Small Unit Tactics contact patriot-dawn Patriot Rising

U.S. Military and Homeland Defense: Many Misconceptions!

Home Forums Information & Intelligence U.S. Military and Homeland Defense: Many Misconceptions!

This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of R Young R Young 10 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #57492
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    There is much ignorance floating around the internet right now regarding the potential use of U.S. Military to defend the Southern border.

    All bold comments are mine for emphasis.

    First let’s consider the Posse Comitatus Act.

    The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

    The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor.

    So we can not deploy the United States Army and the United States Air Force to enforce domestic policies, but with the stroke of a pen the Department of the Navy; to include the United States Marine Corps, could be used if so desired.

    Army National Guard and Air National Guard could enforce domestic policies within the United States at the discretion their Governors, within their respective States, but would do so without Federal funding. As soon as the DOD calls up the Guard; by order of the Commander in Chief, they now fall under the Posse Comitatus Act as a part of the United States Army and/or the United States Air Force.

    This is only if President deployed U.S. Military to enforce Immigration Policy and Laws.

    Consider this from Joint Publication 3-27 Homeland Defense:

    Homeland defense (HD) is the protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression, or other threats as directed by the President.

    So to avoid all issues with Posse Comitatus Act, the Commander in Chief need only deploy the U.S. Military to stop a threat. It’s all in the wording, the U.S. Military would be there to secure border from a threat, not enforce immigration laws.

    So what about the War Powers Resolution?

    The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

    While a reasonable synopsis let’s look at part of the actual 50 U.S. Code § 1541 – Purpose and policy.

    (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

    The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    I would point out that a deployment of the U.S. Military to stop a threat by securing the Southern border could hardly be considered imminent involvement in hostilities.

    Traditionally Presidential use of military force without congressional authorization has rested on two criteria. First, the military action is intended to defend U.S. persons, property, or national interests. Second, the military operation is clearly short of the traditional understanding of war.

    I would say the use of U.S. Military in Homeland Defense falls well within this.

    I’ll be happy to address any thoughts that arise.

    #57501
    Profile photo of zeerf
    zeerf
    Participant

    Thank you for posting Joe, this helped me better understand overall.

    #57502
    Profile photo of WTL
    veritas556
    Participant

    A better solution is National Guard. The president can nationalize them under Article II, Section 2. This is likely the least controversial but would no doubt be challenged in federal court like everything else Trump does.The real crisis would be how the president would respond to a California Federal judge granting an injunction against any of his manned border solutions. You can see this coming from a mile away.

    #57506
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    A better solution is National Guard.

    The use of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard doesn’t change anything, once under the control of the Commander in Chief. Guard or Active is subject to the same rules.

    The real crisis would be how the president would respond to a California Federal judge granting an injunction against any of his manned border solutions.

    The historical legal precedents regarding the the role of the Commander in Chief and his authority is quite extensive.

    I would lean towards the deployment with little actual prior notice or with cover of exercises, one day nothing, the next the Military is there. Then simply refuse to pull troops until fully litigated to Supreme Court based on above mentioned precedents and necessary homeland defense.

    There is no debate that this is within the Commander in Chiefs authority.

    Political Judges can muddy the facts with fake rulings to create doubt and one day will be ignored.

    That will be the real crisis when these judges have lost so much credibility they begin to be ignored.

    #57510
    Profile photo of Dark Knight Scott
    Scott G
    Participant

    I would think that the precedence of the National Guard having been deployed for this mission in the past would be on the President’s side. One could ask, if there was no objection then, why is there objection now? Because “Impeach 45”? Not sure that would stand.
    If they are going to be used as previously, I don’t think they are going to be trigger pullers, mostly providing additional support to CBP.

    Northern VA Area

    CRCD #1 Alumnus

    #57512
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    If they are going to be used as previously…

    From my perspective if they use as before, they should just forget it. Expensive show with little return for money spent.

    It certainly doesn’t need to be a combat deployment, but mission should be to secure border from all unauthorized access. Physically prevent crossings except at designated ports of entry. Escalate as forced to. Drug cartel fires, then they are eliminated. Unarmed illegal entry attempt physically restrain and escort back to border after taken biometric data. Anyone caught and returned is barred from all future entry into U.S.

    Will this happen?

    Unfortunately I doubt it, but is completely doable and within the role of U.S. Military in Homeland Defense.

    #57529
    Profile photo of Dark Knight Scott
    Scott G
    Participant

    If they are going to be used as previously…

    From my perspective if they use as before, they should just forget it. Expensive show with little return for money spent.

    It certainly doesn’t need to be a combat deployment, but mission should be to secure border from all unauthorized access. Physically prevent crossings except at designated ports of entry. Escalate as forced to. Drug cartel fires, then they are eliminated. Unarmed illegal entry attempt physically restrain and escort back to border after taken biometric data. Anyone caught and returned is barred from all future entry into U.S.

    Will this happen?

    Unfortunately I doubt it, but is completely doable and within the role of U.S. Military in Homeland Defense.

    I totally agree with what the “should” or “could” be doing. Heck, line them up at a 5 meter interval and stop everyone/everything coming across. I think this deployment is a show by Trump, to try to convince the left that it would be better to have the “wall” than to have the military on the border. Just my humble yet often ignored opinion.

    Northern VA Area

    CRCD #1 Alumnus

    #57533
    Profile photo of R Young
    R Young
    Participant

    Part of the Exclusions and Limitations section of Posse Comitatus is:

    Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957.

    Rich

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.