Border troops authorized to use force, detain illegal immigrants: Report

[busybee01]

The military defending against a foreign invasion...look at the scum against it.

Calling refugees a foreign invasion....look at the crazies doing that.

What is crazy is you calling them "refugees" I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap. Interested ?

You probably would. They are refugees driven from their homeland by the drug cartels. These cartels exist because of western nations' demand for illegal drugs. That includes the US.

 

[busybee01]

How long before a Federal Judge gets their robe in a twist and issues an injunction? This is what a president is supposed to do, protect America!

The White House has signed a memo granting the troops stationed at the border authority to engage in some law enforcement and to use lethal force if they are in danger, according to a report in Military Times.

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly signed the memo, which allows troops to assist the Border Patrol in crowd control and even detaining illegal immigrants, the paper reported.

The memo appears to make good on President Trump’s insistence that the military play a more active role in preventing the migrant caravans from overrunning the U.S. border, as they did a month ago on Mexico’s southern border.

Homeland Security signaled it would welcome the assistance.

Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

They'll have it as soon as they finish judge shopping. They can't ask actual judges to rule on this.

Both sides do this. It's no coincidence that Republicans file their lawsuits in states like Texas.

 

[miketx]

The military defending against a foreign invasion...look at the scum against it.

Calling refugees a foreign invasion....look at the crazies doing that.

What is crazy is you calling them "refugees" I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap. Interested ?

You probably would. They are refugees driven from their homeland by the drug cartels. These cartels exist because of western nations' demand for illegal drugs. That includes the US.

Maybe they should grow some balls and stand up to them? I know your answer is to run, but if that were what we all had done, this country would not be here.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Some nutjob laftists have been yammering about he "carnage" of US troops possibly shooting large numbers of caravan migrants. The "carnage" we need to be thinking about, is the carnage of unarmed US troops being massacred by potentially armed caravan invaders. Who knows what they may be carrying ?

In World War II, we carpet bombed Germany killing thousands of innocent people, against an enemy thousands of miles away from us. So now we're supposed to go up against thousands of crazy invaders, right here, busting across our border, without as much as one single rifle bullet ? With sticks ? Has this country gone mad ?

As for how having our troops armed to defend themselves would look to the world, the world isn't going to suffer the consequences of allowing these people in here, with unarmed troops, WE ARE. So the world can mind their own business.

Hate to tell you dude, but using carpet bombing as an example of why we should mow down the immigrants at the border is a piss poor example.

Why? Simple....................it was BECAUSE of carpet bombing killing innocent civilians, as well as the firebombing of Dresden that caused the Geneva Conventions to come into being. And, they have been modified any time that atrocities have been found to be committed. So, using carpet bombing as a justification is a non starter.

As far as was I ever in the National Guard? Nope, wasn't able to serve, because I retired from the U.S. Navy. But, my example of civilians in the National Guard fucking things up at Abu Grahib still stands.

 

[busybee01]

There are only 3 reasons that the active duty military can be used inside our borders...................

1) When the state governor or legislature requests assistance in putting down an insurrection, and the state doesn't have the ability to deal with it.

2) When nuclear weapons are lost. The military is the best equipped to search for, find, and recover nuclear weapons.

3) Whenever chemical or bio weapons are lost. Same reason as why they use the military for nukes.

Other than that? You can't use the military as law enforcement inside the borders.

Federal troops have been used inside US borders quite a few times, outside of the reasons you cite. And how many times have they been stopped by Posse Comitatus ? >> ZERO. Posters should try reading the Washington Times link in the OP.

The Moonie newspaper. Bought and paid for by Republicans. Posse Comitatus clearly comes into play since Immigration law is civilian law.

 

[miketx]

Some nutjob laftists have been yammering about he "carnage" of US troops possibly shooting large numbers of caravan migrants. The "carnage" we need to be thinking about, is the carnage of unarmed US troops being massacred by potentially armed caravan invaders. Who knows what they may be carrying ?

In World War II, we carpet bombed Germany killing thousands of innocent people, against an enemy thousands of miles away from us. So now we're supposed to go up against thousands of crazy invaders, right here, busting across our border, without as much as one single rifle bullet ? With sticks ? Has this country gone mad ?

As for how having our troops armed to defend themselves would look to the world, the world isn't going to suffer the consequences of allowing these people in here, with unarmed troops, WE ARE. So the world can mind their own business.

Hate to tell you dude, but using carpet bombing as an example of why we should mow down the immigrants at the border is a piss poor example.

Why? Simple....................it was BECAUSE of carpet bombing killing innocent civilians, as well as the firebombing of Dresden that caused the Geneva Conventions to come into being. And, they have been modified any time that atrocities have been found to be committed. So, using carpet bombing as a justification is a non starter.

As far as was I ever in the National Guard? Nope, wasn't able to serve, because I retired from the U.S. Navy. But, my example of civilians in the National Guard fucking things up at Abu Grahib still stands.

Well dood, then maybe they should stay in their own country.

 

[busybee01]

The military defending against a foreign invasion...look at the scum against it.

Calling refugees a foreign invasion....look at the crazies doing that.

What is crazy is you calling them "refugees" I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap. Interested ?

You probably would. They are refugees driven from their homeland by the drug cartels. These cartels exist because of western nations' demand for illegal drugs. That includes the US.

Maybe they should grow some balls and stand up to them? I know your answer is to run, but if that were what we all had done, this country would not be here.

They have guns. We are responsible for these cartels so we have a responsibility by granting the people asylum or helping the government cope with these thugs.

 

[busybee01]

It's not an invasion, dumb ass.

Of course it's an invasion, you idiot. Buy a dictionary.

It is not a invasion you moron.

 

[busybee01]

Some nutjob laftists have been yammering about he "carnage" of US troops possibly shooting large numbers of caravan migrants. The "carnage" we need to be thinking about, is the carnage of unarmed US troops being massacred by potentially armed caravan invaders. Who knows what they may be carrying ?

In World War II, we carpet bombed Germany killing thousands of innocent people, against an enemy thousands of miles away from us. So now we're supposed to go up against thousands of crazy invaders, right here, busting across our border, without as much as one single rifle bullet ? With sticks ? Has this country gone mad ?

As for how having our troops armed to defend themselves would look to the world, the world isn't going to suffer the consequences of allowing these people in here, with unarmed troops, WE ARE. So the world can mind their own business.

Rely on you to come up with idiocy. Maybe one of them has a nuclear bomb in their pocket. US troops are not going to be massacred. American citizens have every right to have a say in this. They will not stand for a massacre of unarmed refugees.

 

[busybee01]

Yes, I know what Trump said. It means nothing. They have always been allowed to defend themselves, no matter what that obese orange fool might say. The military won't allow the troops to be armed unless there is a need, and they don't seem to see any need.

I don't believe this. You must be dense. The order has been given (by the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the military) They are being ARMED.
Pheeeeew!! (high-pitched whistle)

He is subject to the checks and balances of any commander in chief. He does not have absolute power to do anything he wants. This is a illegal order and Kelly and Nielsen also argued against it. Apparently Emmett Flood also said this would face constitutional issues.

Report: Kelly and Nielsen Fiercely Argued Against Border Order

 

[busybee01]

It's not an invasion, dumb ass.

That's not for you to define, now is it.

Of course it's not for me to define. I'll let Webster do that.

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/
noun

1. an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
   "the Allied invasion of Normandy"
   synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover;

Webster never had to deal with a fifth column such as you sons of bitches!

Or racists and neo-nazis like you.

blah blah blah...nazi....blah blah blah....nazi....lol

The truth makes you a blathering idiot.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That's not for you to define, now is it.

Of course it's not for me to define. I'll let Webster do that.

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/
noun

1. an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
   "the Allied invasion of Normandy"
   synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover;

Webster never had to deal with a fifth column such as you sons of bitches!

Or racists and neo-nazis like you.

blah blah blah...nazi....blah blah blah....nazi....lol

The truth makes you a blathering idiot.

You're just NOW figuring out that MikeTX is a blathering idiot? The rest of us have known that for some time now.

 

[BrokeLoser]

John Kelly can't make that legal by signing a memo. This is just another example of Trump's white house trying to overstep their authority. The courts won't allow that order to stand.

From the OP's link......................................

The White House has sent a memo to the Pentagon granting troops stationed at the border authority to engage in some law enforcement and to use lethal force if they are in danger.

The Defense Department said it’s received the memo and is “reviewing it,” suggesting the new policy is not yet operational.



Interestingly enough, the OP left out the second paragraph in their post. The DoD is reviewing it, and it isn't operational yet. But, I don't really think that this is gonna fly, because of the Posse Comitatus Act. There are only 3 reasons that the active duty military can be deployed inside the borders.........

1) When requested by the state governor or legislature for help in putting down an insurrection that has gotten out of hand and they need the military to stop it.

2) Whenever nuclear weapons are lost. The military is the best equipped to search for, find, and recover those items.

3) Whenever chemical and bio weapons are lost. Same reason as nuclear weapons.

I still have issue with Active Duty troops operating inside the US, however I would have no issue at all with the National Guard being called up for duty on the boarder.

I don't have a problem with the NG being called for duty on the border. That is one of their functions.

But, because of the Posse Comitatus Act, I have a big problem with active duty military being deployed inside our borders.

At least, when Obama and Jr. did it, they used NG and not the active duty military.

Wrong again bud...
Trump has the legal authority to use the Insurrection Act if he finds that the ordinary law enforcement mechanisms aren’t getting the job done. Game over.

Wrong again bud.

None of the circumstances in this case allow the use of the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act can only be used when a state is incapable of enforcing the laws of the state. It is not a excuse for a President to ignore the Posse Comitatus Act.

Translation:
“I want my filthy wetbacks, I need my filthy wetbacks.”
Hahaha....look Gustavo, “the state” doesn’t have jurisdiction over federal law. “The state” can’t enforce immigration law....hahaha
Bye, bye beaners!

 

[BULLDOG]

That's not for you to define, now is it.

Of course it's not for me to define. I'll let Webster do that.

in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/
noun

1. an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
   "the Allied invasion of Normandy"
   synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover;

Webster never had to deal with a fifth column such as you sons of bitches!

Or racists and neo-nazis like you.

blah blah blah...nazi....blah blah blah....nazi....lol

The truth makes you a blathering idiot.

Don't blame the truth for that. Mikey did that to himself.

 

[protectionist]

As I said, Trumps remarks mean nothing. They have always been able to defend themselves if necessary. You should read your own link.

Mattis said troops could help protect the border agents with shields and batons, but would be unarmed.

Mattis will call the shots for the military actions. Trump is just a babbling fool.

You're talking like a fool, and I have to keep repeating myself to you. Trump is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the US military. when it comes to the military, WHAT HE SAY, GOES. And here you are absurdly saying "Trumps remarks mean nothing". Trump's "remarks" (as you call them) are much more than that. They are military ORDERS, which the military is required to follow.

And no, the troops were NOT always able to defend themselves, and you have been arguing for just that, with troops being without guns and bullets.
The shilds and batons notion has already been superceded as Trump has given the order for the troops to be armed with guns, and use lethal force if necessary.

I've only posted Trump's quote on that 3 F'N TIMES here in red italics, but here we have another mental disorder of liberalism, saying what they WANT rather than what is actually happening. Oh no, Trump's "remarks" mean nothing. He's only the President of the United States, that's all. Somebody call a doctor.

 

[protectionist]

Then the military can be thrown in jail for breaking the law.

That's the second time you mentioned "the law" without saying what "law" you're talking about.

 

[protectionist]

Or racists and neo-nazis like you.

Liberal guidleline: Never let an opportunity to flash the race card go by unused. Same with the neo-Nazi card.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong again bud.

None of the circumstances in this case allow the use of the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act can only be used when a state is incapable of enforcing the laws of the state. It is not a excuse for a President to ignore the Posse Comitatus Act.

And the federal troops are being used BECAUSE they are needed to enforce the laws of the state, against hordes of thousands of people threatening to storm the border by force - ie. mount a large invasion, and this is larger then the 1992 LA riots, when federal troops were used. Did D-Day even have this many invaders participating ?

Posse Comitatus
Exclusions and limitations >>>

There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

• Army and Air National Guard units and state defense forces while under the authority of the governor of a state.
• Federal armed forces used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case of the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
• Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. The only exemption is the deployment of nuclear materials on the part of the United States Armed Forces.
• Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command.
• Provide surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement on operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism missions.
• Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957

Good post, Broke Loser.

 

[protectionist]

You probably would. They are refugees driven from their homeland by the drug cartels. These cartels exist because of western nations' demand for illegal drugs. That includes the US.

Yeah ? And suppose you tell us why they feel they need to flee from those drug cartels. What are they running from ?

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, now we have a president who thinks that he has the authority to ignore federal law and kill people on American soil without a trial because they have been suspected of committing a misdemeanor.