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

[protectionist]

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

Oh bull. Democrats have made judge shopping a fine art for decades.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Idiot. Nobody has said anything about "mow down the immigrants at the border" (except you). And these are NOT immigrants. If military force were to be used it would only be against those who are storming across the border in large numbers, which would be an invasion of our territory, not "immigration".

Carpet bombing, as I posted it is a perfectly legitimate and correct example, and I don't need coaching from you. I could also have used the example of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You use what level of force you need to use to repel and defeat your enemy, Geneva Convention or no Geneva Convention. Period.

As for your moronic bash of the National Guard, every branch of the US military has had misdeeds, and there's no reason to pick out any one and talk about that. You could just as easily have talked about my uncle, an Army National Guard master sergeant who was killed in the Marianas islands expedition, in the Pacific, fighting the Japs in World War II, and his fellow NG troops, who helped to liberate those territories (Guam, Saipan, etc)

Lastly, maybe if you would have served in the National Guard, you'd know more about it.

 

[protectionist]

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

So what source would you think I would refer to ? media matters ? The Nation ?CNN ? Washington Post ? Gag!!!

 

[protectionist]

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.

1. You are free to do that, OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET.

2. I'm tired of hearing this bullshit that the American people are "responsible for these cartels" First, the % of Americans who use the cartels' drugs is probably less than 1%, so stop telling the other 99% that they're responsible.
Secondly, even with respect to the tiny % of Americans who do use the drugs, it is the drug cartel sellers who CREATE THE DEMAND, get people hooked, (often as young kids), and then sell to them.

3. What's this you say about "guns" ? What guns ? Who ? You're not making yourself clear.

 

[protectionist]

It is not a invasion you moron.

You could easily avoid looking like a MORON, just by reading the thread, before you post. From Post # 57 >>>

of course it's an invasion. For those who lack vocabulary skills, here's a dictionary definition >>

Invasion - an intrusion or infringement

And nouns are derived from verbs. Here's the verb >>

Invade - 1. to enter forcibly or hostilely; come into as an enemy 2. to crowd into 3. to intrude upon; infringe 4. to enter and spread through with harmful effects

Webster's New World College Dictionary 5th ed.

Back to the 4th grade for you.

And wars are not just between countries any more. That's in the past. Now we have various violent NGOs making war (al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc)

 

[protectionist]

xxxxxxxx

 

[protectionist]

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.

Rely on you to come up with idiocy. You have personally gone down to Mexico, and have frisked every caravan person, right ? ...and you now assure us none of them has even one gun.

Idiot, for all we are able to ascertain, these people could be carrying hand grenades. YOU don't know what they have, so don't try to make proclamations. What Americans won't stand for, is a massacre of unarmed US troops.

And caravaners storming the border are not "refugees" They are not running away from anything other than poor economics (as they have openly said so themselves) That does not correlate to "refugee" status.

Nobody here is going to fall for your politically (VOTE) inspired bullshit.​

 

[Vandalshandle]

Latino men, women, and children asylum seekers with hand grenades...

You are sure, Prot., that they are not carrying bazookas? I'll wait for the answer until you check your twitter account from Trump.

 

[protectionist]

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

From your link >>>

"The authorization of lethal force can be seen as another White House win for adviser Stephen Miller."

The POTUS has the power to employ the military, when needed as a matter of national security. This is understood to involve rifles and lots of ammunition. That is what a US soldier carries. What do you think the troops would be carrying, to present to invaders storming across out border ? Lollipops ? Ice cream cones ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

Did you think this was a case of people shoplifting in a convenience store ? Maybe you fell into the wrong thread.

EARTH TO VH: This is invasion. aka WAR.

 

[protectionist]

Liberals just want these caravaners to get into the US, so they can vote for Democrats. You know it, I know it, we ALL know it. Ho hum.

 

[protectionist]

Latino men, women, and children asylum seekers with hand grenades...

You are sure, Prot., that they are not carrying bazookas? I'll wait for the answer until you check your twitter account from Trump.

1. They're not seeking asylum. Asylum is only for people escaping from PERSECUTION. These people are lured here by Democrats' enticements of welfare goodies$$$.

2. Bazookas are large and heavy. But grenades and handguns are small, and could be effective against troops, especially if they were ludicrously unarmed. The caravan isn't just poor people. There are criminal gang creeps among them too, according to US undercover agents and the Mexican govt.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[Care4all]

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.

fyi
you are wrong

Mattis explains new roles, authorities at border

 

[protectionist]

fyi
you are wrong

Mattis explains new roles, authorities at border

You are wrong >>>

"Trump also said he had given the military the authorization to use lethal force if necessary on the border with Mexico.

"If they have to they are going to use lethal force. I've given the OK - I hope they don't have to."

Trump Issues Thanksgiving Threat to Close US-Mexico Border | Newsmax.com

 

[protectionist]

Do deranged liberals want to endanger our troops lives, by disarming them, opening the possibly of them being massacred by possibly armed caravaners ? And just for a few thousand Democrat VOTES ? Beyond insanity.

 

[BULLDOG]

fyi
you are wrong

Mattis explains new roles, authorities at border

You are wrong >>>

"Trump also said he had given the military the authorization to use lethal force if necessary on the border with Mexico.

"If they have to they are going to use lethal force. I've given the OK - I hope they don't have to."

Trump Issues Thanksgiving Threat to Close US-Mexico Border | Newsmax.com

You keep posting that same crap. The generals will decide if or when to use violence. Trump just said it was OK with him to do it. We already knew that. Trump's statement had no effect other than more grandstanding for his base.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone who says that the Democrats are luring migrants to the US because they want their votes is a total idiot. That includes your dumbass President.

 

[miketx]

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.

Biggest lie of the day!

 

[BrokeLoser]

Anyone who says that the Democrats are luring migrants to the US because they want their votes is a total idiot. That includes your dumbass President.

You can’t be that stupid...
The wetback vote in Mexifornia determines elections now. The wetback vote in AZ, TX, NM all determine elections.
Don’t try to keep your head in your ass...PLEASE!