Thread: AZ Army soldiers prohibited from taking part in MMP

http://svherald.com/articles/2005/04/05 ... /news1.txt


Minuteman Project:

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 1:19 PM MDT

Concern for safety is reason; group member says

By BILL HESS

Herald/Review

FORT HUACHUCA - Senior commanders on this southern Arizona Army post have told soldiers they may not take part in patrolling the border with Minuteman Project volunteers.

In a memo to soldiers assigned to the Network Enterprise Technology Command, Maj. Gen. James Hylton prohibited those assigned to his organization, to include the 11th Signal Brigade, "from participating in any active patrolling, monitoring or other intentional act associated with identifying and/or detaining illegal immigrants, either through an organized group, or on you own."

However, a former soldier, whose wife is still in the Army, said Hylton overstepped his authority in denying soldiers the right to take part in what he sees as defending homeland security.


NETCOM spokesman Eric Hortin, said the reason for the memo "boils down to safety."

"We don't want to put a soldiers in a situation where they could be hurt or killed," Hortin said. "The command does not want soldiers to place themselves in any situation that could pose a danger to themselves or others."

Post spokeswoman Tanja Linton, said the same prohibition was issued to soldiers assigned to the garrison and the 111th Military Intelligence Brigade by those units' commanders - Col. Jonathan Hunter and Col. Thomas Kelley, respectively.

Hortin said Hylton's undated memo does not forbid soldiers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants they may encounter unintentionally.

The memo also does not prevent soldiers from joining any lawful group, including the Minuteman Project, as long as involvement does not fall into the prohibited activities of patrolling, monitoring or any other act to identify and detain illegal immigrants, Hortin empathized.

But Dan - who asked his last name not be used for fear of retaliation against his soldier wife - said he has signed up as a Minuteman Project volunteer and his wife would like to take part in the activities during her off-duty time.

"My wife is pretty upset," Dan said. "It's legal (the project). It's like a neighborhood watch."

If protecting the border is dangerous, so is driving a car and smoking off-duty, which the general should then prohibit, he said.

In his memo, Hylton stated his concerns about the Minuteman Project.

"This group has stated an intent to conduct twenty-four-hour patrols throughout the San Pedro Valley and along the United States/Mexican border to alert the Board Patrol about the presence of illegal immigrants.

Many of these citizens plan to arm themselves while conducting these patrols," the memo states.

Border Patrol and local officials have publicly stated concerns about the project "due to the lack of training in conducting such patrols, and the possibility of mistaking each other as illegal immigrants," Hylton's memo stated.

As part of a recruiting drive, Minuteman Project co-organizer Jim Gilchrist sought to have people with law enforcement and military experience join the effort to patrol the border in a month-long program.

Friday, the effort began with registration of volunteers, some will stay for all of April and others who will come or go.

Gilchrist and co-organizer Chris Simcox, the owner of a Tombstone newspaper, said more than 1,000 people from all 50 states have volunteered0.

Dan said he believes the general got false intelligence information and bad legal advice from fort personnel.

He has forwarded his concerns to the Army senior legal staff asking them to override Hylton's prohibition. Comments from Army headquarters could not be obtained.

Hortin said the memo was well-staffed, to include legal officials on the post. Linton echoed that saying the garrison and brigade directions were also approved by the post staff judge advocate.

The fort's senior legal officer Col. Rafael Lara disagrees with Dan's perception of the reason for the directions to soldiers by Hylton, Hunter and Kelley.

The prime reason was to ensure soldiers did not put themselves into an unsafe situation, Lara said.

Information the fort had from Border Patrol officials was that a "catastrophic" situation could take place which would be dangerous, he said.

Army command policy allows commanders to prohibit soldiers from engaging in some activities if safety is an issue and safety was the prime reason for the decision, Lara said.

A minor peripheral reason was concern that if soldiers did participate they may be in violation of the federal Posse Comitas act, which forbids America's armed forces from engaging in any activity that has a law enforcement aspect unless martial law is declared, the colonel said.

But, Lara emphasized that soldier safety was the overriding reason.

"Soldiers' constitutional rights are not inhibited," Lara said because they can join the Minuteman Project they just cannot take part in certain prohibited actions.

Dan said he expects to start patrolling in a couple of weeks because the organizers are scheduling volunteers to make sure there are enough available to cover the entire month.

As for Hylton's decision, he said, "While soldiers die in Iraq, a general in the United States takes away soldiers' off duty constitutional rights."

ERALD/REVIEW senior reporter Bill Hess can be reached at 515-4615 orat bill.hess@svherald.com.

Nice post Darlene. From this story, I would opine that our military leaders should stop acting like timid progressively correct (PC) politicians and start acting wike the warriors we hired to protect us (we thought). sheesh.

At least there is an Army Base close by in case the Mexican Army attacks.

“Army command policy allows commanders to prohibit soldiers from engaging in some activities if safety is an issue and safety was the prime reason for the decision, Lara said.�

This is a oxy moron statement if you ask me, then why is it ok for the command in chief to send our military personal to Iraq and else where but when it comes to them wanting to put their lives on the line at protecting our borders they are refused? This just makes me boil, I think it is wrong for those to not allow military personal to participate in action that is a threat and they also believe in and want to allow their abilities to be used for a useful cause. In my eyes it doesn’t look legal in view and I might be wrong. Though I guess when going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan it is ok to put those lives on the line, but when it comes to our own citizens and our sovereignty it isn’t ok.

Acidrain

Originally Posted by Acidrain

“Army command policy allows commanders to prohibit soldiers from engaging in some activities if safety is an issue and safety was the prime reason for the decision, Lara said.�

This is a oxy moron statement if you ask me, then why is it ok for the command in chief to send our military personal to Iraq and else where but when it comes to them wanting to put their lives on the line at protecting our borders they are refused? This just makes me boil, I think it is wrong for those to not allow military personal to participate in action that is a threat and they also believe in and want to allow their abilities to be used for a useful cause. In my eyes it doesn’t look legal in view and I might be wrong. Though I guess when going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan it is ok to put those lives on the line, but when it comes to our own citizens and our sovereignty it isn’t ok.

Acidrain

I agree. This is nothing more then Political Correctness run amok.

"We don't want to put a soldiers in a situation where they could be hurt or killed," Hortin said. "The command does not want soldiers to place themselves in any situation that could pose a danger to themselves or others."

Then what the Sam Hades are we doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Kosovo, Cuba, Kuwait, Colombia and countless other foreign countries that pose a life threatening situation everytime our troops step foot on their soil? We can protect everyone elses borders except our own. This is such garbage. I'm surprised that Bush hasn't sent in the National Guard to quell the MMP from doing a peaceful protest.

If we're that concerned about our troops then pull them out of Iraq and Afghanistan now for starters and send them home. Why do we even have a military if they aren't allowed to defend our homeland?

If we're that concerned about our troops then pull them out of Iraq and Afghanistan now for starters and send them home. Why do we even have a military if they aren't allowed to defend our homeland?

See how misguided I am? That's exactly what I thought our military was about...protecting America. Danged if I knew that all they were for was to protect foreign countries.

RR