Thread: armed United States military enforcing immigration laws

Rep. [John] Culberson [R-TX] sits on the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Rep. Culberson said news of al-Qaida's penetration of the U.S.'s southern border has him worried that the next terrorist plot could involve setting off simultaneous truck bombs in major urban centers.

"The day they blow us up," he predicted, "the border will be sealed tighter than the Berlin Wall and you'll have armed United States military forces" enforcing immigration laws. Newsmax, Nov. 20, 2005

Never forget that posse comitatus only applies to American citizens, not to invaders, and not to illegal aliens.

We can spend millions after the disaster to ensure that Caucasian grandmothers do not carry knitting needles on airplanes.
It's a shame and a sin that we can't close the barn door before the 'slamist terrorist mules get out of Mexico.

The Constitution does not allow our military forces to work inside the U.S. Only the NATIONAL GUARD (militia). This is why Ron Paul voted against our military on the border. IT SHOULD BE THE NATIONAL GUARD.

The National Guard is DOMESTIC while the military is for FOREIGN problems.

Here in Ky. the guards were supposed to go to Az. to continue building fences, they started last year.....they stopped this and are going to send them to Afghanistan!

How many more guards have been pulled from the border due to this?

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

The Constitution does not allow our military forces to work inside the U.S. Only the NATIONAL GUARD (militia).

Show me that in the Constitution, girlygirl369. Then tell it to the gunners on the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." (the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, §4)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (the U.S. Constitution, Amendment II)

The U.S. cannot protect each state against invasion with the National Guard; that belongs to the individual state. The U.S. Congress can suspend or override posse comitatus by a simple majority vote. The U.S. Congress, with a voice vote, can authorize the U.S. Armed Forces to go to war against foreign invaders inside the U.S..

The "POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385) is a Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of the Army (and later, the Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. A limit on the use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to the Navy by regulation. In Dec., 1981, additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78 ) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests).

You may find "The myth of posse comitatus" helpful.

Why is our National Guard on the borders of Iraq. Are the not military also. Military, who are they?

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

This is why Ron Paul voted against our military on the border.

The reason our military is not deployed on the border to repulse the invasion is simple:
it would offend the narco-government in Mexico.
If we don't coddle Mexico, she might turn to Hugo Chavez for comfort and consolation.
Much of Latin America is already lining up with Chavez.
But with Chavez consorting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, it would not be in our best interests
to have a Venezuela Annex along 2060 miles of our southern border.

If Canada were to move toward becoming a Sharia state (which I do not expect), we might perform similar backward back bends in Canada's direction.

Military Expands Homeland Efforts
Pentagon to Share Data With Civilian Agencies

Bradley Graham/Washington Post | July 6 2005

A new Pentagon strategy for securing the U.S. homeland calls for expanded U.S. military activity not only in the air and sea -- where the armed forces have historically guarded approaches to the country -- but also on the ground and in other less traditional, potentially more problematic areas such as intelligence sharing with civilian law enforcement.
The strategy is outlined in a 40-page document, approved last month, that marks the Pentagon's first attempt since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to present a comprehensive plan for defending the U.S. homeland.

The document argues that a more "active, layered" defense is needed and says that U.S. forces must be ready to deal not just with a single terrorist strike but also with "multiple, simultaneous" attacks involving mass casualties.

The document does not ask for new legal authority to use military forces on U.S. soil, but it raises the likelihood that U.S. combat troops will take action in the event that civilian and National Guard forces are overwhelmed. At the same time, the document stresses that primary responsibility for domestic security continues to rest with civilian agencies.

"The role of the military within domestic American society, both by law and by history, has been carefully constrained, and there is nothing in our strategy that would move away from that historic principle," said Paul McHale, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for homeland defense.

Still, some of the provisions appear likely to draw concern from civil liberties groups that have warned against a growing military involvement in homeland missions and an erosion of long-established barriers to military surveillance and combat operations in the United States.

The document acknowledges, for instance, plans to team military intelligence analysts with civilian law enforcement to identify and track suspected terrorists. It also recognizes an expanded role for the National Guard in preparing to deal with the aftermath of terrorist attacks. And it asserts the president's authority to deploy ground combat forces on U.S. territory "to intercept and defeat threats."

"It's a mixed message," said Timothy H. Edgar, a national security specialist with the American Civil Liberties Union. "I do see language in the document acknowledging limits on military involvement, but that seems at odds with other parts of the document. They seem to be trying to have it both ways."

The document, titled "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," was signed June 24 by acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and is now a basis for organizing troops, developing weapons and assigning missions. It was released late last week without the sort of formal news conference or background briefing that often accompanies major defense policy statements.

McHale, in an interview, said the new strategy represents a major shift from a reactive mind-set that existed before the 2001 attacks. The emphasis since, he said, has been on pressing U.S. defenses outward to spot and eliminate threats before they reach U.S. territory.

"The strategy's implementation hinges on an active, layered defense in depth that is designed to defeat the most dangerous challenges early, at a safe distance, before they are allowed to mature," the document says.

The assumption of the need to prepare for multiple, simultaneous terrorist attacks, McHale explained, marks a change from previous planning scenarios that had envisioned single strikes. The change is based on what McHale called a "recurring pattern" of attacks around the world by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Under the new strategy, U.S. air and naval forces will continue to improve efforts to scan and patrol approaches to the United States. Some of the moves began immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. But maritime efforts have lagged airspace measures, and even U.S. air defenses will require further improvementsto deal with potential attacks by low-flying cruise missiles and pilotless aircraft, the document notes.

The strategy draws a distinction between the "lead" role that the Pentagon intends to play in bolstering these long-established air and sea missions and the "support" role still envisioned for U.S. land operations.

Legal barriers to sending the armed forces into U.S. streets have existed for more than a century under the Posse Comitatus Act. Enacted in 1878, the law was prompted by the perceived misuse of federal troops after the Civil War to supervise elections in the former Confederate states. Over the years, the law has come to reflect a more general reluctance to involve the military in domestic law enforcement, although its provisions have been amended from time to time to allow some exceptions, including a military role in putting down insurrections, in assisting in drug interdiction work, and in providing equipment, training and advice.

Along with civil liberties groups, many senior Pentagon officials have tended to be wary of seeing troops operate on U.S. soil. Military commanders argue that their personnel are not specifically trained in domestic security, and they worry that homeland tasks could lead to serious political problems.
Still, the Pentagon has established new administrative structures in recent years in recognition of a growing military contribution to homeland defense. It set up the Northern Command in 2002 to oversee military operations in the United States. It created a new assistant secretary for homeland defense. And it designated a one-star general on the Joint Chiefs of Staff to work on the issue.
Additionally, the National Guard has been building small "civil support teams" to provide emergency assistance in the wake of a chemical, biological, nuclear or high-explosive attack. By the end of 2007, 55 of the 22-person teams are due -- at least one for each state and U.S. territory.

The new strategy notes that the Guard "is particularly well suited for civil support missions" because it is "forward deployed in 3,200 communities," exercises routinely with local law enforcement and is accustomed to dealing with communities in times of crisis. Indeed, Guard leaders have welcomed an expanded homeland security role.

But they have also argued for allowing the Guard to retain its overseas combat missions, concerned that a sole focus on civil support would undermine the Guard's ability to serve as a strategic reserve and to fight in future wars.

The new strategy calls for the development of larger sets of "modular reaction forces" to be staffed by the Guard for dealing with the aftermath of mass-casualty attacks. Officials said the composition of these forces is under discussion as part of this year's Quadrennial Defense Review, a Pentagon-wide reassessment of missions, weapons and forces.

But the homeland defense strategy also explicitly rejects the idea of dedicating these additional Guard forces to the civil support mission, saying they will remain "dual mission in nature."

In the area of intelligence, the strategy speaks of developing "a cadre" of Pentagon terrorism specialists and of deploying "a number of them" to "interagency centers" for homeland defense and counterterrorism -- a reference to new teaming arrangements with the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies. The document notes that this represents a significant departure from the Cold War when Pentagon analysts worked mostly with the State Department and the intelligence community to combat the Soviet Union.

"The move toward a domestic intelligence capability by the military is troubling," said Gene Healy, a senior editor at the Cato Institute, a nonprofit libertarian policy research group in Washington.

"The last time the military got heavily involved in domestic surveillance, during the Vietnam War era, military intelligence kept thousands of files on Americans guilty of nothing more than opposing the war," Healy said. "I don't think we want to go down that road again."
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article ... xpands.htm

Then there is the US Coast Guard, a Armed Military Organization working in our Coastal Rivers and waterways. I even Saw them assist ICE last year searching boats in the Cape Fear River looking for illegals.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

Why is our National Guard on the borders of Iraq? Are they not military also? Military, who are they?

I'm sure you know that the U.S. military consists of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and in wartime, the Coast Guard. National Guard units are activated and assigned to the Army or the Air Force, at which time they become active duty military.

I beg your pardon if I insinuated that the National Guard is not actually "the military." Strictly speaking, the National Guard is a citizen militia, which can be called to active duty as military units.