Active-Duty US Troops "Close to breaking Posse Commitatus Law"

a reply to: grey580
You'll have to ask AOC, Omar, Talib, and Pressly, they are the ones that will not fund the agency

it's racist, don't you know?

yah read some news.

are you new?

(J/K)

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

My question is: Are they breaking any law, or promise by watching non-citizens break US laws and do nothing about it?
Excuse my ignorance..
I don't think they take the same oath as police do, but it seems wrong to have them just watching foreign people break our laws right under their noses.

a reply to: thedigirati

www.politico.com...

The house did fund, at least somewhat. But my post wasn't a political attack. It was more about the wasteful spending.

Posse Commitatus seems to be a fail safe IMO. Aside from short term disaster relief (quite broad, and people can generally make that distinction), the whole point is to never let people get used to military deployed domestically.

If there is a problem that requires additional manpower to address an issue, than it needs to be done in a civilian fashion.

There are many great dangers for any nation to have their military deployed at home. These men were trained differently than someone who is employed for a job. The way command works is also very different and internalized with different ways of oversight.

Posse Commitatus is to prevent an anomaly from that kind of power being wielded by very few men who could flip different switches at their whim.

To me, it's one of those issues where it's best to keep Pandora's box closed. It's not good to get people desensitized to a domestic military presence, and frankly it's unneeded. We just need to address the problem in other ways.

I personally feel the only justifiable use of troops is to protect the homeland, stopping illegal invaders whether armed or not fits this bill for me.

I hope they get armed and are given permission to use reasonable force on anyone who doesn’t turn back before they cross into the US

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I personally feel the only justifiable use of troops is to protect the homeland, stopping illegal invaders whether armed or not fits this bill for me.

I completely understand why someone would operate under that logic, as it holds water.

My issue comes with the structure of it all. If you have border patrol agents, and their boss tells them to do something that they disagree with, they can say no and at worse get fired.

A soldier is enlisted though for ___ amount of time. They don't have the luxury of saying I quit, so they are leveraged to follow orders.

If I'm being a realist, the possibility of our military being used for nefarious reasons at home are a trivial concern to me. But the point is, there are other ways of handling this, so it would just be better off not creating a scenario where something can go tits up.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Lumenari


The Posse Comitatus Act makes no differentiation on the actions of military personnel performing policing functions vis a vis citizens versus non-citizens.

10 U.S.C. § 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

by that standard non citizens do not have to obey any of our laws as there is no differentiation?

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I personally feel the only justifiable use of troops is to protect the homeland, stopping illegal invaders whether armed or not fits this bill for me.

I agree
What good is a border if it is not protected?
It is where security should start, no?

When I was acting as law enforcement in the Army Guard after Katrina, we had M-4's with 2 rounds. Not a big deal since there was no longer a police force.

What I do remember, the locals were outraged we were carrying around these large rifles. It frightened them but that was all we had. We did have pistols, but not enough for everyone. Those are normally given to officers. I tried to get one being an officer but my Commander said no for some reason.

We could not take our rifles in stores, buildings that were still open. I guess I kinda get it, the rifles do look intimidating but most of these people were ignorant and uneducated then the media started making a big deal out of it adding fuel to it scaring them more.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

by that standard non citizens do not have to obey any of our laws as there is no differentiation?

Not sure what lead you to that outlandish conclusion.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The military and or national guard should be given full authority to take out anyone trying to invade illegally into our country, it is an invasion whether you choose to believe it or not. It hurts every day Americans. Robs us of our tax money, robs us of our jobs wich helps lower overall pay for real americans, and gives them free health care. Not to mention the criminals and drugs that cross our southern border.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody

by that standard non citizens do not have to obey any of our laws as there is no differentiation?

Not sure what lead you to that outlandish conclusion.

oh
is the law no longer enforced equally?

originally posted by: JohnS23
This only applies if you believe they are performing law enforcement duties. As far as I'm concerned it's an invasion and the military should be there and should be armed to the teeth.

Tanks, drones, mortars.....all of it.

Couple thousand dead invaders and the flow will drop to a trickle.

Make no mistake it is an invasion.

Also, these are foreign nationals not american citizens so I dont believe PC applies to them.

It is an invasion.

It's also cultural suicide.

Yes, our culture is better. But we are not protecting it.

The ball is in the Democrats court, but they won't do anything. They refuse to fund building a wall to help prevent illegal entry into the US. They refuse to help fix the loop holes in our immigration system. We shouldn't be spending 40+ Millioni a day on housing, feeding and giving medical care to migrants. They should be required to wait outside the US for Asylum paper work to be processed. The US is not the closet "safe" country for 99% of them. Mexico is a safe country.

Strange how we can come up with billions of dollars to take care of migrants, but we can't come up with money to help our homeless people get back on their feet or get the medical treatment they need. I wonder how many members of congress own stock in companies profiting off taking care of all the migrants.

a reply to: cognizant420

The military and or national guard should be given full authority to take out anyone trying to invade illegally into our country,

Lol.

Okay pal.

So why is it that everyone who is constantly trying to reduce "big government" so willing to give it powers that exceed the consitutionally outlined directives they have just to deal with a problem that could easily be dealt with differently?

Is it because people put so much trust with the current admin? Even if the current admin is to be trusted, when you allow extra powers now, it sets a precedent for the future. So people get used to a deployed military now, and then another admin comes into power they have the ability to abuse it. It's this kind of shortsightedness that brought the likes of the NSA and the Patriot Act.

We're frogs in a pot of water, and we'll never know when it's boiling.

a reply to: MetalThunder

Come on! We can't have a little thing like facts getting in the way of pushing an agenda.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

oh
is the law no longer enforced equally?

Not sure how you got to that one as well. You okay?

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The Posse Commitatus Law covers the actions of the US Military towards US citizens.

I am just going to assume that the "asylum seekers" are not, in fact, US citizens.

The writer of the article is an idiot.

I was going to say didnt we send the military to the southern boarder in the early 1900's? If it was legal then why is it not legal now?

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The Posse Commitatus Law covers the actions of the US Military towards US citizens.

I am just going to assume that the "asylum seekers" are not, in fact, US citizens.

The writer of the article is an idiot.

I was going to say didnt we send the military to the southern boarder in the early 1900's? If it was legal then why is it not legal now?

That was an armed conflict, Mexican Border War.

That's a bit different than dealing with illegal immigration, which most developed nations have to cope with.

There are better ways of dealing with this than having a constant deployment of troops performing domestic functions.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The Posse Commitatus Law covers the actions of the US Military towards US citizens.

I am just going to assume that the "asylum seekers" are not, in fact, US citizens.

The writer of the article is an idiot.

Yes, but AugustusMasonicus does make a good point above. Differentiation?

The key words "enforce domestic policy"
An invasion of any US border is not a "domestic policy"