WASHINGTON (AP) — AP source: Defense Secretary Mattis expected to sign order to send at least 800 troops to US-Mexico border.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37091785)

"Tx Meema

‏

@PattyAnne67

3m3 minutes ago

Replying to @jpaceDC

National Guard troops only? If not, this in a unconstitutional act under Posse Comitatus.

1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes

Reply 1 Retweet 2 Like 4"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37091797)

IN this case, the soldiers being sent to the border will be used for logistical support roles. hence not a violation of posse comitatus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092437)

Not really speaking to the merits one way or the other, that's just to my knowledge how things are at the moment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092485)

.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092497)

Honestly curious. You can be MAF, but could you also provide a link?

Did you take any classes on this at McGeorge? I am fully prepared for you to drop your intellectual hammer on me and prove everything I'm saying is wrong.

Demonstrate that your actually far greater than your average McGeorge grad. Shoudln't be hard to pwn a dumbfuck like obeezy, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092517)

If that's the case you might have a point. But still, the obvious intention of the statute is that they can't act as police

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092523)

Unable

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37093223)

Where are you you lovely little retard? Mcgeorge! Jfc lol!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37109200)

again, not saying this is the correct approach, but that's existing law as far as I know. if any lawmos know the current law betetr than me i'm happy to read other sources

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092510)

i can try to dig something up saying that the president can use military force if a foreign power is directing an army across its borders, but it seems somewhat axiomatic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092550)

https://www.justsecurity.org/54529/military-mexican-border-posse-comitatus-key-takeaways/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092675)

Author: Deep State8

Distinction is relevant but moot if the active duty soldiers are used in logistical support roles not direct enforcement (which they will be).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092309)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092401)

Cons will not quite get around to pointing out how I'm wrong, but that won't stop them celebrating their victory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092441)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092467)

So the twitter libs argue that sending federal troops to the border would be illegal as an act of law enforcement by the millitary. You accept this premise, but say an exception applies if they are there only in support roles.

Both you and the twitter libs seem to think you know exactly what is going to happen at the border. In reality, no ones what will happen. There are scenarios in which foreigners trying to breach the border could constitute a threat to national security that would allow for a federal millitary response. Obviously if they just walk up and say "senor, I apply for aslyum" thats not the case, but there are lots of other potential situations that could necessitate an actual millitary response.

Furthermore, arguing about how the law applies to any of this is a farce as its such a politically charged topic that a judge is almost definitely going to rule based on his politics rather than the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092652)

And we know exactly what will happen. It's been happening for ages. National Guard has been at the border for ages. These guys are bolstering them.

The law on this is pretty settled. But if you're now arguing I'm right, but the law could change - sure. Always possible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092693)

Irrelevant here though as all military support at the border are used in logistical support roles. Building tents, fences, trucking around supplies. That sort of thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092726)

us general holds emergency press conference, "wet foot dry foot + posse comitatus, sorry guys nothing we can do about it"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092452)

this isnt 800 spartans

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37094866)

Once approved, the Pentagon will determine which troops to dispatch to the border and begin planning their mission. U.S. troops aren’t legally permitted to use lethal force in law-enforcement operations. They are expected instead to do things like provide equipment and labor for tasks such as building fences and erecting tents for border officials.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mattis-expected-to-send-800-u-s-troops-to-mexican-border-1540481427?ns=prod/accounts-wsj

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092711)

You would think libs would have thought of that when they were protesting Iraq.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37093158)

They just ave a different take on what the troops will be doing at the order. We are envisioning the troops physically blocking the illegals from entering the country. The WSJ obviously isn’t, hence their discussion of police powers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37093057)

Cons you guys okay? Jesus that was brutal. I tried to be polite but fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37092956)

So I'm really the last educated person on this entire fucking forum?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37100249)

I guess so.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37116876)

Last week, Mattis approved sending additional active duty troops to support about 2,100 National Guard forces already on the border. The active duty forces, who will be under the command and control of U.S. Northern Command, will not have a law enforcement role but instead will be involved in providing engineering support, including delivering temporary barricades and barriers, medical teams and aviation support.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/28/jersey-barriers-troops-headed-to-border/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37116872)

I was middle of the road in 2010 when I started poasting. What happened to this forum? very sad stuff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37130976)

You're all borderline retarded and I'm vastly more educated and more intelligent. Those are facts. I want you to deal with them and not live in a fantasyland where you are my equals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37199682)

he seems to be missing!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37237853)

Seriously this is not that fucking difficult, even assuming the Posse Comitatus Act is constitutional (it isn't).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37269390)

Was this troop deployment a huge expensive scare tactic to spook dumbs into voting? If so how'd that work out?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37269411)

ken?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37310547)

Step up your game fellas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4114775&forum_id=2#37402463)