4 ms·

Surprising in what way? That the US military is patrolling the border of the US, as opposed to the border of a country on the other side of the planet? I assum

Surprising in what way? That the US military is patrolling the border of the US, as opposed to the border of a country on the other side of the planet? I assume you’re referring to Posse Comitatus, which is a seriously misunderstood law. Patrolling the border and ensuring territorial sovereignty is well within the purview of the US Military.

paganel 7y ago
> Patrolling the border and ensuring territorial sovereignty is well within the purview of the US Military I still think it is against the very spirit of the US Constitution and in this particular case I don't see against whom are these soldiers "ensuring territorial sovereignty"? There is no enemy military force on the opposing side of the border. I actually grew up in a Eastern-European dictatorship but even they didn't use the Military to "protect" the country's borders, the dedicated border patrol forces were doing just a fine of a job of making sure nobody was escaping the country (because that was their job). The last time when we actually had soldiers "protecting" our borders was in the late '40s-early '50s on the Yugoslav border, when there were exchanges of live ammunition between Romanian and Yugoslav soldiers each stationed on their side of the border [1]. I can't see why the already de-facto militarized Homeland Security people aren't allowed to handle this, after all this is their main job. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split
- icegreentea2 7y ago
  I believe that US military personnel are not empowered to apprehend any one in their current capacity. They are providing technical and logistical support to DHS personnel who are actually apprehending and enforcing the law. I feel like it's a little of a non-sequiter to try to compare the distribution of work amongst two militarized wings of a government in two different systems across decades. If we're going for spirit of US Constitution, we're already pretty far away - maintaining the world's strongest standing military is hardly in the spirit of the Constitution. I think there are parts of the constituion where it's still valid to seek the spirit of as a form of guidance, but it's been decades and decades since America the nation has shed that part of the constitutional spirit.
  - paganel 7y ago
    Almost everything that you said is contrary to what I believed the majority consensus was in the States, I thought that the direct involvement of the US Military on US soil was one of the ultimate political/societal taboos, maybe because of the devastating effects that the Civil War had at a societal level. But I guess I was wrong (in my defense I live half a globe away from the US).
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      The distinction is that the US Military is not, generally, permitted to enforce domestic policy. E.g. you won't find them giving out parking tickets. National security (or "the common defense") is a pretty big exception to this rule, and of course includes border security - which is an extension of foreign policy.

paganel 7y ago

> Patrolling the border and ensuring territorial sovereignty is well within the purview of the US Military I still think it is against the very spirit of the US Constitution and in this particular case I don't see against whom are these soldiers "ensuring territorial sovereignty"? There is no enemy military force on the opposing side of the border. I actually grew up in a Eastern-European dictatorship but even they didn't use the Military to "protect" the country's borders, the dedicated border patrol forces were doing just a fine of a job of making sure nobody was escaping the country (because that was their job). The last time when we actually had soldiers "protecting" our borders was in the late '40s-early '50s on the Yugoslav border, when there were exchanges of live ammunition between Romanian and Yugoslav soldiers each stationed on their side of the border [1]. I can't see why the already de-facto militarized Homeland Security people aren't allowed to handle this, after all this is their main job. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split

icegreentea2 7y ago
I believe that US military personnel are not empowered to apprehend any one in their current capacity. They are providing technical and logistical support to DHS personnel who are actually apprehending and enforcing the law. I feel like it's a little of a non-sequiter to try to compare the distribution of work amongst two militarized wings of a government in two different systems across decades. If we're going for spirit of US Constitution, we're already pretty far away - maintaining the world's strongest standing military is hardly in the spirit of the Constitution. I think there are parts of the constituion where it's still valid to seek the spirit of as a form of guidance, but it's been decades and decades since America the nation has shed that part of the constitutional spirit.
- paganel 7y ago
  Almost everything that you said is contrary to what I believed the majority consensus was in the States, I thought that the direct involvement of the US Military on US soil was one of the ultimate political/societal taboos, maybe because of the devastating effects that the Civil War had at a societal level. But I guess I was wrong (in my defense I live half a globe away from the US).
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    The distinction is that the US Military is not, generally, permitted to enforce domestic policy. E.g. you won't find them giving out parking tickets. National security (or "the common defense") is a pretty big exception to this rule, and of course includes border security - which is an extension of foreign policy.