Moving….
Moving to:
http://conservativevictorynews.com
Please plan on using the new site by December 1, 2012.
You can still use this site but no new news articles will be posted here.
I do appreciate everyone who has participated on CVN for the past nine months. I hope you will now join us at the new site as we continue to enlighten ourselves in our fight to save the America we all love and respect.
Bring your friends. We need all the help we can get.
Thanks to all,
Navy Gentleman-
Recent Posts
- Our wonderful adventure continues…
- Eight PM Open Post – November 30, 2012
- Boehner: ‘We’re almost nowhere’ in talks with Obama [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller
- Afternoon Speculation – Fiscal Cliff: Obama is putting politics ahead of our national interest.
- Memo From Middle America | Obama’s Administrative Amnesty Not Applicable To White, Legal, English Girl. And While We’re On The Subject, Aren’t British Immigrants Preferable To Mexican Immigrants Anyway? | VDARE.com
Archives
Categories
DHS Border Patrol Instructions: ‘run away’ and ‘hide’ from gunmen.
This entry was posted in On the web. Bookmark the permalink.
This is so pathetic.
Totally. Run and Hide and carry a duffel bag to put your head in.
It doesn't get much gayer than this.
You know what brought that about: lack of immigration law enforcement for over 30 years.
The result is that all too many individuals coming illegally across the border are — get this — dual American citizens, born of illegal aliens in the USA. So, the Zeta bosses, the Zeta operatives, the Sinaloa capos have a very high number of dual American citizens amongsts them — freely crossing the border, conducting illegal activity. As the situation necessitates, if things get hot with the Mexican authorities, they flee across to the USA border; if things get hot in the USA they flee across the Mexican border.
So why are the military, the border patrol and the national guard prohibit from directing guns at illegal crossers? The answer is:
Posse Commitatus Act (PCA). PCA prohibits the federal government from directing any military force under its control to aim a gun at an American citizen. It is one of our best protections against the Feds. But it back-fires at the border. There, too, the number of illegal dual citizens crossing is so high that (and you never know which one is and which one isn't a citizen, until they invoke the right) that the risk of killing a US citizen when defending against these criminals with firepower, even if shot at, is too great. Mexico and the U.N. have already threated the USA with lawsuits if such incident happens. Technically, only a dedicated state guard under the sole command of the state governor or a local police force can shoot back at these criminals.
So there's your problem: you can't revoke PCA, that would us at risk vis-a-vis the Feds. At the same time PCA prevents the Fed (if it had any intent of doing so) to protect the border against criminal "intruders" (illegally-born US citizens).
But, you can get around PCA with Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (H.R. 5122) and/or joint resolution (H. CON. RES. 274).
All you need is a willing Secretary of Homeland Security and/or a willing Congress and a willing President. HA!
Yes, that is the round-about way to it. But, DAA also partially violates the PCA — the Libertarians are acutely aware of that. DAA can very easily get re-directed through the fusion centers to take aim at … well … subversive characters like … you. People who are de-stabilizing the country through their … terrorist actions (what is a terrorist action — that can receive a very broad definition per the DAA).
The real solution I still see in state's rights with a local police force dealing with the problem locally or through the creation of a state guard under the sole command of a governor. That way the legitimate American citizenry can be still remain safe from over-reach under the DAA. The local police force and the state would, however, by the same token, also have to deal with the terrorist elements the DAA seeks to address. Clearly, there would be significant cost involved for any border state attempting to do that.
Yeah but, aren't we talking about a case when someone is shooting at you or others under your protection? Any Texas citizen could pop the guy under those circumstances. Well, any except an employee of the Border Patrol!!!!!!!!
Actually, those changes were repealed in 2008, and are no longer relevant.
As I said below, it is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provisions are codified in 10 U.S.C. 331-335, that is controlling, along with a few other exemptions.
All the Posse Comitatus Act does is prevent some local sherriff or mayor from calling his cousin at the nearby base, and asking him to roll a few tanks through town, or having a Governor call his brother-in-law to bring regular army troops out to suppress a range war or secure the polls on election day.
It seems to me that PCA or Whatever doesn't matter if somebody's shooting at you.
The Posse Comitatus Act does NOT prohibit the federal government from directing any military force under its control to aim a gun at an American citizen.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military of the United States by anyone, State or federal, to enforce civil laws, EXCEPT by specific act of Congress.
It should be noted that the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the President to use the military to restore order, suppress rebellions and insurrections, and enforce the law, without otherwise seeking Congressional consent. Further, Governors may employ National Guard units under their control, and the AG may ask the DoD to assist in the case of nuclear threat. And of course Congress can simply pass an authorization allowing the military to be used.
In all of those cases the military would be authorized to aim guns at, and open fire on, American citizens.
So there is nothing, other than institutional lethargy, preventing the use of the military on the border, including the use of armed force, including lethal force.
It should be noted that does not mean anyone and everyone crossing the border should be fired on as a preferred response. Such a rule would be so disproportionately excessive as to defy any basic sense of morality. Indeed this article suggests nothing of the sort. It addresses returning fire, not initiating fire against suspects.
Great post – it doesn't prohibit them from intimation. Which is the current tactic and used through DHS. And in complement through news releases that states that DHS has purchased a combined 750 million rounds of ammunition, bullet proof check point booths and activated the FEMA camps.
Correct?
DHS is not the military.
Anything DHS does in and of itself is not governed by the Posse Comitatus Act, and cannot be a violation of that act.
As for what DHS has purchased, or what properties FEMA owns, that is completely unrelated to any consideration of border security, and especially of using the military to secure the border.
An immigration and naturalization law is a civil law by definition, isn't it?
So, it would stand to reason that if you enforce illegal entry with military you are in violation. There was a border incident back I think in 1999 that brought this issue to light. A dual illegal was injured. Mexico immediately threatened to sue through US courts on the PCA.
Maybe you know what incident I'm talking about.
And no, the article, as I pointed out, addressed returning fire in defense. We're on the same page.
The violation is not merely in using the military to enforce the law, but in WHO is using the military to enforce the law, and under what circumstances.
If I did it, yes, I would be in violation of the law.
If Congress did it, they would not be in violation of the law.
So no, if the military is used to enforce immigration law it is not automatically or always a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. It all depends on who authorizes it.
As for what a dual illegal is, I have no idea what you mean.
If the person is a U.S. citizen then they cannot be an illegal alien as well; the terms are simply mutually exclusive. An American citizen could be entering the U.S. illegally, because they are smuggling or something, but that is different from being a foreign citizen crossing the border illegally.
As for Mexico, the UN, or anyone else complaining about the U.S. enforcing its borders, even if that means the death of some foreign national, they can complain all they want but they have no standing under American law or customary international law, especially if the person in question is also engaging in other criminal acts, and most especially if the person is firing on duly authorized law enforcement or military personnel of the United States. Even if a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is involved, that is an American law, and any such person is subject to be tried at the discretion of the relevant U.S. Attorney, and being sentenced to all of 2 years in prison if actually convicted. That is not an international law, and no charges could be brought under it in any foreign court.
"Dual illegal" may be a kind of "off" word.
And yes, if the person is born in the U.S. then he is a U.S. citizen. If not, if entering unauthorized, he's an illegal alien.
However, the capos, the cartel bosses, and their operatives intentionally have their pregnant girlfriends and wives give birth in the US so THAT their offspring can freely cross the borders either in company of their parents or later as adults conducting the illegal business of their parents and relatives or else to provide legitimacy/cover to their crossing. It's used effectively.
I recall that the Zeta boss (who was responsible for the mass murder of 17 illegal aliens to be smuggled into the US) was a US-born citizen of illegal Mexican parents. Thus he had dual citizenship which came in very handy when conducting his "business" — such as acting as a sicario, smuggling drugs and guns, recruiting gangs in both the US and Mexico, or just plain evading law enforcement on either side of the border. He always hid on the side of the border and in the country that was "less hot".
Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to 'run away' and 'hide' from gunmen
In light of this info, I wonder if the BP's budget will be cut by 50%???
Or will they be retasked to mind the fence that will surely be built at some point, to keep us from escaping tyranny?
Mm mm mm… Won't all those ground sensors and drones come in handy then?8^O
.
That was precisely the point … yeah, ok, … the-not-so-well-seen Ron Paul made. He actually said in one of the primary debates "A fence that will keep them out, will also be a fence that will keep us in."
The Libertarians may not always be correct in handling foreign policy and immigration issues in the present-day world. They tend to leave out of sight certain realities that make strict implementation of Constitutional principles impossible. (A good example would be Iran and Islamofascism: the notion of a mortal enemy who is dead-set to get people of Jewish descent and Unbelievers either enslaved or exterminated is just something that escapes them.)
However, when the Libertarians make an argument I have found it is always 100% on target with the Constitutional Principles taught by the Founders (even with foreign policy and immigration; presuming present-day real-time conditions don't thwart such approach).
Yeah, I heard what Paul said about the border fence…. about six months after I repeatedly wrote about it, on Big Gov. That doesn't make either one of us geniuses, it is only common sense, and observance of what actually happened in every damn satellite country of the USSR, East Germany, North Korea et.c. His argument does not preclude me from wanting to find a way to prevent wetbacks from illegally entering the USA. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, statism have a way of causing people to become very creative, in order to escape oppression.
A significant portion of my problem with Libertarianism is the drug policy. Even though I, as you, find their arguments to be fairly in line with the Founders vision for us, the drug thingy is a deal breaker. As a nation, we cannot afford more drug addled voters, or even disengaged citizens, as the case may be.
Controlled, legal immigration is an asset to the nation, however after the ridiculous all-out invasion post Reagan Amnesty I believe we probably need twenty years of almost NO immigration, to be able to assimilate these people. Did you hear about the shipping container from India from which dock workers heard noises? This form of illegal entry has been rampant, though seriously under-reported for at least a decade and a half. That is hilarious, in light of the "stricter" attention supposedly given to container shipping after 9/11/01. Can you imagine the invasion we face, in light of THE Current Occupant's recent announcement in regard to illegal immigration?
With regard to the position on the drugs, I once again find myself in line with Libertarians on the ideological / theoretical argument. But then I climb into my car to go to work and I get sweaty hands just remembering that drunk driver that cut me off and caused me to t-bone him. So that was a mere "drunk driver". Drug addicts are by far more reckless. I saw a neighbor go bad some 10 years back who got into the gateways and then escalated. We lived with a loaded shotgun beside the bed fully expecting a group of LSD-cocktail revellers to break through our door. Even though I can in theory understand the Libertarian position that the drug addicts will soon do themselves in by way of natural selection, in practical reality that will not happen until they have taken a number of us with them to the grave. Just think of all those bath-salt cannibals running loose. Assume that gun laws would be fully relaxed that we could readily shoot the druggies to protect our lives. That would work only to a point. They would still get in a car and kill an innocent in a car accident.
Once again, I back the theoretical premise, but I take issue with the disconnect with practical reality. There are some drugs that are so vile that you have no option but to shoot the people who are under the influence; the classic bath-salt cases prove it. Just imagine one of those individuals setting an appartment on fire or getting into a car, or front-loader or teaching at a school, or working at a court house or in an animal rescue facility. Conceivably it might work in a less-populated, rural area, but it just won't work in our cities.
Yes, I heard about the shipping container incident. What the Libertarians are also not receptive to is the fact that illegal immigration of this scale is a known Communist tactic to create an artificial, disinfranchised proletariat that will bring about the revolution. Another disconnect with reality. I won't repeat myself here, but if you go back through my posts, you will come across my explanation of the tactic.
Eric Holder huddled up with Janet to once and for all "solve' the Fast Furious dilemma From now on, Federal Officers can no longer engage in firefights with criminals who obtain their ordinance from the U.S. government. To do so will result in immediate termination.
"Maybe if we ran away further it would confuse them?" "Oh shut up Robin, and go change your armor!"