Posted on 11/17/2018 10:01:34 AM PST by RightGeek
Edited on 11/17/2018 3:55:19 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
“That’s because U.S. military troops are prohibited from carrying out law enforcement duties.”
Nice gaslighting but no they aren’t, Marines are exempt for one. One easy example is their use guarding the mail trains in the 1920s. Armed to the teeth. The military was used in Little Rock as I recall. Marines were sent to the LA Riots.
Last but not least, repelling an invasion AT the border is not “law enforcement”. It is a classic military mission.
Photographers will outnumber immigrants and soldiers 4-1. No chance the military is going to do anything rough.
Sounds like their plans of hitching a ride on the wheezing U.S. Government Gravy Train may be thwarted. If these people are forced to go back to Mexico or their home countries it will be one of President Trump’s greatest victories. What a blessed change from Obama and the Democrats who would sell their grandmother’s gold teeth for a few more votes.
$700 billion per year for a military which cannot stop an INVASION:
I want my money back.
What immigrants?
Against US citizens. What is the military or militia for if not to repel invasion?
Sounds like lap dog Mattis at work again. Credibility is very important for the reelection campaign Mr President.
Cannot?
WRONG!!!
You're confusing capability and permission. Your beef (if legitimate) is not with our Soldiers, but with their political masters ... otherwise known as your (and my) "elected" "representatives".
Their Commander in Chief has a name: President Donald J. Trump.
So now you know where to direct your ire and outrage.
This is not a “law enforcement duty.” Preposterous.
It’s time to make an exception for the military at the borders and coasts to protect our country from an invasion. Not just leave it to Border Patrol and the Coast Guard. Times and dangers have changed. This exception should have been done 50 years ago.
The coast guard is a military branch. The border patrol should have never existed. Using the military to enforce our border should have always been used.
We agree. Why wouldn’t the military be authorized to protect the border from invaders; even civilian invaders?
Rhetorical question. I guess the answer would be the civilians are not (all) an armed army but they are still dangerous and costly invaders.
--------------------------------------
That was my battalion, 2nd Bn, 9th Marines
Hell in a Helmet
My empathy jar is empty
My compassion jar is empty
My sympathy jar is empty
I am refilling all 3 jars with ammo.
The malarky about our military not being allowed by law to protect our borders is an outright LIE! The military cannot be used against our own citizens to enforce political positions but most certainly can protect our country. That is their primary duty.
Defending our borders against invasion is one of the federal government's (and by extension, our military's) primary obligations.
It is NOT law enforcement, and Posse Commitatus does not apply.
“It’s too much security to confront humble people who just want to work,” said Ulloa, a 23-year-old electrician from Choloma, Honduras,”
Too bad, Ulloa. We are all full up here. Go home. Fix your own **** hole country.
L
No exception is required. Defending our borders against invasion is one of the federal government's primary duties, and has nothing to do with Posse Commitatus.
That is an AP article which must be a short excerpt only.
You may need to hit the abuse button and asked the mods
to shorten it.
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.