3 ms·

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 DH

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.