Here we go...National Guard at Border May Be Armed for Self Defense ....

[LongTermGuy]

ForBloggingOutLoud)) (https://twitter.com/fboLoud)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/803646136867110915/SslMwqo6_bigger.jpg



May be Armedhttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/2753.png, they MUST be Armedhttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/2757.png


National Guard at Border May Be Armed for Self Defense

************************************************** ************
Members of the Texas National Guard wait for Gov. Greg Abbott to speak about security on the Mexico-U.S.

border on April 12 at Sergeant Tomas Garces Texas Army National Guard Armory in Weslaco, Texas. (Loren

Elliott/Reuters)



National Guard troops at the U.S.-Mexico border could be armed for self-defense purposes when they are deployed there, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol told reporters.

Chief Ronald Vitiello told reporters the decision on whether to arm the trooper will be left to the governors of each border state, especially if those troops are on missions that might force them to defend themselves,

https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/national-guard-armed-border-self-defense/2018/04/17/id/854881/

[revelarts]

um, anybody Got any Constitution to go with that domestic deployment of military troops within the border?

I didn't say "excuses" "wants" or "fears" I said constitution.
and please don't give me some strained definition of "invasion" unless you want troops to shoot every man woman and child they see approaching the U.S..

(sadly i suspect some of you would love that though. It'd be great video for the left news... and Trumps next run. "Mexican kids shot dead by U.S. troops". What kind of nightmares will the troops have after that crap?)

[darin]

um, anybody Got any Constitution to go with that domestic deployment of military troops within the border?

I didn't say "excuses" "wants" or "fears" I said constitution.
and please don't give me some strained definition of "invasion" unless you want troops to shoot every man woman and child they see approaching the U.S..


Happens all the time after natural disasters. What does the constitution say about domestic deployment of the military? Do you know how Posse Comitatas may or may not apply to National Guard Soldiers when within their state?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

um, anybody Got any Constitution to go with that domestic deployment of military troops within the border?


I didn't say "excuses" "wants" or "fears" I said constitution.
and please don't give me some strained definition of "invasion" unless you want troops to shoot every man woman and child they see approaching the U.S..

(sadly i suspect some of you would love that though. It'd be great video for the left news... and Trumps next run. "Mexican kids shot dead by U.S. troops". What kind of nightmares will the troops have after that crap?)

If there is justification to have troops there then certainly is justification for them to be properly armed to defend themselves.
And that means with loaded weapons not empty ones.
They are not Federal troops.......
They are being deployed under the order of the States/governors.
And yes, they should be shooting the drug-smugglers...as they the smugglers are killing our kids with their damn poison.
Rev. , why arent you showing any sympathy for the many thousands of dead American victims, many of them innocent kids ??
And now you do not have to -- ""suspect""--, as I say what I mean openly and fear no man..--Tyr

[revelarts]

Happens all the time after natural disasters. What does the constitution say about domestic deployment of the military? Do you know how Posse Comitatas may or may not apply to National Guard Soldiers when within their state?

Seriously, "national emergency"? really?
Aren't we really just trying to do basic immigration control here. but it seem like every president STRAINS the use of legal terms to get more control,
Why not just call marshall law ... you know ... since it a "national emergency" and be done with the pretense of a constitution that constrains the president at all.
Then they can just take our guns too.
Add military to the cops and immigration folks already on the street checking Ids "papers please" .

I'm sorry but i just weary of the left and the right straining EVERY fear/"concern" they have into a "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" so the gov't and military can exercise more power and take away more rights.
--LOOK there's another school shooting! --WE Have to take guns away! look Australia did it! it's for the Children! the CHILDREN AHHHH!---
--LOOK there's another illegal Mexican with MY job... or MY Welfare! --we have to put military troops on the boarder to defend us from INVASION!, its a National emergency LIKE a HURRICANE, it's for the Children! AAHHHHH!--

And i'm like, What the H3ll
---"well cough, i'm not afraid i'm just very "concerned" and we "HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

Say sincere folks on the left and the right.

But every "something" they propose pisses on our freedoms, our laws and constitution.
And both sides are FINE with it as long as they "FEEL" SAFER.

like i said i'm tried of it. It literally turns my stomach man.

[Gunny]

Seriously, "national emergency"? really?
Aren't we really just trying to do basic immigration control here. but it seem like every president STRAINS the use of legal terms to get more control,
Why not just call marshall law ... you know ... since it a "national emergency" and be done with the pretense of a constitution that constrains the president at all.
Then they can just take our guns too.
Add military to the cops and immigration folks already on the street checking Ids "papers please" .

I'm sorry but i just weary of the left and the right straining EVERY fear/"concern" they have into "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" so the gov't and military can exercise more power and take away more rights.
--LOOK there's another school shooting! --WE Have to take guns away! look Australia did it! it for the Children! the CHILDREN AHHHH!---
--LOOK there's another illegal Mexican with MY job... or MY Welfare! --we have to put military troops on the boarder to defend us from INVASION!, its an National emergency LIKE a HURRICANE, AAHHHHH!--
And i'm like What the H3ll
---"well cough, i'm not afraid i'm just very "concerned" and we "HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

says sincere folks on the left and the right.

And every "something" they propose pisses on our freedoms, our laws and constitution.
And both sides are FINE with it as long as they "FEEL" SAFER.

like i said i'm tried of it. It literally turns my stomach man.you're so smart. Man the fuck up and take him on, rev. I got popcorn and time.

[Elessar]

um, anybody Got any Constitution to go with that domestic deployment of military troops within the border?

I didn't say "excuses" "wants" or "fears" I said constitution.
and please don't give me some strained definition of "invasion" unless you want troops to shoot every man woman and child they see approaching the U.S..

(sadly i suspect some of you would love that though. It'd be great video for the left news... and Trumps next run. "Mexican kids shot dead by U.S. troops". What kind of nightmares will the troops have after that crap?)

You trot out 'Constitution' with every single issue that you are ignorant of and do not bother
to educate yourself about.

National Guard is under STATE Control unless federalized. They have NOT been federalized
for these missions.

Yes, they have a right to self-defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

"All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246."
There is Federal Law! USC (US Code of Federal Regulations) is recognized Federal Law. There is your 'Constitution'

[Black Diamond]

You trot out 'Constitution' with every single issue that you are ignorant of and do not bother
to educate yourself about.

National Guard is under STATE Control unless federalized. they have NOT been federalized
for these missions.

Yes, they have a right to self-defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

"All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246."
I am curious. Was national guard federalized for Iraq war?

[Elessar]

I am curious. Was national guard federalized for Iraq war?

Yes it was. It has to be in order to be deployed and augment federal troops.

[revelarts]

You trot out 'Constitution' with every single issue that you are ignorant of and do not bother
to educate yourself about.
National Guard is under STATE Control unless federalized. they have NOT been federalized
for these missions.
Yes, they have a right to self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
"All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246."


So how exactly does the president with the DOD ORDER the troops and the governors to put troops on the boarder Elesar?
If the States are in FULL control why are Trump and feds calling the shots?
Is that another legal problem?

Look it's weird to me that many on the right supposedly see immigration as a horrible problem of simply "breaking the law" but don't mind "breaking the law" to fix it.

But OK let's say it's as dire a problem as many say it is. it's a freakin' "national disaster" level issue. An Invasion!
Drastic measure must be taken!!!
OK fine.

Trump is commander and chief of the arm forces and he's the head of ICE, Immigration, the boarder patrol, the FBI and several other agencies that deal with boarder security and immigration.
Why not ask or even order (if possible) 10,000 or 20,000 troops to switch from military service to federal jobs in the proper agencies that handle boarder security and immigration?
Get them the proper training and authority to capture, arrest, detain, process and deport. (as well as of course defend themselves).
If it's such a dire emergency and all that.

By definition the National Guard is not a permanent solution to anything. Most of those guys and gals have regular jobs right? It's unfair to them. As well as being inefficient, since they have no real training or legal authority to arrest or do anything really BUT defend themselves.

Am i talking crazy here?

Just seems to me the federal order is a lame (as well as illegal) distraction from not being able to get the wall going.
And if the problem on the boarder is a LACK of MANPOWER in the proper agencies, then just fill out the agencies somehow becasue .. well it's just a national disaster right?

[Elessar]

National Guard is trained in riot and crowd control.

They are paid the equal of active duty paygrades.

Trump REQUESTED and did NOT ORDER the Guard to support
the security of the border states. The final decision to send them comes
from the state government, when not Federalized.

[revelarts]

"National Guard is trained in riot and crowd control."
Yes and many other military functions but not domestic U.S. boarder patrol, police work, or immigration work.

Plus if they are going to skirt the law they aren't going to be able to much of anything but OBSERVE the boarder.
And maybe train some boarder patrol guys in how to drive a jeep, use a military firearm or fly a helicopter and the like.

It's not going to be much real help.
Again it seem more like something for "show" rather than a real solution , it's not even a temporary one.

[jimnyc]

I hope they're locked and loaded. If anyone comes to our border making demands of entry and other demands, deny them entry. No need to have an itchy trigger finger, but if they don't take no for an answer, and try to get physical, then locked and loaded baby!!

But I'd be happy to see some ass kickin's given out to anyone thinking they can barge or demand their way in.

[CSM]

"National Guard is trained in riot and crowd control."
Yes and many other military functions but not domestic U.S. boarder patrol, police work, or immigration work.

Plus if they are going to skirt the law they aren't going to be able to much of anything but OBSERVE the boarder.
And maybe train some boarder patrol guys in how to drive a jeep, use a military firearm or fly a helicopter and the like.

It's not going to be much real help.
Again it seem more like something for "show" rather than a real solution , it's not even a temporary one.

Just to clear up a few things.... National Guardsmen have many skill sets applicable to border control that range from logistics, communications, command and control of operations of all types, intelligence gathering and analysis, guarding and transporting prisoners, feeding, engineering and construction and a host of other skills. US military personnel employ a host of skills beyond shooting bullets and catching incoming fire....

[revelarts]

Just to clear up a few things.... National Guardsmen have many skill sets applicable to border control that range from logistics, communications, command and control of operations of all types, intelligence gathering and analysis, guarding and transporting prisoners, feeding, engineering and construction and a host of other skills. US military personnel employ a host of skills beyond shooting bullets and catching incoming fire....

Yes i know I've lived around and worked with military, army, navy and airforce.
But boarder patrol/immigration is by definition domestic law enforcement, ANY of those military skill sets used to that end by the national guard would be in defiance of the posse comitatus.
breaking the law.

if they happen to be on the boarder observing and someone approaches the boarder then they can "defend themselves" but beyond that they have no legal authority or specific training.

[Gunny]

So how exactly does the president with the DOD ORDER the troops and the governors to put troops on the boarder Elesar?
If the States are in FULL control why are Trump and feds calling the shots?
Is that another legal problem?

Look it's weird to me that many on the right supposedly see immigration as a horrible problem of simply "breaking the law" but don't mind "breaking the law" to fix it.

But OK let's say it's as dire a problem as many say it is. it's a freakin' "national disaster" level issue. An Invasion!
Drastic measure must be taken!!!
OK fine.

Trump is commander and chief of the arm forces and he's the head of ICE, Immigration, the boarder patrol, the FBI and several other agencies that deal with boarder security and immigration.
Why not ask or even order (if possible) 10,000 or 20,000 troops to switch from military service to federal jobs in the proper agencies that handle boarder security and immigration?
Get them the proper training and authority to capture, arrest, detain, process and deport. (as well as of course defend themselves).
If it's such a dire emergency and all that.

By definition the National Guard is not a permanent solution to anything. Most of those guys and gals have regular jobs right? It's unfair to them. As well as being inefficient, since they have no real training or legal authority to arrest or do anything really BUT defend themselves.

Am i talking crazy here?

Just seems to me the federal order is a lame (as well as illegal) distraction from not being able to get the wall going.
And if the problem on the boarder is a LACK of MANPOWER in the proper agencies, then just fill out the agencies somehow becasue .. well it's just a national disaster right?Want to play? I'm in the mood. Noting illegal about it. Definition. National guard. What does that say? Duh ... i don't know gunny.

You're damned right you don't know. You can;t take on me, Y can't take ob AT, SO just who the fuck can your lame ass take on/ Mommy ... gunny's picking on me ....Oh fucking wah.

[CSM]

Yes i know I've lived around and worked with military, army, navy and airforce.
But boarder patrol/immigration is by definition domestic law enforcement, ANY of those military skill sets used to that end by the national guard would be in defiance of the posse comitatus.
breaking the law.

if they happen to be on the boarder observing and someone approaches the boarder then they can "defend themselves" but beyond that they have no legal authority or specific training.

Nice try but posse comitatus does not apply to National Guard under state governor control; even if used in another state under certain circumstances. There are other circumstances that apply as well which boils down to the Guard has no authority to arrest or detain (even then they can be used to "assist").

If they were "federalized" posse comitatus would apply as it does with Federal Military forces.

As for specific training, that is indeed a red herring. I presume that since you (generic you) personally have no specific training in writing opinions, you cannot apply your writing skills(generic your) to expressing any opinions...

[Gunny]

if i quit laughing

[jimnyc]

Hilarious watching someone try and question a CSM as if he didn't know exactly what he's talking about.

[CSM]

Hilarious watching someone try and question a CSM as if he didn't know exactly what he's talking about.

Make no mistake, I understand what Rev is saying and understand his concerns. I am merely clarifying some misconceptions that MANY folks have about posse comitatus and how it applies. Did you know that it does not apply to Marines and the Navy (at least not in the Act itself) but it is applicable because of DoD regulation....

[Gunny]

Make no mistake, I understand what Rev is saying and understand his concerns. I am merely clarifying some misconceptions that MANY folks have about posse comitatus and how it applies. Did you know that it does not apply to Marines and the Navy (at least not in the Act itself) but it is applicable because of DoD regulation....Nope. We can hit the ground. Fine print rev.

I'm taking CSM with. And AT. At's got the boat ,, come one ... I can be deployed punk.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

um, anybody Got any Constitution to go with that domestic deployment of military troops within the border?

I didn't say "excuses" "wants" or "fears" I said constitution.
and please don't give me some strained definition of "invasion" unless you want troops to shoot every man woman and child they see approaching the U.S..

(sadly i suspect some of you would love that though. It'd be great video for the left news... and Trumps next run. "Mexican kids shot dead by U.S. troops". What kind of nightmares will the troops have after that crap?)
Did you have a melt down when the kenyan did it?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/trump-is-not-first-president-to-send-national-guard-soldiers-to-us-mexico-border.html

[Abbey Marie]

They'd better be armed; I don't want even one of our guys hurt.
You know these Central American guys do not mess around.

You don't want to get shot? Don't try to sneak into our country illegally. Capice?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Make no mistake, I understand what Rev is saying and understand his concerns.
His "concerns," are the same ones all democrats are having, and that is president Trump is going to cut off the inflow of NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS, on top of deporting DEMOCRAT VOTERS that are already here illegally.

Democrats don't personally give a rats ass about illegals. I assure you, if they voted REPUBLICAN, this is what you'd see...

https://image.ibb.co/g3WMcS/dem_wall.jpg

Democrat hypocrisy is epic, and their faux outrage is a farce.

[LongTermGuy]

His "concerns," are the same ones all democrats are having, and that is president Trump is going to cut off the inflow of NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS, on top of deporting DEMOCRAT VOTERS that are already here illegally.

Democrats don't personally give a rats ass about illegals. I assure you, if they voted REPUBLICAN, this is what you'd see...

https://image.ibb.co/g3WMcS/dem_wall.jpg

Democrat hypocrisy is epic, and their faux outrage is a farce.

Oh...Yeah....

[revelarts]

Nice try but posse comitatus does not apply to National Guard under state governor control; even if used in another state under certain circumstances. There are other circumstances that apply as well which boils down to the Guard has no authority to arrest or detain (even then they can be used to "assist").
If they were "federalized" posse comitatus would apply as it does with Federal Military forces.

All good points.

If i remember correctly i think, some time ago, you mentioned (i could be wrong but i think it was 'specifically you') that you've worked with "civilian" law enforcement while on duty, "assisting" them in some drug work.

But, on it's face, it seems the code would prohibit that completely.
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

But it seems I have to concede that it is legal. Because it's the governors, and because of the many later statutory additions that created various exceptions. Some that you refer to. Though i'd argue that many of the exceptions gut the spirit of the law. Like so many other laws and civil protections that have been diluted over the decades and especially after 9/11.


As for specific training, that is indeed a red herring. ..
A red herring? Because the Guards activities will be so limited you mean?
I'd guess some guardsmen have various law enforcement experience but they will not be able to use it to "arrest, detain or even interact with immigrants " it seems. Even under the orders of the Governors.
So like a said before, i don't see it as helpful in any significant way.
Though, again, I will concede it is legal, as long as all the caveats you mentioned are are followed.


And it seems to make the MAGA folks happy for now. So it's quality politics on Trump part.

[CSM]

All good points.

If i remember correctly i think, some time ago, you mentioned (i could be wrong but i think it was 'specifically you') that you've worked with "civilian" law enforcement while on duty, "assisting" them in some drug work.

But, on it's face, it seems the code would prohibit that completely.
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

But it seems I have to concede that it is legal. Because it's the governors, and because of the many later statutory additions that created various exceptions. Some that you refer to. Though i'd argue that many of the exceptions gut the spirit of the law. Like so many other laws and civil protections that have been diluted over the decades and especially after 9/11.


A red herring? Because the Guards activities will be so limited you mean?
I'd guess some guardsmen have various law enforcement experience but they will not be able to use it to "arrest, detain or even interact with immigrants " it seems. Even under the orders of the Governors.
So like a said before, i don't see it as helpful in any significant way.
Though, again, I will concede it is legal, as long as all the caveats you mentioned are are followed.


And it seems to make the MAGA folks happy for now. So it's quality politics on Trump part.

There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

Army and Air National Guard units and state defense forces while under the authority of the governor of a state.

Federal armed forces used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case of the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. The only exemption is nuclear materials.

Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command.

Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957.

Provide surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement on operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism missions.

Additionally:

In December 1981, the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act was enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to domestic law enforcement agencies and 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, and aircraft, as well as intelligence support, technological aid, and surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of U.S. military personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests).

Rev, you are intentionally ignoring the contributions that Guardsmen make in securing the border (i.e. Intelligence, surveillance, communications, etc.). I can assure you that Guardsmen are indeed well trained in those skills. I don't know what else to add except that it appears you are intentionally taking the stance you are presenting because you WANT the introduction of National Guard assistance to be purely political and of no other value. I happen to think you are far more intelligent than that.

[Elessar]

Make no mistake, I understand what Rev is saying and understand his concerns. I am merely clarifying some misconceptions that MANY folks have about posse comitatus and how it applies. Did you know that it does not apply to Marines and the Navy (at least not in the Act itself) but it is applicable because of DoD regulation....

It does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard, either: 14 USC 89. https://www.google.com/search?q=14+USC+89&oq=14+USC+89&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.7928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


14 USC 2: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-14-coast-guard/14-usc-sect-2.html

[revelarts]

There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:

Army and Air National Guard units and state defense forces while under the authority of the governor of a state.

Federal armed forces used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case of the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. The only exemption is nuclear materials.
Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command.
Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957.
Provide surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement on operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism missions.
Additionally:
In December 1981, the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act was enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to domestic law enforcement agencies and 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, and aircraft, as well as intelligence support, technological aid, and surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of U.S. military personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests).

Rev, you are intentionally ignoring the contributions that Guardsmen make in securing the border (i.e. Intelligence, surveillance, communications, etc.). I can assure you that Guardsmen are indeed well trained in those skills. I don't know what else to add except that it appears you are intentionally taking the stance you are presenting because you WANT the introduction of National Guard assistance to be purely political and of no other value. I happen to think you are far more intelligent than that.

It seems you keep assuming that i'm saying that the guard are UNABLE to perform various jobs.
I'm not.
I KNOW the Guard and all military branches have people that have the skills/training and are ABLE do ANY and ALL jobs.
But the DOD and the Governors have said that their roles will NOT include law enforcement. "They will not perform law enforcement functions, and they will not be placed in direct contact with personnel coming to the border,"
But are you saying that everyone of the 4000 guardsmens to be assign know exactly how to do all the boarder patrol and immigration work, know all the rules, all of the specific tools, and details of the that work without any prior training doing it with the guys that have been doing it for years?
I mean I know the guard are great people but seriously? I'm just putting a realistic face on it.
maybe i should Assume they can walk into boarder patrols doors sit down and get busy doing it all. But i'm not sure why i'd assume that CSM.
I'm not trying to diminish anything.

Concerning the Act I mentioned various caveats to the act,. I found 2-3 pages worth of statutes that make various exceptions to the posse comitatus. But as i said the "assistance" to law enforcement exceptions you mention are among those that seem to pretty clearly gut the act IMO.

And Yes, "Little Rock" very good, and then there's also the "Branch Davidians" not so good. Actually that one is exactly the kind of thing that concerns me.
For me it's not a question of whether or not the Guard OR the Military are CAPABLE to help, OF COURSE SOME/MANY are trained in the specific jobs and can. And if they had to they could take over the border security job completely. It's mainly a question of whether or not they should. And from what ive read the DOD and the governors have rightly limited their roles and duration.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1494860/dod-dhs-outline-national-guard-role-in-securing-border/
So IMO it's limited to the point where it's a bit more for show than to super enhance Border Security.

But hey maybe 4000 extra people in "operations" is all that the boarder needs.

[CSM]

It seems you keep assuming that i'm saying that the guard are UNABLE to perform various jobs.
I'm not.
I KNOW the Guard and all military branches have people that have the skills/training and are ABLE do ANY and ALL jobs.
But the DOD and the Governors have said that their roles will NOT include law enforcement. "They will not perform law enforcement functions, and they will not be placed in direct contact with personnel coming to the border,"
But are you saying that everyone of the 4000 guardsmens to be assign know exactly how to do all the boarder patrol and immigration work, know all the rules, all of the specific tools, and details of the that work without any prior training doing it with the guys that have been doing it for years?
I mean I know the guard are great people but seriously? I'm just putting a realistic face on it.
maybe i should Assume they can walk into boarder patrols doors sit down and get busy doing it all. But i'm not sure why i'd assume that CSM.
I'm not trying to diminish anything.

Concerning the Act I mentioned various caveats to the act,. I found 2-3 pages worth of statutes that make various exceptions to the posse comitatus. But as i said the "assistance" to law enforcement exceptions you mention are among those that seem to pretty clearly gut the act IMO.

And Yes, "Little Rock" very good, and then there's also the "Branch Davidians" not so good. Actually that one is exactly the kind of thing that concerns me.
For me it's not a question of whether or not the Guard OR the Military are CAPABLE to help, OF COURSE SOME/MANY are trained in the specific jobs and can. And if they had to they could take over the border security job completely. It's mainly a question of whether or not they should. And from what ive read the DOD and the governors have rightly limited their roles and duration.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1494860/dod-dhs-outline-national-guard-role-in-securing-border/
So IMO it's limited to the point where it's a bit more for show than to super enhance Border Security.

But hey maybe 4000 extra people in "operations" is all that the boarder needs.

Restrictions placed on National Guard operations by various governors and DoD is a whole different debate. I have no doubt that there is some political theater behind that as well. Whether or not Guardsmen SHOULD be deployed is also another debate. I am not trying to convince anyone of the "correctness" in doing so. I am merely clarifying the legality of such deployment and, as an aside, that Guardsmen are more than capable (as well as trained) in fulfilling many roles contributing to and enhancing the effectiveness of border operations.

I agree that there should be restrictions on what functions Guardsmen perform while deployed to the Border. Your example of the Waco incident is a good one.... Kent State comes to mind as well. I do not think anyone wants to see a bunch of illegal immigrants mowed down in a hail of gunfire from a company of National Guard infantrymen. However, I also have no doubt there are "right wing extremists" that would love to see that happen just as there are "left wing extremists" who will assert (and sincerely hope but for a different reason) that it will happen.

Good discussion Rev. Thanks for keeping it civil!!!

[CSM]

It does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard, either: 14 USC 89. https://www.google.com/search?q=14+USC+89&oq=14+USC+89&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.7928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


14 USC 2: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-14-coast-guard/14-usc-sect-2.html

Yep.... I did not intentionally disregard the Coast Guard. I just assumed that folks understood that the Coast Guard (at least in peacetime) was exempt. Don't really know why I would assume that.