[NetValue]

Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?

This says that you are not completely aginst using the military domestically.

[cynicom]

Net...

Securing our national borders is already in the constitution. That does not give them arrest powers at large at someone elses discretion.

[Jhoffa_]

This says that you are not completely aginst using the military domestically.

Not against American citizens.. That's the difference.

[Mulder]

Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?

Border and coastal security is a legitimate use of the military, since it defends against foreign invasions. The military has been routinely used throughout American history for frontier security.

As to the Guard in the airports, most of us realized it for the joke that it was, and therefore opposed it.

[Kerberos]

” Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders?”

Because that is a function of our military, to protect our boarders from external threats. Which incidentally is not happening. And the military’s weapons should be pointed at everything on the outside of the boarder. There should be no police involvement in protecting our boarders; the police are for maintaining the peace internally.

” Or the Coast Guard in our ports?”

Again, because that is a function of the Coast Guard, to protect our seaboard and ports from external threats.

Or the National Guardsmen at the airports?

And I don’t necessarily support using troops to maintain our airports. It’s highest and best use, as a function, would seem to be getting the public accustom to having a military presence around them, particularly in light of the fact that they don’t have ammunition in their weapons.

[Rebelbase]

I would consider protecting our borders to be a matter of National security that should be, in part, the responsibility of the Armed Forces.

[Ahban]

I only support use of troops at our borders. That has nothing to do with arresting our citizens, but with capturing invaders.

[IronJack]

How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to ... [blah blah]"

There's nothing to "reconcile." I'm not in favor of any of those uses for the military either. You must have me confused with an idiot.

[old school]

"Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?"

I think your question speaks for itself. However, stationing our military at the borders to repel a foreign invader is in keeping with their mission. Stationing the national guard at the ports was stupid and ineffectual. Hey! Let's just throw this lead ingot up in the air and see if it flies!

[Coastie]

The US Coast Guard is not part of the DoD, it's part of Dept of Transportation which gives them the law enforcement authority. They come under the Navy in time of war at the request of the SecNav. We are consdered to be and we consider ourselves as part of the armed forces. Split personalities, multi tasking, the Gerber tool of the government.
When the Navy does counter drug patrols, they have a Coastie team on board and when they stop a vessel, they fly the CG ensign which makes the Navy Warship a Coast Guard Cutter, (temporarily.)and gives them the law enforcement power. That's normal peacetime ops, wartime is different.

[DoughtyOne]

To: GeneD; cynicom; IronJack; Rebelbase; Prodigal Son; proudofthesouth; linn37; VaBthang4; ...

Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?

This says that you are not completely aginst using the military domestically.

21 posted on 7/21/02 10:14 AM Pacific by NetValue

The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.  In that Constitution it specificly states that the President is to protect the states from invasion.  Any President who does not uphold that oath is impeachable, not that our spineless Congress would ever take their duty seriously.

What is an invasion?  An invasion is nothing more than the occupation of our territory.  There is no requirement that the invaders be armed.  As time passes and tens of millions of foreign nationals occupy our land, the effect will be the same.  The infrastructure of our nation is changed.  The language changes.  The majority populace becomes the foreign national.  Eventually their desires will rule the day in our nation.

Now, when is it proper to use U.S. armed forces?  Is it only proper to use it to used armed invaders?  If so then our nation could be overrun by any nation that desired to occupy our soil with enough of it's foreign nationals.

China owns the largest oceanic shipping company, Cosco.  They could load their fleet of ships up with hundreds of millions of invading aliens any time they liked.  Would it be proper for us to stop them, or to allow them to do so as we do the Mexican nationals today?

I would submit that it is entirely proper to put armed forces on the border to focus outward with the intent of stopping the occupation of our nation.  What you are comparing to this is the policing of U.S. citizens within our borders.  That is completely different.  Our founding fathers did not envision a standing U.S. army policing it's own citizens.  I don't either.

[Prodigal Son]

Ok. How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?

First, I'm not sure I ever advocated military patrolling our borders or the National Guard in the airports. But in answer to your question:

First the simple one, any governor can activate the National Guard in his state and have 'em doing whatever basically. Filling sandbags. Guarding against looters during a power outage. Quelling riots. That is a State's issue. Got nothing to do with the Feds.

Next, the military can patrol the borders, of course they can, especially if we are surrounded by hostile nations. This would be to prevent invasion. That is part of the military's job- protecting the country against attack from outside. But the military has no business patrolling the streets in general, shooting lawbreakers, and looking into things they have no business looking into. If they want to do that, we already have an apparatus- civil police- and they should quit the military and join a police force.

The only way I can condone the military actively operating within our borders would be if the enemy had invaded us which is not the case.

Terrorism is a difficult thing to label correctly. I have my doubts that we should've ever invented the phrase- it's redundant, like "hate crime". Terrorists are criminals period. They are organized for sure but they are still criminals. Timothy McVeigh- criminal. And he got treated like that- tried and executed. Now international terrorists, lately they have taken the tactic of attacking nations at large like on 9/11. The only organization we have that can go out and actively combat them in foreign territories is our military and that's exactly what we're doing. But once the terrorists get inside our country and set up their criminal enterprise here- they become the problem of dosmetic agencies- the alphabet soup (FBI ATF)and the local police, sherriff etc. I don't see a need for the military there.

Plus the military would be very inefficient. They have no dosmetic apparatus for communicating and coordinating with civil forces. They have no intelligence gathering network (for domestic purposes). They aren't even governed by the same body or set of rules. They have no law enforcement training. Why try to put a square peg in a round hole? Why use a monkey wrench for a job requiring a screwdriver?

[Wonder Warthog]

"How do you reconcile that you were willing to use military forces to augment "police" on our borders? Or the National Guardsmen at the airports? Or the Coast Guard in our ports?"

The National Guard has special "dual" status, and can be used domestically under order of the state governor of the specific state unit. The Coast Guard has ALWAYS had a domestic mission.

As I recall, "posse comitatus" ONLY limits the ARMY. I remember one article from somewhere pointing out that the MARINES were not limited by it, as they were part of the NAVY. I suspect this is really an oversight by the Founding Fathers, not expecting the Marines to develop into a largely land-based mission organization--as at that point in time, Marines were used only on ship-board or for quick on-shore raids.

[VaBthang4]

I dont mind using US troops to augment national security but there is no legitimate reason to give Soldiers the ability to legally arrest anyone. If they run into anything...they are more than capable of detaining a suspect until local or federal authorities arrive.

If after the proper authorities get there and make a determination that an individual meets the threashold[sp?] of being a terrorist then the Military Police can arrest the individual and take him into Military custody.

I know I am a simple guy but why in the heck does the Government have to make everything so friggin difficult?

Heck if they are a terrorist then just shoot'em on sight.