Fort Bliss soldiers deploy to border - Page 3

Fort Bliss soldiers deploy to border

This is a discussion on Fort Bliss soldiers deploy to border within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by suntzu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Because it is not why we have a military. They are not there for law enforcement roles. When I ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: Fort Bliss soldiers deploy to border

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,288
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Because it is not why we have a military. They are not there for law enforcement roles. When I joined it wasn't for LE. If so I would have been a cop. We should care. That is why there are federal laws dictating who is responsible for what. If you don;t care who does what, do you want to throw out EO 12333 which deals with intelligence activities also. I don't care,,pleez.
    I believe it's the military's duty to protect this nation, which starts at the borders. You know, that "foreign and domestic" clause in the oath. It goes far beyond someone simply crossing the border to look for a day job.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array Kimberpackn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    640
    I agree with you Old Vet. But in this kinder, gentler nation I have little faith that there will be little power or bullets given to the soldiers once in place at the border.
    We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. -

    Patrick Henry

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I believe it's the military's duty to protect this nation, which starts at the borders. You know, that "foreign and domestic" clause in the oath. It goes far beyond someone simply crossing the border to look for a day job.
    The domestic part does not mean the military was suppose to be a border patrol. DHS is responsible for securing the borders, not the US military. If an enemy is attacking the US it is the militarys job. You show me where illegal immigration is a job for DOD. Hey everybody, don't get me wrong. There is a problem. But solving it by using DOD is not correct. First , define the problem(s). Illegal immigartion, narcotics, and terrorism. Illegal immigration is not DOD's job. Narcotics is DOD's job overseas, not in the US, that is DEA's. Terrorism is DOD's job, Outside the US, inside the FBI, LE, ATF DHS. If they can't handle it then you have a lot of folks leaving the service. Hirer them.

    Second:Address the problems. Illigal immigration-change the laws so there is no birther rights. Deport illegal immigrants. Narcotics-legalize them. How many people on this forum would take cocaine if it was legal? Just curious. As far as harming our country and our youth and health care issues that arise from it. Aww alchohol seems tobe doing just fine and legal drugs. Just like gun laws. Banning drugs only means they are gotten illegaly.

    If the country does not address the problem then the border will have to be manned with DOD troops forever. That is not a solution.

    And the "Domestic" again. That means internal enemies trying to overthrow the government. Illegal immigrants, terrorists, and drug dealers are not overthrowing our government.

    If you think the gov of Mexico isn;t doing anything to help then define them as a threat. Heck, if you believe that narcotics and illegal immigration is a threat, I suggest to you then they are a bigger threat than Iraq ever was. So use a military solution and invade mexicao, make a 5 mile buffer zone and man it with troops. Why not,,,,if you thought Iraq was a threat and worth having thousand of people killed for, then I am all for a military solution. And again, show me where it is DOD's job to protect the border and not DHS.
    bigmacque and Sig 210 like this.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where the deer and the antelope roam
    Posts
    3,513
    The whole problem is that the cause is not being addressed...... This is a sabre rattling exercise, nothing more.

    For years there has been NO interior enforcement of our immigration laws. When you fine employers for hiring illegals, seize assets that were bought with their money, businesses, cars, trucks, homes you will see a change. When an illegal cannot get a job, cannot get free health care, education, welfare they will go home and the Border Patrol will be bored. It is a federal offense (Section 8 USC 1326) to knowingly hire an illegal alien. There is not a US Attorney that will take a case.

    If the shining light over the border goes out they will stop coming. The Mexican GOV does not want those people home, they are the ones who would revolt. The Mexican GOV even prints a guide book to help them safely cross the border.

    9/11 was facilitated because Americans allow illegal aliens to work and live amongst us, when will we learn that an underground sub culture that we ignore is not good for us as a county? Conservative estimates put 12 - 15 MILLION illegal aliens in the US. We must deal with the cause of this massive immigration, desperate people will continue to come here and die by the thousands doing so because we hire them as maids, and gardeners, and roofers.

    Fine, if we need them for those jobs, give them a permit so they can legally work and pay taxes. Amnesty IS NOT the answer.
    bigmacque likes this.

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,486
    The military should not have been called out for this. Makes me pretty uncomfortable and I'll tell you why. A bad presidence is being set, and it is arguably illegal. Also, it is not like the politicians are actually going to do what needs doing. If the foolish administration, congress, doj, and administrative idiots in the dea and border patrol would allow agents to shoot to kill for any violent offense at the border, this issue would quickly die out.

    Those who don't have the stomach to lead and do what needs doing to protect America should go cower in the corner and let the real men and women of the agencies get the job done.
    suntzu and bigmacque like this.

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by 40Bob View Post
    Its all political. When I was in El Paso we had military spotters. They were unarmed and we had to guard them, they were operating in an urban environment and had no clue what they were doing and would not listen to us telling them what we needed them to report.

    For example; Bowie High School is 2 fences and a 4 lane highway from the Rio Grande. Adjacent to Bowie HS is the Chamizal memorial park, adjacent to that is the Bridge of the Americas connecting Mexico and the US. Legit foot traffic was called out as non-legit traffic constantly. Think about this, during school hours there are THOUSANDS of pedestrians. We finally started asking them " Did you see them cross the river?" to which the normal reply was " Negative". My reply was always the same " Then do not call them out". The result was a lawsuit that the GOV lost.

    They tied up our radios tremendously, having no idea as to our protocols and procedures. We were given no operational control as to where they would be assigned to help us the most or what they should be looking for.

    Done properly it can be a great asset, however, there are too many egos involved.
    Simple curiosity. What was your function,job,assignment while there? When did this occur?

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where the deer and the antelope roam
    Posts
    3,513
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Simple curiosity. What was your function,job,assignment while there? When did this occur?
    This was around 1993. I was a Border Patrol Agent In El Paso, TX at the time.

  8. #38
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by 40Bob View Post
    This was around 1993. I was a Border Patrol Agent In El Paso, TX at the time.
    Again simple curiosity. Do you believe that given the fact we are 18 or so years down the road that the situations may have changed? Certainly not for the better. Seems to me that things have become a whole lot more violent in especially the last several years.

  9. #39
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,846
    This has been a good thread with a lot of good comments and some very good push and pull. Many folks are beating me to the punch on some responses as well!

    I do stand by my original statement: Federal troops should not be deployed in this situation, on state land, doing nothing but border patrol. The troops deployed for this should be the National Guard troops that belong to the governor of the state with the shared border. There are so many things wrong with deploying and using Federal troops like this it's hard to know where to begin, but suffice to say it absolutely is a political issue. This is just an administration ploy to look like they're doing something and to look like they're all powerful and wise. They're bending to the recent battle cry's that our beloved media is playing to, battle cry's to use our troops to protect our country. It's just a lot of huff and puff to deploy federal troops here, and it's also very wrong: any governor with federal troops deployed in their state should politely ask the federal government to get them the hell out.

    If we were under attack from any organized foreign entity, and there were actual battles taking place on those borders, I'd feel differently, but the active military has no business playing cop within our borders. That's a dangerous affront to our freedom.

    On a, slightly aside, note: more than half of all troops that were deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc. were either Guard or Reserve troops. The Reserve were an extension of the federal active duty troops, but the Guard were sent to these locations via an official request from the federal administration to the state administration -- a proper use of the reverse of what we are talking about here, the use of the Guard outside of our borders.

    This issue is about a lot more than just "who cares who goes as long as the job gets done." Remember: those federal troops are deployed within our borders in support of what is essentially a police action. Think about that for a minute.
    ctr likes this.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  10. #40
    Member Array OperatorJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    251
    Ok, this morning I went back and read the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 just to be sure before posting this...

    The act does NOT prohibit the use of AD Army forces for LE purposes on US soil... it only requires that the authorization for such orders come either from the US Constitution OR Congress. Now, I don't know if the current orders in question came from either source, so I won't comment on that - perhaps Spencer can enlighten us on the details when he's not crawling around in the mud.

    PERSONAL OPINION: As a ARNG NCO, I believe it should have been NG troops. It is the "militia's" responsibility AND Posse Comitatus does not apply to the ARNG forces, so no Constitutional or Congressional authorization would be required. That being said, the problem lies with the 15 different agencies charged with protecting the homeland... it needs to be consolidated.

    As for the comment above about "foreign and domestic" in the oath of enlistment... the actual line is "I will defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". And keep in mind that AD, reserve and NG forces all have that in their enlistment oaths. I hope that helps clear up some of this.

    OpJ
    bigmacque likes this.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Sending troops to the border is feel good stuff. US troops will never be allowed to "guard" the border: They are gofers for the Homeland Insecurity Dep't.

  12. #42
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,846
    Having taken said oath several times over the course of a 30 year military career, I can tell you what my frame of reference, based on what I was taught about that oath, refers to when the term "foreign and domestic" comes up: it is exactly as OpJ says above. I will protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, in other words any threat to our established form of government, whether it be foreign entities or citizens that are prepared to give up their citizenship in attempt to overthrow our government.

    It's not about simply defending US soil, it's about protecting our established government. This is not a finger-pointing post, either, it's simply an explanation as to the what that phrase means.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by OperatorJ View Post
    Ok, this morning I went back and read the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 just to be sure before posting this...

    The act does NOT prohibit the use of AD Army forces for LE purposes on US soil... it only requires that the authorization for such orders come either from the US Constitution OR Congress. Now, I don't know if the current orders in question came from either source, so I won't comment on that - perhaps Spencer can enlighten us on the details when he's not crawling around in the mud.

    PERSONAL OPINION: As a ARNG NCO, I believe it should have been NG troops. It is the "militia's" responsibility AND Posse Comitatus does not apply to the ARNG forces, so no Constitutional or Congressional authorization would be required. That being said, the problem lies with the 15 different agencies charged with protecting the homeland... it needs to be consolidated.

    As for the comment above about "foreign and domestic" in the oath of enlistment... the actual line is "I will defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". And keep in mind that AD, reserve and NG forces all have that in their enlistment oaths. I hope that helps clear up some of this.

    OpJ
    We have to remember why the Act was established. The Reconstruction era was a cluster ______(fill in the blank). I do not believe that when they passed the Act they would for see it being used to deploy soldiers on the border for a LE role. It also states the orders or justificatrion must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
    I had to interact with the FBI and US Marshalls after 9/11 and we had to jump through hoops to get permission for one permission to interface. And none of it had to do with Posse Commitatas.

  14. #44
    Member Array OperatorJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    We have to remember why the Act was established. The Reconstruction era was a cluster ______(fill in the blank). I do not believe that when they passed the Act they would for see it being used to deploy soldiers on the border for a LE role. It also states the orders or justificatrion must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
    I had to interact with the FBI and US Marshalls after 9/11 and we had to jump through hoops to get permission for one permission to interface. And none of it had to do with Posse Commitatas.
    Perhaps it should have...

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array WD54241's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lake shore N.E. W.I.
    Posts
    917
    Quote Originally Posted by ctr View Post
    The military should not have been called out for this. Makes me pretty uncomfortable and I'll tell you why. A bad presidence is being set, and it is arguably illegal. Also, it is not like the politicians are actually going to do what needs doing. If the foolish administration, congress, doj, and administrative idiots in the dea and border patrol would allow agents to shoot to kill for any violent offense at the border, this issue would quickly die out.

    Those who don't have the stomach to lead and do what needs doing to protect America should go cower in the corner and let the real men and women of the agencies get the job done.
    In order to do this it will take a complete and total cleaning of Washington D.C., Unshackle the appropriate agencies. The political games which take place within the beltway only serve to further the political ambitions of the party who happens to be in office. Stop using security of the border for votes! Enforce the current laws to the fullest extent! No rights for children born on U.S. soil to illegal's. Grant no safe haven to illegals, No welfare, Nothing... The rights of our constitution apply to legal and lawful Americans not illegal aliens! The border patrol and military are being set up to fail and will only add to the complete waste tax dollars yet another horse and pony show. It's all smoke and mirrors! We have the laws already on the books! We don't enforce those laws anymore for fear of violating someones rights who is here illegally in the first place which means they have no rights to begin with! The laws of yester year were imposed for a reason, only now are we seeing the reason behind there logic! I agree with the Chinese, if your caught smuggling drugs into the country, you will be put to death! and they enforce it! why don't we do the same?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bliss soldiers deployed to border

,

fort bliss deployment 2012

,
fort bliss deployment december 2012
,
fort bliss orders to deploy
,
ft bliss december 8, 2012 deployment
,
ft bliss deployment schedule 2012
,
how often do troops deploy from fort bliss?
,

how often does fort bliss deploy

,

is fort bliss deploying

,

is fort bliss deploying in 2012

,
is fort bliss deploying in february
,

when does fort bliss deploy

Click on a term to search for related topics.