Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Armed Mexican troops question American soldiers

"On April 13, 2019, at approximately 2 p.m. CDT, five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations in an unmarked (Customs and Border Protection) vehicle near the southwest border in the vicinity of Clint, Texas," US Northern Command told CNN in a statement.
 
"The US soldiers were appropriately in US territory" during the encounter, the statement added.
During the incident, the Mexican soldiers pointed their weapons at the US troops, removing a soldier's sidearm and returning it to the unmarked US vehicle, the officials said.
 
The Mexican troops were armed with what appeared to be assault rifles, according to one official.
 
Posse Comitatus Violations By Trump 
 
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years
 
 
 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Honored Social Butterfly

: Armed Mexican troops question American soldiers

 

 

Maybe is has something to do with armed militia dressed like the US military making " citizen's arrests " near the US border.

 

 

I wonder if they're crossing the border to " arrest " people, then bringing them back to the US and saying " See we got one " ?

 

 

Could be  Mexican Citizens living near  the border are being terrorized by US right wing militias, and the Mexican police / military are trying to protect their own citizens.

Honored Social Butterfly


@gruffstuff wrote:

 

Could be  Mexican Citizens living near  the border are being terrorized by US right wing militias, and the Mexican police / military are trying to protect their own citizens.


Or it could be as the CNN article said:  "the officials said the river in that area consists of brush-filled and dried-out riverbed, making it "very easy" for people to be confused as to what side of the border they are on."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/mexican-troops-american-soldiers-border/index.html

0 Kudos
522 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Mickstuder posted:

 
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years
 
 
And he's right. It's not just that our Federal military cannot serve to arrest refugees, they cannot even direct traffic - that's a POLICE function. Decades ago, an Army Base Commander decided to help out with the dangerous traffic situation at the entrance to his installation. The little town where the "uncontrolled" intersection was located could not afford to install traffic lights, so the CO rolled out a portable 4-way stop signal, and solved the problem.  Unfortunately this was ruled a violation of the posse comitatus  prohibition noted above even tho no Troops were deployed and the signal was wheeled back inside the base.
 
What Cadet Bonespurs is doing with our Armed Forces along the Mexican border is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:
 
Decades ago, an Army Base Commander decided to help out with the dangerous traffic situation at the entrance to his installation. The little town where the "uncontrolled" intersection was located could not afford to install traffic lights, so the CO rolled out a portable 4-way stop signal, and solved the problem.  Unfortunately this was ruled a violation of the posse comitatus  prohibition noted above even tho no Troops were deployed and the signal was wheeled back inside the base.
 
.......our Armed Forces along the Mexican border is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Strange that this wasn't mentioned in the classes on the Posse Comitatus act in the Army advanced NCO schools I attended.  Could you give a source for that incident?  Unless you can provide a source, it has been my experience that the commander of a military base would have coordinated safety considerations with the local authorities.

 

They do have the authority to put a town off limits if there are concerns affecting military operations and welfare.

 

You might recall that Eisenhower used federal troops in Little Rock to enforce racial desegregation in the schools there.  Was that a violation?

 

No, the troops are not at the border in a law enforcement capacity, but in a support way.  There are military police along to protect our troops if needed.  As far as the Mexican soldiers, they were intrusive across our borders whether on purpose or accidentally.  If the role had been that our troops had crossed into Mexico, they would have no doubt been prosecuted.  That has happened to civilians carrying firearms.

0 Kudos
515 Views
21
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Apparently Tex attended some class where they told him using Federal Military personnel as civilian police was okay. Strange.

Here's what Ike had to say about his use of the Military withing the USA:

 

The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts, even, when necessary with all the means at the President’s command.

Unless the President did so, anarchy would result.

There would be no security for any except that which each one of us could provide for himself.

The interest of the nation in the proper fulfillment of the law’s requirements cannot yield to opposition and demonstrations by some few persons.

Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.

Now, let me make it very clear that Federal troops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities of their primary duty to preserve the peace and order of the community. Nor are the troops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the School Board and the other responsible local officials in running Central High School. The running of our school system and the maintenance of peace and order in each of our States are strictly local affairs and the Federal Government does not interfere except in a very few special cases and when requested by one of the several States. In the present case the troops are there, pursuant to law, solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of the Court.

 

https://www.history.com/topics/black.../eisenhower-intervenes-in-little-rock-crisis-vide..

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

 

Apparently Tex attended some class where they told him using Federal Military personnel as civilian police was okay. Strange.

 

 

 


To the contrary, in those advanced NCO classes we were given the history of your Posse Comitatus law and the reasons for it.  And where the military can't be called upon to aid local law enforcement.

 

Additionally we were given examples of where the military might be used in a support position to law enforcement.  One example is the Los Angeles riots where the National Guard monitored situations and aided law enforcement in directing them to locations of interest.

 

As a further comment, if you would recall with the troops being there, their duties was purely to escort the children to school, more intimidation against any trouble makers. 

 

I do note that you haven't answered my question regarding the source of your information about the post commander and his stop sign.  

 

But a nice attempt at diversion, not only to my question but to the discussion of the Mexican military violating United States territory. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

 

Apparently Tex attended some class where they told him using Federal Military personnel as civilian police was okay. Strange.

 

 

 


To the contrary, in those advanced NCO classes we were given the history of your Posse Comitatus law and the reasons for it.  And where the military can't be called upon to aid local law enforcement.

 

Additionally we were given examples of where the military might be used in a support position to law enforcement.  One example is the Los Angeles riots where the National Guard monitored situations and aided law enforcement in directing them to locations of interest.

 

I do note that you haven't answered my question regarding the source of your information about the post commander and his stop sign.  

 

But a nice attempt at diversion, not only to my question but to the discussion of the Mexican military violating United States territory. 


 

What Trump should do is to complain via the Ambassador to the Mexican President, and I can just see the Mexican President  extending his middle finger at Trump in all its glory.

no name
0 Kudos
511 Views
17
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

 

Apparently Tex attended some class where they told him using Federal Military personnel as civilian police was okay. Strange.

 

 

 


To the contrary, in those advanced NCO classes we were given the history of your Posse Comitatus law and the reasons for it.  And where the military can't be called upon to aid local law enforcement.

 

Additionally we were given examples of where the military might be used in a support position to law enforcement.  One example is the Los Angeles riots where the National Guard monitored situations and aided law enforcement in directing them to locations of interest.

 

I do note that you haven't answered my question regarding the source of your information about the post commander and his stop sign.  

 

But a nice attempt at diversion, not only to my question but to the discussion of the Mexican military violating United States territory. 


 

What Trump should do is to complain via the Ambassador to the Mexican President, and I can just see the Mexican President  extending his middle finger at Trump in all its glory.


trump supporters go to great lengths to protect or support any of trump's actions ..... any of them.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
517 Views
16
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:




trump supporters go to great lengths to protect or support any of trump's actions ..... any of them.


Not as much as liberals do to change the topic for partisan reasons.  Nothing was said about Trump or his policies, but about the integrity of United States borders.  No doubt there are some who are ok with foreign military disarming Americans on our side?

 

Have a good day.

0 Kudos
518 Views
15
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:




trump supporters go to great lengths to protect or support any of trump's actions ..... any of them.


Not as much as liberals do to change the topic for partisan reasons.  Nothing was said about Trump or his policies, but about the integrity of United States borders.  No doubt there are some who are ok with foreign military disarming Americans on our side?

 

Have a good day.


Debating with anyone that ignores facts and history is futile at best, so no thanks.

 

https://www.history.com/topics/black.../eisenhower-intervenes-in-little-rock-crisis-vide..

 

I am having a wonderful day, as always !


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
378 Views
14
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


Debating with anyone that ignores facts and history is futile at best, so no thanks.

 

 

 


Can you point out where I'm ignoring facts?  Perhaps you should review the history of that action.  The Democratic governor of Arkansas, Governor Faubus deployed the National Guard to PREVENT the 9 Black students from attending classes.  Then Eisenhower nationalized the guard, and deployed the 101st Airborne to depoliticize the situation and escort the students.

 

These paratroopers just escorted the protestors away from the site.

 

The mayor of Little Rock requested federal help after the Democratic (emphasis) governor allowed a riotious situation to develop.  Of course racial situations are still beneficial to liberals aren't they?

 

And still there is some who are more interested in partianism versus discussing the topic.

0 Kudos
380 Views
13
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

 

And still there is some who are more interested in partianism(sic) versus discussing the topic.


This isn't "partisan", so pay attention to it, it's from the source provided for you:

 

"the president explains his decision to order Federal troops to Little Rock to ensure that the students are allowed access to the school, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education".


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:


This isn't "partisan", so pay attention to it, it's from the source provided for you:

 

"the president explains his decision to order Federal troops to Little Rock to ensure that the students are allowed access to the school, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education".


Are you telling me what to post? 

 

Read my post to Alferdpacker and would you condone the Democratic Governor of Arkansas using the National Guard to prevent those Black students from attending Little Rock High School?  Apparently you would by your objections.

 

This link might be beneficial in explaining why Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne.  Basically he was carrying out out his constitutional responsibility to enforce the law.  Of course there are those who would prefer to carry on partisan type arguments.

 

So do you also condone elements of the Mexican Army crossing our border and holding our soldiers at gunpoint?  Apparently you do by your continuing to stay off topic from that.

0 Kudos
411 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

 

So do you also condone elements of the Mexican Army crossing our border and holding our soldiers at gunpoint?  Apparently you do by your continuing to stay off topic from that.


Condone no.  but not surprised,  why not, if the Mexicans are all criminals, rapists, border crossers, drug dealers, and all the insults that Trump have showered that country why would you be surprised at their actions?

no name
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


This isn't "partisan", so pay attention to it, it's from the source provided for you:

 

"the president explains his decision to order Federal troops to Little Rock to ensure that the students are allowed access to the school, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education".


Are you telling me what to post? 

 

Read my post to Alferdpacker and would you condone the Democratic Governor of Arkansas using the National Guard to prevent those Black students from attending Little Rock High School?  Apparently you would by your objections.

 

This link might be beneficial in explaining why Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne.  Basically he was carrying out out his constitutional responsibility to enforce the law.  Of course there are those who would prefer to carry on partisan type arguments.

 

So do you also condone elements of the Mexican Army crossing our border and holding our soldiers at gunpoint?  Apparently you do by your continuing to stay off topic from that.


You are correct correct, there are some here who would prefer to carry on "partisan type arguments", so please don't.  Again, this isn't partisan and you didn't answer to this:

 

"the president explains his decision to order Federal troops to Little Rock to ensure that the students are allowed access to the school, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education".


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


This isn't "partisan", so pay attention to it, it's from the source provided for you:

 

"the president explains his decision to order Federal troops to Little Rock to ensure that the students are allowed access to the school, as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education".


Are you telling me what to post? 

 

Read my post to Alferdpacker and would you condone the Democratic Governor of Arkansas using the National Guard to prevent those Black students from attending Little Rock High School?  Apparently you would by your objections.

 

This link might be beneficial in explaining why Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne.  Basically he was carrying out out his constitutional responsibility to enforce the law.  Of course there are those who would prefer to carry on partisan type arguments.

 

So do you also condone elements of the Mexican Army crossing our border and holding our soldiers at gunpoint?  Apparently you do by your continuing to stay off topic from that.


The above post contains opinion as well as conclusions that may or may not be appropriate, accurate and legally conclusive.

 

Now - if a statement of the current sitting SCOTUS Chief Justice unanimously supported by the other justices were cited - conclusively settling the difference of opinion - that would be a different thing..

 

 

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
408 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:


The above post contains opinion as well as conclusions that may or may not be appropriate, accurate and legally conclusive.

 

In any event, it appears your opinion would be that Eisenhower had no right to carry out his constitutional duties to enforce the laws of this country.  Therefore you are giving the impression that you support Faubus' action in calling out the National Guard to block the Black students from desegregating Little Rock schools.

 

And even earlier in the thread it appears that apparently you are defending and praising the Mexican soldiers actions in holding our soldiers at gunpoint on our soil.  (04-19-2019 10:51 PM)

 

Yes, I would agree that some conclusions may not be appropriate.

 

Have a good afternoon Alferd...

0 Kudos
639 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


randpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:


The above post contains opinion as well as conclusions that may or may not be appropriate, accurate and legally conclusive.

 

In any event, it appears your opinion would be that Eisenhower had no right to carry out his constitutional duties to enforce the laws of this country.  Therefore you are giving the impression that you support Faubus' action in calling out the National Guard to block the Black students from desegregating Little Rock schools.

Nope - not at all - Fabus was a racist scumbag - as were the majority of Southern governors of that era - a significant proportion of Fabus' constituency were racists...

Sorry - any dishonest and bogus attempt to paint me as a biased person against persons of color - a pro-white racist - will never work.

 

And even earlier in the thread apparently you are defending and praising the Mexican soldiers actions in holding our soldiers at gunpoint on our territory.  (04-19-2019 10:51 PM)

Yep - sure did - I consider it a very appropriate comeuppance for the fat moron making the once respected Oval Office into a disgusting bleephole - what is the fat moron going to do but whine and make stupid, mostly unworkable threats?

What will you do to me - reduce me in rank - put me on report?

 

 

44>dolt45
Honored Social Butterfly

Here is My Point

 

There are many reasons why - Possee Comitatis - was deemed necessary

 

Not the least of which any American Veteran should appreciate & hold Sacred

 

Americans Do Not Want The Lives of Their Soldiers to be used as Political Pawns especially in their own County

 

This Border Incident is a Wonderful Illustration of what can go wrong when you deploy American Soldiers in the United States for Domestic Political or Domestic Law Enforcement Purposes

 

It's of little value to a parent who receives a visit from a Representative of the Military informing them that their Son or Daughter was just killed by Mexican Soldiers but don't worry your Son or Daughter Technically & Legally according to a Whitehouse Lawyer was acting properly

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Honored Social Butterfly


@mickstuder wrote:

 

There are many reasons why - Possee Comitatis - was deemed necessary

 


To the contrary, perhaps you should do some more research on Posse Comitatis.  These troops were at the border; the Mexican soldiers were on U.S. soil (even mistakenly).  The mission of the military at the border wasn't for law enforcement but for logistics support for the Border Patrol.  That was mostly to free them up for enforcement.

 

In this case it was the Mexican soldiers that was wrong.  And the Americans acted correctly to defuse the situation and set them straight, thus defusing the situation.

 

There does seem many who are not that familiar with the act.  Our military was correctly deployed correctly in supporting another federal agency within the United States in a non-military capacity.

0 Kudos
416 Views
4
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png