The Air Force is the only one of the military branches involved in President Donald Trump's mandated border mission to not disclose publicly the number of service members or what units they're coming from.
Last I checked, planes not run by the Air Force flew to pretty much every country on the planet. Also, there are boats. And if we’re talking the Americas, cars and trucks.
And if they have served their time, why do they need to be deported in a military plane?
If we are exiling someone for violent crimes why would they be free to roam the nation? You do not have the right to live anywhere other than the nation you have citizenship in. That isn’t “American” of me as that is the law in all nations.
What are you even talking about now? You said they should be deported after serving their sentence. I’m saying if they’ve already served their sentence, why do they need to be treated like a dangerous criminal and deport them on an Air Force plane? Put them on a United flight to wherever. If they’re such a risk on a plane, have a sky marshal sit next to them on the flight. They’re allowed to be armed and they don’t have to wear anything that identifies them. What is this cartel member going to do?
They transport prisoners still serving sentences domestically that way sometimes. They don’t use the Air Force because it’s one guy on a plane and that’s silly.
That doesn’t mean that reprisals are a realistic possibility.
People manage all sorts of risks every day.
It’s not a question of whether some infinitesimal risk exists, it’s a question of whether removing names is an appropriate mitigation.
Obviously you think that it is, but I think most people value transparency and accountability. The elephant in the room here is that anonymity would hypothetically allow service members to act with impunity.
I’m sure you can see the risks in having service members escort detainees with no accountability for their actions.
I think the main problem people are having is that they are being used to enforce domestic policy within the United States, which is not normal at all and is arguably illegal.
Ok so you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. There are a lot of people in OPs image but only 4 are Air Force personnel, see if you can spot them.
Oh right, I forgot that if you are in the Air Force, that is the only possible way you can dress at all times. Never does anyone in the Air Force ever wear anything other than that.
Then you would know that not everyone on the plane would be wearing multicam.
It’s a bit too blurry to be sure, but I’m pretty sure the guy standing to the right in the back next to the console with what looks like a patrol cap is more than likely the loadmaster and would be wearing a flight suit and over jacket.
There are a lot of people in OPs image but only 4 are Air Force personnel, see if you can spot them.
What does the percent of people in the picture being in the service have to do with anything…? We’re talking about federal military members being ordered by the executive to enforce domestic policy, which is illegal.
Are you purposely being obtuse, or are you really this dumb?
And yes, I can spot the Air Force personnel… I’ve spent 18 years living on AFB all over the country and abroad, my dad was a SMSgt.
We’re talking about federal military members being ordered by the executive to enforce domestic policy, which is illegal.
The Air Force is not enforcing domestic policy here. If you see Airman out on the streets arresting people then you’d have a point. That’s why I mentioned the 6 agents. The USAF is providing logistical support (yes they bring their own security too, the 4 in multicams).
The Air Force is not enforcing domestic policy here. If you see Airman out on the streets arresting people then you’d have a point.
I don’t think you have any kind of authority to really substantiate that particular semantic dispute.
I’m sure we’ll probably see it brought before a court at some point, but I would argue that if the policy isn’t possible to execute without the logistical support of the military then the military is crucial to the enforcement of the policy.
The armed forces can’t execute law domestically. The question driving the discussion here is what exactly constitutes “executing law.” According to DoD policy, the armed forces are prohibited from performing the following law enforcement activities:
interdiction of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other similar activity
a search or seizure;
an arrest; apprehension; stop and frisk; engaging in interviews, interrogations, canvassing, or questioning of potential witnesses or suspects; or similar activity;
using force or physical violence, brandishing a weapon, discharging or using a weapon, or threatening to discharge or use a weapon except in self-defense, in defense of other DoD persons in the vicinity, or in defense of non-DoD persons, including civilian law enforcement personnel, in the vicinity when directly related to an assigned activity or mission;
evidence collection; security functions; crowd and traffic control; and operating, manning, or staffing checkpoints;
surveillance or pursuit of individuals, vehicles, items, transactions, or physical locations, or acting as undercover agents, informants, investigators, or interrogators; and
forensic investigations or other testing of evidence obtained from a suspect for use in a civilian law enforcement investigation
According to DoD policy, the armed forces are prohibited from performing the following law enforcement activities:
This article is limited to national guard personnel, active duty troops have even more limitations to domestic operations. Which is why national guard units were utilized to “secure the border”, and not actual active duty service members.
Applies to National Guard (NG) personnel in Reference (d) status only.
e. Applies to civilian employees of the DoD Components and the activities of DoD
contractors performed in support of the DoD Components.
Maybe it shouldn’t be. You know, what with accountability being a thing that people should be held to…
Should an airman’s family be targeted by cartels because they flew cartel members back to their home nation?
That’s a good point.
Maybe we shouldn’t have them do that in the first place either and if there are dangerous cartel members in the U.S., they can be put in U.S. prisons.
And after serving prison times what do we do? Most nations kick you out after you serve time in prison for serious crimes. How do you send them home?
Last I checked, planes not run by the Air Force flew to pretty much every country on the planet. Also, there are boats. And if we’re talking the Americas, cars and trucks.
And if they have served their time, why do they need to be deported in a military plane?
Do we deport criminals housed in prisons for being dangerous people using commercial carriers?
They are being permanently exiled for their crimes why would ypu compromise that by letting them wander free?
I see. You think we should continue to treat former prisoners like prisoners even though they’ve served their sentence.
How very American of you.
If we are exiling someone for violent crimes why would they be free to roam the nation? You do not have the right to live anywhere other than the nation you have citizenship in. That isn’t “American” of me as that is the law in all nations.
What are you even talking about now? You said they should be deported after serving their sentence. I’m saying if they’ve already served their sentence, why do they need to be treated like a dangerous criminal and deport them on an Air Force plane? Put them on a United flight to wherever. If they’re such a risk on a plane, have a sky marshal sit next to them on the flight. They’re allowed to be armed and they don’t have to wear anything that identifies them. What is this cartel member going to do?
They transport prisoners still serving sentences domestically that way sometimes. They don’t use the Air Force because it’s one guy on a plane and that’s silly.
Is this a realistic possibility?
Why would a cartel kick that hornets nest?
Yes, and they have killed service members before.
That doesn’t mean that reprisals are a realistic possibility.
People manage all sorts of risks every day.
It’s not a question of whether some infinitesimal risk exists, it’s a question of whether removing names is an appropriate mitigation.
Obviously you think that it is, but I think most people value transparency and accountability. The elephant in the room here is that anonymity would hypothetically allow service members to act with impunity.
I’m sure you can see the risks in having service members escort detainees with no accountability for their actions.
Not wearing nametapes has been a thing for decades, long before Trump was president.
I think the main problem people are having is that they are being used to enforce domestic policy within the United States, which is not normal at all and is arguably illegal.
Ok so you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. There are a lot of people in OPs image but only 4 are Air Force personnel, see if you can spot them.
That would probably be a lot easier if they didn’t remove all of their patches. Huh…
Not really considering they’re wearing multicams.
Oh right, I forgot that if you are in the Air Force, that is the only possible way you can dress at all times. Never does anyone in the Air Force ever wear anything other than that.
Why else would I be making so many comments?
Then you would know that not everyone on the plane would be wearing multicam.
It’s a bit too blurry to be sure, but I’m pretty sure the guy standing to the right in the back next to the console with what looks like a patrol cap is more than likely the loadmaster and would be wearing a flight suit and over jacket.
Your question doesn’t even follow what I said. I wasn’t even talking about you. Not everything is about you.
What does the percent of people in the picture being in the service have to do with anything…? We’re talking about federal military members being ordered by the executive to enforce domestic policy, which is illegal.
Are you purposely being obtuse, or are you really this dumb?
And yes, I can spot the Air Force personnel… I’ve spent 18 years living on AFB all over the country and abroad, my dad was a SMSgt.
The Air Force is not enforcing domestic policy here. If you see Airman out on the streets arresting people then you’d have a point. That’s why I mentioned the 6 agents. The USAF is providing logistical support (yes they bring their own security too, the 4 in multicams).
If you disagree please look it up yourself.
I don’t think you have any kind of authority to really substantiate that particular semantic dispute.
I’m sure we’ll probably see it brought before a court at some point, but I would argue that if the policy isn’t possible to execute without the logistical support of the military then the military is crucial to the enforcement of the policy.
Source
This article is limited to national guard personnel, active duty troops have even more limitations to domestic operations. Which is why national guard units were utilized to “secure the border”, and not actual active duty service members.