Trump says he’ll guard Mexican border with military

[Fantom]

It isn't just about will, it is the legality. The military, including the National Guard who go through the same training and have the same ROI rules, will not fire on unarmed civilians, even crossing illegally. They are bound to Geneva Convention rules. They can block or detain, but all the whoops and hollars from some hoping for an armed respond just isn't going to happen.

@AbaraXas

What Geneva Convention rules apply here? The Geneva Conventions are wartime rules. 

As for an armed response to control our borders. Well within Geneva.

[Fantom]

For one, it's an AP story on Yahoo, since they're primarily an aggregate site.  Secondly, yes, he will - because it's in line with what has been previously done and conforms with the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts, where the military cannot be used to enforce law, with certain exceptions.  This situation doesn't fall under the exceptions.

Border control is a military function. That we have not used military to do so for a while does not change that.

Posse Comitatus  is the use of the military for internal law enforcement. Martial law is the exception. I would argue that internal enforcement of our immigration law is an extension of border enforcement. Of course martial law could be declared in a limited zone..say within 20 miles of the border.... that is another route.

Insurrection act.... California and oregan come to mind.

[edpc]

Border control is a military function. That we have not used military to do so for a while does not change that.

Posse Comitatus  is the use of the military for internal law enforcement. Martial law is the exception. I would argue that internal enforcement of our immigration law is an extension of border enforcement. Of course martial law could be declared in a limited zone..say within 20 miles of the border.... that is another route.

Insurrection act.... California and oregan come to mind.

None of those declarations have been made, nor will they be.  Plenty of US citizens live within 20 miles of the border and wouldn't like living in a zone under these conditions -the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews; the suspension of civil law, civil rights, and habeas corpus; and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians.

[Fantom]

None of those declarations have been made, nor will they be.  Plenty of US citizens live within 20 miles of the border and wouldn't like living in a zone under these conditions -the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews; the suspension of civil law, civil rights, and habeas corpus; and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians.

Last first as is my wont.

Your restrictions as to martial law are fluid. As such any or more could be imposed or deleted. Citizens could be exempted from any application. True, they might have to show papers.

However, using the military to control the border would not even need a martial law declaration. That is what the military is supposed to do.

I would go further, if to control our border our military needs to go twenty miles into mexico... impose martial law there... then so beit.

[edpc]

However, using the military to control the border would not even need a martial law declaration. That is what the military is supposed to do.

I would go further, if to control our border our military needs to go twenty miles into mexico... impose martial law there... then so be it.

Using the military to control the border has limits in this case.   There is no natural disaster, declaration of emergency, or declaration of war. All they could do is monitor the border and report activity to the border patrol. Those are the only people that could arrest violators and detain them, enforcing US law. Your other suggestion is absurd. Without permission from Mexico, that’s an invasion and declaration of war.

[Cyber Liberty]

The military would only be effective in an operation if they are allowed to shoot, and they won't be so this is an idiotic gesture.

[Fantom]

Using the military to control the border has limits in this case.   There is no natural disaster, declaration of emergency, or declaration of war. All they could do is monitor the border and report activity to the border patrol. Those are the only people that could arrest violators and detain them, enforcing US law. Your other suggestion is absurd. Without permission from Mexico, that’s an invasion and declaration of war.

Last first as is my wont. Not a declaration of war.. just an undocumented deployment of force.  A declaration of war is already in force from Mexico.

You are wrong that only the border patrol can arrest/detain invading forces. We have allowed that nicety... but ultimately the military.. under the control of the Commander in Chief..... The President of the United States. Has full authority to control the border.

[libertybele]

Last first as is my wont. Not a declaration of war.. just an undocumented deployment of force.  A declaration of war is already in force from Mexico.

You are wrong that only the border patrol can arrest/detain invading forces. We have allowed that nicety... but ultimately the military.. under the control of the Commander in Chief..... The President of the United States. Has full authority to control the border.

Trump has the full authority to defend our country against all enemies; foreign and domestic.  Defend is the key word here.  He also has full authority when it comes to national security.

[edpc]

Last first as is my wont. Not a declaration of war.. just an undocumented deployment of force.  A declaration of war is already in force from Mexico.

You are wrong that only the border patrol can arrest/detain invading forces. We have allowed that nicety... but ultimately the military.. under the control of the Commander in Chief..... The President of the United States. Has full authority to control the border.

I’m not wrong and it’s the entire reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists.  They cannot perform law enforcement duties unless certain conditions are met, which we’ve already covered.

[libertybele]

I’m not wrong and it’s the entire reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists.  They cannot perform law enforcement duties unless certain conditions are met, which we’ve already covered.

They wouldn't be performing law enforcement duties, rather they would be defending our national security. There is a difference.  Those coming over our borders are invading our country period.  Trump has a right to defend this country from invasion.

[Fantom]

They wouldn't be performing law enforcement duties, rather they would be defending our national security. There is a difference.  Those coming over our borders are invading our country period.  Trump has a right to defend this country from invasion.

  yes indeed

[edpc]

They wouldn't be performing law enforcement duties, rather they would be defending our national security. There is a difference.  Those coming over our borders are invading our country period.  Trump has a right to defend this country from invasion.

OK, then tell me what measures will they take to defend the border, once someone steps across it?

[Chosen Daughter]

It isn't just about will, it is the legality. The military, including the National Guard who go through the same training and have the same ROI rules, will not fire on unarmed civilians, even crossing illegally. They are bound to Geneva Convention rules. They can block or detain, but all the whoops and hollars from some hoping for an armed respond just isn't going to happen.

I sure don't want them to shoot unarmed people.  If they are trained they know when to shoot.  But putting them on the border unarmed makes no sense.  The border is a Mexican Mafia business.  Drugs, human trafficking, rape, murder it all happens there.  Our military should be able to respond to deadly threat.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/08/doj-report-nearly-half-fed-crimes-near-mexican-border/

[mystery-ak]

I’m not wrong and it’s the entire reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists.  They cannot perform law enforcement duties unless certain conditions are met, which we’ve already covered.

You and Victoria are right...they will only be doing work that will free up the border agents and provide air surveillance..they talked about this tonight on Fox....my problem is if this is the case why do they need thousands of troops.

[edpc]

You and Victoria are right...they will only be doing work that will free up the border agents and provide air surveillance..they talked about this tonight on Fox....my problem is if this is the case why do they need thousands of troops.

I don’t have a problem with thousands of troops covering a very large border on a rotating basis to keep it secure, if and until a wall is built.  Some, however, need to temper expectations that there will be some sort of shoulder to shoulder bayonet wielding wall of troops doing the job. 

[mystery-ak]

I don’t have a problem with thousands of troops covering a very large border on a rotating basis to keep it secure, if and until a wall is built.  Some, however, need to temper expectations that there will be some sort of shoulder to shoulder bayonet wielding wall of troops doing the job.

From what I have heard and read that isn't going to happen..it's more of a show of force.

[Sanguine]

From what I have heard and read that isn't going to happen..it's more of a show of force.

And, that's not going to intimidate the cartels one little bit.   

[edpc]

From what I have heard and read that isn't going to happen..it's more of a show of force.

Then, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and the taxpayers’ money for the purpose of political spectacle.

[Smokin Joe]

And, apparently an exception is possible but would be politically difficult, at best.

It has been done, just a century ago.

https://www.army.mil/article/162413/on_the_border_the_national_guard_mobilizes_for_war_in_1916

https://history.army.mil/news/2015/150200a_mexicanWar.html

Especially:

http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Matthews_op22.pdf

[Sanguine]

It has been done, just a century ago.

https://www.army.mil/article/162413/on_the_border_the_national_guard_mobilizes_for_war_in_1916

https://history.army.mil/news/2015/150200a_mexicanWar.html

Especially:

http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Matthews_op22.pdf

Thanks, @Smokin Joe.  I couldn't remember what it was called. 

[Night Hides Not]

And, that's not going to intimidate the cartels one little bit.   

Drug cartels have more lethal firepower than weekend warrior units, and they train more often, too.

They don't need no steenkin' rules of engagement, either.

[Cyber Liberty]

It has been done, just a century ago.

https://www.army.mil/article/162413/on_the_border_the_national_guard_mobilizes_for_war_in_1916

https://history.army.mil/news/2015/150200a_mexicanWar.html

Especially:

http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Matthews_op22.pdf

Apparently they didn't keep the lesson, because it's the Mexicans at it again.

[txradioguy]

Drug cartels have more lethal firepower than weekend warrior units, and they train more often, too.

They don't need no steenkin' rules of engagement, either.

The cartels have also had a history of paying off Mexican Army units stationed along the border to provide them cover fire as they bring their cargo across the border.

[Smokin Joe]

Drug cartels have more lethal firepower than weekend warrior units, and they train more often, too.

They don't need no steenkin' rules of engagement, either.

Which is reminiscent of the Pancho Villa raids and the Border Wars of 1910-1919. Different faces, different names, but the same general principles. Only, with the cartels, the effects of their depredations have been felt farther afield in the US. We have better technology and weaponry, now, and the ability to strike in a far more surgical fashion, if the need arises.

[truth_seeker]

Especially:

http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Matthews_op22.pdf

Excerpt:

"Since the mid-19th century, the United States has frequently employed the US Army on its southern border to perform various roles in support of the Nation—from outright war, to patrolling the border, to chasing bandits while securing persons and property on both sides of the border, and most recently to supporting civil law enforcement and antidrug efforts. Events since 9/11, such as the recent deployment of National Guard Soldiers to the Mexican border, are only the latest manifestation of this long tradition. This 22nd Occasional Paper in the Combat Studies Institute (CSI) Long War Series, The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective, by CSI historian Matt M. Matthews, reviews the lengthy history of the US Army on the Mexican border and highlights recurring themes that are relevant to today’s ongoing border security mission. Between 1846 and the early decades of the 20th century, the US Army carried out its security missions under a variety of hardships imposed by the massive length and ruggedness of the border. The shortage of soldiers to police the new and oft-disputed border also proved especially problematic. Mexican domestic politics and US-Mexican international relations greatly affected the Army’s operations. Since the 1920s, the Army’s role has been dramatically different, ranging from noninvolvement to varied forms of support to local, state, and Federal civilian agencies. Mr. Matthews’ narrative brings to light these complexities and makes for compelling reading. The ongoing, post-9/11 debate over the military’s role in securing our Nation’s southern border makes this paper important reading for today’s Soldiers. While current and future missions will not mirror those of the past, the historical record is replete with insights and lessons learned from the Army’s past that are timely and relevant today. CSI—The Past Is Prologue!"

-----------

Should put to rest, #nevertrumpian claims he can't do what he stated.