Trump we will guard our border with our military

[jc456]

don't we have armed guards at the customs areas of every airport? what the fk is the difference exactly?

CBP are LE. The military is not. That's the difference.

that wasn't my question. Do we have armed guards at our international airports in the Customs area? yes or no? why can't you answer it?

Yes. Armed LE. Not armed military. There is a big difference.

but there armed guards there right? I give to shits who they report to, they're there right?

The Law gives a few shits about who they report to. PCA says they can be there, they can be armed. They can provide support. But they can't stop, detain, question, arrest., etc. You known the stuff that LE does.

that wasn't the point, you know that wasn't the point, but the good asshole you are you can't answer a question. got it.

 

[jc456]

From Wiki:

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

[...]

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.


We'll have to see how it all plays out in court it seems.

I guess the next step would be to take out the judicial branch.

Probably the same as always these days. The 9th will say it's unconstitutional or some bullshit and some months later the SCOTUS will say it's fine and the media will barely, if never, report on it.

I can see it, the court says no, trump says fk you, puts the military on the border, the local cops then try to take out our military. that's how fking stupid the left is.

 

[jillian]

From Wiki:

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

[...]

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.


We'll have to see how it all plays out in court it seems.

I guess the next step would be to take out the judicial branch.

nothing totalitarian about that, huh trumptard?

 

[EverCurious]

From Wiki:

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

[...]

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.


We'll have to see how it all plays out in court it seems.

I guess the next step would be to take out the judicial branch.

Probably the same as always these days. The 9th will say it's unconstitutional or some bullshit and some months later the SCOTUS will say it's fine and the media will barely, if never, report on it.

I can see it, the court says no, trump says fk you, puts the military on the border, the local cops then try to take out our military. that's how fking stupid the left is.

hmmm I don't think the local cops would have any interest. Maybe CA would try it, but aren't they in the process of disarming their police atm?

 

[jc456]

From Wiki:

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

[...]

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.


We'll have to see how it all plays out in court it seems.

I guess the next step would be to take out the judicial branch.

nothing totalitarian about that, huh trumptard?

it's what one does during a coup.

 

[regent]

It seems that Trump is putting the military on the border to prevent someone from stealing his wall.

 

[EverCurious]

Well more along the lines of Trump is putting military on the boarder because the states are refusing to follow federal law so he's going around them.

 

[Aba Incieni]

If they are fleeing their home countries for safety, why don't they work to make their countries better? Why don't you move to Honduras and protest, that's what they're doing to you.

That's just goofy.

It's downright insane. Why would you do what you condone others doing.

Think about what you want to say, and then try again. Your question don't make no sense.

That's just goofy.

Yes, That's why I encouraged you to try again.

How about something like this:

If they are fleeing their home countries for safety, why don't they work to make their countries safer? Why don't you move to Honduras and protest, that's what they're doing to you?

 

[LuckyDuck]

can you set that up along 2,000 some odd miles of border?

Sure, most military jobs are done by contract workers. Not the loser in the armed force sucking off gobmint dimes doing nothang.

Clearly, by your lack of proper grammar, you are not from the US. The loser in our armed forces? At last check, we didn't become the number one super power without our military.
Revolutionary War: Won.
War of 1812: Won.
Barbary War: Won.
Mexican-American War: Won.
Spanish-American War: Won.
Philippine Insurrection: Won.
Boxer Rebellion: Won (as part of a coalition of nations).
World War I: Won (as part of a coalition of nations).
World War II: Won (as part of a coalition of nations).
Korean War: Armistice.
Vietnam War: Officially, we didn't lose. The Viet Cong were destroyed and the NVA was beaten back, however, due to public pressure, brought on by too free coverage by the media, we pulled out. Had we stayed in, we would have won.
Iraq War: Won (as part of a coalition of other nations).
Afghanistan War: Ongoing (as part of a coalition of other nations).
Syria: Currently in the process of withdrawing as ISIS has been beaten.
So, our military personnel aren't a group of losers. They're professionally trained personnel that can beat you any day.

16 years in the ME fighting, seems they can't win these wars. LOL! They should call back to duty our great WWII vets. They won their wars FULLY!

They're not dealing with a standard military that wears uniforms; they're fighting people that wear typical civilian attire for that region and blend in with the non-combatants after a strike. Such tactics make it extremely difficult to weed them out.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I see no reason why people in the military cannot act
as border guards.

Because it's not part of their job, and for them to perform law enforcement activities on US soil is against the law.

But, then again, you conservatives believed that Obama was gonna use the military to round up dissenters. That was just a rumor put out by conservative talking heads. Trump is actually gonna try to do it for real.

their job is any job the commander in chief says it is.

Wrong. You obviously have never been in the military. If a superior officer gives you an order that you KNOW to be unlawful and against the Constitution or the UCMJ, you have a duty to not follow any orders that are unlawful.

Patrolling the border as law enforcement would be unlawful use of the military.

 

[EverCurious]

Patrolling the border as enforcement of /federal law/ by order of the President is legal, so they'd prob. get CM for disobeying lawful orders.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well more along the lines of Trump is putting military on the boarder because the states are refusing to follow federal law so he's going around them.

He's not gonna be able to turn the military into BP agents. Yet another thing Trump has promised you that he will never be able to deliver, and you believe him.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Patrolling the border as enforcement of /federal law/ by order of the President is legal, so they'd prob. get CM for disobeying lawful orders.

Wrong. The military cannot be used as law enforcement. If they were put on the border, the only thing they would be able to do is point, say "there they are", and that is about it. If attacked, they can defend themselves, but they have to be attacked first. Both Jr. and Obama tried it and it didn't work. Only thing that happened was it wasted a lot of money.

 

[EverCurious]

Think what you want, I posted the related portion of the law that permits it - and it's not a new thing, been around, and been used by other presidents.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Think what you want, I posted the related portion of the law that permits it - and it's not a new thing, been around, and been used by other presidents.

You can use the NG, but not the military for law enforcement.

Can the USA military be used as a police force domestically?

The use of the active duty military in a law enforcement role is not unconstitutional but it is prohibited by the posse comitatus act. 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (adopted 1878).

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

The act does not apply to the National Guard mobilized at the request of a state governor. In practice, 10 U.S.C. § 375 has more bite because a federal prosecutor can and usually would refrain from prosecuting a crime ordered by his ultimate boss, the President, and there is not legal duty to prosecute every possible crime, but 10 U.S.C. § 375 creates an affirmative duty on the party of the Secretary of Defense that might be enforceable in a civil action.

 

[EverCurious]

Think what you want, I posted the related portion of the law that permits it - and it's not a new thing, been around, and been used by other presidents.

You can use the NG, but not the military for law enforcement.

Can the USA military be used as a police force domestically?

The use of the active duty military in a law enforcement role is not unconstitutional but it is prohibited by the posse comitatus act. 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (adopted 1878).

The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):

10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

The act does not apply to the National Guard mobilized at the request of a state governor. In practice, 10 U.S.C. § 375 has more bite because a federal prosecutor can and usually would refrain from prosecuting a crime ordered by his ultimate boss, the President, and there is not legal duty to prosecute every possible crime, but 10 U.S.C. § 375 creates an affirmative duty on the party of the Secretary of Defense that might be enforceable in a civil action.

Dude, from your own fucking link - the part I posted before:

Exclusions and limitations[edit]
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 military personnel used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during 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 nuclear materials.
• Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command
• 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.

 

[Geaux4it]

Can't wait to see images of all the beaners being 'rounded up'

It'll make for good TV

-Geaux

 

[regent]

Of course the military can be used to enforce the laws and used for border patrol.

 

[kaz]

It seems that Trump is putting the military on the border to prevent someone from stealing his wall.

 

[kaz]

I see no reason why people in the military cannot act
as border guards.

Because it's not part of their job, and for them to perform law enforcement activities on US soil is against the law.

But, then again, you conservatives believed that Obama was gonna use the military to round up dissenters. That was just a rumor put out by conservative talking heads. Trump is actually gonna try to do it for real.

their job is any job the commander in chief says it is.

Wrong. You obviously have never been in the military. If a superior officer gives you an order that you KNOW to be unlawful and against the Constitution or the UCMJ, you have a duty to not follow any orders that are unlawful.

Patrolling the border as law enforcement would be unlawful use of the military.

Riiiggghhhhtttttt. You were in the military and you don't know that THE purpose of the military is to secure our borders.

Another fake military leftist gives yourself up with your extreme ignorance about the military.

Jesus, you think you were in the military and you don't believe your role was to defend our borders? Did you think the military was to serve hobos in soup kitchens?

How can you not even know what the military is as an American much less as you're pretending you were in the military?