Jump to content

[Update - John Kelly signs order allowing military to use lethal force, and take part in policing/searches] Trump says that if caravan people throw rocks at military, he is authorizing military to fire back

CitizenVectron
 Share

Recommended Posts

CitizenVectron

CitizenVectron

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Pretty sure Mattis isn't going to issue an unlawful order.

 

You know, maybe this is Kelly's 12D-Chess way of getting Trump not to actually issue the order. Kelly, realizing Trump is serious and wants US troops to fire on refugees, says "don't worry boss, I'll take care of that order for you!" knowing that it will be ignored or overturned in court. Then, months from now when it is finally resolved, Trump will have moved on since he can't hold an idea in his head longer than a few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mclumber1

mclumber1

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

You know, maybe this is Kelly's 12D-Chess way of getting Trump not to actually issue the order. Kelly, realizing Trump is serious and wants US troops to fire on refugees, says "don't worry boss, I'll take care of that order for you!" knowing that it will be ignored or overturned in court. Then, months from now when it is finally resolved, Trump will have moved on since he can't hold an idea in his head longer than a few days.

 

Yeah, but Kelly doesn't like Mexican'ts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, CayceG said:

The President signed the order. Kelly signed the communication to the Pentagon. 

 

See page 2 of the document shown in this story:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-memo-migrant-caravan-border-troops-1226945

 

 

Let's say Trump gets his massacre, could the States arrest the Commanding Officers for murder? They aren't on Federal property, Posse Comitatus of clearly is still in effect. Under what authority are they using deadly force since it isn't federal law enforcement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5timechamp

5timechamp

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, CayceG said:

I don't think they're being deployed with guns.

 

Militaries when mobilized take the essential gear.."have and not need, need not have"..

 

that being said.. the announcement is the word from the top.. we shall see how border, homeland security and leaders on the ground apply this "freedom".... clubs/shields riot formations are certainly not beyond the realm....

 

We shall see how "serious" of a detterance message leaders on the ground wish to present

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5timechamp

5timechamp

Posted
Posted

There are 2) things to watch

-the mobilization had an end date of Dec 15... no mention of extension has been made to the media

 

-if not extended then replacement units should already be mobilizing (screwing another set of troops out of Xmas, unlikely)

 

An extension is more likely, it will ultimately depend if theres any "significant" incident between now and then... but the NG could be enough to handle that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CayceG

CayceG

Posted
Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/us/politics/troops-migrants-border-force.html

 

From the top. 

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Wednesday that American troops stationed at the southwest border would not be armed with guns to confront incoming migrants, despite a White House directive that aims to protect border security officials by pairing them with military forces.

 

The White House memo seeks to expand the mission of the troops at the border to also include duties such as crowd control and temporary detention. But Mr. Mattis said it left the final decision on what American soldiers and Marines could do — and could not — to the defense secretary.

 

Mr. Mattis mentioned one possible instance in which troops might act: defending a border agent who was hit by a rock, and detaining the migrant who threw it. But asked whether such a situation might call for the American soldier to be armed, the defense secretary unequivocally said it would not.

 

“No,” he said. “Not with a firearm.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaladinSolo

PaladinSolo

Posted
Posted

So yeah, Murica?

 

 

Mattis appeared not to have seen the order before it was signed, telling reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday, “I’m reviewing that now.” He also suggested he was aware that Kelly had signed the order at Trump’s insistence: Kelly “has the authority to do what the president tells him to do,” Mattis said, adding that regardless of what he himself is asked to do, he will not order troops to violate the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chollowa

Chollowa

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jason said:

 

Is the implication here that none of this is happening and that CBP/Fox were making this up out of thin air? If so, I think that's bullshit. Fox News sucks and the CBP is whatever, but as far as I know there was a group of migrants at the border that were throwing rocks. I'm in San Diego, so some of the reporters I follow are down there reporting on the issue. Wendy Fry is one of those reporters and she has video that seemingly shows rocks being thrown over the border by the migrants. 

 

I also have a buddy that is CHP up in Oceanside and he was actually called to the Border on Thanksgiving day and was on standby to go when they shut it down. The information he's getting from his superiors seems to match the rhetoric from the Trump side (possible terrorists in the caravan, etc). Also, I find it weird the fact that these migrants are being murdered (probably by the cartels) while on their journey isn't a bigger piece of the story. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snaynay1

Snaynay1

Posted
Posted
On 11/21/2018 at 4:44 PM, Jwheel86 said:

Let's say Trump gets his massacre, could the States arrest the Commanding Officers for murder? They aren't on Federal property, Posse Comitatus of clearly is still in effect. Under what authority are they using deadly force since it isn't federal law enforcement?

The Marine Corps and Navy don't fall under the act. They are only bound by it by memo from years ago. Hence why they have been called in the past to put down riots along with the national guard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snaynay1

Snaynay1

Posted
Posted

With this in mind, the Department of Defense developed an innovative approach so that the Navy and Marine Corps may interdict, search, seize and arrest.03 Keep in mind that the Navy and Marine Corps are not included in the Posse Comitatus Act. Only as a matter of policy has the law been applied to these military services.' 4 Section 37535 of the new Act directs the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations to insure that military assistance provided does not interdict a vessel, search, seize or arrest. However, that Section only applies to activities authorized under the new Act and only if such activity was not otherwise authorized by law. As the authority of the Navy and Marine Corps does not come from the new Act, restraints applicable only to the new Act do not affect them. This position is reinforced by Section 378,96 which emphasizes that nothing in the new Act was Intended to limit executive authority in existance before its enactment. The Department of Defense Directive requires the prior approval of the Secretary of Defense before the Navy or Marine Corps may participate In interdiction of a vessel or aircraft, a search or seizure, an arrest or other activity that is likely to subject civilians to the exercise of military power that is regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory in nature. -27- • I. ° o o , o o " . - , . . , • • . . . . . . • . • . -.. .• . * It seems strange to see the above language in a DOD Directive implementing the new Act. The test to be applied for use of the Navy and Marine Corps is the same as must be found for an emergency circumstance under the new Act.98

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Snaynay1 said:

With this in mind, the Department of Defense developed an innovative approach so that the Navy and Marine Corps may interdict, search, seize and arrest.03 Keep in mind that the Navy and Marine Corps are not included in the Posse Comitatus Act. Only as a matter of policy has the law been applied to these military services.' 4 Section 37535 of the new Act directs the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations to insure that military assistance provided does not interdict a vessel, search, seize or arrest. However, that Section only applies to activities authorized under the new Act and only if such activity was not otherwise authorized by law. As the authority of the Navy and Marine Corps does not come from the new Act, restraints applicable only to the new Act do not affect them. This position is reinforced by Section 378,96 which emphasizes that nothing in the new Act was Intended to limit executive authority in existance before its enactment. The Department of Defense Directive requires the prior approval of the Secretary of Defense before the Navy or Marine Corps may participate In interdiction of a vessel or aircraft, a search or seizure, an arrest or other activity that is likely to subject civilians to the exercise of military power that is regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory in nature. -27- • I. ° o o , o o " . - , . . , • • . . . . . . • . • . -.. .• . * It seems strange to see the above language in a DOD Directive implementing the new Act. The test to be applied for use of the Navy and Marine Corps is the same as must be found for an emergency circumstance under the new Act.98

From what I can tell it's all Army units, and US Northern Command has stated they aren't doing law enforcement, just Force Protection. What I'm asking is Force Protection a justifiable use of lethal force in the eyes of the States. If an FBI agent kills someone while doing FBI business it's up to the feds to determine if it's a good shoot or not, not the State. But the same FBI agent shoots someone breaking into his home, it's on the State to investigate. So if an Army MP isn't doing law enforcement and lights someone up, couldn't that fall on the State to investigate if it the shooting was justified under self defense laws? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALIEN-gunner

ALIEN-gunner

Posted
Posted

CNN lying about the news and showing propagada photos of women and children? No way! 

 

Most of the leftist garbage news outlets are doing this. All but MSNBC. They actually had the balls to report that the vast majority of the migrants are made up of men who don't give a shit about asylum. They want to get into the US in order to get work, earn money and then go back to their country of origin. 

 

If anyone really wanted asylum they'd walk up to the border, and put their hands behind their heads not throw rocks and bottles at the border patrol and try to bum rush them. What model cititzens they must be. 

  • Guillotine 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwinIon

TwinIon

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

If anyone really wanted asylum they'd walk up to the border, and put their hands behind their heads not throw rocks and bottles at the border patrol and try to bum rush them. What model cititzens they must be. 

They couldn't get asylum doing that though. Earlier this month Trump tried to prevent all claims of asylum from anyone entering the country illegally, which includes anyone just walking up to the border, no matter how calm they do so. Since that order was temporarily suspended claims are still being processed, but extremely slowly. At San Ysidro (where the protests happened) there were 3000 names on a waiting list before the caravan arrived, and they're only processing 100 a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaladinSolo

PaladinSolo

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

CNN lying about the news and showing propagada photos of women and children? No way! 

 

Most of the leftist garbage news outlets are doing this. All but MSNBC. They actually had the balls to report that the vast majority of the migrants are made up of men who don't give a shit about asylum. They want to get into the US in order to get work, earn money and then go back to their country of origin. 

 

If anyone really wanted asylum they'd walk up to the border, and put their hands behind their heads not throw rocks and bottles at the border patrol and try to bum rush them. What model cititzens they must be. 

LOUD_noises.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALIEN-gunner

ALIEN-gunner

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

They couldn't get asylum doing that though. Earlier this month Trump tried to prevent all claims of asylum from anyone entering the country illegally, which includes anyone just walking up to the border, no matter how calm they do so. Since that order was temporarily suspended claims are still being processed, but extremely slowly. At San Ysidro (where the protests happened) there were 3000 names on a waiting list before the caravan arrived, and they're only processing 100 a day.

That's true but as I said these people don't really want asylum. If they did they would have stayed in Mexico where asylum was offered. 

  • Guillotine 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...