Posted on Mar 20, 2015
Should active duty military be used to secure the borders and ensure the safety of our nation?
88.3K
889
267
24
23
1
Physical Security
Homeland Security
National Security
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 150
1
1
0
This is a guard mission and i believe EVERY guard unit should be on a rotational basis (30-90 days) periodically encompassing there annual training time. If thats not enough to go around then active duty should take the torch with an assigned level of force to secure and stop all illegal traffic. The only thing that should cross the border freely out side of check points is the wild life. Establish a clear and defined ROE, and SOP. Ever solodier on duty is armed just like while mobed, using what ever equipment is needed to perform the task. Engineers could easily construct a road way and series of guard towers from california to texas, man them and in extremely isolated areas use automated survealance equipment, drones and remote operated fire towers. The canadian border should also be addressed as well as cargo vessels in ports. Our oceans and armed citizens ahve protected us for decades even from standing militaries, now our liberal society doesnt see it a priority to be self sustaining and defending. Its time for major changes.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO2 James Craig
If that is what it takes to have effective border security, absolutely.
While I think there are other options (Border Patrol, National Guard), we need to do what we need to do to secure the border.
I have heard some say it would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus, however, that restricts the use of the military to enforce laws in our country, short of a declaration of martial law. Security of the border is just what it says it is ... "security". Use of military personnel/forces for security missions is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus.
If that is what it takes to have effective border security, absolutely.
While I think there are other options (Border Patrol, National Guard), we need to do what we need to do to secure the border.
I have heard some say it would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus, however, that restricts the use of the military to enforce laws in our country, short of a declaration of martial law. Security of the border is just what it says it is ... "security". Use of military personnel/forces for security missions is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus.
(1)
(0)
LTC Herman Valentine
Unfortunately, Posse Comitatus is what prevented the ARNG from securing the Northern US Border with Counterdrug RAID aircraft after 9-11. I was in charge of putting the program together. We wanted to do the mission in T-32 status but the SecDef demanded we be in T-10 (Federal Status). Once the units we mobilized in T-10 status and on site, Posse Comitatus kicked-in and prevented our aviators from effectively securing the border! We could only fly in a straight line (point A to Point B) and if we saw Usama Bin Laden himself carrying a suitcase nuke across the border we were not allowed to circle the area or deviate from course! Just call in what you see and keep moving! That was straight from the DoD lawyers that were co-located with the Aviation units! That is why this mission needs to be accomplished in a T-32 (state Status), like the TXARNG is doing right now. Pretty sad state of affairs, I know!
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
LTC Herman Valentine
I think the SJA made a bad call on that one. He was looking at it as a law enforcement mission, when it should have been categorized as a security mission. I guess it just really depends on how the mission is planned and executed.
I certainly think that, if the President declared that securing the border was an issue of national security (which it is), he is authorized to utilize active duty military personnel or National Guard activated under Title 10 to accomplish the mission.
I had a similar dilemma concerning the possibility of utilizing military personnel to provide security for a nuclear weapons production facility, if the contract guard force went on strike. The initial response I got from "those in the know", was that the military could not do it due to the Posse Comitatus. I challenged that and stated the mission was security of a critical national defense installation and material and the Army and DOD agreed that military forces could be used for security functions (not law enforcement). We never had to do it, but could have, if necessary.
I think the SJA made a bad call on that one. He was looking at it as a law enforcement mission, when it should have been categorized as a security mission. I guess it just really depends on how the mission is planned and executed.
I certainly think that, if the President declared that securing the border was an issue of national security (which it is), he is authorized to utilize active duty military personnel or National Guard activated under Title 10 to accomplish the mission.
I had a similar dilemma concerning the possibility of utilizing military personnel to provide security for a nuclear weapons production facility, if the contract guard force went on strike. The initial response I got from "those in the know", was that the military could not do it due to the Posse Comitatus. I challenged that and stated the mission was security of a critical national defense installation and material and the Army and DOD agreed that military forces could be used for security functions (not law enforcement). We never had to do it, but could have, if necessary.
(1)
(0)
LTC Herman Valentine
I couldn't agree with you more! We were pilling our hair out (as was the US Border patrol Agents flying with us) over the SJA decisions. Unfortunately all of our attempts to convince them otherwise fell on deaf ears. Needless to say morale tanked and everyone became extremely cynical regarding the mission.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
We already have the Border Patrol bolstered by the National Guard from time to time as well as the Coast Guard. I mean, maybe if there was some serious s*** going down in out neighboring nations like a full out armed conflict . . . maybe, but we already have a pretty heavy active troop presence in the states anyway.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I agree Sgt. There's no sense putting our troops down there wholesale for a law enforcement issue for which there is little political will to enforce in the first place.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1. There is a balance, but freedom is more important than so called safety or security.
2. Under today's laws, one can easily argue that our founding fathers were terrorists, the revolutionary militias were terrorist insurgents, and the general public provided material support to terrorist groups.
3. Every civil rights movement in this country involved attacks of terrorism by either supporters or opponents or both and quite often the government was on the wrong side of history. So called "terrorism" is not anything new in the US, but the current climate of fear mongering is. It seems Americans do not know their history and do not understand that terrorism works through terror and fear, not death and destruction. In this global war on terror, we are often our own worse terrorizing enemy.
4. Security is a facade. Typically all it does is deter, detect, delay, and document. Some claim deny or defeat, but if you are at that point then the attack is already underway and the seed of terror is sown. Terrorism works through terror and fear to accomplish a political agenda, not death and destruction. Like driving a car or riding a motorcycle, the death and destruction is the price of freedom. We pay the price for the freedom to drive at a cost of nearly 40,000 lives each year. Why do we want draconian measures and lost freedoms in a doomed effort to prevent so called terrorist acts? For instance, all that was needed after Sept 11 was to harden the cockpit doors and tell the pilots now to open the cockpit no matter what some idiot was trying in the passenger compartment. But now we need government credentials to travel, warrant-less searches, pat downs and digitally strip searched, harmless possessions seized, and all travel forever archived. Meanwhile airport employees are stealing baggage contents and freely smuggling drugs and firearms.
2. Under today's laws, one can easily argue that our founding fathers were terrorists, the revolutionary militias were terrorist insurgents, and the general public provided material support to terrorist groups.
3. Every civil rights movement in this country involved attacks of terrorism by either supporters or opponents or both and quite often the government was on the wrong side of history. So called "terrorism" is not anything new in the US, but the current climate of fear mongering is. It seems Americans do not know their history and do not understand that terrorism works through terror and fear, not death and destruction. In this global war on terror, we are often our own worse terrorizing enemy.
4. Security is a facade. Typically all it does is deter, detect, delay, and document. Some claim deny or defeat, but if you are at that point then the attack is already underway and the seed of terror is sown. Terrorism works through terror and fear to accomplish a political agenda, not death and destruction. Like driving a car or riding a motorcycle, the death and destruction is the price of freedom. We pay the price for the freedom to drive at a cost of nearly 40,000 lives each year. Why do we want draconian measures and lost freedoms in a doomed effort to prevent so called terrorist acts? For instance, all that was needed after Sept 11 was to harden the cockpit doors and tell the pilots now to open the cockpit no matter what some idiot was trying in the passenger compartment. But now we need government credentials to travel, warrant-less searches, pat downs and digitally strip searched, harmless possessions seized, and all travel forever archived. Meanwhile airport employees are stealing baggage contents and freely smuggling drugs and firearms.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
God No!
1. We don't have the people
2. We have better stuff to do
3. There laws against it
4. If rule 2 doesn't apply, then do some SSD or something
5. Good idea fairy much?
1. We don't have the people
2. We have better stuff to do
3. There laws against it
4. If rule 2 doesn't apply, then do some SSD or something
5. Good idea fairy much?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We swore an oath to defend the nation from all enemies. This includes those that would enter our boarders illegally. We have the manpower and the equipment which could act as a stop gap or supplement to the current boarder patrol. We could be under the authority of the boarder patrol.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The Active component is not at all able to complete this mission. They would do a horrible job IMO. As to weather the NG should...maybe is the best answer. It is a federal job to maintain the borders but the feds (way far away in Washington) do not give a c$#p. The states are stuck with the problem, as long as the funding was federal and not state I would have no issues. Something needs to happen to help tighten the flow of drugs, guns and illegals.
(1)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
The Active Component just like the Reserve Components can accomplish any mission we are assigned, funded and trained to accomplish. It is all about our nation's priorities.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We have National Guard and the Department of Homeland Security for a reason.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Our nation's National Guard is ready, willing and responsive to any mission inside or along the border to protect this great nation! While I respect the AD, this is a mission the National Guard was born for!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google