|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Context /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1542800552 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 11/21/18 at 03:42:32 |
|
Title: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/21/18 at 03:42:32 Some of the 5,800 US troops deployed to the southern US border right before the midterm election may be withdrawn as early as this week, however Trump administration officials concerned about ending the mission too soon are set on delaying their departure, according to the Los Angeles Times. The first stage of troop withdrawal would primarily consist of engineering units which have finished their task of installing razor wire and physical obstacles at border crossing points - while the original scope of the mission had authorized a deployment until December 15, unless the Department of Homeland Security requested an extension. Trending Articles Zbigniew Brzezinski's Geopolitical Strategy For US Global Hegemony "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. Powered By In a visit last Wednesday to the Texas border town of Donna, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis said that troops would be finished installing barriers and other initial tasks within a week to 10 days, although he said additional requests for help from the Department of Homeland Security were expected. -LA Times That said, if an extension is approved, officials told The Times "the goal is to have all the troops home by Christmas." According to a defense official, officials are discussing whether to grant troops authority to use "proportional" force to protect Border Patrol personnel in the event of violence from the migrants, according to CNN. Troops at the border are currently prohibited from using force except for self-protection. A decision to permit troops to provide security to the Border Patrol would represent a significant expansion of their mission. It could also raise questions about whether the mission is in compliance with a U.S. law that prohibits active troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement functions. The Pentagon had rejected a similar proposal in internal deliberations before the troops were originally deployed in late October, according to the official, who spoke about the deliberations in return for anonymity. -LA Times The move comes as thousands of Central American migrants arrive in Tijuana, where the locals are not taking too kindly to their neighbors from the South. The migrants, seeking asylum in the United States, may be stuck in Tijuana for months. Tijuana mayor Juan Manuel Gastelum has referred to the arrival of so many migrants at once an "avalanche," and says the city will struggle to take care of them. He calculates that they will remain in the city for at least six months as they go through the process of filing asylum claims. At a rate of around 100 applications per day, US border inspectors won't be able to process all 3,000 names currently registered in a notebook that the migrants assembled en route. Donald J. Trump [ch10004] @realDonaldTrump The Mayor of Tijuana, Mexico, just stated that “the City is ill-prepared to handle this many migrants, the backlog could last 6 months.” Likewise, the U.S. is ill-prepared for this invasion, and will not stand for it. They are causing crime and big problems in Mexico. Go home! 110K 12:42 PM - Nov 18, 2018 Twitter Ads info and privacy 46.9K people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy Along with engineering units, the Pentagon sent military police, helicopter units, logistics, public affairs, a small number of infantry and other types of military specialists to the border. The push to begin withdrawing some troops more quickly, as first reported by Politico, comes from US commanders who insist there is no reason to keep the troops away from their families at Thanksgiving once their assigned missions are completed. Trump officials, however, may be concerned that a wide-scale withdrawal will fuel criticisms that the deployment was a political stunt designed to drive GOP voters to the polls during midterms. Some Democratic lawmakers have vowed to launch congressional investigations of the operation when they take control of the House in January. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/23/18 at 10:57:41 I say let them conduct investigations. Nowhere has it been a standard to implement engineering units beyond their designated capacity and then keep them in theatre in roles they are not designed for. The investigation should show that engineers are not used for law enforcement, and do not maintain deployment at the locations of their structures or design. This is domestic law enforcement, not only is it useless to keep infrastructure personnel along the border, its illegal if they take on law enforcement duties. I've had to explain this to a lot of people who think "withdrawal" means all these enlisted personnel are packing up and driving away. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/23/18 at 17:33:28 This is domestic law enforcement, not only is it useless to keep infrastructure personnel along the border, its illegal if they take on law enforcement duties. No, it's not. Defending the BORDER is a military job. Protecting the country from Invasion IS a military action. Armed or not, an invasion is an invasion. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/23/18 at 19:38:18 Incorrect. This is not classified by any technical means through wartime conventions as an "invasion". We can hash out the semantics all day long but as of now this is not considered a foreign invasion by any branch that allocated resources for such an event. If it were then the Presidential and House authorizations that are happening right now wouldn't be happening. Just saying "invasion" doesn't make it so. Saying "invasion" a million times doesn't change the Posse Comitatus restrictions. If anything they should be saying this is drug interdiction which allows more widespread permissions. And for all the geniuses saying that the USMC and Navy are not mentioned in the act they need to brush up on 32 C.F.R. Section 213.2, 1992. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/23/18 at 20:58:21 Whatever suits you. Hundreds or thousands of UNinvited, unwanted, people coming into a place Is An Invasion |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/23/18 at 23:01:11 You can call it that, but that's not meeting the criteria to mandate military personnel to take part in domestic law enforcement per US law. Say invasion 10 million times and it still wont change the law. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/23/18 at 23:23:06 It's the Job of our military to protect our borders. That we have allowed it to be Demilitarized over the years changes nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/24/18 at 01:39:58 You are right, demilitarizing the border has not changed Posse Comitatus. Its still illegal if its domestic law enforcement, CBP and ICE are domestic and as such military involvement needs the steps being taken now. Those steps are taken because if they weren't it would be illegal, no matter how many times its called an invasion, say it more and more and the law doesn't change. Say its the military's job to protect the borders, as much as you want, and the law still doesn't change. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/24/18 at 01:46:40 Domestic law enforcement That's law enforcement against Americans. Foreigners who are trying to illegally enter America really don't have a constitutional right. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by MnSpring on 11/24/18 at 07:09:39 3C2325223F3809390931232F64560 wrote:
If the Mayor of Tijuana Mexico, says something, (that others believe is a ‘bad’ thing to say) Would that person be, Racist ? ? ? |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/24/18 at 07:46:09 Why do we have Posse Comitatus.? To limit the government from being able to use the military against its own people. Not to limit the government from being able to secure the border. Misunderstanding the Reasons Why laws exist is causing problems. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by WebsterMark on 11/24/18 at 07:52:02 To limit the government from being able to use the military against its own people. Correct. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/24/18 at 08:04:11 Why a law exists, and how it is used today are two different things. If it weren't adjusted then nuclear proliferation wouldn't be a thing as we as citizens would be allowed to have armament including ballistic warheads. Its in the 2nd Amendment after all. If this is an actual invasion why does the President agree to, and utilize the authorization process instead of using the use of force standard? Because of the law. Why is it so hard to understand that what you are seeing put into practice right now is not a response to an invasion by the US military, because its not an invasion according to the US military? Keep saying its an invasion, say it more and more, say domestic law enforcement is the military over and over and see if that changes the law, and how its applied today. The process being used is due to law, not due to anyone being able to just say whatever they want to use the military however they think it should at the time. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/24/18 at 08:12:01 Why a law exists, and how it is used today are two different things. That's a bizarre statement. Why a law exists doesn't matter if you can twist the original intent to do something else? Posse Comitatus exists SOLELY to protect Americans from the government. Period. You can rave on about how words aren't what they are, invasion is invasion. And Trump is in his rights to protect the border with military and protect our border patrol agents with military. Why is that so, you may ask. Because the military is not being used Against Americans... |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Serowbot on 11/24/18 at 08:16:17 These "invaders" are stopping at the border to apply for asylum, and asking for jobs... Did the Nazis do that?... |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/24/18 at 08:29:13 "Why a law exists doesn't matter if you can twist the original intent to do something else?" Yes. The 2nd Amendment allows us to bear arms, but for some reason we can't own ballistic warheads, or even rocket launchers or just an anti-aircraft gun. Something to do with applying that Amendment to todays existing situation instead of re-writing that Amendment, and we all know how people here feel about re-writing that one. Posse Comitatus was implemented to apply to Americans, at the time, but as it is written it limits the use of military, without taking the steps being done now, of integrating and being used as domestic law enforcement. CPB and ICE are domestic law enforcement. No invasion stops that from being true. CBP and ICE are getting assistance from the US military because nobody that allocates resources considers this an invasion. No amount of typing invasion and complaining to your friends changes that. So if CBP and ICE are domestic law enforcement, and the military is integrating and implementing resource allocation as designated by ICE and CBP, the US military is assisting domestic law enforcement. If they said it was drug interdiction then it would be a different story, because Posse Comitatus as its applied today, because drug trafficking changed after the law was written, allows for US military resources to be allocated without House direct involvement for drug interdiction. So keep crying invasion and see if that works, or see if calling it drug interdiction, which is permissable, allows for more resource allocation. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/24/18 at 08:29:26 Are they now? I wonder why. And since they were OFFERED asylum by Mexico, and some took it, and since it was offered and not accepted in Mexico, we have no obligation. Maybe you don't understand the difference between immigration policy and asylum seekers and their needs. I'm not gonna try to deliver that instruction. If you're ESCAPING from a place where you are being persecuted by the government, There is a start... |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/26/18 at 01:08:09 Doing the JOB of ice or bp is outside the rules. Protecting them from attacks by Foreigners isn't. Why are you so determined read a law that was intended to protect Americans from the government using the military against them in a way that limits our ability to control the influx of people into our country ? |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/30/18 at 05:57:05 "Why are you so determined read a law that was intended to protect Americans from the government using the military against them in a way that limits our ability to control the influx of people into our country ? " I'm not. I agree with you. However the actual things that are happening at the border, and how the President is handling the implementation through the House reflects through actual actions, procedures and orders is that the US Military is not defending against an invasion. Call it one all day, tha actual procedures being used today is not a response to an invasion, but by all means keep saying it is. The actions, procedures and orders of the current, and past administrations is that the US Military is not to integrate and directly assist domestic law enforcement, like CBP and ICE with their duties unless it is through drug interdiction. You can say that's not how Posse Comitatus reads all day and that still doesn't change how the US Military is ordered to integrate with domestic law enforcement. When the border wall rush took place and the gas started being disbursed the enlisted personnel were ordered to move barriers only. That action reflects that the administrative section do not consider this an invasion - even if people at keyboards across the country say it is. I indicated that it is illegal for the US Military to take on law enforcement duties: "its illegal if they take on law enforcement duties." What part of that is indicating that the US Military can not protect CBP or ICE? They can, if it falls within the ROE and isn't them doing the job of CBP or ICE. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/18 at 11:18:16 Explain how you're able to infer their belief about it Not being an invasion because of just moving barriers. Let's see, people rushing your border, UNinvited.. You're repelling WHAT when you use gas and barriers? My DICTIONARY calls that an Invasion. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by LostArtist on 11/30/18 at 12:40:01 how many rushed the border, what, like 500?? into a country of 370 million..... oh no!!!!! we're being overrun!!!! ::) get a new dictionary |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by Eegore on 11/30/18 at 13:08:39 "My DICTIONARY calls that an Invasion." Well your DICTIONARY isn't what's used to analyze the situation. Maybe looking in more detail to Title 10, U.S. Code Sections 161–168 will help clarify how these situations are evaluated. Then look into the Joint Chiefs of Staff force integration models and tell me how in any way the current situation is being treated as an invasion. Keep calling it an invasion that doesn't change the response, orders or actions that have actually happened. I do not feel that when enlisted personnel are ordered to assist moving barriers, and not to engage, assist or implement ROE during the collective rush towards a fence line is a mobilization of forces to repel an invasion. That would be defined as a logistical support action, not a repelling force action. The US Military is not fighting an invasion, also it is getting permission to assist in limited capacity domestic law enforcement. Obviously everyone, including the President is doing this wrong way, they should just grab a DICTIONARY instead of using the current methods we are witnessing right now. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/18 at 16:41:57 Keep calling it an invasion that doesn't change the response, orders or actions that have actually happened. They may not be TREATING them as an invading force, because they are not armed. Doesn't change the FACTS. Any group from outside, who have no right or invitation to enter, Are By definition An Invading Force. If they weren't Trying To invade, tear gas and barriers wouldn't be necessary. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by MnSpring on 11/30/18 at 16:53:22 5A4C5B465E4B465D290 wrote:
They did not, willingly, ’stop’ to ask. If they were not stopped by, gate/wall/fence/etc. They would have marched right in. And many, were not hindered by a, gate/wall/fence/etc. as they tried to defeat that thing, and invade, any way they could. before being repelled, by humane methods. |
|
Title: Re: Context Post by WebsterMark on 12/01/18 at 06:27:12 726D6B6C71764777477F6D612A180 wrote:
Imagine a scenario where the illegals were predominantly likely Republican voters. We would not be having this conversation. A wall would already be up. Perhaps conservatives should take a page from the leftist and begin a fake news campaign demonstrating the illegals will vote Trump in 2020. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |