Posted on 05/12/2006 5:56:29 PM PDT by SandRat
WASHINGTON, May 12, 2006 – The U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to allow military forces to be used in border-security operations under certain circumstances.
In a 252-171 vote, House members agreed on an amendment to the Sonny Montgomery National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Representatives also voted yesterday to name the bill after Montgomery, a retired congressman and tireless veterans advocate. Montgomery died today at age 85.
The act gives authority to the Defense Department to assign military members to assist Homeland Security organizations in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens into the United States and in inspecting cargo, vehicles and aircraft entering the United States to prevent weapons of mass destruction or other terrorist or drug trafficking items from entering the country.
The act specifies that such a move must be made at the request of the secretary of Homeland Security, who must certify that the action "is necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed by the entry into the United States of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens."
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman stressed that the military already has been helping other government agencies in some border-security functions, namely surveillance with unmanned aerial vehicles. "I think it's important to understand that the United States military does provide some assistance to the states currently," he said.
Governors in some border states use National Guard servicemembers in border-security missions, as well.
Whitman said it's important to remember that governors have authority to mobilize their National Guard forces as they see fit as long as they pay for the mobilization from within state budgets.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 largely forbids the U.S. military from becoming involved in domestic law-enforcement actions. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act, however.
"This county has always had a certain level of discomfort & with military doing things that are law enforcement-type activities," a senior official said on background.
Critics of such military use point to the case of 18-year-old Ezequiel Hernandez, who was shot and killed by a U.S. Marine patrol near the Rio Grande River at Redford, Texas, in 1997. The Marines said Hernandez fired at them, and the corporal who pulled the trigger was not charged with a crime. But the case brought about widespread attention to and debate on the role the U.S. military plays in border enforcement. Similar issues have been raised about the military's role within the United States since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The federal government also can pay for governors to mobilize their National Guard forces in the case of national emergencies. This mechanism was used during recovery efforts for Hurricane Katrina. Activated Guard forces remained under their governors' operational control, but federal funds were used to pay for the operation.
In addition, National Guard forces can be federalized then used in the same manner as active-duty forces.
Press reports today state that Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense Paul McHale has asked defense leaders to devise options for use of military forces in border-enforcement activities. Defense officials today did not specifically confirm this, but said such a move would be consistent with contingency planning that goes on every day in the Pentagon.
"This is a building that develops options, & develops potential courses of action," the official said. "This is not a decision the Defense Department would make, though. Border security (and) policing is not the primary role or mission of the United States military."
Language in the bill refers to allowing military members to assist Homeland Security assets in preventing terrorists from entering the United States. Officials have long recognized that illegal trafficking in people and weapons through Latin America poses a threat to the United States.
Rumsfeld and his Central American counterparts discussed this issue at a conference in Miami in October. All in attendance agreed that porous borders to the south can contribute to international terrorism.
"Drug traffickers, smugglers, hostage takers, terrorists, violent gangs: These are threats that are serious," Rumsfeld said at the conference Oct. 12.
Whitman said today that the United States stresses to South and Central American neighbors the importance of border security. Ungoverned spaces and available funding for illicit activities certainly can have a relationship with terrorism, he said. "That's why we should be concerned," he said.
Whitman also said that today's meeting between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mexican National Defense Secretary Gen. Gerardo Ricardo Vega is "unrelated to any current speculation that I see in current press reporting."
"This has been on the schedule for quite some time," he said.
ABOUT FRACKING TIME! Now to get it through the Senate on the President's Desk.
Too late. Wrong use of Armed forces. Big expense. Bad results and GI Border deaths will really anger the heartland.
The Military is for killing enemy soldiers. Only.
252-171; isn't that the exact same margin that passed the "tax cuts for the rich"?
By Jove, I think you are spot on!
This hasn't even been passed by the house. This was only inserted into another defense bill. In order for this to become law, it the House must pass the whole bill, the Senate must likewise, and the President must sign it.
I would be honored to defend my own borders, but using preeexisting military formations to do this job is stupid.
The military is trained to conduct organized offensive and defense operations involving the coordinated movement of hundreds or thousands of people at a time.
WE ALREADY HAVE A BORDER PATROL trained to do the work of patroling. Increase the pay (in order to make sure the quality of recruits does not fall off) and EXPAND IT.
You want the people guarding your border to have law enforcement powers AND military discipline. We need to make the Border Patrol a military organization (with fixed-term enlistments, ROTC scholarships for officers, etc.), allow graduates of all service academies to apply for postings to it, but, like with the Coast Guard, keep it OUT of the Department of Defense so that we can give its personnel law enforcement authority.
All personnel who get RIF'd ("reduction in force") before retirement age -- like the 900 or so Air Force officers getting cut loose this year -- should be offered postings in the new Border Patrol as their previous paygrade. The same could've been done with all the enlisted folks the Navy was letting go last year.
Respectfully Sir, that's NOT important to remember. That's like saying a child has the authority to feed himself in the absence of a negligent parent.
Border security is clearly a FEDERAL responsibility -- it is unbelievably inappropriate for any federal official to even mention the legality of state officials taking the lead on matters that so clearly fall within the federal sphere of responsibility.
Correct. Their proper role would be in the invasion and stabilization of Mexico
Big expense
Incorrect! That expense would represent less than 10% of the GDP squandered on illegal aliens and their successive generations of progeny. Using the military to stop the invasion would be a net cost savings. As an example it costs nearly $15K/yr. to educate just one child born of the consequences of illegal immigration in California and there are millions enrolled in California's public schools.
Bad results and GI Border deaths will really anger the heartland.
Probably not. While military losses are unpalatable, losses that directly benefit, that are tangible and that every citizen can measure on a daily basis are less offensive. As citizens watch the horde subside, public school classrooms return to normal, emergency rooms reestablish to actually treat medical emergencies, freeways become less congested, prison populations dwindle, cars disappear from front lawns and taxes go down, the sacrifice may become less stinging.
Yeah, and it's looking more and more like a token as I continue thinking about it. They do this while offering amnesty up as a compromise yet again in the Senate. If it's still amnesty, one wonders where the 'compromise' was.
Can you say "Third party".. :)
"The act specifies that such a move must be made at the request of the secretary of Homeland Security, who must certify that the action "is necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed by the entry into the United States of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens."
So what do we have NOW?? Schoolkids from Mexico crossing our borders???
If the Posse Comitatuts Act prevents the military from being used for domestic purposes, border defense is OBVIOUSLY not a dmoestic issue when the creatures violating our borders are not American citizens and coming from another country!!
Did the House at least, authorize arming the National Guard, or are they to use stale totillas as weapons???
Silly objections.
So what in the hell are they doing on South Korea's, Afghanistan's, Irag's, Bosnia's and Germany's borders?
Those are bonafide military assignments.
Our border deal is a civil police job...a task for securty guards...this is not a military assignment..
Some people can't seem to understand the obvious difference. "Can't" or, in reality. "Won't".
But there is one.
Don't know yet
According to who, you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.