Via WaPo we learn: Bush Set To Send Guard to Border:
Officials suggested their mission would be to play a supporting role by providing intelligence, training, transportation, construction and other functions, while leaving the actual guarding of the ...

Comments about the civil war period apply to using our military to police our own citizens!!! Is one to assume that anybody who crosses our southern border is, by definition, already a citizen?

Protection of our border from invasion is the original and most basic reason for a nation to HAVE a military!!

Apparently President Bush will have a "big" speech on immigration Monday night. Speculation is that Bush will announce the Pentagon will look at sending some token National Guard units to the border to help in "securing it". This is a......

My argument is more that it's not what the military ought to be used for, at least if we're supposed to take the GWOT seriously as a 'war'. We could get away with using the military as globo-cops in the 80s and 90s, but regardless of your opinions on Iraq and the GWOT, I think you'll agree that Iraq ain't no police action/peacekeeping mission...

Reports suggest President Bush is prepared to allocate National Guard troops for border security. The latest broadcast reports suggest he will review options and make some form of an announcement in his national address Monday night. Reports I've hear...

All your examples preceed the Posse Comitatus Act...so they strike me as irrelevant. Also, it basically requires an act of Congress or must be spelled out in the Constitution. So the war of 1812 for example might have automatic exemption since it would be a war on U.S. soil.

LJD,

Using the military to enforce laws inside the U.S. borders is illegal as per the Posse Comitatus Act.

Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

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, or both.

It mentions nothing about searching U.S. citizens or quartering soldiers.

Of course, if Congress says to put the National Guard on the border and have them stop illegals, then it would appear that it would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

I hope so. Go read this. I'll have more when I find it. *** Don't miss this excellent post at Stop The ACLU. Randy at Rightwinged.com has a good post here, also. James Joyner's OTB post here is also well...

a.) India already possesses nuclear weapons.

b.) The intent is to help India with nuclear power to alleviate their reliance on foreign oil sources, thereby also relieving some pressure on a resource that we seem to not be able to break away from.

c.) To support the growing indian economy and cultivate trade with a country we already import a great deal of goods from.

I still don't see the connection between being 'pushed around' economically and being unwilling to defend our country from outright hostility.

Legion- I'm not sure how long you have been out, but that is no longer the case. The military TRAINS for war- absolutely. But the preponderance of missions- real world training- is in police work. Look at Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. Very little force on force fighting. Lots and lots of force protection, information gathering, dealing with civilians, etc.

You�re kidding, right? You want the President to bomb Canada over economics?

I am less concern with his failure to defend our economic interests in the softwood lumber case as I am with India.

He gave up nothing in the India deal and actually paved the way for a Russian/Indian nuclear partnership that will likely fuel the nuclear arms buildup in Asia, futher destablilizing a sensitive area of the world. US strategic interests are actually compromised by the deal--due mainly to his failure to understand the situation and to recognize that India's nuclear expansion is inimical to US interests in the region.

Armed security, patrols, reconaissance, capture and processing of 'detainees'. What part of this is the miiltary not trained to do?

I would substitute 'intended' for 'trained'. The primary mission of the armed forces is direct combat with enemies of the US, and there's precious little chance of that on border patrol duty - at least to any level beyond what any ordinary police force should be capable of handling.

There is exactly one reason why the military is such an attractive tool to use on the borders: manpower. They have a lot of warm bodies that are trained for stressful situations. But the fact that they _could_ do this job doesn't mean they _should_.