Guard Home Vigil Dismantled by Oregon State Police

Despite the setback, Darr and Camp Homebound have renewed their presence on the Capitol steps complete with new signs.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Anti-war activists say that in the wee hours of morning on Sunday, February 8th, an Oregon State Trooper seized and destroyed signs protesting the upcoming deployment of the Oregon National Guard, including a memorial set up for a fallen Guard soldier.

Since November 1st, 2009, Michele Darr; a Corvallis mother of 6; has been fasting and maintaining a 24-hour presence on the steps of the Oregon State Capitol building in Salem bringing awareness to the massive upcoming deployment of the Oregon National Guard.

"We are disappointed that the Oregon State Police would engage in harassment of this nature. We have maintained a peaceful presence since November 1st, and never before have encountered vandalism when we've needed to leave our signs briefly unattended to use the restroom or take our sleeping bags indoors," states Darr.

Oregon State Police Spokesman Gregg Hastings told Salem-News.com today that no enforcement action taken was taken against Darr or her group.

"On Saturday noone was around. There was some garbage and some personal items. Our trooper disposed of the garbage and property that was there was removed for safekeeping and was stored."

On January 22nd, Darr commenced a second hunger strike to engage public participation in helping to stop the deployment, arguing alongside advocates in Oregon and 21 other states that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is no longer valid.

Towards this end, Darr and others are asking that Oregonians contact their legislators and ask them to support HB2556; a ground-breaking bill that will give the Governor the authority to block what they call the illegal deployments of Oregon's National Guard troops.

In the largest anticipated deployment since WWII, there are orders for over half of the Oregon National Guard; 3,500 troops; to deploy this spring.

For many, this is will be the 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes even 4th time that they have been deployed. Darr says this has caused extreme hardships for the troops and their families whom struggle with record high rates of combat related injury, PTSD, suicide, domestic abuse, and a host of other problems.

Along with the Oregon National Guard, all of Oregon's helicopter assets also to return to Iraq. With the loss of its helicopter assets, Oregon will be left with little resources to fight wildfires, conduct search and rescue missions, and respond to national disasters.

Despite the setback, Darr and Camp Homebound have renewed their presence on the Capitol steps complete with new signs. "We will continue to be a vocal citizen's presence on the Capitol steps until this issue is resolved, and our troops are kept home where they belong."

Major Mike Braibish told Salem-News.com the Oregon National Guard has no official position on the matter.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

k March 3, 2009 8:04 am (Pacific time)

we are citizens who by choice go in defense of this nation if you had seen what we have seen you might do the same. if your concerned about the well being of the citizen soldier tackle the real issue and get us real care for the problems we face upon returning home like ptsd, and others noted. then you might actually show an ounce of care and support, and not look like some hippy fighting the cause. dont use us as your corner stone for your fight against our nations leaders. stand up for whats right, and do the right thing and get those who need the help they truly deserve.

Vic February 12, 2009 8:31 am (Pacific time)

I supported her at first, in fact the sign in the background of the pic is one we donated. However, as a parent, I cannot support someone who walks out on SIX kids to be an activist. She should have thought of that when she was busy wildly reproducing. To fail your children is the biggest failure of all....nothing she does can negate that fact. Get off your high horse and spend time with your children while you still can. I wanted to be a rock star/biker..but when my son was born I realized that I had a bigger responsibility, and it wasnt to myself. There are plenty of ways to be an activist without neglecting your children or pushing your responsibility onto someone else...Ive done it for years.

David C. not the other david February 11, 2009 10:51 pm (Pacific time)

I know many of the Troopers who work at the State Capitol and this story is a little one sided. God forgive them for being professional Troopers who pick things up to make their State Capitol look better. The reporter failed to ask some good and fair questions here. Did she tell anyone she would be back or that she would be leaving? Did she leave a note that she would be gone? Why was she gone for such a long period of time that allowed that much stuff to be picked up? From this story all we know is she left and there was stuff lying around without anyone attending it. So, why give her the opportunity to say that she was being harassed by such an outstanding group of men and women as the State Police. Did she mentioned that they had harassed her over the last few months that she has been there? No, she didn't. Probably because over that time they have been protecting her right to protest, which is their job. I think she owes them an oppology for making such a blanket statement that appears to be not true. I applaud her for her convictions and compassion, but please don't make the OSP out to be some kind of monster when they have actually been giving her protection over these months. Also, the deployment issue won't work and it will hurt Oregon more in my opinion. Remember a majority of funds for the NG comes from the Feds. If this goes into affect and we try to push against the Feds they can cut funding to our State. Not a good thing in these finacial times. Keep up the good reporting, but please (if you actually interviewed her) ask a few more questions next time to be fair towards one organization or another so that it does not appear one sided. Thank you.

Tim King: David, please note that I did take the time to call Gregg Hastings and I included everything that he said. I also called Mike Braibish with the Guard in case they wanted to make any statements. I think we all agree that OSP is doing the best they can and following direction from above; it certainly isn't personal and Michelle Darr has complimented the professionalism of OSP troopers to me personally. Remember that MD was arrested before over this and there is that history and it really calls right of public access to state property into play. Thanks.

Bryan February 11, 2009 7:49 pm (Pacific time)

1. Whos taking care of her 6 kids while shes out here on the steps instead of working. 2. once we deploy there will still be soldiers left behind to deal with non-military problems, like forest fires. 3. the governor of a state will never have the power to over rule a FEDERAL decision, and yes, this deployment has been federalized.

cmcgee February 11, 2009 11:09 am (Pacific time)

We need the troups HERE at home - in our state. When fires rage and storms tear up communities - it does us no good at all to have our guard and their equipment half way around the globe. where is common sense ? apparently it has no home in Oregon... I thought my local Rep was going to speak out against this deployment... another huge disappointment...

David February 11, 2009 8:03 am (Pacific time)

Thanks to you, on February 11th, 2009, House Bill 2556 from the State of Oregon would give the Governor Ted Kulongoski the power to keep his national guard units at home. We have a bi-partisan opportunity to bring money back to Oregon. The Governor would like to get reimbursed for sending the State Militia to Iraq. The Democrats and a majority of Oregon voters want to stop American Troops from going to Iraq. At the same time, Republican voters want to see support for the 2nd Amendment, State rights enforced and lower taxes. We have a solution that is a win – win. Governor Perpich tried to stop the Minnesota State National Guard from going outside the country in 1989. The court said “Congress MAY authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a national emergency” but this case only gave Congress one more reason to send National Guard abroad, it did not give them blanket power over the Guard. This case had standing and merit to go to the supreme court in 1989 and it was answered very narrowly by the court. The Constitution and the Supreme Court outline only 4 reasons to allow the National Guard to be used by Congress. The Congress shall have power . . . To provide for calling forth the militia to: 1- Execute the laws of the union (Constitution) 2- Suppress insurrections (Constitution) 3- Repel invasions (Constitution) 4- Training (Perpich v Department of Defense) On June 26th, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in Washington D.C. v Heller that the 2nd Amendment is about two separate rights, one being an individual right and the other being a collective right of the state to form a Militia. Heller gave greater detail to what the State Militia is and is not. When you take into account, the only other Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment, Miller 1936 you will see that the Governor and State Assembly has an opportunity to challenge the sending of the State National Guard to Iraq and can halt future and current deployments. This could cascade into other States. Even if the court shoots it down, it still will play well with Republican and Democrat voters. Congress has not authorized members of the Militia/State National Guard to go to Iraq on a training or non-training mission in violation of the Perpich ruling. Today the Governor has budget problems and the State of Oregon could stop the Oregon National Guard members from going to Iraq. Even if it ultimately gets shot down, this would go a long way towards re-election in a mostly Democratic state at the same time grab more support from Republicans that are pro 2nd Amendment. This would also force the Court to finally determine how the National Guard relates to the Militia in light of Heller, and how the 1933 Montgomery Amendment forced dual oath is contrary to the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment and Militia clauses of the Constitution. Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (Held that the Militia MAY leave the country for training only) This case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the Militia Clauses of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution in which the court held that the “Congress MAY authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a national emergency.” United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Held that “Militia” is not the same as “Troops”) The court ruled that “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (2008) (Held that Militia is for common defense only and is made of citizens) The Court held in the majority opinion “that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity”. U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16: (Says that the Militia can only be used for one of 3 purposes) “The Congress shall have power . . . To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”.

[Return to Top]