National Guardsmen overrun at the Border by armed gunmen

[magooch]

I'm for legal immigration too, but it should be based on a fair one to one exchange.  Someone wants to come here, they've got to find someone who wants to go to their POS country.  Of course all the prudent security, health and ability to support ones self criteria must be met.

This old crap about " give us your poor, etc. etc." is living in the past  We don't need to settle the country and we sure as hell don't need to increase the population.  We need to decrease the population and it should start by expelling about 12-15 million who are here illegally.

[magooch]

I'm for legal immigration too, but it should be based on a fair one to one exchange.  Someone wants to come here, they've got to find someone who wants to go to their POS country.  Of course all the prudent security, health and ability to support ones self criteria must be met.

This old crap about " give us your poor, etc. etc." is living in the past  We don't need to settle the country and we sure as hell don't need to increase the population.  We need to decrease the population and it should start by expelling about 12-15 million who are here illegally.

[powderman]

MAGOOCH. You are mostly right. I seriously doubt whether most of them have anything to offer America. Until our govt starts treating this as the invasion it is, nothing will change. There is NO REASON for the guard not to be armed. They were clearly attacked defending our nation. They should have killed them all. These were clearly not just illegals, they were drug smugglers, scum of the earth and should have died right on the spot. POWDERMAN. 

[TrenchMud]

WilliamLayton is absolutely correct about armed U.S. troops on US soil.
What we need to do is make an area about 10 Kilometers wide along the border into a Non-US
territory and use it for desert training for all our military forces, Weapons testing and the like.
Place Remote Sentry devices (similar to the Phalanx on ships but smaller) Or Metal-Storm weapons in strategic areas to deal with Invaders from the SOUTH! these systems can be completely autonomous(SP) so they have no concience to prevent them from actually firing on anything that moves.
kind of a new AREA 51 ... I guarantee that no one will get near the border then.
Two things got the Dems. back into power, Iraq and border security/illegal aliens.. They have two years to show us what they can do. I am sure they will find a way to make this an anti-gun issue
but we will have to see on that

[Almtnman]

Newer Info about the recent border incident

Uniformed Mexican Force Invades Arizona

[hardertr]

Euphoric Reality has learned in exclusive interviews with high-ranking sources within both the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol that the incident the mainstream media calls a “standoff” was in reality a military-style operation, carried out by a unit of Mexican men dressed in military uniforms, flak jackets, and armed with AK-47s in an apparent operation to probe the border defenses and test the limits of the National Guard troops.

Well..there you have it.  "Exclusive interviews" to Euporic Reality.  I'de be more apt to believe more credible sources like the National Enquirer   

[sparsons]

Well now I am confussed. I watched news Sunday. They had a high ranking offical of their own who confirmed shots were fired.  That high ranking offical confirmed that only "certain" members of the guard were armed.    He was asked directly why the rest of the guard was not armed and he talked around the question and never really gave the answer. The commentater asked him several times to explain but all he got was wordage of nonsense. As they were talking they showed  truck in the background which was proof of shots fired, or at least that was the intent. None the less I still stand that it sends the wrong message no matter if shots  were fired or not.

[rockbilly]

I think we can recruit enough patriots on this site to correct the border situation.  All we need is authorization to eliminate any perceived or real threat with deadly force.
 
Seriously, we are way pasted the time to get serious with ANYONE who crosses the border illegally.  I don’t think we can hold any party directly responsible for the current situation; it has developed over the period of many years while both parties had control.  I do think the liberal courts, and big business had contributed to the problem to satisfy their agenda. 
 
I guess I am “old school”, but in my opinion, makes no difference who they are, if they cross the border into the USA illegally, then they should be met with force, deadly if necessary.  It is past time for America to show Mexico , and their leaders, that we run this country.  They would do this to us if the situation were reversed.
 
See what Rush has to say about the problem.
 http://us.f812.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?box=Sent&MsgId=1986_82819253_35659_1158_1399066_0_30393_1827265_2161447835&bodyPart=2&tnef=&YY=71869&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&VScan=1&Idx=3       

[powderman]

Since the mex govt says that we are seeing our own soldiers dressed as invaders, they shouldn't mind if we kill them all. There is NO EXCUSE for this. Wheres the media coverage??? That should be front page news, and top story tv coverage all accross America. POWDERMAN.   >

[billy_56081]

   I just can't see how anyone cannot see this as a danger to out sovereignty. Armed invaders crossing our borders, probing our defences.

  I do not believe the Mexican government would risk a war with America. So what is going on here? Are thes drug runners? Muslime terrorists?

  Why the he!! is their not more coverage of this in our media? I'm certain another terrorist attack is coming soon. Well I hate to see it but maybe it'll finally wake up the morons in this country.

[williamlayton]

I can only speak from Texas history on this subject but I believe that this history is not exclusive to Texas.
Since 1836 the border with Mexico has been a sieve--well a sieve has small holes--and entrance by armed persons has not been uncommon--in either direction.
Letting the military to be used as law inforcement is dangerous business boys and I, again, caution this type thinking. It is also illegal for the military to be used in this fashion no matter what that blog says about it being a misinterpretation of the law.
Well, I guess you can purchase a ten mile strip for a military base and get around it--that is going to be hugely expensive and then you are treading on immenient domain--a very hot and touchy subject at the moment.
Seems to me, Lordy I am having flash-backs--halucinations--hearing the voice of Leander callinng, we could get around this by beefing up the Texas Rangers of old. Now there is a problem with this line of thinking. It means putting stern men on the case. These stern men are not good at report writing, and tend to supply bodies with the reports.
This is going to cause much tearing of robes and ghnashing of teeth and the politicos are going to have need to be as tough as the men they put in charge of creating order in this region---I aint seen many of these politicos who fit this cloth, of late.
Now I agree that the way it WAS handled in the days past was not real effective at creating a great wall that was unpenitral, well it was for those who came and THEN wanted to get back.
In those days, and those days lasted well into the 1960's, the armed intrusion was just as likely to be one of the Boys intruding into Mexico---for reasons unknown---no reports filed.
Now if we can stomach this returning of order in preparation for law I know a few good boys that are capable.
Take off the rose colored glasses and prepare for more newspaper print and CNN reporting than Iraq will ever produce---but it may work.
Blessings

[Almtnman]

Well now I am confussed. I watched news Sunday. They had a high ranking offical of their own who confirmed shots were fired.  That high ranking offical confirmed that only "certain" members of the guard were armed.    He was asked directly why the rest of the guard was not armed and he talked around the question and never really gave the answer.

I keep wondering if when they say that the Guard troops were armed, if that meant having weapons with or without ammo?

[hardertr]

It's a pretty standard "tactic" to put uneducated, untrained troops (MY words because I was one of them on more than one occassion) on a guard post for the purpose of "visual deterence".   Because these troops are often untrained...they are not completely trust-worthy with a loaded weapon.

I have had to man a high-profile guard post with an empty magazine in my M16 more than once.  The deterence works if.... 1) folks don't know it's empty, 2) you act like your "locked, cocked and ready to rock" by treating your rifle like it is loaded, and 3) never been tested like these guys on the border have been.

Chances are, the NCOs in charge might have had 10 rounds or so.  The rest probably did not, so as to minimize the chance for an "international incident".  Like I said....it works as long as the other guy doesn't catch on.   

[Almtnman]

What? Don't our troops go through basic training any more? And I do seem to remember qualifying with a loaded rifle on the rifle range when I went through basic training.

[powderman]

WILLIAM. Since when is guarding and defending American soil not the job of our military??? I don't understand your thoughts there. Defending America has nothing to do with civilian law. These invaders are a threat to the security of our nation. Give the NG ammo, and plenty of it. The drug runners and coyotes should be executed as soon as they are caught, if they survive the fire fight. The vehicles seen crossing illegally should be turned over to our Air force, maybe target practice for the air guard. I don't care how they stop them. I read where some of these scum have been caught and released 6+ times, no reason for that, PERIOD. The ones that are here now should be rounded up and deported, then send a bill to the mex govt. If caught again, 5 years of hard labor, maybe building a wall between them and us. 3rd time, there would be a few, and the punishment so severe they would never, EVER, come here again. Also, those caught should never, EVER, be allowed even a green card, or apply for legal residence. We need to quit playing games with these people and treat them as the threat to our nation they really are. POWDERMAN. 

[LEO]

While the details of this incident are fuzzy at best, I think the following in is pretty clear.  A group of armed uniformed subjects crossed the border from Mexico, into Arizona.  This group of armed uniformed subjects engaged a group of Arizona National Guardsmen.  The Guradsmen for what ever reason, lack of ammo, lack of weapons, higher orders whatever retreated.  There has been debate about using the Guard for law enforcement, I don't see as that is relevent to this incident.  These Guardsmen were manning a border security point and they were attacked by a uniformed force from another Country, that is not law enforcement, that is an invasion.  The fact that they were forced to retreat is an abomination, in this particular case with the circumstances that have been given, they should have been able to bring the full weight of the American Military Machine to bear on these folks if their rifles and machineguns could solve the problem a little artillery and tac air surely would have.  If we do not trust these folks enough to put them out there with their weapns and ammo then they are certainly not trustworthy enough to protect this Nation and they shouldn't be there.  The bottom line is whoever made the decision to put them there was afraid of a political scene.  We have put Americans in harms weigh enough worrying about a political scene.  If you are not willing to let them do their job, and keep in mind a solidiers job is to kill the enemy and destroy their infrastructure then leave them at home with their families.  This appears to be a totally seperate issue from illegal imimigration but it will become clouded by that issue.  I don't care if you are the National Guard, Border Patrol, or Rancher Ron, if you are fired upon you have the right to shoot back.  Politics aside, it is foolish to send these folks down there and tell them now if someone shoots at you just run away, fortunately this time they were able to next time they may not be able to and there the politicans will have killed more Americans because they are to concerned with being politically correct.  I can only imagine how those poor Gaurdsmen must feel, here they are warriors and their commanders will not allow them to engage the threat and then it is plastered all over the news that they retreated.  What kind of impact is that going to have on them?  I think people need to let them know that it is not their fault that the powers that be will not allow them to do what they are trained, willing and able to do.

[DWTim]

I think we can recruit enough patriots on this site to correct the border situation.  All we need is authorization to eliminate any perceived or real threat with deadly force.

If it's in defense of your own property, you are already "authorized". If the federal government doesn't want to deal with the sticky situation of which laws apply if this results in wounded or dead people (either us or the Mexicans), then maybe they should meet their constitutional obligations.

[hardertr]

If you are not willing to let them do their job, and keep in mind a solidiers job is to kill the enemy and destroy their infrastructure

not exactly....

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The second oath is the officers oath.  In short, it says an officer will voluntarily defend the constitution...if he doesn't feel he can do his job any longer...he can resign his commission and essentially quit.

The first oath is the enlisted oath.  It says I will defend the constitution AND do whatever the officers above me see as essential to protect it.

In short, an enlisted soldier's job TODAY is to be a political pawn (show of force, security, humanitarian, protector of all oil rights and financial prosperity of the US....)  An officer's job is to be a political leader and play the political games.

[Almtnman]

I don't care if you are the National Guard, Border Patrol, or Rancher Ron, if you are fired upon you have the right to shoot back. 

Maybe the answer is for the border states to make a Castle Doctrine law like my state did this past summer, following FLA's lead on the same law. Since that time many other states have brought the Castle Doctrine law into effect. Basically what that law does is; if you are threatened, you have no duty to retreat just do what is necessary to defend yourself anywhere that you have a legal right to be.

As long as we and our government retains such a passive atmosphere about incidents such as this, they're just going to keep on doing it over and over again. At some point in time, some official needs to get off his or her duff and put a stop to it once and for all.

What should happen is Bush should notify the President of Mexico with an official communication stating, look, if any more uniformed armed men from your side shows up on our side, we're going to send them back to you looking like a piece of Swiss cheese, so if you don't want that to happen, then put a stop to it from your side of the border or we will stop it on our side. .

[powderman]

I don't care if you are the National Guard, Border Patrol, or Rancher Ron, if you are fired upon you have the right to shoot back. 

Maybe the answer is for the border states to make a Castle Doctrine law like my state did this past summer, following FLA's lead on the same law. Since that time many other states have brought the Castle Doctrine law into effect. Basically what that law does is; if you are threatened, you have no duty to retreat just do what is necessary to defend yourself anywhere that you have a legal right to be.

As long as we and our government retains such a passive atmosphere about incidents such as this, they're just going to keep on doing it over and over again. At some point in time, some official needs to get off his or her duff and put a stop to it once and for all.

What should happen is Bush should notify the President of Mexico with an official communication stating, look, if any more uniformed armed men from your side shows up on our side, we're going to send them back to you looking like a piece of Swiss cheese, so if you don't want that to happen, then put a stop to it from your side of the border or we will stop it on our side. .

Got to agree with that. Tell fox that we will designate a dump site or 2 in each state where his dead people can be picked up, my words, not yours.  POWDERMAN. 

[Sourdough]

The way I understand it.  That Civil War Era law that says US troops cannot be used to enforce laws amoungst US citisens does not apply to illegials.  We can use the US troops, to secure our borders.  It would be legal to arm them and for them to protect the border from intrussion. 

I also understand that there is a movement in the southern tier of states that border Mexico, to populate these states with mexician nationals that will vote when their numbers have the majority to have those states returned to mexico.  They (The people of this movement) say our taking of that land was illigal and that Mexico wants it back.  OK are we going to give back California, Arizonia, New Mexico, and Texas?  Looks like it will happen.  We are doing nothing to stop the movement or close the borders.  Hillary even told the Illegials they don't need to be citisens to vote.  "Go register, they can't ask you to prove citisenship.  That's harrassment!"

[williamlayton]

The only thing I can say is that the military can not enforce or be used to enforce law.
They have no authority to arrest.
They are not subject to direction by any other than their chain fo command.
Boys, we went thru this with the carpetbaggers and military law is completely different than other law.
I can see the results of this if it gets into the wrong hands.
This is the reaon we have law enforcement and military seperated.
Now the President has the power to order the military into an area under invasion and the Govenor of any state can bring the national guard into an area to prevent riot or contain riot but they have no power of arrest. The President is even limited in what he may do with the military.
Now we have the laws to work with but it will take considerably more folks than are presently employed by these agencies to adequately perform.
I vote against the military
Blessings

[hardertr]

I find it humorous that some of the same folks that say "the military better protect us" can, in the same breat also say "the military better not be used to infringe upon MY rights (free speech, bear arms, etc.etc.)"

This was NOT an "invasion".  Instead of pouring more money down this hole we call a "war", we should beef up the border patrol via troops, equipment and training.  The military should not get involved.

[Almtnman]

The only thing I can say is that the military can not enforce or be used to enforce law.
They have no authority to arrest.

I believe that you're wrong on saying it that way. The military can enforce laws and arrest you if martial law is declared, at least that's my understanding. They did it in Phenix City, Al many years ago and they can do it anytime martial law is declared.

[Almtnman]

I find it humorous that some of the same folks that say "the military better protect us" can, in the same breat also say "the military better not be used to infringe upon MY rights (free speech, bear arms, etc.etc.)"

This was NOT an "invasion".  Instead of pouring more money down this hole we call a "war", we should beef up the border patrol via troops, equipment and training.  The military should not get involved.

I haven't heard a soul mention anything about infringing upon our rights. What I have heard is protect the borders, they are not secure. To stop an illegal armed group of people entering this country from another country is not infringing on our rights. I find it humorous that you would make a statement like that.

Now, in your next sentence, you say beef up the border with troops and the very next sentence after that for the military to not get involved. Whose troops do you want there?

Personally, I think our country has developed into a bunch of pansies, looking for every excuse, law and any other item that can be debated over and over again to tell us we are just a bunch of pansies with no authority or will to make a change here and there when the need arises. We can either sucumb to all this and let every Tom Dick and Harry from who knows where walk in here and eventully take over or do something about it. Me, I'm for putting a stop to it whatever it takes, do it!

[hardertr]

By "troops" on the border, I was refering to border patrol agents, not military.

It was a mistake to get this country involved in a war 7000 miles away (without a plan for victory) without ensuring our borders were secure.

Poor planning all around...and then there is HIS speech tonight.

summary:
"yep, we're losing, and yes we still really don't have a plan....But at least we're sending in more bodies...I mean TROOPS to expand our war to Iran and Syria"

Sorry for the bitterness, but I am REALLY starting to despise GW.

[Almtnman]

By "troops" on the border, I was refering to border patrol agents, not military.

It was a mistake to get this country involved in a war 7000 miles away (without a plan for victory) without ensuring our borders were secure.

Poor planning all around...and then there is HIS speech tonight.

summary:
"yep, we're losing, and yes we still really don't have a plan....But at least we're sending in more bodies...I mean TROOPS to expand our war to Iran and Syria"

Sorry for the bitterness, but I am REALLY starting to despise GW.

There's a world of difference between troops and border agents, you should have been more clearer.

I totally disagree with you on the war issue as it's us against terrorism and if we don't fight them there, we will be fighting them here.

I don't agree that we're losing either. We just have too many pacifists trying to run the show, too much media pushing not the good it's doing, but all the bad.

I think that since we have a different bunch in charge that we're going to see some changes that are not going to be good here on our own turf.

I hate to hear that you are starting to despise GW that much, but I think if Kerry had gotten in, we would be in really bad shape right about now. At least, we haven't had any more 911's here, but things here lately are not looking good. Our border is a rat hole for security and no-one wants to do a thing about it. Might as well put up a welcome sign down there and tell them all to step right in and do anything you want as we are nothing but a bunch of whimps. Just walk right in, report to the local social security office and tell them you demand to be put on government assistance. Just bring your suitcase nukes in while you're at it. There's no telling how many have already been brought in anyway. We're just an accident waiting to happen. Then on the other hand we could just turn it all over to the UN and they could talk them to death! 

We could be like France and just start waving white flags! look at their country or what used to be a country, they no longer have one. That's what we're headed for with attitudes that we're developing here. 

[hardertr]

I don't agree that we're losing either. We just have too many pacifists trying to run the show, too much media pushing not the good it's doing, but all the bad.

Who have you been talking to??  Everybody in my food chain, below the president of course, says:
1) the current tactics are not working
2) there is now way to measure success because we don't really have a plan
3) 20,000 more troops WILL NOT HELP...200,000 maybe, but not 20,000

Back to the border issue:
I had the privelege to talk to a team of border patrol agents on my last fishing trip to Port Mansfield (WAY south Texas)...these TROOPS were armed better than our soldiers in Bagdad!  Tactical, bullet proof vests, ballistic helmets, M4s, PERCUSSION AND GAS grenades....and a 50 cal mounted on thier 30 foot boat.  They told me it was quite common to run in with armed drug runners just off the coast.  They also said they have had to call the Coast Guard helicopters to run down boats more than once in the past 6 months.  I also heard the same familiar story my buddy in Yuma (also Border Patrol) tells about being responsible for a HUGE area with insufficient manning.

I used to think of Border Patrol agents as those fat, out of shape, 200 year old coots that work the checkpoints at airports or along the highways leading from Mexico.  It's not that way anymore.  They are armed for a reason....and they are also undermanned for a reason too I guess 

[Almtnman]

I don't agree that we're losing either. We just have too many pacifists trying to run the show, too much media pushing not the good it's doing, but all the bad.

Who have you been talking to??  Everybody in my food chain, below the president of course, says:
1) the current tactics are not working
2) there is now way to measure success because we don't really have a plan
3) 20,000 more troops WILL NOT HELP...200,000 maybe, but not 20,000

Back to the border issue:
I had the privelege to talk to a team of border patrol agents on my last fishing trip to Port Mansfield (WAY south Texas)...these TROOPS were armed better than our soldiers in Bagdad!  Tactical, bullet proof vests, ballistic helmets, M4s, PERCUSSION AND GAS grenades....and a 50 cal mounted on thier 30 foot boat.  They told me it was quite common to run in with armed drug runners just off the coast.  They also said they have had to call the Coast Guard helicopters to run down boats more than once in the past 6 months.  I also heard the same familiar story my buddy in Yuma (also Border Patrol) tells about being responsible for a HUGE area with insufficient manning.

I used to think of Border Patrol agents as those fat, out of shape, 200 year old coots that work the checkpoints at airports or along the highways leading from Mexico.  It's not that way anymore.  They are armed for a reason....and they are also undermanned for a reason too I guess 

I've been talking to troops that are presently stationed in Iraq. When someone makes a decision that we cannot do something, that is usually the case as they have already laid it out on the line that we can't do anything. That's what I was trying to say in my last posts. We have become a nation of whimps thinking that we can't accomplish anything anymore. It's a poor attitude to have and will eventually take this nation down.

The border agents might be equipped as you say, but they don't seem to be getting the job done.

[powderman]

Drug runners should be executed on the spot, then tell fox about it. POWDERMAN.