Skip to main content

The Pentagon reportedly rejected Trump’s request to give troops extra power at the border

US Army soldiers from Ft. Riley, Kansas install protective wire along the Rio Grande at the US-Mexico border, one of the Pentagon-approved duties for troops deployed to the border.

The president’s troop mobilization is a lot tamer than he would have wanted.

In the run-up to deploying over over 5,000 troops to the US-Mexico border, the Trump administration went to the Pentagon and asked whether or not those soldiers could basically serve as law enforcement along the border.

The Pentagon wasn’t having it.

CNN’s Ryan Browne and Nicole Gaouette reported Friday that military leaders rebuffed the Department of Homeland Security’s request that the troops “provide ‘crowd and traffic control’ and safeguard Customs and Border Protection personnel” — roles that would have given soldiers more expansive authority than they currently have under US law.

Instead the Pentagon signed off on a narrower set of authorities: Troops will provide Border Patrol agents with logistical and air support, as DHS prepares for a caravan of migrants from Central America that is approaching the US. The idea is that they’ll be doing things like helping transport agents and erecting razor wire on border fences.

But as the CNN report underscores, Trump would have had the military play a much more dramatic role, if he could have. In a bid to boost Republican turnout at the midterm elections, Trump has been stoking xenophobic fears about the caravan by implying that it’s brimming with Middle Eastern terrorists. He’s suggested he could end up sending up to 15,000 troops to deal with the threat.

During a speech on Thursday he said that the troops should shoot migrants if they throw rocks. The language conjures up the image of direct confrontations between migrants and US troops. But in reality, the troops are there to assist civil authorities, and they’re not expected to come into direct contact with migrants.

What the military can and can’t do

The military’s role at the border is to boost the capacity of Border Patrol agents to do their job. Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, the head of US Northern Command, told reporters on Monday that the military will send:

  • Three helicopter companies, with night-vision capabilities, to help Border Patrol officers to reach remote locations quickly
  • Four airplanes to transport Border Patrol agents as needed
  • Deployable medical units to care for anyone that may needed attention
  • 22 miles of concertina wire to reinforce fencing along the border

While the troops will be armed and will provide some security, it’s only to support Border Patrol agents in case they need it — military personnel won’t be independently patrolling the border and arresting migrants.

And why not? Why can’t US troops arrest immigrants who may be coming across the border illegally? Well, as Vox’s Alex Ward explained, “it’s against the law.”

The US military is barred from using its capabilities directly to enforce US domestic laws — including immigration laws — unless Congress specifically authorizes it to do so. This measure, known as “posse comitatus,” is why US troops can only support US border agents, but not take direct action themselves.

O’Shaughnessy on Monday said the military will conduct all of its operations at the border “in adherence to posse comitatus.”

The contrast between Trump’s talk tough of troops at the border versus the reality of what they can actually do at the border is simply a reminder that the whole mobilization is a political stunt designed to capitalize on nativist anxieties.



from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2QhJ6fd

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...