It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deadly Force Authorized-On US Southern Border for Migrants Behaving badly Straight from the Top!

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

No no no he doesn't have the authority to do this. He lied and you believed him. Only congress can declare war.We are not a war with these refugees. Jesus help me deal with these people.


Better read up on the War Powers Act dearie.



+2 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

This isn't about "war," it's about ILLEGAL aliens attempting to enter our country and who might use objects to injure or kill our Border Patrol agents. Since 2010, rocks have been used to attack Border Patrol agents, nearly 2000 times. Deadly force can be used at ANYTIME at the border, without congress approval. Hopefully, NO ONE from either side will get injured or killed at the border, but I stand with my fellow American Border Patrol agents and military and pray for THEIR safety...not the illegals trying to force themselves into my country. What side do you stand on lady?

From the U.S. CUSTOMS and BORDER PROTECTION webpage:


Deadly force is authorized anytime there’s a reasonable belief a subject "poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person," according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection policy.



Across the nation, violent, targeted attacks against law enforcement officers are increasing. In 2016, 64 officers nationwide were killed by gunfire, a 56 percent increase over 2015. More officers died in the line of duty in 2016 than during any year since 2011, according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund. Border Patrol agents are among the most attacked law enforcers in the country. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, there were 7,542 assaults against agents since 2006; 1,996 rock attacks since 2010.

www.cbp.gov...



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The last thing anyone wants is women and children getting harmed.

Of course those snips are the type to use them as human shields.

Good,bad or indifferent. National sovereignty is on the line.

If we can't defend our own border from would be aggressors(and they are).

This nation becomes a bigger laughing stock than it already is(political bullsnip).

The entire system of government is at stake.

Doesn't matter one GD bit if you like or dislike Trump on this issue.

The repercussions are global.
edit on 1-11-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This look like a good place to use that microwave weapon.www.youtube.com...

edit on 1-11-2018 by 00018GE because: add link



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheJesuit

They are forbidden to use their weapons at the border. Period. Congress would have to declare war and that isnt going to happen. Ive seen the reports they are not allowed to use deadly force. They wont even have guns.


I dont know what makes you believe that but your wrong. They have been deployed before with weapons.

www.militarymuseum.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: projectvxn
I told people here that this is exactly what would happen. People think the military being used like this is illegal. They're about to learn what is and isn't true.


www.militarytimes.com...


PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.
That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

Instead, their role will largely mirror that of the existing National Guard troops — about 2,000 in all — deployed to the border over the past six months, including providing helicopter support for border missions, installing concrete barriers and repairing and maintaining vehicles. The new troops will include military police, combat engineers and helicopter companies equipped with advanced technology to help detect people at night.


This is worth pointing out again, because people are stupid and got some serious hard-ons for ideas that aren't gonna happen.

Look, I don't mind the military actually protecting borders, because if they're not, then they're pointless to keep paying. But in the legal context of what they can do on domestic soil, it's only in an auxiliary capacity. What damn part of this is so difficult to understand? They're not in charge down there, they're fixing s# and building s#. not playing Rambo.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

President talking at a presser is not ROE for any military action.

A politician can make whatever statement they want but it is at best a suggestion to the military, and I cant see Mattiss buying off on a free fire order on civilians as long as fire arms are not being used against the military.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I think the plan may be they build baracades and tent cities for migrants. Seems to be the general plan.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Nyiah

I think the plan may be they build baracades and tent cities for migrants. Seems to be the general plan.

Pretty much. They're not there to lead round-ups or snipe people off, because they legally can't.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

You know, it just occurred to me, with all the facial recognition tech we have now, we could literally sort an illegal border crossing, and just shoot the known criminals, as they come across. Every casualty a known felon.

Feed the rest, and fly them back home. Pretty sure the financial support would dry up, almost immediately.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Guys, this is more 4D chess from the GEOTUS.

Hear me out:

GEOTUS states there’s not much difference between stones and guns. He’s going to propose a reduction to the defense budget by replacing all firearms with rocks. Rocks are infinitely cheaper, and since there isn’t much difference our profound business man, non-politician, President has found a way to cut cost without risking safety for the troops.

Once the GEOTUS proposes the cuts, the libtards will flip out and oppose. They will demand an increase to the defense budget, which the GEOTUS will gladly sign.

The liberals never learn and the GEOTUS wins again. Literally kills two birds with one stone.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This is something that's been weighing on my mind heavily. I realize the extra troops and Nat Guard are being deployed to assist border patrol with logistics and what not, but what if that "perfect storm" hits, and the unruly migrants refuse to back off? It's a bit of a scary situation.

I have seen the footage of migrants being handed money, and I have also observed a great many young men that seem to make up the majority of the crowds. And the riots... The unadulterated disregard for the nations and their laws. I don't wish to see them cross. I pray that it can be solved if not diplomatically, then at the very least without violence and riots at the borders. We've all seen the clips of the riots and disregard at other borders on the way through. Will it get better, or will there be a clash like no other at the border.

This will be interesting, and perhaps a bit scary, to watch unfold.
edit on 11/1/2018 by Slinki because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gothmog

President talking at a presser is not ROE for any military action.

A politician can make whatever statement they want but it is at best a suggestion to the military, and I cant see Mattiss buying off on a free fire order on civilians as long as fire arms are not being used against the military.


But reinforcing what is in the military code is
So , you think Mattis is the highest ranking military commander in the US?
You are not from around these parts , are you ?





posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Again IF the president wants to really push the point, and IF the Sec def wants to roll over and just do whatever to secure his job then yes your paranoia MIGHT have a point.


The Sec Def is a man of honor who wont roll over, that's part of the reason Obama Administration got rid of him... err encouraged him to retire.


Everything I have read says they are there purely for support, the border patrol will do all hands on work the military will be there for backup (in case they try the same thing they did to mexico) and logistics support.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah
So if an invading army steps on U.S. soil the military will operate 'only in an auxiliary capacity'?

That's an argument for stronger 2nd Amendment rights.

There are almost no women and children in this caravan. They know they're not welcome here, they were offered the 'American Dream' in other countries but declined, and now they face the threat of the U.S. military at the border. They will be held responsible for their own desision.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Well if a cop can shoot someone because they felt threaten whether the guy was armed or not, then why not this?

We can always say... Why did you bring a rock to a gun fight?
edit on 2-11-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I wonder what some of you think why the the military and borders even exist in first place?

edit on 2-11-2018 by verschickter because: gobbled up grammar-



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheJesuit




we will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference where you get hit in the face with a rock..."


trump thinks theres no difference being hit in the face with a rock and being hit in the face with a bullet.
what a moron.


There are countries that still execute people with rocks. It’s called stoning. A fist can kill, what do you think a rock can do? Trump is about as moronic as Thomas Edison. You are the one that’s constantly wrong.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I do believe the trump supporters forsee a hoard charging across the border?

If they present at a crossing in an orderly fashion they will be let in and processed in accordance with the law. Where does your orange god and his bull**** bravado stand then?
edit on 2-11-2018 by blackrabbit1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:17 AM
link   
"treating it as a firearm" is not the same as "if someone throws a rock we will shoot at them". It could mean that person will be identified and not allowed in, they may be detained, they could use nonlethal, there are a lot of options behind that wording he used. Treated as a firearm could mean they will be charged and treated the same way as a person who has been caught after firing a firearm at our military.

Maybe they will be imprisoned as an enemy combatant or some other Legal catagory that would allow them to be shipped off to Guantanamo or some kind of military tribunal?




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join