Posted on 06/28/2009 7:08:55 AM PDT by La Lydia
A proposal to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to counter drug trafficking has triggered a bureaucratic standoff between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security...
The debate has engaged a pair of powerful personalities, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, in what their subordinates describe as a turf fight over which agency should direct the use of troops to assist in the fight against Mexican cartels and which one should pay for them.
At issue is a proposal to send 1,500 additional troops to the border to analyze intelligence and to provide air support and technical assistance to border agencies. The governors of Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico began making the requests in January, drawing support from Napolitano but prompting objections from the Pentagon, where officials argue that it could lead to a permanent, expanded mission for the military...
"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., head of U.S. Northern Command...
Border law enforcement agencies should have adequate funds to do their job, he said. If the Guard is tapped, it should be for capabilities "that do not exist elsewhere in government," Renuart said...
Homeland security officials and governors counter that there is a legitimate need for troops to back up border agencies against the most serious threat to the Southwest and that a deployment would not represent a new military mission. Under a 1989 law, the National Guard assigns 577 troops to help states with anti-drug programs, which "can easily expand," the four governors wrote Congress in April...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They need to quit their dam bickering and close the border. It doesn’t make a dam who does it, border patrol, National Guard, regular Army.....or civilians. Close the border.
Right now it is who is ready now to deploy the people. The answer is the National Guard. Let’s get them on the line and then figure out how to replace them with law enforcement.
In fact..1500 is too few. There are probably plenty of unemployed guardsters that will gladly accept the duty.
Didn’t sound like nearly enough National Guard troops to me, either.
I have to admit I have mixed emotions regarding this issue. We are definitely being “invaded” by illegal aliens, drug runners, and terrorists. That seems to be a known fact. We are not being invaded by a standing army. The Constitution was written so that we would not have the armed forces of the United States quartered on US soil. Traditionally, we have taken the battle to the opponent’s soil. Now we have a situation that demands attention. If DHS sets the rules, I think that the military will again be in a role that will not allow loaded weapons and self defense (like last time). If the Pentagon sets the rules, then we will see a definite decrease in incursions. Is this approach constitutional? Is having the military on our border constitutional, absent a declaration of war?
I would like to see the liberals get out of the way and let the border patrol and the rest of the law enforcement agencies do their jobs. Armed incursions that start a fire fight are sent back across the border in body bags. Illegals are taken into custody, interviewed for intelligence and shipped to the southern border of Mexico.
Uh, excuse me, state GOVERNORS command the National Guard, not pencil necks in DC.
I have to look at it this way: If, in 1942, the Japanese had invaded Mexico and were on our Southern border making incursions into Arizona, California and Texas, would we have used the military to defend it. I think, yes, we would have.
Need any further proof about what is wrong with the Government? Its all about “Turf”. Protecting ones “Turf” The hell with the mission...”I gotta feel like I’m the most important pig at the trough”. Throw all the buss turds out!
1500 folks 24/7 coverage....That does not seem like many boots on the ground.
Everything they can consolidate under the guise of homeland security is nothing more than a ruse to steal power and control.
That damned department, should never have been created.
Correct. And as the article states, if the gov calls them out then the gov has to pay them.
Which is why they want the feds to pay them.
And that has been the issue for years and decades.
The cost of drug intervention and illegal immigration falls disproportionally on the border states and border counties. Whether it is the natl guard, criminal justice, social welfare, or education
“If, in 1942, the Japanese.......”
It isn’t though, and therefore not a viable discussion IMO.
The most distressing, and frustrating result of military involvement that I see is the precedent the action would set especially under a Leftist misAdministration such as Obama’s.
Most of what I see happening to America today by the Leftist Obama misAdministration is intentional for the purpose of establishing precedence. The Leftists are assuring security for portions of their agenda as they have in the past, but this particular era of their alleged leadership is the most aggressive. I thought the Clinton misAdministration was aggressive in establishing Leftist agenda, but it was nothing compared to Obama.
Want to defend the border? The states should recreate citizen militias. Ask for a few hundred thousand volunteers to spend a few weeks clearing illegals out of Arizona (for example) cities and defending the border. Offer bounties, dead or alive, for illegals. Publicize the start date and watch the exodus southward just prior.
In this case, the case of foreign invasion, be it by civilians or troops, it is legal to use troops I am pretty certain. National guard troops are actually under the command of the respective states except when the feds declare a need for them in war time. For instances like this they are under the command of the home state Governors and the feds have nothing to say about it.
Once a nation/state/non-state actor initiates by its actions a state of war against another, a de facto state of war exists and the offended party is under no obligation to issue a formal Declaration of War. Were the United States to initiate belligerent action against another with whom we are currently in a state of peace (e.g., Great Britain), then Congress must issue a Declaration of War before the President could employ the Armed Forces in an unprovoked offensive action.
See Hamilton's "Examination of Jefferson’s Message to Congress of December 7, 1801 (No. I)” at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1385&search=%22declaration+of+war+by+Congress%22&chapter=92650&layout=html#a_2075006
The current War Powers Resolution of 1973 is consistent with Hamilton’s discussion in this respect, in that the WPR does not restrict the President’s power to initiate the reaction to an attack in the absence of a Congressional action. Section 2(c) specifically allows that the President exercises his constitutional powers by facing hostilities in the event of an attack.
Whether the WPR as either legislation or a “constructive amendment” is actually in keeping with the Constitution remains to be seen. Although Presidents since Nixon have consistently taken the position that the WPR is an unconstitutional Congressional infringement on the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, the courts have not directly addressed that question (Richard F. Grimmett, at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/IB81050_20060405.pdf )
How long since you have been to the border? Parts of it are a war zone.
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.