabs , the Conflater In Chief, how are you ? Here is the document regarding Heir Bidens Concentration Camps, Humanitarian Camps; whatever euphemism they want to use this time around . Zoom down to the " Camp/Sector Level" . Do not get me wrong , just pointing out the other side you don't seem to be mentioning . Trying to let you see how people that think like me, got to where we are . Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings Updated July 26, 2020 Print This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.1,2 This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support system" rel="">support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates. What is the Shielding Approach1? The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents. Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5 For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population. In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence1,6,7, to protocol. Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations the approach is trying to protect. A summary of the shielding approach described by Favas is shown in Table 1. See Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in low-resource, displaced and camp and camp-like settings 1,2 for full details. Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach1 Level Movement/ Interactions Household (HH) Level: A specific room/area designated for high-risk individuals who are physically isolated from other HH members. Low-risk HH members should not enter the green zone. If entry is necessary, it should be done only by healthy individuals after washing hands and using face coverings. Interactions should be at a safe distance (approx. 2 meters). Minimum movement of high-risk individuals outside the green zone. Low-risk HH members continue to follow social distancing and hygiene practices outside the house. Neighborhood Level: A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households), within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals. Same as above Camp/Sector Level: A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone. Do you think this is a good approach? Would you abide by this and allow it to happen? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new york kevin Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, cranman said: Do you think this is a good approach? Would you abide by this and allow it to happen? Just curious. I re-posted this article. What do you think ? Are you asking me as a US Conservative Citizen, or a US Citizen that is a Nurse ? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranman Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 Good questions u have to admit I'm a cynic ( I think it is healthy) when government and the military get involved with the general populations health and quarantine issues. I was all for the militaries ability to set up additional facilities to handle the expected increase of Covid cases early on. When you start talking about zones, camps and infringing on how people want to perform their own health care I get a little suspicious. I served on the guard for 21 years and have some insight on internment and resettlement operatlions ( not an expert) and I have to say I do not like the sound of it. If someone is sick and spreading the sickness then they should be dealt with. If you want to voluntarily go to a facility because you do not have the ability to quarantine then great. But it should be voluntary. My son and his girlfriend who live with us had Covid but we have a large home and were able to separate and disinfect on a daily basis to keep it from spreading to other members. To say I trust the goverment and military would be a lie. I would need to see more details to this proposal. But as it stands now, no I do not like it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yota691 Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 18 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said: liberals. The only reason a Liberal joins the Military in today world is to have a sex change. 1 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddieman Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 18 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said: Birds of a feather. He hates the military like all good liberals. There you go again spreading lies about others on this form. You hate everyone and everything that doesn’t agree with your demented conspiracy theories! You talk about everyone hates this and hates that while you attack everyone with a a different take. Just move on. 1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yota691 Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, caddieman said: There you go again spreading lies about others on this form. What happen to the Unity you cried about couple days ago..For the last 4 years you post lies of the Media and you want accuse others of Hate that you represent and dish out for the last 4 years. You defended censorship, fraud election, degrade everything America. Maybe you should just Move on. I'm sure someone can point you to another site that believe in your rhetoric that you can hang out in. 1 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddieman Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 39 minutes ago, yota691 said: What happen to the Unity you cried about couple days ago..For the last 4 years you post lies of the Media and you want accuse others of Hate that you represent and dish out for the last 4 years. You defended censorship, fraud election, degrade everything America. Maybe you should just Move on. I'm sure someone can point you to another site that believe in your rhetoric that you can hang out in. Let me spread lies about you in the form! We all know what would happen. Would we have unity? So let me ask you. What has been more truthful the last 4 years MSM or all the conspiracy theories from radical right wing media that has been posted here every day the last 4 years! If you can’t handle articles that bring a different perspective then maybe you shouldn’t read them. So all I did was post an article that contradicts the assertion that there are 60 thousand troops in DC. And the same old BS. “You hate America.” “You degrade America” “You hate the Military” All for posting an article that says there are 26,000 troops in DC and they are in the process of drawing down. And the article is from a MILITARY WEBSITE! You told me a couple of days ago to “Go pound some sand”....................back at ya! 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yota691 Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 hour ago, caddieman said: If you can’t handle articles that bring a different perspective then maybe you shouldn’t read them. I don't par take in Tearing down the USA or hang out with Radical, Racist Hate Everything America Party!!! Your getting what you dish out for the last 4 years... 1 hour ago, caddieman said: You told me a couple of days ago to “Go pound some sand”....................back at ya! That statement was to keep in line with forum rules. It meaning was put Nicely!! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddieman Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, yota691 said: That statement was to keep in line with forum rules. It meaning was put Nicely!! I know.......same here!😉 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.