Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border

[kmrtnsn]

What is cheaper in the long run; keeping them there, or sending them back?

[variablebinary]

@kmrtnsn

What do you expect the National Guard to do at the border? They cannot patrol the border, posse comitatus applies

The Posse Comitatus Act doesnt apply absolutely to the National Guard.

It would only be applicable in certain situations.

[kmrtnsn]

It absolutely does if used in a law enforcement capacity and under federal control.

[variablebinary]

@kmrtnsn

It absolutely does if used in a law enforcement capacity.

No, that is not the case.

The National Guard is not subject to prohibitions on civilian law enforcement.

[kmrtnsn]

If the President called the Guard, the federal government is paying them, and they are effecting federal policy, all of which are true in the instant matter, then posse comitatus absolutely applies, there is no getting around that. Look at any Guard deployment to the border since 1999 (as far as my history on the border goes) and you can see by their roles that the restrictions of posse comitatus had a huge role in defining what the Guard could/couldn’t, can/cannot do.

[kalikraven]

I’m sorry, I thought protecting the country from invaders was part of the militarys job. The police sure arnt doing it.

[kmrtnsn]

"I’m sorry, I thought protecting the country from invaders was part of the military’s job. The police sure aren’t doing it. "

Familiar with the revenue services and who patrolled our nations maritime frontiers for 250 years? A clue, it wasn’t the Navy and it wasn’t/isn’t a naval/military problem.

Is the problem on the southern border a Mexican military problem, with Mexican troops acting at the behest of the Mexican government to effect Mexican government policy or is it a social/criminal problem involving a social/economic breakdown within Mexican society and Mexican criminal organizations exploiting said situation?

[500grains]

Posse Comitatus does not apply to repelling an invasion of the United States. It does, however, apply to using federal troops against U.S. citizens, which the National Guard would not be doing by shooting illegal aliens climbing the fence and coming north.

[skyugo]

@WillBrink

Question I have always had if we were actually serious is, why not mine fields? Seriously, they are inexpensive, last a long time, etc, etc. allows a small number of troops to to deny access to large areas of land, etc.

And I don’t mean the type placed cause maximum damage due to being intentionally hidden, I mean the set up with fences, and huge signs saying “warning, mine field in place, do not cross this area” and so forth.

I know, I know, drug smuggler ignores signs, goes over/through fence, and converts to red mist, and there is an international out rage and all that.

Seems if we are serious about denying passage (North Korea, et al) it can be done, but it appears we really are not all that serious.

Just sayin’

mine fields are kinda passe…
there are a number of smart active denial systems on the market now. both lethal and non-lethal.

[skyugo]

@kmrtnsn

I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to “secure” his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC’s and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn’t secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren’t going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.

good post.

[vecdran]

@kalikraven

I’m sorry, I thought protecting the country from invaders was part of the militarys job. The police sure arnt doing it.

Yes, because drug cartels are a national entity.

A lot of posturing going on this thread, along with the typical wholesale discarding of federal laws and even the vaunted Constitution, when it doesn’t serve an agenda.

Don’t get me wrong, this troop deployment is certainly not the solution. (A fence isn’t either, they just dig under it or just climb over it.) Sure, a substantially larger one may work, but at that point you might as well be declaring martial law.

Here’s an incredibly unpopular idea (at least for staunch conservatives): Legalize marijuana. Much of the southern border drug trade is marijuana. What do you think the cartels will be left doing once that trade dries up? Meth is made cheaper here, and cocaine is a rich mans drug.

Just look at these figures:

2008 Arizona Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 1,905.8 kgs.
Heroin: 152.8 kgs.
Methamphetamine: 263.4 kgs
Marijuana: 351,992.4 kgs.
Hashish: 6.4 kgs
MDMA: 0.0 kgs/47 du
Meth Lab Incidents: 10 (DEA, state, and local)

2008 Texas Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 9,487.6 kgs.
Heroin: 141.6kgs.
Methamphetamine: 783.6 kgs.
Marijuana: 570,793.1 kgs.
Hashish: 0.5 kgs.
MDMA: 0.0 kgs./69,341 du
Meth Lab Incidents: 112 (DEA, state, and local)

Straight from the DEA web site. We’re dealing with a situation right now that has some parallels to 1920’s Prohibition. A banned substance of questionable harm has fostered an armed group of criminals dealing in it’s distribution.

(Just to clear things up, no, I am not a pot head. Stupid waste of money, but the same could really be said of alcohol.)

[BH1]

@kmrtnsn

I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to “secure” his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC’s and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn’t secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren’t going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.

@skyugo

good post.

Sure, all the way up to the last line. Here’s another set of suggestions for the border ills:

Create a viable system for people who want to move here and become Americans (not live here, take what they can get, and fly their own flag) to do that.

Convince our elected officials that this country does have borders, and it’s not only acceptable but it’s their obligation to control who enters them.

Cut off the free handouts - free health care, free education, free food programs, etc., - to people who are not authorized to be in the country.

Enforce current employment laws.

Decline the “celebrate diversity” and the “citizen of the world” mentality being pushed on us. We can still be respectful of cultural differences but lets celebrate what we have in common that makes us American.

Then if Mexico or any other country wants to remain in the last century, with high unemployment rates, a corrupt government, and a low standard of living that is thier business to handle. This country has enough issues of it’s own to fix before it can take on anymore of someone else’s problems.

[vecdran]

Yeah, taking up the burden of modernizing and “fixing” Mexico is something that is not our responsibility, nor is it feasible politically or financially.

[WillBrink]

@skyugo

mine fields are kinda passe…
there are a number of smart active denial systems on the market now. both lethal and non-lethal.

Passe but effective. We are all about making sure to use something really expensive where cheap would work just fine. But sure, if there’s effective area denial systems that would work well in place of a mine that was cost effective, be they lethal or non lethal, great, employ them. Obviously, not gonna happen for PC political reasons but how else to control large areas using minimal manpower that’s effective?

[Jer]

@kmrtnsn

I find quite a bit of irony in many of these post. For a bunch of staunch Constitutionalists the general theme of posts in this thread is all about suspending the Constitution along the border. You all realize that what it takes to send armed National Guard troops to the border, right? Posse comitatus, are you familiar with what its implementation entails? I doubt there is a single rancher along the border who is willing to take a division or two of armed Guardsman mowing down his fences and livestock to “secure” his ranch from the dangerous hoards of Mexicans crossing the line, the cure would be worse than the problem. Most hate just having the Border Patrol do it Jeeps and Tahoes, let alone 19 year old troops in Bradley APC’s and Humvees. Want a 120,000 troops on the border, where are you going to put them? Where are you going to find them? How are we going to pay for them? We couldn’t secure the border between Iran and Iraq during a war with liberal rules of engagement, we sure as hell aren’t going to secure the much longer border between the gulf coast and the pacific ocean militarily with more stringent rules of engagement. There is no military solution to border security. Want to cure our border ills? Drag Mexico into the 21st century, fix their unemployment, fix their government, raise their standard of living.

orly?

What exactly is Mexico doing with the several miles of land spanning our border other than allowing smugglers to get a running start? We negotiate a deal to ‘buy’ the land just across the border and if they don’t agree… we take it. Just saying…

[vecdran]

@Jer

orly?

What exactly is Mexico doing with the several miles of land spanning our border other than allowing smugglers to get a running start? We negotiate a deal to ‘buy’ the land just across the border and if they don’t agree… we take it. Just saying…

Who’s invading who now? :rolleyes:

[11B101ABN]

@kmrtnsn

If the President called the Guard, the federal government is paying them, and they are effecting federal policy, all of which are true in the instant matter, then posse comitatus absolutely applies, there is no getting around that. Look at any Guard deployment to the border since 1999 (as far as my history on the border goes) and you can see by their roles that the restrictions of posse comitatus had a huge role in defining what the Guard could/couldn’t, can/cannot do.

It doesn’t apply if the unit(s) are not on federal orders. If left under the control of the state, LE operations can be conducted.

[11B101ABN]

@WillBrink

Passe but effective. We are all about making sure to use something really expensive where cheap would work just fine. But sure, if there’s effective area denial systems that would work well in place of a mine that was cost effective, be they lethal or non lethal, great, employ them. Obviously, not gonna happen for PC political reasons but how else to control large areas using minimal manpower that’s effective?

Very true.

[11B101ABN]

@500grains

Posse Comitatus does not apply to repelling an invasion of the United States. It does, however, apply to using federal troops against U.S. citizens, which the National Guard would not be doing by shooting illegal aliens climbing the fence and coming north.

I dont think that shooting civves off of the fence is something our troops would be willing to do unilaterally. Not to mention it’s a criminal act.

I would refuse any order ot kill civilians outright, nor would I permit my soldiers to do it.

[brickbd]

I dont know if anyone cares… but on a lighter note… all this means is that the days of the “$25 all night lap dance” at a special spot in my heart just 10 mins north of the Aventura Spa Palace are coming to an end!

In case you care!