Speaking at Duke University on the thousands of ground troops sent to the US border with Mexico, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford insisted that there are no plans for the troops to ever come in contact with the migrant caravan.
Dunford says the troops, which could number as many as 15,000 according to the administration, are merely there to support the Homeland Security operation, and aren’t intended to carry out any missions on their own.
This mad been a major question in the repeated deployment of troops to the border, as the Posse Comitatus Act is intended to prevent using the military in a law enforcement role, and officials have been very vague on what the troops will actually do.
That’s still a question, with President Trump emphasizing the installation of “beautiful” barbed wire at the border in recent days. If the National Guard deployments are any indication, the reality is that the troops probably won’t be doing all that much.
We pay trillions to the armed forces to secure borders and protect the nation from invasion… but Gen. Snowflake refuses to deploy armed forces for such purposes. Great. Fire this parasite. Slash the military budget by 90%… the US military is a useless pork barrel for MIC hogs.
And we have the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent the most powerful military force in the world from taking over our government and our communities.
If the military decides to take over it won’t be bothered by any provisions in the federal criminal code. Even a weak military could take over. Does this strike you as difficult?
How are troops on the border a threat to the government and our communities? Btw, it isn’t “our” government.
Anyone notice deep state operatives are now in Congress? Any bets on what committees they end up chairing? Praetorian guard politics American style.
Sky, hasn’t Israel already done that?
Shhhhhh….
Thanks to Obama, Posse Comitatus rescinded… then batted around since then… The act doesn’t have much standing by now… and in any case repelling an organized breach of the border by foreign nationals is a legitimate national security threat, that the military needs to respond to.
Posse Comitatus was in tatters LONG before Obama.
The first domestic counter-narcotics missions the US Marine Corps sent me on were under Bush the Elder, under the fiction that we were “training in infantry patrolling” and merely “reporting what we saw” to the law enforcement we worked with.
It was early in the Clinton years when I was ordered to explicitly, blatantly and without disguise violate both Posse Comitatus and the mission’s written rules of engagement by leading an organized surveillance of a US national on US soil. I requested mast in appeal of that order all the way to the commanding general of Joint Task Force Six, and the order was affirmed. So I purposely flubbed the mission and got out of the Marine Corps not long after that. I later found out that the same cops I was working with, who wanted the illegal surveillance, had previously used JTF-6 surveillance as part of their scheme to murder a man named Donald Scott who had refused to sell his property to the government.
Yes , yes. But under Obama is was FORMALLY voided… you can’t see the difference between de facto and de jure?
Yes, I can see the difference between de facto and de jure. Please feel free to point to any FORMAL or de jure voiding of Posse Comitatus under Obama. Not saying it didn’t happen, just that I never heard about it if it did.
Try Google. That’s what it’s there for… part of two Obama military spending authorizations.
In other words, you made it up. No problem.
No. A complete history of recent back and forth on PC can be easily found if
you’re not dumb and lazy… I’m not your personal tutor… this is all common knowledge easily found by anyone interested in the subject.
http://www.billslinksandmore.com/2010/01/22/obama-executive-order-13528-subverts-posse-comitatus-act-of-1878/
I found this link in less than 10 seconds jackass…
You’re right — I’m not dumb and lazy. When I make a claim, I recognize that it’s my obligation to substantiate that claim if I want it to be believed, not someone else’s job to just believe me unless they want to go do my work for me.
OK, so you link to an article claiming that an Obama executive order, like many executive orders before under many other presidents before, “subverts” Posse Comitatus.
What I asked for was evidence of any formal or de jure voiding of Posse Comitatus under Obama.
You, of course, being the one who brought up the de facto vs. de jure distinction in the first place.
Keep whining gramps. I sent you a damn link … but you still want to complain like a lazy dumbass… too much time on your hands, pops.
Yes, you sent me a link that said the opposite of what you claimed.
You’re dyslexic.
You do know that it’s illegal if not unconstitutional to deploy the nation’s armed forces domestically as law enforcement, right? Even Donnie has to obey the law, no matter how much you anti-American authoritarians want Trump to be given the power to do whatever he wants, because America Great.
Also – we don’t pay billions for the armed forces to secure the borders. We pay for them to impose our will overseas. Which is a big reason for this website to exist, but I’m glad you whiffed on that one.
Repelling invasion is not law enforcement, dufus. It’s a military function.
So simply designate illegal aliens as ‘economic terrorists’ and voila! it’s a military operation. GWOT and all that, you know.
I like the way you think.
But it’s perfectly legal to deploy troops to repel an invasion. If he uses that rationale, the matter will proceed to the Supreme Court, where his national security prerogatives will prevail.
You need to get over thinking of yourself as some kind of constitutional scholar.
Fire Dunford.
Yes, it’s perfectly legal to deploy troops to repel an invasion.
Other than a few submarine-dropped German saboteurs during World War II, the last time the US was invaded was in 1863.
People looking for work and places to live isn’t an “invasion.” It’s just people living their lives without your fucking permission.
Thomas you are wrong, it is an invasion of our legal border by people of a foreign nation. We have every right to place troops on our own border to protect the U.S. Fire Dumbford!
Yes, if words mean things they don’t mean, then it is what you say it is.
It’s not an invasion (that would be an armed force bent on conquest or damage, not a bunch of people looking for jobs cutting lawns and picking lettuce).
As far as “legal” is concerned, the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to regulate immigration.
And there is no “we” involved.
It might not be an armed invasion, but it still is an invasion of outsiders.
So use the military when there is an ARMED invasion.
Oh, it’s definitely an armed invasion, Solly. What do you think MS-13 and other gangbangers, as well as other violent criminals, have in their possession? They have knives, machetes, you name it. What did you think they did to the Mexican police and Federales? They attacked them with weapons.
However, they won’t be able to do to the armed US forces currently guarding the US-Mexican border what they did to the Mexican police and Federales, they’ll open fire on those violent criminals.
Trump proclaimed a National Emergency all along our southern border, which gives the military forces the right to fire back at the criminal elements within the caravan.
I hope this is a joke.
“the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to regulate immigration”.
I am not sure that is true in practice. President Truman smuggled Wernher von Braun into our country bypassing all standard immigration practices. Perhaps that is not “regulation” but it is an authority which the President apparently has.
Another case. Foreigners who are here on a temporary visa and who have been working for companies or universities must according to law leave the country and apply for immigration-if that is what they wish-from abroad (1). In many cases their temporaries are prolonged “for being needed” and they apply for a green card while here. All done by the DoJ under Presidential order but case-by-case.
Yes, they must have an influential sponsor.
(1) The US does not specify from which country they must apply. Canada is OK.
And, do you think that anywone that makes it to the US border should be admitted? Should taxpayers be forced to pay for services for these people?
Article I, Section 9 forbade the federal government to regulate immigration prior to 1808. After that, Amendment 10 would have required a constitutional amendment to create such a power. No such amendment has ever been proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
Yes, I think that anyone who makes it to the US border should be admitted, as was entirely the case prior to 1882 and mostly the case prior to 1947.
Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for “services” to anyone. But as it happens, it is immigrants who subsidize “services” for lazy Americans, not the other way around.
This lazy American works long hours. I pay rather high taxes including huge school taxes. Where I live, that includes the children of people that are undocumented.
You have pointed out that immigration policy is not a enumerated power. Therefore, it is reserved to the States. However, States are not allowed to control immigration. Would you then favor the Federal government being removed from this duty? How would you deal with those that pass through one state to another? You do understand that this leads to a dispute between states? Which the Federal Government IS empowered to do.
And your claim that undocumented immigrants subsidize Americans. The facts don’t agree. But if you want to sponser those people with you as a guarantor of those you sponser, then go for it. Until you and those like you do that you are using government force against me to support your beliefs.
Yes, because leaving people alone is “using government force to support my beliefs,” while using government force to run everyone else’s life to suit you isn’t. Derp.
Exactly how do I use or advocate government force “to run everyones life….”?
BUT, since the advocates of open borders know full well that those of us that disagree with that policy will pay more taxes as a result of those open borders it appears that it is you, and those like you, are the the ones trying to run other peoples lives.
I notice that you are unwilling to even make the claim that you are willing to pay the price for your beliefs on open borders. Therefore, it is obvious you are indeed advocating force to be used against others in the form of taxation.
As is common in these discussions, those such as yourself, often resort to non arguments and name calling. This is your way of deflecting the discourse. It does you no credit.
I’m not sure what “price” you don’t think I’m “willing to pay” for my beliefs on open borders.
Immigrants, legal and illegal, pay more per capita in taxes, consume less per capita in “government services,” and are less likely to commit crimes, than native-born Americans, not to mention decreasing cost of living for those native-born Americans.
Therefore, any attempt to impede immigration is a demand that I pay more taxes, have fewer “government services” available to me, and be more likely to be the victim of a crime just so you get to decide who crosses a gang turf line on property that you do not own.
If by “paying the price” for my beliefs you are referring to the question of whether or not I harbor “illegal” [sic] immigrants on property I own, the correct answer is “none of your business,” but the answer you’re looking for is “not at the moment, but I have in the past, might do so in the future, and donate a little money to organizations that do.”
So, if the (inaccurate) claim that migrants use less government services than native born, that makes it less of a problem, and less onerous to those of us that have our property confiscated by the State to support them? That’s what you are arguing?
BTW the above statistics you cite fabricated. 76 % of undocumented immigrants are on some form of government assistance. Things like public education are not even included.
Note that I never asked IF you harbored anyone on your property. Indeed it is none of anyone’s business. Note that I did suggest that if you believed people should freely come and go, that they do not violate my, or anyone else’s property rights, if you or their advocates are responsible for them.
“76 % of undocumented immigrants are on some form of government assistance.”
That’s like saying that you saw 50 out of 100 invisible people.
If they’re on some form of government assistance, they are by definition documented.
Not correct. In sanctuary states and localities no proof of citizenship is not required to obtain government benefits. Children of undocumented migrants are given free education in every state. Even if the were not born in the USA.
Perhaps that explains why you cite bogus statistics on government aid. It is not recorded.
One must wonder where you have been. It’s hard to believe you are unaware of the truth. You cite statistics that have been disproved. Shear propaganda. You also claim to be a advocate of property rights but use the excuse of the State to defend the efforts of those that use migration to violate the property rights of lthers.
Your positions are more ideological than consistant.
Do you live in a sanctuary state or locality?
If so, and if you object to their policies, why don’t you move?
Of course, what you say is not true of all sanctuary states and localities. In many, the only thing “sanctuary” means is that they practice federalism by refusing to use local law enforcement resources to enforce federal laws, and constitutionalism by refusing to hold people the ICE gang wants to abduct unless ICE provides a warrant or judicial order.
OMG. The ” America love it or leave it argument “. This just gets better and better. And yes. I live in a sanctuary state. Why should I be forced to leave? I am not the aggressor.
But it is the other gang that most effects my property tights. The idea that those that empower the State by receiving goods pilfered from me are innocent or less culpable is nonsense.
But you seem to believe that one that rewards a thief and encourages the theft is innocent of the crime. And that is exactly what empowers the state you claim to oppose. THAT is the problem.
I oppose all transfer and “welfare” payments from the state to anyone, regardless of which side of the state gang’s turf line that person was born on.
I also believe that until and unless someone actually DOES steal from me, etc., his behavior in crossing magic lines drawn on the ground by politicians is none of my business.
In the meantime, you seem to insist that you’re entitled to receive goods pilfered by the state in the form of the service of enforcing those turf lines against people who have neither broken your leg nor picket your pocket nor demonstrated any intent to do either. Perhaps they are potential welfare queens, but in this particular are you are an actual one.
Nope. More nonsense. I do not “insist” on any such thing.
But just for laughs, you defend don’t seem to have much of a problem with migrants receiving looted property. You seem to think that’s OK because it’s the government that did the deed. Receiving the stolen property is OK and trying to prevent the theft is the crime. Wow. THAT’S your argument?
And you defend such under the guise of they take less than some others. Yikes.
No, I don’t think it’s OK for migrants to receive stolen property.
I don’t think it’s OK for you to receive stolen property either.
And it’s stolen property that you want to use to supposedly prevent thefts that have neither taken place nor been threatened.
I don’t think you should be forced to leave.
But I do think that if it upsets you that the government in your area won’t abduct other people and take their stuff because you think you’re more entitled to run their lives than they are, you might be better off moving to an area more in keeping with your philosophy of government. DC, maybe. Or Pyongyang.
The discrepancy is showing up in your remarks. You suggest that I should consider relocating because I oppose the State confiscation of my property. But you, who claim to have a problem with the States theft and the States warfare policies omit yourself from that option. Funny.
And then more “love it or leave it jargon”. Thinly disguised. No real substance. Kind of like the Libertarian Party. Just slightly outre’. But conventional with the same basic belief system as beltway libertarians. Closet statists that often use pro government statistics. Like you do.
Fact is that open borders will expand State power. And I think you know that.
But just for laughs again how am I running others lives? By opposing my property being taken? And how exactly am I empowering government in my area to abduct anyone? How about this: is Fraud a crime? Is it a crime to accept goods and/or services stolen?. Am I allowed to empower another to stop such?
If this shows up…. Now up to 5 replies missing. All within the last 24 hrs. Hard to keep track of this. And I run a business. Productive you know. Creating goods and services.
Ever wonder what would happen if there is a Ian Rand moment for the people that actually produce goods and services?
So far as I can tell, you have a grand total of zero “replies missing.” There are no recent deleted comments. There are no comments in the spam filters. There are no comments in pending. If you posted comments and didn’t get some kind of error reply from Disqus, they’re right where you posted them.
The next time I say, or even imply, love it or leave it will be the first time. All I suggested is that you have options other than bellyaching that the state won’t run everyone else’s lives to make you feel better.
The fact is that the US has always had open borders, has open borders now, and always will have open borders. It has 95,500 miles of border and coastline. If every man Jack in all the armed forces and every law enforcement officer at every level in the US was assigned to nothing BUT “border security,” the vast majority of those who choose to get in would get in.
We can have open borders, or we can have open borders based on the dystopian fantasy that it’s possible to protect your feelzez if we just build a big enough police state.
I don’t suggest that you love America or leave it for the no longer existing East Germany. But I’m more than just suggesting that I will fight against your demands that America BECOME East Germany.
Actually Knapp asserts facts with no links or validation…
Yep. Noticed that.
You are aware of Sanctuary states and localities correct. No documentation required for government benefits. You are aware that children of undocumented migrants attend schools, correct?
But it might explain the bogus statistics you cite. Not recorded. BTW, even in on sanctuary states and localities, undocumented persons do receive benefits. I know this for a fact because a close relative works for a states attorney general in the fraud division for Medicaid. Note the fraud isn’t for getting benefits, it’s for false claims.
The real issue has been obfuscated!
It is the USA Government that violates the Non Aggression Principle and extorts tax money to give to welfare recipients. Most of those recipients are USA citizens, a small proportion of those recipients are immigrants who “qualify” according to Welfare Rules and Regs.
Being the original
thiefextortionist, the USA Government is the proper target for corrective action, not the recipients of the stolen goods. When the thievery/robbery/extortion is stopped, there will be no stolen goods to be distributed.True. But until the welfare/warfare/Security State is curbed or ended, one must defend oneself from threats as best as possible. In this case, those that will use the State for looting (redistribution) are to be opposed whenever possible. Those that support the theft are aiding and abetting. Claims that some are not getting the lions share and should therefore be given a pass are being disingenuous.
You are wasting resources while fighting the wrong issue.
If you want to BE free, you must do things that will MAKE you free!
Meaningless comment. And you have no Idea who I am or what I do.
I do not care who you are or what you do. You are focused on the distribution of stolen property rather than the SOURCE of the stolen property.
Their is no constitutional mandate for open borders… border control is not unconstitutional… illegal immigration is not sanctioned by the constitution… Immigration control has been practiced legally for almost two centuries. We don’t need more people in the US at this time, though billions would love to live here.
Sorry folks… build your own country… we don’t need you and we don’t welcome you
Open borders are what exist in nature. Governments create borders and extort taxes in order to close them.
The USA Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE the Federal Government to control immigration. It DOES AUTHORIZE the Federal Government to “naturalize” people who apply for citizenship.
The USA Constitution does not even contain the words “immigrant” or “immigration”.
The ONLY things that are “illegal” about immigration (and drugs) are the Federal government laws, rules, regulations and actions!
See detailed analysis at
tinyurl(DOT)com/ILLEGAL-LAWS-W
tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS-W
Said rules and regulations are voted ion by Congress in a lawful manner… We get it: you’re an anarchist… we don’t accept your viewpoint…
That reply is simple evasion of the points I raised.
Actually, the US Constitution does contain the word “migration” — in Article I, Section 9, where it forbade the federal government to regulate immigration prior to 1808.
After 1808, per the 10th Amendment, it would have taken a constitutional amendment to create such a power. No such amendment has ever been proposed by 2/3 of both Houses of Congress or ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures as required. Which makes all federal immigration laws repugnant to the Constitution and, per Madison v. Marbury, void.
ICE and the US Border Patrol are armed criminal gangs. It is entirely proper to avoid them when possible and resist them when necessary. And as a practical matter, the sooner their members start finishing their shifts in body bags in significant numbers, the sooner they’ll either go get jobs in the productive sector or at least turn their efforts to crimes that are less violent in nature.
We are in agreement. In my article at the link provided, I did address the word “migration” found in Article I, Section 9:
The article also mentions the Steerage Act of 1819 and points out that:
The reason “migration” and “importation” are used as separate words in Article I, Section 9 is because they refer to separate things. “Importation” refers to slaves. Migration refers to free persons.
That section was included as a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. The southern states wouldn’t ratify if the feds could interfere with the slave trade, and Pennsylvania wouldn’t ratify if the feds could interfere with the large numbers of free workers coming to the northeast from Europe.
So yes, “immigration” IS mentioned in the Constitution, as “migration.”
Migration of slaves (or even free people) between states within the country is not the same as IMmigration into the country. [Or EMmigration from the country]
They are two [3] different words because they are two [3] different concepts. They mean different things.
What do you think a government Bureau of Migration would do? (Perish the thought!)
The definition of invasion is not yours to decide. In your snowflake arrogance and cultural presumption you may well imagine yourself the god of definitions. But good luck with such obvious BS. As to meanings/definitions, they don’t come from dictionaries, they come from usage, are fluid, vary from individual to individual, and across time. At the moment, thousands of foreigners are headed for our nation, intent on unlawfully breaching our borders.
As to “the federal government is constitutionally forbidden to regulate immigration.” That would be from state to state, so your argument is not only wrong, but dishonest.
And finally, there is most certainly a very big ***WE*** involved:
“*********We********
the People of the United States,….
(1) in Order to form a more perfect Union,
(2) establish Justice,
(3) insure domestic Tranquility,
(4) provide for the common defence,
(5)promote the general Welfare, and
(6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
…..do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
A very substantial number of “We the people” see the “invasion” as a clear threat to every one of the six points above, and you, no matter your arrogance, are not “We the people,…”
Yeah, but me and my revolver are a match for any seven of you death cultists.
Mr. Knapp, I realize this is off topic by a lot. Why were comments concerning the article on the tortured 9/11 suspect, not allowed ? Seems to be a disqus thing, and not you. 2nd question, where is the proper place for my question within antiwar.com?
I don’t know anything about “comments concerning the article on the tortured 9/11 suspect” — are you referring to an article here on Antiwar.com or to a topic? I’ll be glad to look into that.
I don’t understand your second question.
It is the article on antiwar.com, today, and yesterday, titled “Operation Cuckoo” under “Viewpoints”. The discus message states “these comments now closed”. I am relatively new, and haven’t seen a closed discussion.
Dave,
That article isn’t on Antiwar.com. It’s on Middle East Eye, an entirely different site. Antiwar.com just links to it and has no control over comments there.
I see, thnx…
No, thank YOU for mentioning something that didn’t look right. If it hadn’t been an external link, it might have been an internal technical problem that would have needed to be looked into.
The 6 fanciful suggestions you quote bear no relation to the actions of the present USA.
Seeking asylum is recognized as “legal” by USA law. They are NOT “unlawfully breaching our borders.” They will be seeking asylum by entering at border crossing, not charging the border.
Illegal entry disqualifies an asylum application… certainly it is under Trump it is
A person must set foot (literally) on USA soil in order to ask for asylum. Entry points are arranged in a manner for that to be possible.
Then why the heck did we bomb/invade Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11? Neither attacked us.
Bingo! Thomas would certainly not have approved that!
My argument differs. If this is an invasion then President Trump must be impeached for failing to declare that we are at war with at least Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador whose invasion forces we must now bomb and we must also blockade these counties. By failing to declare war he aids and abets an enemy of the United States.
FDR did not hesitate long after the Pearl Harbor “invasion” (1). There is a President for you who knew his responsibilities.
(1) Japanese planes invaded US territory. The next day Germany declared to be at war with us.
Japanese planes attacked US territory at Pearl Harbor. They didn’t invade US territory there. There’s a difference. Not a single Japanese boot set foot on US soil in that attack, nor was there any intention to remain there.
Now that you bring it up, though, I remember that Japan did in fact invade US territory in World War II — the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, a couple of the Aleutians, etc. Good catch.
How dare them invade places we invaded first, the nerve.
Well then, Dieter, Trump already declared a National Emergency the moment he received news that a caravan of mostly violent criminals was headed toward the US-Mexican border from their home countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. He does NOT need to be impeached for doing his duty. He also warned these 3 countries that aid to them would be cut off, if they continued sending their criminals (and a mix of ordinary people such as women and children) to our southern border.
The US is already at war in Afghanistan (going on 18 years there), Syria and other countries (and none of these wars are declared wars). What Trump must do is close down these 100+ military bases abroad and bring the troops there home. We have no right or business waging aggressive wars in countries unable to defend themselves.
All foreign aid should be ended anyway.
“Living their lives”- that’s a joke. They operate on the theory that the moment they are able to push, pull, or drag their carcasses across the border they are entitled to welfare benefits and legal representation- and as the big banks, such as BOA have announced they accept them as new account holders, and some states will issue driver’s licenses, the skids are greased for voter registration as well.
You mean like at Waco under Clinton? Posse Comitatus is dead. Besides, this is a foreign invasion that needs to be repulsed. Would you rather the militias act?
Yes, I mean like under Waco at Clinton.
Yes, Posse Comitatus is effectively treated as dead, and was before Waco. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t object to it being treated as dead.
This is only a “foreign invasion” if words don’t mean things.
No, I wouldn’t rather the terror groups acted.
Perhaps the rabid righties could just claim “stand yer ground” and start shooting up everyone and everything.
Stopping illegals from outside coming into our country is not “domestic” law enforcement–it is protecting our borders, and using the military for that if necessary.
Well, if you want to use the military to protect your borders, fine — ask them to get out of their enlistment contracts and go to work for you.
I don’t need to. Much as I loath Trump, I agree with him on border protection…and hopefully he’ll do that.
Indeed. One of the few things that Trump is sorta right on.
That’s where you’re wrong, Mork. It’s definitely NOT illegal to deploy troops to the US-Mexican border to prevent an invasion. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the deployment of the military domestically as law enforcement, deploying them to our southern border to prevent an invasion is NOT COVERED under the Posse Comitatus Act.
You must be in favor of hordes of mostly violent criminals in caravans invading this Sovereign Nation to post such nonsense. Once again, deploying military forces to the border to prevent an invasion is NOT COVERED under the Posse Comitatus Act. Get it??!!
“You must be in favor of hordes of mostly violent criminals in caravans invading this Sovereign Nation”
No, I’m in favor of having some earthly idea what the hell you’re talking about instead of just buying the fear and begging Daddy Gummint to protect you from the possibility that someone, somewhere, might be doing something without your permission.
Mr Knapp. You are showing extreme bias on this issue. You are also being abusive to those that differ in their viewpoint. I think it would be fair to ask another moderator to review your comments.
My job as moderator is to enforce guidelines. If you believe I’ve violated one of those guidelines, let me know in what way. If I have, I’ll delete the violating material. Hint: There are no guidelines that forbid any commenter, moderator or not, from being “biased” on an issue, or from considering a particular viewpoint on that issue stupid and evil and saying so.
No. But I believe the there is something like civil discourse included in guidelines. I pointed out bias as the REASON you use derogatory terms. I don’t care about your bias.
Nope, nothing about civil discourse, at least in the existing draft version of guidelines which Antiwar.com has supposedly been about to publish any day now so that I don’t have to keep copying/pasting sections into comments when the guidelines are discussed. Here are the draft guidelines, with the final section omitted because it’s about how to appeal moderator actions and last time I knew the persons/addresses for that had not been settled on:
—–
Stuff Up With Which We Will Not Put:
SPAM — Our comment spaces are reserved for reader discussion of Antiwar.com’s articles and the issues they relate to. This is not the place to advertise penis enlargement pills, work from home opportunities, essay writing services, etc. That does NOT mean you can’t link to a relevant/topical book, video, article, etc., but not repetitively and not if the primary purpose of your commenting is to sell stuff.
HATE SPEECH — You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to use Antiwar.com’s facilities to publish slurs or supremacist claims based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, or to link to sites promoting such material. We don’t want that stuff here.
ILLEGAL/ILLICIT MATERIAL — We do not tolerate posting of threats of violence against people or groups; plagiarism, i.e unattributed or falsely self-attributed lengthy postings of material created by other people; or pornographic material no matter the format.
ATTACKS ON ANTIWAR.COM ITSELF — Attempts to hack or otherwise technically damage the site are obviously forbidden, as are non-technical attempts to damage our ability to operate (including our ability to raise funds) and personal abuse of Antiwar.com’s writers and staff. If you don’t want to support Antiwar.com, don’t support Antiwar.com. If you want to ask others to not support Antiwar.com, ask them somewhere else. Our willingness to host reader discussions is not a suicide pact.
What We Do About That Stuff:
Our commenting system includes both pre-installed and custom-created filters to hold comments which may violate our guidelines until a moderator can have a look at those comments and approve or delete them. Those filters are not perfect, which is why we make every effort to have a human look over any automatically held comments. Please be patient.
Our moderators are empowered to enforce the guidelines by deleting, or deleting offending material from, comments which violate them and by banning egregious or persistent violators from further participation in commenting/discussion at Antiwar.com.
—–
“You do know that it’s illegal if not unconstitutional to deploy the nation’s armed forces domestically as law enforcement, right?”
You might think so, but this did not stop federal troop deployments in New Orleans after the flood, or elsewhere.
Why mad at Dunford? He’s a floor boy taking orders.
What? There is no chance anyone will invade the USA and all the spending is for belligerent actions all over other countries that “we” want to boss around and to make money for the big “defense” contractors. Attacking people so desperate as to wish to enter from nations “our government” has destroyed (Honduras this time) is not the job for the volunteer military!!
As stated above, repelling an organized breach of the border by foreign nationals is a
legitimate national security threat, that the military needs to respond
to.
There are billions of desperate people all over the world that would like to live in the US… sorry … we can’t accommodate them … just as there are millions of poor people in the US that would like to share your assets… you can do this if you feel so strongly about it (share your home, give them all a debit card to you checking account) or adopt families in Central America that you can write a check to support every month. Yeah. didn’t think so.
True, The US is responsible in part for the deplorable conditions in Central America after sponsoring coups, death squads and banana republics for two centuries. But herding desperate poor people into the US is hardly the answer.
But it would be the first use of US troops in a mission that actually protected America, in over 70 years. Why pass that up?
why did the governor call up the national guard like at kent state
He was lonely.
Kent State was where the military shot protesting college students . Just like in China where tanks drove over the protestors in Tinamen square .
Our civilian and military leaders are f*****g useless. Defending the nation is just too hard. US to rest of world: “We are pussies!!!”
The only thing they can do legally is setup a tent city and make sure asylum seekers don’t escape before being processed. The posse comitatus act only applies to US citizens inside the borders. But if History teaches us anything, the US government can apparently find ways around that, remember the incarceration of Japanese civilians during WWII? The National Guard has done many unchallenged police actions in the past, usually to quell racial riots. Why would that be legal in black neighborhoods and not at the border?
“The posse comitatus act only applies to US citizens inside the borders.”
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean.
The posse comitatus act applies to the US Army (the other services follow it pursuant to cabinet secretary policies).
Not all soldiers are US citizens, so that can’t be your meaning.
The act forbids the military to enforce domestic law. It makes no distinctions vis a vis whether the targets of such enforcement are or are not US citizens.
Except in cases of rebellion, _invasion_, and when public safety requires it. Look it up.
It’s not that I like the idea of anybody using the army for police action. I was just pointing out that it would not be the first time, so there has to be some legal grounds behind it. Trump did not use the term ‘invasion’ for nothing. Being against what he is doing is fine by me. But pretending he is breaking the law is not honest, since a simple google search will answer that question in no time. I don’t know for you, but I strongly dislike dishonesty.
“Trump did not use the term ‘invasion’ for nothing. ”
True. He used the term “invasion” to try and get an extra fraction of a percent of his base out to the polls.
What I meant is that he used the word ‘invasion’ because that’s the term used in the law. That’s exactly the same reason, inreverse, why Comey avoided the term ‘gross negligence’ in his report on HRC’s emails.
i.e.: the US army was involved in police operations in Iraq… Has nothing to do with the US importing cannon fodder.
Bass, the N.G. is also great at killing college students on campus, remember the Kent State murderers!? No one payed for that bloody mess at the hands of those cowards.
The state is very good at killing people. It’s about the only thing it’s always been really good at.
They should be planting landmines.
You should join the IDF.
Any American who puts on a foreign uniform should have his/her citizen revoked.
As should anyone who wants to put landmines our border.
I understand your frustration, LB, but that’s needlessly harsh. Give the caravaners a nice cool drink, perhaps a shower to freshen up — no need to be rude — then w/o further ado, put them on a plane and fly them home with a letter explaining that asylum claims must be filed with the consulate in their home country.
(Someone here may complain that this would be unlawful. I suggest that the solution would be an Executive Order making it lawful.)
Also, let’s forget the wall, it was always a waste for money, not to mention ineffective. Just bring home most/all the troops from Japan, Korea, and Germany, and deploy them all along the southern border. Problem solved.
This is best solution. Planes to return them to fill out paperwork in their country. As for returning troups, I would add all thise that serve no purpose but to be a tripeire for a conflict we are itching to generate. And that includes patrolling Syrian-Turkey borderer, squatting around Al-Tanf and in Iraq. Out if Middle East.
Since George Soros is financing this demographic enrichment of this country, we should be obligated to defer to his and his like minded oligarchs judgement on this matter. Our military should only be used to protect our heroic ally in the Middle-East.
If these people are such a threat shouldn’t we be attacking them before they get here? Maybe do a couple of bombing raids. That is, of course, unless they have some sophisticated anti-aircraft system they purchased from the Russians.
Of course. We couldn’t POSSIBLY use troops to defend the country from invaders. That would be SANE, and we’re a trillion light years beyond sane.
If they’re not going to protect our borders, why do we even have a military?
I’m not sure if you’re asking a practical or political question there.
As a practical matter, the purpose of the US military is to justify the funneling of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from your pocket to the bank accounts of e.g. Lockheed Martin.
As a political matter, the supposed purpose of the US military is to defend the country. Not the borders, the country. And not from guys who want to mow your lawn or pluck the poultry you eat, but from actual, you know, ATTACKERS.
Dunford says the troops, which could number as many as 15,000 according to the administration, are merely there to support the Homeland Security operation, and aren’t intended to carry out any missions on their own.”
What the hell do you need 15,000 troops for “support.”?
I’m surprised at the “Antiwar.com” readers for falling for govt propaganda so readily. “Invaders” do not typically approach your border with round the clock television coverage and babies and children in tow … they attack stealthily and rapidly … like the Japanese at Pearl, the Germans on the Russian front, the Americans in Iraq. Those are invasions.
What we have here is a large group of people seeking asylum. They simply need to be processed and there are procedures for doing so. Those that meet requirements need to be let in; those that do not need to be turned out. The only possible role for the military would be if there would be any violent reaction on the Mexico side of the border … unlikely, but possible.
This sounds rational — for the times we live in. And American sanity has been destroyed a whike ago by miney elites, droliying bkth politicians and their winbags and media to convince us that night us day, war is peace snd poverty just the state of our mind. Look at the new generations coming up — elites worry that they are behaving entitled expecting life to be given to them with no effort, no need to learn. They are all touted by elites as “anazing” and the best, hoping that Facebook generation is too dumb to notice the plan for bringing them down to earth.
This may be the reason for getting large influx of desparate people to snap uo opportunities. And keep the mindless economy and its zimbie corporations afloat.
But make no mistake this is organized event. Just like the one in Europe was. There were two very dufferent routes to Europe. One,?with free buses and trains whizing past borders in Balkans and dumping them straight into Germany. Hundreds of thousands came that way — no reaction from officialdom, until the jnformal caravans hit. ONLY THEN it became visible. People were crissib borders, walking along railroad tracks, dying in trucks and ships crossing Mediterranean. Then, debates started. What a joke. That was for media to enjoy the horror of population being invaded and horror of those coming in — facing domestic fury. Politicians win. Now, talking about rotten economy and trillions spent on wars and occuoations — becones secondary. Elites can sit back and enjoy the conflict and social turmoil beating up on those preventing progress and diversity.
Letting people in would be a mistake — making Mexico and others take them a first choice. But nothing sane will happen to change mindless polucies destroying local economies.
So, immigration will seep into already overwhelmed school systems. Even rich systems have huge classroom suzes, and “inclusive” policues dumped kuds with serious mental retardation, emitional disabiluties and with no language skilks into same classrooms. Good luck.
We are nit capable to think any more. Be realistic about our abilities and resources. Strutting around the globe, while getting empiwerished in the process. Getting mire poor people will NOT help.
We have been using Troops in Police Actions all over the world, and they can Police here too!
So far, I have had 4 comments/replies that have not shown up on this thread…None have violated the guidelines.
Recently? I’m not seeing any comments from you in the “pending” or “spam” folders, nor any in the “deleted” section (although that one stretches back for months and I only looked at the last few days’ worth).
Yes really. All the missing comments were responses to you. All came via disqus. One was rewritten and sent again and neither showed up. No mistake.
I’m not sure what you mean by “no mistake.”
If you’re suggesting that I deleted your comments, yes, that is either a mistake or a lie. I have no particular opinion as to which.
Meaning there was no mistake that I posted the comment. You seem to, once again, take things wrong.
I think that I’m about done here. After many years of promoting and supporting anti-war.com and unfailing support for Justin, and financial support for antiwar.com from me and several associates, I’ve had enough.
Enough of what? The comment section is for discussion. You got discussion. Justin is still here. I’d be sorry to see you go. If it’s because I argued an issue with you, I’ll try to remember to not do that anymore.