White House authorizes 'lethal force' by troops at border. What does it mean?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Immigration activists, federal officials and reporters wrestled Wednesday with interpretations of a White House memo authorizing “a show or use of force (including lethal force, where necessary)” by the troops deployed on the border with Mexico.
The directive specified the purposes for which force could be used as “crowd control, temporary detention and cursory search.” Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Secretary of Defense James Mattis downplayed the likelihood of a serious clash, saying he envisioned the use of troops for “minutes” as a first response to an emergent threat. Enforcement will continue to be the responsibility of customs and Border Patrol officers.
The directive, which was first reported by the Military Times , immediately raised concerns about the role of approximately 5,900 U.S. troops that were rushed to the southwest border last month to confront groups of mostly Central American migrants traveling in caravans through Mexico toward the United States.
In what was viewed by many as a political ploy ahead of the midterm elections, President Trump ordered the troops to the border as a show of force against the migrant caravans, which at that point were still several weeks away from the U.S. Trump described the refugees as an “invasion” and an imminent national security threat.
...
Nonetheless, concerns remain about potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 federal law prohibiting active-duty military forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement within the United States.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declined to comment on how the new authorities outlined in the memo would impact current operations at the border, where troops have largely been playing a supportive role, laying concertina wire and helping install additional barricades and fencing near ports of entry. A spokesperson for the Department of Defense could not be reached for comment.
Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan Washington think tank, pointed out that the memo authorizes the troops to engage in such activities at the direction of the secretary of defense.
“The important thing is to watch and see whether any of these authorities are actually given to the troops,” Cancian said, adding that Mattis has “ not done that, and I doubt if he will.”
Cancian also observed that the language of the memo seemed designed to recognize the limitations imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act, specifically a line that states U.S. troops “shall not, without further direction from the President, conduct traditional civilian law enforcement activities, such as arrest, search, and seizure.”
...
read more https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-authorizes-lethal-force-troops-border-mean-231255042.html
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
232 visitors
my guess is trump will gladly give *further direction* if they get violent.
Hopefully Mattis we be the adult in charge
and the news alone will dissuade bad behavior at the border.
Mattis has now said troops at the border will be unarmed...
This is a great move. It will deter the enemy illegal alien invaders from trying to forcefully enter our country.
Yep, gotta them there illegal alien invaders out of our 'Murka. I'd hate to have my daughter Murry one of these guys,
Here's a little something you might have skipped over in reading the article,
If you notice, it doesn't say firing on civilians.
the asylum seekers should move all the women and children up to the front and shelter them in a series of makeshift creches that can be photographed by the media for the benefit of hypocritical conservative scum for the next 35 days. repainting the faces of all the mannequins brown in creches in front of churches in this country would be hilarious this time of year.
Wait I thought you were going to be backing them up on the border?
if they come thru south texas... as for cali? they have rightwingnuts near tijuana also.
but wait....
what does that have to do with trumps orders to the military? perhaps you missed something.
I don't take orders from anyone... LOL
happy thanksgiving
cheers
Tell that to the Infantry units that just deployed from Fort Bragg with full compliment of weapons just short of Mortar and Artillery pieces.
Tell them what JRNC?
That they are expected to shoot unarmed people on either side of the border in defiance of Mattis's orders or international standards and treaties with Mexico??
Really?
When was the last time you were allowed to carry on base if not an MP or ACIS?
Posse Comitatus.........if it falls, we are one step closer to anarchy...
The Act prohibits the Army (specifically the Army, but the Air Force is included) from enforcing domestic policy within US borders. I don't know if there is settled law on the matter (I doubt it) but it seems like that might not include repelling people from entering the country without permission (i.e. invaders). That actually sounds more like a fundamental role of the Army.
Even if immigration law is considered "domestic policy" the Army would not be the party enforcing that law. i.e., they probably wouldn't be apprehending or processing anyone trying to enter illegally. At most, they would be pushing them away with a show of force. Border Patrol would be doing the arresting and processing.
Yeah, that particular act as you have it described here doesn't mean what you think it does, that is for repelling a military force, I don't believe that these folks, mostly women and, children qualify.
BS. They are not mostly women and children. Stop listening to the leftist media drivel.
Take a look at the video. Does that look like women and children pushing their way through the Mexican police/military?
If you want what happened at the US border that did in Mexico; then you hamstring the US military and remove lethal force as an option. The caravan will find the weakest point on the border, mass up, and push their way in. You want to be responsible for damage and injuries when these "non violent" illegal immigrants force their way into our country? If you let this caravan gain access- then the two or more that already forming up again in South America will do the same thing.
Also, who is promoting and paying for this caravan? If it is Putin he is not doing Trump any favors (So much for the puppet theory). Who else has so much to gain by putting Trump in this position. Funny I don't hear anyone on the left calling for an investigation.
Gods I hope so, killing women and, children isn't what the United States Military exists for. That distinction belongs to military's like this one,
Uh, there are investigations ongoing. Wait for them. They are coming to a close, Trump testimony or not.
So, how do you define "military force?" Do they have to be marching behind a foreign flag? Because they are.
Would it help if they were a large mass of young men of fighting age? Have a look at that picture. That's what I see. I'm not seeing "mostly women and children." It's not a sea of moms with baby strollers. I see a buttload of young men.
Would it help if they showed they were willing to use force to cross another country's border? Because they've done that already.
Would it help if they were marching with support from a foreign government? Well, while I wouldn't say the support was as strong as it could be, but their government is at least showing solidarity with the invasion. Maybe that makes them pirates.
Honduran ambassador's march with caravan migrants in Mexico called 'political theater
Do they need to have weapons? Well, throwing rocks might be primitive, but they're still weapons, and they can be deadly.
WATCH Migrant Caravan Throw Rocks at Mexican Border Guard Helicopter
So, on the whole, I'd say repelling this invasion looks like it might be a job for the US military. What else do you need to see? A military force doesn't need to be impressive or sophisticated.
They do need to be stopped, and they might actually be able to overwhelm whatever resistance the Border Patrol can muster. Why put our own good people at risk when we can support them with the military?
Then I guess these people are a military force as well, maybe we should shoot them on site,
I mean according to you this makes them a military force.
Oh, I don't know, soldiers in uniform with guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, fighter jets, you know a military.
They aren't suppose to be a fighting force anyway, yes they are there to protect our border but, they are also suppose to be asking questions of those who wish to cross, not pointing guns at them and, threatening to shoot them, questions like, "Are you seeking asylum?", "Do you have a passport?", "What is your purpose for coming to the United States?"
Why do you think they would be at risk if they did their jobs the way they are suppose to?
According to Mexican police and Mexican TV reports, some in the "peaceful" caravan were also arsonists and others had guns.
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/breaking-armed-caravan-migrants-open-fire-mexican-police-arrested
How easily you choose to forget the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, between Americans and foreigners, between in the country and outside of the country. But then, to maintain your absurd perspective, you'd pretty much have to throw away most facts.
Yet the 'decision memo' and the 'cabinet memo' CLEARLY state that their mission isn't to 'repel' anyone.
Again, READ the memos. Neither says anything about the military using a 'show of force' as a method of 'pushing them away'.
In short, you're inferring facts not in evidence.
I'm curious what it is that you are so worried about? What is it that you think is going to happen that would be so inappropriate?
So based on your comment, you are advocating for the military to fire on non-citizen/foreigners while they are outside of this country.
Please cite the Federal statute that supports the US military firing across the border.
A violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
See above.
You haven't said why you think it's a problem to prevent people from forcing their way into our country. Stop dancing around it and answer.
You just might want to review your posts and recognize that you NEVER asked me that fucking question.
It may also help if you chilled the fuck out...
No, I know the distinction between the two, I also know that no citizen of this country, except the Native Americans, would be citizens now if someone from a different country hadn't come over here to start a new life and, yes, some of them came over illegally and, some of them came over and, asked for asylum but, the thing is, we didn't meet them at the border with guns threatening to kill them and, their children.
Americans are nothing more than former immigrants and, the children of immigrants. Foreigners are people that scare the hell out of Right Wingers.
I've been in this country for decades so, yes, I know the difference, the people that you are so afraid of are outside this country right now and, they would like to come into it to seek asylum and, a new life and, you wish to deny them this simply because Trump tells you to be afraid of them there furiners.
No, I see the facts in the pictures, it's to bad your too blind to see them.
Sure I did. I just used different words. The whole subject of this seed is about people looking to come into this country, some of whom have clearly indicated that they will do so with or without permission, and with little or no interest in obeying our laws. Our president has dispatched a force to stop them and you have a problem with that. Again, I ask why?
And the point is not someone's interpretation of the posse comitatus act. The question is - as a general matter - why shouldn't we be trying to stop people who want to force their way into our country against our will? As usual, you want to dance around the core issue.
A violation of the posse comitatus act is concerning for some, while people entering our country illegally and remaining here illegally isn't to some.
I get that. We're a nation of immigrants, right? That's fine, but we're also a nation of citizens and a nation of laws written and enforced by those citizens. The reality of our age is different from what it was 100, 200, or 400 years ago and we have good reasons for limiting the people that come into this country and stay permanently with some kind of status. I assume everyone here knows all that, but it seems like some of you forget it intentionally when these political immigration stories come up.
Absolutely not true! It's also not true (apparently) for Trump because he has said so. I have no objection to helping people looking to establish a new life.
But first, I want to know who these people really are and what it is they are allegedly fleeing from before I let them run free in my country. What's wrong with that?
Both American and international concepts of refugee status are well defined and it doesn't generally apply to people who are simply seeking better economic conditions. If economic opportunity were all it took, we'd have to let in up 7 billion people. What would that do to our economy? What would that do to economic opportunity both for citizens and refugees?
Second, if these people are in genuine need, there should be an international effort to help them. There is nothing that requires the United States to be the sole destination for desperate people from Central America. There are many other places they could go and the needs of both the alleged refugees and the countries they might go to should be considered.
I'm blind? You claimed this caravan was "mostly women and children." I showed you pictures of the caravan shot from a distant perspective so you can see a lot of it. That crowd is clearly at least 90% young men. But you still seem to see "mostly" women and children. But I'm blind. OK.
You think Trump is responsible for the caravans? WTF!
Trump in no way gains from having these caravans marching towards the US border.
No you didn't and all the bullshit afterward is just deflection.
You can't ask again when you didn't ask in the first place.
You're comments have devolved to an utter lack of good faith in this discussion. Well done.
You're still off topic and apparently afraid or incapable of answering a simple question. Answer. I dare you.
Yeah . . . I don't really believe anyone cares about that law. Most who claim they care, probably aren't even aware that the law was written in the context of removing Union troops that had been occupying the former Confederate States during Reconstruction. It didn't have anything to do with helping the Border Patrol prevent foreign nationals from rushing the border.
Many do not care for laws against shooting people...
That does not mean we should just let that shit pass.
You seem to be arguing for arguments sake
either that or you really have a crush on someone.../s
This should be old news in this day and age;
Essentially there is no longer an invasion, Mexico will house the asylum seekers while their court cases are being adjudicated in the US.
Since the current backlog has 750,000 cases pending and has only 334 judges, it will be years before these people are allowed across the border
if the agreement holds and the last thing Mexico wants is "safe third" status.
How you concluded that 'caravans' was what I said in my post--1.2.4 is totally baffling.
As far as the Trump. He is dirty. Floated by Russian and Saudi money for decades.
No I am not.
Even if I were, it's not YOUR seed and therefore NOT YOUR CALL.
Stop.
Tacos! I am NOT going to acknowledge your question because you are NOT discussing in good faith. Stating that you already asked the question was FALSE and BAD FORM. I'd say more about it but it would be a CoC violation.
In short, your fabrications and equivocations diminished your credibility and IMHO make your questions unworthy of a response.
He does it on purpose to be disingenuous.
Well since BOTH of the memo's cite the limitations enumerated in that statute, it's pretty clear that even Trump is covering his ass based on it's mandates.
Nor do either of the memos. Of course one would have to actually READ and understand them.
The news now is that the 'agreement' never actually existed...
No agreement is really necessary. If we close the border they are pretty much stuck in Mexico. Of course Mexico could do what they should have done when the "caravan" forced their way across their southern border and arrest and deport them.
Really? Then why did Trump announce it?
If we can 'close the border' as it stands, we don't need a wall do we?
BTFW, do you have any concept of the economic effect would be of closing the border? Or do you just not care?
The idea that 5000 troops could close the southern border is delusional.
That's a moot point.
It would be nice if Mexico cooperated but that is a longshoremen in the first place. There is nothing that says we have to let one of the "caravan" people into the country for any reason. We deny them entry they stay in Mexico and are the Mexicans problem.
Then they would be entering illegally and ineligible to claim asylum and absolutely show them to be an invading force.
Not really. They are still in Mexican territory and the have broken Mexican law .There is nothing stopping the Mexicans from doing the right thing and deporting the lot of them.
You mean except federal law and international treaty, right?
FALSE.
Perhaps you should review the definition of moot.
Sure he does, he can go to the border states and, states were he won bigly and, claim, "Ya see, the Democrats want open borders", which of course is a lie and, then he can say, "Look at all those MS-13 members crossing our borders" without on bit of proof. That stoke up people like you to continue voting for the piece of shit in chief.
What federal laws and repairs would require us to let any of them in?
(a)Authority to apply for asylum
(1)In general
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States ( whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
READ IT SLOWLY...
it says they may apply for asylum it does not say they have to be let in to the country in the first place nor does it say they have to be allowed to stay in the country whiletgeir application is considered .
So let's see if we flesh out your scenario.
A asylum seeker stands at the border and I presume that under YOUR scenario, that person stands there for the entirety of their asylum interview [about 3 hours]. Then if they pass the 'test' they stand there for the however many months or years it takes for them to be evaluated and receive a hearing.
Do I have that about right?
Nothing like starting an international crisis and becoming what the USA is supposed to be against.
No longer a shining beacon on a hill. Might as well lower the liberty torch.
Right, because there is absolutely no difference between illegal immigrants trying to force their way into our country; and legal refugees and legal immigrants that follow our laws.
Might as well throw open the borders and let anyone in. Of course paying for all of these third world under skilled mostly male "immigrants" will fall on who again? I know, maybe Mexico will pay for them./S
"In what was viewed by many as a political ploy ahead of the midterm elections, President Trump ordered the troops to the border"
Only by leftist media outlets. If this was a ploy then why is it still in the news and why are the authors reporting on what they think isn't a real story?
So I guess you are still buying that 10% tax cut for the middle class trump also promised, just before the midterms?
Trump will sign it and it has already passed the House. It's up to the Senate to get it to his desk now.
Or not. The election is over, they don't give a shit.
Wrong... That's an extension of already existing tax cuts. He promised a NEW 10% tax cut for the middle class. Speaking of which...with all these tax cuts, where is the money fo his wall coming from? Hint: It's not gong to be mexico, and it will not be the rich in the USA either. Ah, who are we kidding, there will be no wall. Just more of trumps lies.
That article is dated 9/28/2018 and it's talking about an extension, not a new or separate 10% cut.
It means that they can freely murder people if they want to. Wait until they confuse an American citizen with an illegal and they shoot them. What will trump say then? "Well, they had brown skin so it's still totally justified."
But if the person shooting someone with brown skin also has brown skin then the shooting immediately disappears in the eyes of liberals and shall be mentioned no more.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It has never meant that.
Ummm, yes, that is what it means.
No, by definition, it can't mean that. Murder is an unlawful killing.
According to the Geneva Convention it is a crime to fire on unarmed civilians by any military, it is also against U.S. law for the military to involve themselves in a civilian law enforcement problem, which is what we have at the border a CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM. Maybe, you will remember world history better, part of the trials at Nuremburg were about the Nazi's firing on civilians, I believe some of those soldiers got life and, others were hung for that.
Strictly window dressing for the midterms Dean.
Remember they were a few weeks ago? The permanent tax cut is dead.
From your article dated 9/28/2018;
Everyone enjoy football, family and whatever you celebrate Thanksgiving by eating & drinking.
This is locked until later this evening.
and unlocked.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone/
"White House Authorizes Lethal Force." ? ?
Simply put, the Trump relishes his power and realizes that 'his base' relishes his relishing. Just doesn't take much for the 'shoot em' all' bunch.
Locked until whenever I reappear 2morroe, lol
Locked for the evening
Locked for the evening....