The Police State Continues -- US Military to Patrol Mexican Border

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
It's laughable that people think that military just means killing people in the first place.

I was going to make the same reply myself at first; something along the line that the military does other things besides blowing things up and killing.

[Ted Striker]

Look, I have alot of Marine buddies

Without a doubt, these guys are the best infantry units on the planet. Apoc and Oerdin will probably disagree but that's my opinion. Send the Marines in and they will pretty much destroy whatever it is they are asked to do. They are that damn good. They do their job well.

But now they are running peacekeeping ops over in Iraq. And they suck at it. They're not designed to do peacekeeping. Their idea of peacekeeping is pacifying the place, which might work in the short term but has long term strategic repercussions that wipe out any short term tactical gains. My Marine buddies agree with me, they shouldn't be there peacekeeping, it's a waste of thier resources. They're a fighting force, not a peacekeeping one.

[Eli]

Ted, you lose.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MrFun



I was going to make the same reply myself at first; something along the line that the military does other things besides blowing things up and killing.

yeah, it also rapes and tortures.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Eli
Ted, you lose.

We should probably model our borders after Israel, who does a great job of it

Including the time you ran over one of our citizens with a bulldozer you *******s

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Law enforcement and military matters are two completely different things

Laugh now but this is not a good place to be

Read up on the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act, which were established back in the day to prevent crap like this from happening

Which are statutes, and are subject to change by act of congress, which is what the CNN article is actually about.

[Richelieu]

This is not an issue of law enforcment, it is an issue of protecting the country and stopping a foreign threat from penetrating. Stopping them AT the border, is the militarys job.

It is an issue of law enforcement. There is no organized military force invading your country. Those are individuals commiting a crime: not an aggression. They don't want to destroy the US they want to live in it.
Your law says your military should not conduct military operations within your territory IIUC, and the military hasn't been designed to do border patrol as Ted says.
If you're serious about stopping them, boost the border patrols.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by General Ludd


yeah, it also rapes and tortures.

I wish they'd add a patch for that in BF Vietnam.

[Ecthy]

Ted is absolutely right.

In Germany, we have police for domestic (Polizei, with all its branches), federal police for border protection that was formerly called federal border protection (Bundespolizei, formerly Bundesgrenzschutz BGS), and the military to protect us from the rooskies and from the Taliban (Bundeswehr).

We also have 200 United States nuclear warheads at our disposal that, if I'm not mistaken, we can launch independently in case of emergency

Edit: I think 200 is the overall amount of US warheads. Most of them are under US control. Some of them are not though, or were not during the cold war. Call this the dangers of smattering.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Letting the military round up Al Queda 'enemy combatants' and throwing into jail indefinitley without a trial sounded good too at the time.

One of the reasons it is IMPERATIVE that the Democrats win the next presidential election, is so that people realize that dealing with AQ enemy combatants is an essential part of the situation we face, and not a whim of the current administration (and hopefully the Dems will do a better job of it)

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


One of the reasons it is IMPERATIVE that the Democrats win the next presidential election, is so that people realize that dealing with AQ enemy combatants is an essential part of the situation we face, and not a whim of the current administration (and hopefully the Dems will do a better job of it)

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME???


You realize many of these "enemy combantants" were held for years without a trial, and they were 100% completely innocent? That these same "enemy combatants" were only freed after our closest allies (UK, for example) DEMANDED they were returned?

It's crap like this why the military should stay out of it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Richelieu


It is an issue of law enforcement. There is no organized military force invading your country. Those are individuals commiting a crime: not an aggression. They don't want to destroy the US they want to live in it.
Your law says your military should not conduct military operations within your territory IIUC, and the military hasn't been designed to do border patrol as Ted says.
If you're serious about stopping them, boost the border patrols.

the law that is before congress right now, would change that, so it would be legal. Whether the military has capabilities that could help the border patrol, like logistics in the desert, or just adding some manpower, is a reasonable question, which the OP has not addressed (other than to say his Marine friends dont like peacekeeping in Iraq, which is a whole nother can of worms - ive long thought we need a seperate peacekeeping force, but im very surprised to hear that Anbar province has reached the stage of "peacekeeping")

[Ted Striker]

I already addressed it dude, you beef up the Border Patrol who are trained to do their job

It's really that practically simple

[Ecthy]

Yeah, the US government is just tricking its way around the Geneva convention here. Just why?

There must be a reason behind it. It might be actual fear of those persons' involvement in the command structure of a terrorist network, in which case they could get a trial. Or held as POWs until the war is over / infrastructure of their networks destroyed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

You realize many of these "enemy combantants" were held for years without a trial, and they were 100% completely innocent? That these same "enemy combatants" were only freed after our closest allies (UK, for example) DEMANDED they were returned?

It's crap like this why the military should stay out of it.

Most of the Gitmo detainees are clearly terrorists. Some were clearly on the side of the Taliban, and were worth holding at the time, but arent guilty of anything we can prove, and are not worth holding anymore when allies (under their own internal political pressures) are asking for their release. And IIUC at least some guys who were released, were captured AGAIN, in Afghanistan.