Thoughts on Mexico

[daveh75]

Actually....

You do an interesting job of interpretation, yourself.

I'm glad that we have the Supreme Oracle of such matters on the board. Doubtless your sarcasm arises from being vain about being the only one with such knowledge.

And I was well aware of when and why the Posse Comitatus Act was passed and the revisions to it.

Please try to be nicer. This is mostly a friendly place, and people pay more attention to what you say if they aren't alienated by the speaker.

As for which is the more effective, Army or Air Force police, I think it depends on the individual and the unit...although those of us in the USAF cop shop in Denver when I was in were amused when one of our guys got a traffic ticket at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital. There was a stop sign concealed by a bush and an MP stopped our man, who was off duty, visiting a friend who'd been injured. The MP was probably an augmentee who'd been drafted into the job from some other background or was new. Our man had to show him how to fill out the ticket!

On the other hand, in Newfoundland, I was trying to teach our augmentees about the possibility of our remote air station being hit by Soviet Spetnaz troops in event of war. I found that exactly none of them had any experience in using small arms, beyond having once fired either the .30 carbine or the AR-15 in Basic. None had fired a pistol. We didn't even have support weapons there. Those guys who were supposed to help the cops defend the base during periods of expanded security were normallly radarmen, cooks, etc. All branches of the military have their strong and weak elements.

I wasn't picking on the Army, just telling where I'd learned about the PCA. Actually, I don't recall any issues in dealing with Army MP's. I had some problems with Marine MP's who picked up prisoners at our base being excessively forceful and threatening to docile prisoners who were giving no trouble. BTW, almost all the trouble we encountered with other service branches came from Naval and Marine personnel on the base. Foreign troops training there gave no trouble at all, and were often fascinating to talk to.

BTW, my father and my son were Army, and the son has a Purple Heart and two Oak Leaf clusters to remind him of his service.

The information that I gave to you was from briefings I have attended and was presented by JAG officers. Why? Because 9-11 as well as Katrina changed a whole lot of things in this nation. Although I stay away from Wikipedia due to it being open sourced, if you do a little digging you will find that there are a lot of CONOPS prepared where the military is used for several incidents, including but not limited to border security(Chapter 18 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code—Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies). I also added the correct USC to my last post...as far as being a little nicer....you get what you give....and if you didn't intend your post to be pejorative in nature then I would be the first to apologize but apparently you wanted to give another "lesson by keyboard"....I will be the first to admit that I am cantankerous....but that usually requires someone to put their two cents worth in....if you don't like it then don't respond to my post....personally I could care less about the military pedigree of your family...I will tip my hat to your son because he and I have more than likely shared some of the same ground, but please don't ever vicariously use his awards to attempt to make a point about yourself...I to have a military family but I don't talk about their time in combat and I don't walk around talking about all the medals and ribbons that are on my chest from the things I've done....

 

[daveh75]

Geoff....my apologies about inadvertently high jacking your post.

 

[Texas Star]

The information that I gave to you was from briefings I have attended and was presented by JAG officers. Why? Because 9-11 as well as Katrina changed a whole lot of things in this nation. Although I stay away from Wikipedia due to it being open sourced, if you do a little digging you will find that there are a lot of CONOPS prepared where the military is used for several incidents, including but not limited to border security(Chapter 18 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code—Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies). I also added the correct USC to my last post...as far as being a little nicer....you get what you give....and if you didn't intend your post to be pejorative in nature then I would be the first to apologize but apparently you wanted to give another "lesson by keyboard"....I will be the first to admit that I am cantankerous....but that usually requires someone to put their two cents worth in....if you don't like it then don't respond to my post....personally I could care less about the military pedigree of your family...I will tip my hat to your son because he and I have more than likely shared some of the same ground, but please don't ever vicariously use his awards to attempt to make a point about yourself...I to have a military family but I don't talk about their time in combat and I don't walk around talking about all the medals and ribbons that are on my chest from the things I've done....

Daveh-

Good Lord...I wasn't trading on my sons's service to make my point about the issue under discussion! I just wanted you to realize that I wasn't dissing the Army.

I think we are such dissimilar people that I'll refrain from posting further to you. But your clock seems to be wound rather tight. Try to unlax, Doc. I'd hate to see you have a stroke.

 

[BE Mike]

Well the role of the military has also changed. In the Mid East they are forced to be more policeman, than military at times. Our military is so good that they can accomplish anything. I personally think they should end the political correctness and be warriors, not cops.

I really don't want the military to be enforcing our laws either on the border or in the streets. I see this enough in third world countries. Our U.S. military has a job to do and they do an excellent one. There has never been a better military in the world in my opinion. They should stick with what they are best trained for and leave law enforcement officers to do the job they were trained to do.

 

[johngalt]

I see it as a two stage problem. One is sealing the border. Two is removing the illegals already into the US.

Stage 1 is fairly simply resolved if we really wanted to. Land mine a 600 m wide zone from one end of the border to another. While brutal, nasty and it would take a lot of buying of property and things like that, it could be done. You have to give the soviets credit that they kept folks from escaping pretty well for decades. We should just take a few notes.

The second problem would require continuous random checks and checks at every governmental service. No "anchor babies" just send them back. Again, not that hard, but it would take a commitment to do it.

The problem is the commitment. Our government and many of the folks in the US are unwilling to make the commitment and do the dirty dead. That is the crux of the problem. The issue of technically securing the border is really not that hard, it just takes some willpower and some willingness to get brutal and fix the problem.

Basically we have to fight the battle to win and right now we are fighting the battle to a draw. Kind of reminds me of Vietnam in a way.

This is exactly to the point I tried to make earlier. All of the proposed "solutions" require turning the U.S. into a fascist police state. I hardly think we should be admiring the Soviets. They were one of worst tyrannies in human history, their people were prisoners behind their borders.

Yes, illegal aliens are a problem. But a much much smaller problem than what will result from imposing tyranny. Liberty requires the acceptance of some risk. I'm not willing to throw away my liberty, out of intolerance for a few illegals or for that matter any other imagined societal woes.

 

[daveh75]

I really don't want the military to be enforcing our laws either on the border or in the streets. I see this enough in third world countries. Our U.S. military has a job to do and they do an excellent one. There has never been a better military in the world in my opinion. They should stick with what they are best trained for and leave law enforcement officers to do the job they were trained to do.

The US Army was the only border protection this nation had from the 19th Century through the 1940s...the Border Patrol wasn't established until 1924 and didn't take full responsibility until the end of WWII...from 1945 until 2001 the U.S. Military was prepared to fight the Cold War...yet we switched gears when we started fighting an insurgency (did the same in Vietnam) and nation building...it is the only federal entity that can switch gears and change its mission at a moments notice....there are over 800,000 members total (Active, Guard, Reserve) compared to less than 20,000 total for the Border Patrol..."SECURITY" is a Skill Level 1 task, i.e. first day private job....and the last time I checked border security is what we are lacking....BTW what use to be JTF-Bravo (now NORTHCOM) was the DoD entity on the border pulling security...providing assets to the Border Patrol that they don't have.

 

[daveh75]

I really don't want the military to be enforcing our laws either on the border or in the streets. I see this enough in third world countries. Our U.S. military has a job to do and they do an excellent one. There has never been a better military in the world in my opinion. They should stick with what they are best trained for and leave law enforcement officers to do the job they were trained to do.

And it is the U.S. Military and the European Gendarme that are teaching those third world countries how to build a professional police force.

 

[roscoguy]

I see it as a two stage problem. One is sealing the border. Two is removing the illegals already into the US.

Stage 1 is fairly simply resolved if we really wanted to. Land mine a 600 m wide zone from one end of the border to another. While brutal, nasty and it would take a lot of buying of property and things like that, it could be done. You have to give the soviets credit that they kept folks from escaping pretty well for decades. We should just take a few notes.

The second problem would require continuous random checks and checks at every governmental service. No "anchor babies" just send them back. Again, not that hard, but it would take a commitment to do it.

The problem is the commitment. Our government and many of the folks in the US are unwilling to make the commitment and do the dirty dead. That is the crux of the problem. The issue of technically securing the border is really not that hard, it just takes some willpower and some willingness to get brutal and fix the problem.

Basically we have to fight the battle to win and right now we are fighting the battle to a draw. Kind of reminds me of Vietnam in a way.

"Simply resolved"??? Mining our borders to you is viable, much less simple? Wow, how about machine gun nests every 100 yards? Just in case some lucky chump makes it past the mines. Get real guys. The answer isn't even remotely likely to be a military one unless somehow war is actually declared.
Most of you are still ignoring the fact that there is nearly ZERO political incentive to keeping illegals out. On the 1 side, the bleeding hearts want to give the store away to every "underprivileged" cause they can find & on the other, the rich need cheap labor in order to get richer. Start electing people who aren't groupies to either of these extremes & maybe some intelligent dialog could be heard in D.C. about this issue...
Nah, who am I kidding...

 

[amazingflapjack]

Pot may be "de-criminalized," but I doubt it will be legalized. If there is a social and monetary stigma attached to posessing pot, that may pass, because it would raise some money, and still keep pot users from populating prisons, and therefore costing too much money. There is too much money being made by "highly placed individuals" in the drug and alcohol trade for pot to be legalized. Where would the money come from to replace what would be lost in those two areas alone? After all, you don't have to build a still, a crack or meth lab; you don't have to smuggle the Heroin or Cocaine in accross our wide open ports, coastlines, air terminals, and borders. All you have to do is buy some seeds and plant them in some horse maneure. Ain't gonna be much serious money made by the "big shots" that think they run eveything, unless they move there venture capitol over to twinkies and pizza. The stigma of the conotation of the word Marijuana will endure for a while in folks over 40 or 50, but people who are drinkers, especially, will try it, and a percentage of them will give up the hang overs-black outs-and swollen livers, and trade in all of that wonderful world of booze for a brownie and some doobee brothers. Alcohol is the addictive elephant in the middle of many living rooms tonight my friends, and the heart ache and destruction it spreads makes those of ANY other substance abuse pale in comparison. But alcohol is politically correct! There is a war, sure enough, but it's a war that is larger than we can comprehend with our finite minds. It is a war that is raging at this moment, and has been for a very long time. The war is being waged in the realm of the spirit, and we can see a small snap shot of the clash between the oposing forces: Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, in the things that are going on around us, but it's a very small snapshot. I am not in favor of anybody altering their brain and body chemistry on a whim, but like the old saying, "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." There are things that could be put into action tonight, if the real goal was to help people and relieve suffering. When the demand stops, the supply will vanish. I have been on both sides of this war, the Darkness, and the Light, and by the Grace of God, I chose the light. Everyone has to choose, there is no neutral zone in this war. This war is won and lost in the hearts and minds of one person at a time, it's your choice. Flapjack.

 

[photoman]

Our porous border is not a problem of a few Mexicans sneaking over to mow lawns. It's a problem of well trained, well armed violent drug smugglers. At what point does this become a sovereingty issue?

I predict that, as things progress, and the drug violence along the border ends up in the U.S., some opinions posted here will change. We will either end up with the military defending the border or a VERY militarized Border Patrol. I'm not real happy with either option but, as they say, reality can be a harsh teacher.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Note: Start of a long thought experiment....

Roscoguy,

I see you live up north, "say ya to da up eh'". I know it well as I lived there once too.

Folks outside the southern boarder states don't seem to understand the gravity of the problem. I recently heard that here in Texas 1 person in every 12 is an illegal alien. Think about that. Its not like just one here or there, they are a significant portion of our population and we have to deal with the upside, meaning cheap labor for lawns, donut stores and house construction along with the downsides like human trafficking, drunk driving and theft.

So lets just play out a thought experiment to consider the situation. Remember this is just a thought experiment and a general discussion.

The problem is now basically out of hand and if we ever hope to solve it we need to take drastic action now. Mining the border with 10's of millions of mines while it seems dramatic is far more practical than one would think.

Look at how much a motion sensitive anti-personal mine costs. I found online they are about $20 in bulk. If we assume the border 3169 km long and we have it mined 600 m deep with an average of one mine per square m. We are talking 1,901,000,000 mines. If I did my math right that is only 38 million dollars in mines. Figure that the emplacement costs and clearing costs would be 1000 times that you are talking 38 billion dollars to fix the problem one time for perpetuity.

The budget for Homeland Security is $56 billion in 2011 so it would take a big hit out of the budget or we would have to spread it over a few years to get it done. I would bet it would take 5 years todo so we could handle it pretty reasonably with current budget.

So what would happen if we did this. Well we can reasonably say that folks running across the border would not make it and we would have to have an ongoing maintenance program to replace the mines blown up by animals and crossing attempts. There would be some efforts to circumvent the mines, but with random aerial surveillance we could stop that pretty easily. The flow of drugs would be cut along with other bad shipments moving north.

Obviously we would next have to start checking everyone's papers and send the illegals that stayed back. We would need to modify the constitution to eliminate the born here can stay here clause for the anchor babies etc. In essence we would need to enter sort of a police type state for a few decades until we purged the illegals out.

End of the thought experiment.

So, do I want this to happen? Actually that is immaterial. The real issue is what do the bulk of the American people want? Right now I see the "tenor" of the American people starting to switch against the illegals and see the government doing nothing. The real question is how long the government will go without reacting to the will of the people.

So is it doable? Sure, no problem, it just takes money and the will power. The Soviets did it, the Khmer Rouge did it, dictators and thugs all over the world have done it. But normally they did it to keep their people in.

This would probably the first time the technique was used to keep the "bad guys" out.

End of a long thought experiment...

Back to your regularly schedualed programming.

 

[beach elvis]

As far as legalizing drugs is concerned, what are your thoughts about this?:

A former gov't official has stated that when upper level dealers are apprehended and their merchandise is confiscated, obviously the money present is confiscated as well. This money (oftentimes massive amounts) has no paper trail and are on no legitimate ledgers. This means it's untraceable.

The aforementioned gov't official stated that this untraceable money is the main source of funding for operations by certain U.S. entities within other locales, none of which they would like to become common knowledge for reasons of national security.

If this turns out to be true, then one can forget about entertaining the possibility of legalization of illicit substances...ain't hap'nin'.

Just my opinion, no judgement here, but I've been a musician all of my life (I mention that because there are a quotient of folks who get into that business because of easy access to the stuff) and in 40+ years, I've seen firsthand what some very talented people have turned themselves into from using that ****. I don't see any reason for its existence that contributes positively to the human race.

And now for a bit hypocracy:
The same could be said for tobacco and I'm holding a lit ciggy in my piehole as I'm typing this, so there ya go...

 

[mtgianni]

Why are we not prosecuting those who hire illegals and pay them under the table? The employers that are not paying SS or taxes are worse than those they employ for our national economy, IMO.

 

[handejector]

Another major problem solved right here on smith-wessonforum.com with only a few dozen rule breaking deleted posts.

Since we'va accomplished so much, we'll move along to the next problem....