| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Lawmakers ask: Why did Guard retreat? |
| 2007-01-17 |
| I dunno. Because they didn't want to go to prison for 20 years? Questions still linger about what really happened two weeks ago when a National Guard observation team was forced by four armed men to retreat from its post east of Sasabe. Federal lawmakers have joined their state counterparts in demanding answers about the Jan. 3 incident. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking what the agency has learned and how it will handle future hostile confrontations. Last week, Arizona lawmakers asked for an explanation as to why National Guard troops fled their observation post. Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, who chairs the House Committee on Property Rights and Homeland Security, has scheduled a Jan. 29 meeting at which the committee will question Maj. Gen. David Rataczak, the state Guard commander. "I've heard two or three different stories of what happened at the border," Nichols said . "We want to get to the bottom of what happened and not stay in the realm of 'he said, she said.' " Among the questions that loom is whether the Guard troops had ammunition in their rifles, who the armed men were and what the Guard is allowed to do when confronted, he said. Border Patrol officials have scoffed at reports that the troops didn't have ammunition in their rifles. The only National Guard troops without loaded weapons are those working in administrative positions and helping with construction of fences and vehicle barriers, and repairing roads, said Gustavo Soto, Border Patrol Tucson Sector spokesman. "They've had rifles and ammunition since day one," Soto said. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #7 No pardon is necessary iff their standing orders included option of retreat, usually becuz ROE's > another Agency [non-USDOD-Guard]calls the ball. * "Sad state of our justice system" - Amer legal system > Case-by-Case basis = the Innocent have thier day in court, NOT POLITIX-PCorrectness. WOT/9-11 > even "PC" has reached a "critical mass/event horizon" as much as Amer's enemies tolerance of Americana's continuing success and upwardly expansion. E.G. THE VIEW > the ladies there have all but officially announced or verified that contemporary Leftism = Left-based ideos stands for nuthin' except SELFISH POWER, BENEFITS FOR A FEW = NEPOTISM/SPEC INTERESTS, + SUBSTITUTION OF RULING ELITES, and BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. The Rights and Interests of "the People/Masses" exists now only as a feel-good elex-time "Talking Point(s)", "...full of sound and fury signifying nothing" to those whom argue for same. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-17 20:28 |
| #6 A very sad statement about our justice system. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-01-17 17:15 |
| #5 Because they didn't want to go to prison for 20 years? EGGzactly! If GW ever wants to regain my confidence on his handling of the immigration/border security issue, he'll pardon the two border guards immediately. If not, we can expect more of this from the guards on the border. |
| Posted by: GK 2007-01-17 14:29 |
| #4 I've seen proposed elsewhere that this is a good example of why States need to create true militias independent of the National Guard. Members of such a militia could not, in peacetime, be NG members or Reservists, so they could not be put on active duty or otherwise seized by the federal government or on order of the President. This would guarantee individual States a reaction force against natural disasters, the ability to (armed) patrol that State's international border, and through deputization to the State Police, the ability of the militia to both arrest, and to use firearms to prevent criminal activities with the same protections as those given to the State Police. A militia of that sort would be paramilitary, but not equipped or trained by US military rules, making it even more difficult for them to be co-opted by the feds. Their Commander in Chief would be the governor, and their funding would come exclusively from the State legislature. Before, when State budgets were small, this was not cost effective. However today, most States could easily afford such a security force. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-01-17 13:41 |
| #3 "the usual federal cover-up" Indeed. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-17 11:45 |
| #2 In fact they may have to be dug up, literally. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-17 09:34 |
| #1 “The Border Patrol continues to investigate the confrontation and has asked Mexican authorities to do the same, Martinez said.” The Mexican authorities that aren’t involved in Narcotics smuggling, human trafficking, or gang warfare should be a big help in getting to the bottom of all this. Of course, locating those individuals may take some time. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-01-17 09:09 |