GUARD to the US-Mexico Border ???

[Brett327]

Back to the original intent of this thread; does the president have the authority to deploy the national guard for this purpose (posse comitatus?).

A much misunderstood concept whose origins were a result of antebellum politics. Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, rest assured that the executive branch has fully vetted its legality, at least to the satisfaction of their counsel. I'm sure the focus will be on securing the homeland against terrorists rather than the LE aspect of illegal immigration.

Brett

 

[boobcheese]

rest assured that the executive branch has fully vetted its legality, at least to the satisfaction of their counsel
Brett

Yes, blindly taking the word of those appointed over you is always a good idea.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Anaheim, Venice Beach, um... some other parts.

Now, Santa Barbara... THAT'S a nice city.

Well, that's why. Beverly Hills is full of self-serving douchebags, and Venice Beach and Hollywood is full of bums. The San Fernando valley in places like Encino and Tarzana and Sherman Oaks isn't bad, Van Nuys isn't too shabby either. I'm surprised you think Anaheim is a sh!thole, it's really not that dirty or crime ridden. Heck, even the barrios and Compton/Inglewood/Watts areas aren't even that bad. The key to enjoying Los Angeles is knowing which parts of the city to avoid, but Downtown(Chinatown, Little Tokyo, and Olvera Street particularly) is nice when it's not rush hour, and Malibu and Santa Monica a good places to visit.

And as Brett said, the food is great.

 

[Brett327]

Yes, blindly taking the word of those appointed over you is always a good idea.

Like it or not, that's kind of our business.

Brett

 

[BigRed389]

A much misunderstood concept whose origins were a result of antebellum politics. Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, rest assured that the executive branch has fully vetted its legality, at least to the satisfaction of their counsel. I'm sure the focus will be on securing the homeland against terrorists rather than the LE aspect of illegal immigration.

Brett

And on another note...we've had CG and Navy vessels helping to deal with drug smugglers in the Gulf.
And AWACS units helping to track smuggling aircraft.

That's pretty clearly a law enforcement task right there, even though they're not Guard.

 

[Fly Navy]

And on another note...we've had CG and Navy vessels helping to deal with drug smugglers in the Gulf.
And AWACS units helping to track smuggling aircraft.

That's pretty clearly a law enforcement task right there, even though they're not Guard.

Earth to BigRed389.... The Coast Guard is a law enforcement agency.

 

[BigRed389]

Earth to BigRed389.... The Coast Guard is a law enforcement agency.

Coast Guard!? Who said anything about Coast Guard? CG meant...guided missile cruiser...yeah...that's what I meant. <whew, think I covered that one nicely>

 

[Brett327]

And on another note...we've had CG and Navy vessels helping to deal with drug smugglers in the Gulf.
And AWACS units helping to track smuggling aircraft.

That's pretty clearly a law enforcement task right there, even though they're not Guard.

Actually, it's not. WRT counter-drug ops, the military is only able to play a supporting role. That's why any arrests or boardings have to be done by the USCG or other embarked LE officers. Posse Comitatus is alive and in effect. Even though Reagan identified the narcotics trade as a "clear and present danger to the national security," the military role is essentially limited to surveillance and transportation of LE officers.

Brett

 

[TXHusker05]

Yea, posse comitatus is very carefully observed in all of these cases. The Navy can gatner the intel on the smugglers, the Navy ship can chase the smugglers down and disable their boat if need be... but the Coast Guard detachment on the ship has to do the search and arrest.

It would be a very similar thing if the National Guard was deployed by the President at the border. They could provide intel and watch various spots at the border, but all they can do is call up the Border Patrol and get them out there. Now, the operation might work a bit better if Border Patrol agents were deployed with the Guard troops. It would be very much like the Counter Drug operations the Coast Guard and Navy have been doing for years, with the added effect of the Border Patrol.

I don't even think it would need to be permanent, a month of tough enforcement of the borders might get the message across.

 

[eddie]

I don't even think it would need to be permanent, a month of tough enforcement of the borders might get the message across.

That's like daming up a river, leaving it for a month, coming back, removing the dam, and expecting the river to remain in its damed state.

There's no quick fix here.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Ah yes, Posse Comitatus rears its ugly head again to unsuspecting military servicemen (or future servicemen) that blindly accept the notion that our military cannot act in a law enforcement role. The Posse Comitatus "Act" is really not a piece of legislation in and of itself. It was a rider (an addition) to a house appproprations bill for the army in 1878. The use of troops as a posse has its roots in marhals putting together their own posse comitatus to find fugitive slaves. Attorney General Caleb Cushing issued a statement in 1854 to help with this process, known as the Cushing Doctrine, that basically told military commanders that they and their troops (regulars and state militia) would help local law enforcement in their duties as a posse. This became the precedent for the next 24 years. The purpose of the Posse Comitatus "Act" was not to limit the President's authority to use troops to aid in law enforcement. It was to prevent local marshals from pressing troops into service as a posse WITHOUT the President's express permission.

If you are really curious and want the background of what I'm talking about, I recommend two books.

1) The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders 1789-1878, by Robert W. Coakley
2) The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders 1877-1945, by Clayton D. Laurie and Ronald H. Cole

 

[A4sForever]

There's some misinformation and misunderstanding re: Posse Comitatus and what the original intent of the law was .... (meaning "the power of the -- COUNTY") ... not pointing any fingers ... don't get all hot and excited, people.

"County" ... you know, as in "County Sheriffs" ... part of the rationale was to return the US Army from the slippery slope of domestic law enforcement concerns .... to guess what:

DEFENDING THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES ....

The law originally didn't apply to the USN/USMC -- they didn't DO domestic "posse" stuff and, or course the then non-existent USAF.

By the way ... @ the early 80's -- thanks Ronnie ... the "law" was modified to enable US military assets, especially Reserves --- aircraft, facilities, technology ... whatever --- to be used to support Federal agencies in the drug "war". The only real question was ... "sooooooooooo ... If they shoot at us ... what do we do ... ?"

You figure it out ... and read up on Posse Comitatus.

For a quick and dirty treatise without reading a whole book ... try:

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm

 

[Brett327]

These days, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to lump the drug cartels into the same group as the other non-state actors that we consider terrorists. While their motives are different, both groups would probably have no qualms about shooting at American officials should the get in the way of their criminal/terrorist operations. I'll throw this out for debate: We've deployed troops (for better or worse) to places like the Balkans, Somalia and Haiti for peace keeping/enforcement operations. We even sent the military to discharge an arrest warrant for one complexion challenged Panamanian ruler. Should there be a distinction between military restrictions on domestic LE, and enforcement of US or international laws abroad or on the high seas?

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

These days, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to lump the drug cartels into the same group as the other non-state actors that we consider terrorists. While their motives are different, both groups would probably have no qualms about shooting at American officials should the get in the way of their criminal/terrorist operations.

They already do, in fact. Border Patrol has been fired on repeatedly by drug runners and members of the Mexican Army that are running protection for the drug runners.

 

[A4sForever]

^ Brett's got a good point, people.

Remember the days when the FBI was used ONLY for domestic federal law enforcement??? At least in theory. We're in a different world now ... GLOBALISM ... a GLOBAL ECONOMY ... one world. All that tripe ...

If we can send the US Army Rangers to Panama (used to be a GREAT place :icon_smil) to get La Cara de Pina ... then we can use the National Guard to .... GUARD (?) the US borders.