|
Washington, D.C. (October 28, 2019) – [excerpt from blog by Andrew R. Arthur ] House Democrats who control the Armed Services Committee want to know specifically where troops who are sent to the southern border to assist U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in its mission are deployed and where they sleep. Why? No idea. This intelligence can only be useful to the drug cartels who control vast swaths of the Mexican side of the border and to Antifa goons.
H.R.2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA 2020) passed the House on July 12, 2019, by a vote of 220 to 197, with 16 members not voting. All of those who voted in favor of the bill were Democrats, and eight voted against. The bill itself is 1,976 pages long, but section 1044 (captioned "MODIFICATION AND TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF AUTHORITY FOR DEPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO THE SOUTHERN LAND BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES"), about seven pages long, is the most interesting.
Among other things, that bill requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Committees on Armed Forces of the Senate and House of Representatives 30 days in advance of any "deployment of any member of the Armed Forces or unit of the Armed Forces to the southern land border of the United States in support" of CBP. I will leave alone for the moment the constitutionality of this provision, which requires the commander in chief to provide Congress with advance notice of the movement of troops within the United States I will also leave alone for the moment the very concept that Congress in H.R. 2500 seeks to control the commander in chief in his efforts to protect the borders of the United States.
With those caveats, I want to focus on two specific provisions in section 1044 of H.R. 2500, which amend paragraph 1059(f)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA 2016), and in particular add subparagraphs (H) and (I).
That paragraph, as amended, itself would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services, the House Homeland Security Committee, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, within 30 days of the deployment of troops at the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) along the southern border, and every 90 days thereafter, that includes:
(H) A map indicating the locations where units so deployed are housed [and]
(I) A map indicating the locations where units so deployed are conducting their assigned mission and an explanation for the choice of such locations.
…what possible legitimate purpose is served by demanding that he Department of Defense (DOD) provide Congress with the address of the hotels in which soldiers deployed to the border to assist CBP are staying? To make sure that the breakfast bar has a waffle maker? That the bathrooms have sufficient soap and towels?
…Now, think about the harm that could come from the disclosure of such information. Imagine what would happen if it became public that the Holiday Inn in Yuma houses troops who are supporting CBP? (NB: I have no reason to believe that they do, or even if there is a Holiday Inn in Yuma.) How many sanctimonious trolls would call for a "boycott of Holiday Inn" because they are supporting the detention of "asylum seekers", and how long would it be able to oppose such efforts before tired soldiers got turned out into the streets? Worse, can you imagine what Antifa would do with this information? Protests at these locations are the baseline.
Further, what legitimate purpose is served by providing Congress with "[a] map indicating the location where units are so deployed?" The best explanation is to allow members to second guess that troops should be set up at mile marker 175 instead of mile marker 282. That said, members seem to have forgotten that there was an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi seven years ago in which our ambassador was killed by terrorists. Do you really think that they have the ability to make tactical considerations about deployments along a 1,954-mile border?
Worst case scenario: This information becomes public knowledge and the information is used by drug cartels as intelligence to direct their operations. In fact, this is the most likely outcome. You do not become the head of a "multi-billion dollar, multi-national criminal enterprise" without a sophisticated intelligence operation. In this instance, your source for intelligence is not Aldrich Ames or Bob Hanssen, it would be the Congress of the United States.
But wait, you say — that cannot possibly happen. Except for the fact that paragraph 1059(f)(2) of NDAA 2016, as amended by section 1044 of NDAA 2020, would provide:
Each report submitted under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form and without any designation relating to dissemination control, but may include a classified annex. [Emphasis added.]
Good luck with keeping this information under wraps. Congress plainly wants this information to be in the public sphere.
…Fortunately, there is no similar language in S. 1215, the companion NDAA 2020 in the Senate. That said, there is no guarantee that similar language will not sneak in during conference. House Democrats really want it, obviously. It is up to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), to make sure that does not occur.
|
