Thread: National Guard units to be armed, close to border

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50401


Saturday, May 27, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVASION USA
National Guard units to be armed, close to border
Chief says rules of engagement allow troops to fire weapons

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of the U.S. National Guard surprised Border Patrol officials, declaring some of the troops he will send to assist them will work in close proximity to the border, be armed and allowed to fire their weapons if necessary.


Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum

"Any soldier assigned to a mission where he would be placed in harm or danger, where his life would be threatened potentially, will in fact be armed and will have the inherent right of self-protection," Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum told the San Antonio Express-News Thursday.

Federal troops are scheduled to begin deployment to the four states on the Mexican border next week once the Guard and the Defense Department approve the memorandum of understanding that will define the mission's parameters. The document will also require signatures from the border governors.

Representatives from the National Guard and the offices of the governors of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California have been meeting in Phoenix this week to craft an agreement on the use of force. The talks have focused on "harmonization" of the different states' laws on self-defense and the use of deadly force, said Texas National Guard commander Army Maj. Gen. Charles G. Rodriguez.

The rules of engagement "will be the same in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas," said Blum.


According to the current plan, the National Guard will conduct border securty operations for two years while the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs increase their numbers. The number of troops deployed at any given time would represent less than 2 percent of available Guard forces, none of which will be assigned from states likely to experience hurricanes this year.

While the Guard will assist with many support functions – conducting aerial surveillance and reconnaissance, building new roads and fences, providing intelligence and analysis to help track illegal crossings, transporting Border Patrol officers and detainees, and assisting with a number of logistics functions – some of their duties will put them in close proximity to the border and illegal crossers.

Troops stationed at vehicle inspection stations and engineers working along the border could be armed, said Blum, with M-16s, 9-mm handguns and shotguns.

"But we're not going to be carrying machine guns. We're not going to be carrying heavy weapons. We're not at war here," Blum said, adding he wants his troops "to be in a position to protect themselves."

Blum pointed to a long-standing relationship between the National Guard and the Mexican government stemming from past cooperative drug-interdiction efforts to say he doesn't believe the Guard's presence will be viewed negatively by Mexico. Among Mexicans, he said, the Guard is viewed "in a far more positive light than they would active-duty troops."

Border Patrol spokesman Todd Fraser expressed surprise that the Guard would be carrying out surveillance operations in close proximity to the border, saying his understanding was that troops would work in support roles repairing and maintaining Border Patrol vehicles, manning remote-surveillance cameras and giving agents advanced firearms training.

"As far as I know, a National Guard unit deployed along the border, right on the line, that's not a scenario I had heard about," said Fraser.

When told that Guard troops working as entry identification teams and engineers along the border would be armed and would not be required to wait for someone else to shoot at them first before using their weapons, Fraser termed the rule "silly."

"If [a Guardsman] has to fire, he has a right to fire," Blum said. "There are judgment calls that have to be made by mature, disciplined soldiers, and I'm confident that these soldiers have the discipline, the training, and the experience and judgment to make the proper call or we wouldn't be employing them in this mission."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

did they get the permission from Mexico and our unelected Vice-President to be armed?

I take this with a large grain of salt.

Will they be armed w/pepper spray?
Armed but empty?
ALLOWED to respond?

That statement is misleading.

Use your imagination and think klinton's military.... Think USS Cole...

It's called ROE.(Rules of engagement)Roe for us in afganastan at first was "if a hair raises on the back of your neck put em down."Then politicans and the press got involved.After I got out my unit went back for a second tour and I seen them on Fox news.My guys were sitting behind sandbags takeing fire and not returning fire.Roe can tie a soldiers hands or unleash a killing machine.

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

It's called ROE.(Rules of engagement)Roe for us in afganastan at first was "if a hair raises on the back of your neck put em down."Then politicans and the press got involved.After I got out my unit went back for a second tour and I seen them on Fox news.My guys were sitting behind sandbags takeing fire and not returning fire.Roe can tie a soldiers hands or unleash a killing machine.

On my way back from Dubai a few weeks ago I spoke to a "specialist" returning from Afghanistan. He said that the non-confrontational approach our military is currently taking over there had his guys taking daily sniper fire. He also said that there had been an alarming rise in the number of IEDs encoutenred.

If it wants to kill you, you should be allowed to kill it. Period. There is no excuse for any other rules of engagement for our soldiers.

Need to put the 10th Mountain on the Border.

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

Need to put the 10th Mountain on the Border.

AYE!!

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

It's called ROE.(Rules of engagement)Roe for us in afganastan at first was "if a hair raises on the back of your neck put em down."Then politicans and the press got involved.After I got out my unit went back for a second tour and I seen them on Fox news.My guys were sitting behind sandbags takeing fire and not returning fire.Roe can tie a soldiers hands or unleash a killing machine.

On my way back from Dubai a few weeks ago I spoke to a "specialist" returning from Afghanistan. He said that the non-confrontational approach our military is currently taking over there had his guys taking daily sniper fire. He also said that there had been an alarming rise in the number of IEDs encoutenred.

If it wants to kill you, you should be allowed to kill it. Period. There is no excuse for any other rules of engagement for our soldiers.

this is crazy!!! either let 'em fight or bring them home -- they are NOT sitting ducks for political correctness

According to the Eagle Forum, President Bill Clinton issued numerous Executive Orders usurping authority of Congress, the states and the citizens:

Executive Orders to Globalize our Military
Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 25 of May 1994 presumes to give himself the authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander." It enables the President to put U.S. troops under foreign command and also under foreign rules of engagement. The full text of PDD 25 has never been released.

When the Clinton Administration ordered American troops to go on a so-called "peacekeeping" expedition to Macedonia, U.S. troops were ordered to wear the United Nations uniform. The court-martialing of Army Specialist Michael New, who protested this order because it conflicted with his oath to the U.S. Constitution as well as military orders, was a watershed event on the way to abandoning the U.S. Armed Services to foreign command.

seems like the Border Patrol is already under 'foreign command'

Please pay special attention to the name of the Texas National Guard commander Army Maj. General Charles G. Rodriguez. He may be a true patriotic American, I don't know the man. However, there's that Latino/Hispanic surname again. Makes me really question everything.

Originally Posted by GodHelpUs

Please pay special attention to the name of the Texas National Guard commander Army Maj. General Charles G. Rodriguez. He may be a true patriotic American, I don't know the man. However, there's that Latino/Hispanic surname again. Makes me really question everything.

Several of the most staunch allies to the anti-immigration movement have Hispanic surnames. Among them are Sheriff Leo Samaniego of El Paso and Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr. of Zapata County. Don't be too quick to judge.