Posted on 02/24/2005 12:42:44 PM PST by WindOracle
Former Mexican soldiers, police and federal agents, originally trained as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, are working as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers, bringing a new wave of drug-related killings into the United States, authorities said.
Law-enforcement and intelligence officials said the well-armed gang, known as the "Zetas," is linked to hundreds of killings and dozens of kidnappings on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly over a wide area of southeastern Texas from Laredo to Brownsville and in cities throughout Mexico.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The checkpoint at Fal is on the east side of the road to catch traffic coming from the south.
If he were traveling south there is no checkpoint on the west side of the road.
I notice that the article didn't mention how he got across the border. He either had to float across the Rio Grande or use a Mexican visa or shopping card. My guess is that he had a Mexican visa or a fake American dirvers license.
He evidently had enough money to purchase a car.
You are right that the check point is on the east side of the road. He made the u-turn on the west side of the highway. He was spotted by the BP making the turn and that is the reason they went after him. KURV was amazed at this too. There is only a little picnic park that separates the highway and you can see from one side to the other.
Not only is this guy a murdering piece of garbage, but he's dumber that a mesquite stump.
Another interesting report in today's OC Register is titled Nations gang up to stop gangs. Lead says: "El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and the U.S. seek ways to work on crime fight."
An AP article by Traci Carl datelined Apopa, El Salvador, has the FBI, Homeland Security and So. Cal. law enforcement there with gang members rounded up by Salvadoran police. About 50 officals from the nations were taking part in a 3-day conference that included talking to reformed gang members, visiting jails and interviewing those rounded up in the pre-dawn raid. The article also mentions the arrest of Rivera Paz.
I didn't say anything about it. I hadn't heard about it, but I'm not in South Texas now.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the gangs in El Salvador or Guatamala or Honduras as long as they don't cross that Rio Grande.
Right. That would appear to be the reason for the meeting in El Salvador with U.S. LEOs present. The photo with the print article is apparently depicting one of those caught in the pre-dawn raid. Dressed only in boxers with a large tattoo across his chest, the caption reads: "CRACKDOWN: A man charged with homicide and deported by the U.S. crouches as he is arrested Wednesday in Apopa, El Salvador."
My mistake. Texastoo said he hadn't seen it in the news yet.
I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept. The Army relies on National Guard formations to perform its mission. Chain the National Guard to the US border, you might as well stick the rest of the US Army there, too, because you've just pulled most of their support.
As I noted, there are a lot of folks out there that want us to just fold up our tents, retreat inside our border, and leave them free to engage in all manner of acts contrary to US interests. And you're advocating their line.
Interesting.
Those figures worry intelligence and Homeland Security officials, who say al-Qaeda leaders want to smuggle operatives and weapons of mass destruction across the nation's porous land borders.
Congratulations: you have just stated that the border security mission must be performed with 100% effectiveness. Even one person getting into the United States illegally, by any route, just became unacceptable, because, according to your line of argument, one "leaker" can mean a city being destroyed. Please explain, in detail, how your proposal achieves that goal. If I can figure out a way to illegally enter the United States with a WMD with your proposal in place, you lose. You game?
It doesn't, of course. Never said it did. But it would undoubtedly increase the percentage (of apprehensions) considerably. Your contention that because it's impossible to achieve an apprehension rate of 100% that we shouldn't even try is incomprehensible. ....and dangerous.
I could just as easily ask you to please explain how the NG giving support to the U.S. Army in Iraq achieves a 100% effectiveness rate (of keeping terrorists out). Again, it doesn't. .....although it certainly helps.
Frankly, I consider the defense of our homeland against Islamists to be more important than the defense of Iraq. .....and I suspect the vast majority of Americans do as well.
I see you are utterly unfamiliar with the "Total Force" concept.
Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist? This war is being fought on many fronts, not just in Iraq. And again, the defense of the homeland is quite an important element, wouldn't you say?
In other words, you want to spend an infinitely large amount of money on a project that you know will be a complete failure by the declaratory mission rationale and performance criterion you've established. Just wanted to get that on record.
Oh, I'm familiar with it alright. It's YOU you seem to have his head buried in the sand on this issue. Why is it that you assume that if someone advocates a strong defense of U.S. borders - much stronger than we have now, obviously - that he must be an isolationist?
Because of the practical effects of what you advocate.
You demand that we cripple the US Army's ability to fight and win wars to perform a mission that you admit cannot be accomplished, at least with respect to the reason you're claiming for the mission. The real mission you have in mind (lowering the number of illegal aliens entering this country for economic reasons) is not, IMNHO, sufficiently pressing as to demand that we cripple the US Army to do it.
Here's the problem: when do those troops come off the border? Answer: never. There are a lot of foreign powers that would love us to chain down our military on a never-ending mission like that.
Suppose Iran goes on a tear in the Persian Gulf, Korea heats up, or China gets rowdy under your scenario. The price of bringing the US Army to the battle would be a renewal of massive illegal immigration. People like you would reliably demand that the Army stay home.
You are serving the interests of Teheran, Pyongyang, and Beijing, good sir. I find that . . . interesting.
Complete failure? lol......just because we can't achieve a 100% apprehension you consider it a "complete failure?" Logic isn't your strong suit, apparently.
The real mission you have in mind (lowering the number of illegal aliens entering this country for economic reasons)
Try to restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth, boy. My primary concern is homeland security, and for you to assert otherwise is presumptuous in the extreme.
People like you would reliably demand that the Army stay home.
How many times do I have to tell you that I advocate National Guard deployments on the U.S. border, not the U.S. Army. 10? 20? You're either insane or a complete moron. And since I don't suffer such types, please refrain from posting to me in the future.
Don't miss the FR poll!!!
Which of the following is the best way to solve the illegal immigration problem?
Seal and militarize the borders
47.9%
Beef up and enforce existing law
37.1%
Some form of guest worker program
9.9%
Other
3.1%
Undecided/Pass
1.9%
And it appears my view is shared by 47.9% of FR.
For your stated mission of stopping WMD-carrying terrorists, less than 100% apprehension gets counted in numbers of cities vaporized.
If less than 100% apprehension is acceptable to you . . . how many vaporized cities are you willing to accept?
Try to restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth, boy. My primary concern is homeland security, and for you to assert otherwise is presumptuous in the extreme.
I pointed out the performance criterion for the "homeland security" mission in an era of manportable nukes. If that mission is, by your own mission, utterly unachievable, then what is the real mission?
How many times do I have to tell you that I advocate National Guard deployments on the U.S. border, not the U.S. Army. 10? 20?
The problem is that the US Army relies on the National Guard to be deployable. Put them on the border, and the US Army can't go anywhere else. Put them on the border, and the US Army is forced to stay home. Deploy the Army, and those National Guard units have to come off the border. And the prospect of massive illegal immigration would serve as a powerful deterrent to deploying the Army.
You're either insane or a complete moron.
And out comes the personal attack.
Neither assumption is correct, BTW; I merely am pointing out the consequences of the policies you advocate.
And since I don't suffer such types, please refrain from posting to me in the future.
I see that this is a new trend across multiple posters--demand that the other person shut up so that you can have the debate to yourself.
Are you incapable of understanding that a very high apprehension rate would be a significantly more desirable than a very low one? The nuke-carrying border crossers in question could very well be appreneded by the NG troops (or extra Border Patrolmen) I advocate deploying. The fewer troops we have deployed, the greater the chances of a terrorist getting through. Odds, Poob, odds. Geez, it's as if I'm talking to a 5 year old kid.
The problem is that the US Army relies on the National Guard to be deployable. Put them on the border, and the US Army can't go anywhere else.
You're so full of sh/t it's coming out of your ears.
Sorry, that is how the Army works.
Btw, do you finally understand the concept of odds, or do you need further instruction?
Repeating the same profanity does not make you correct.
The Army relies on the National Guard. You wish to tie the National Guard to the border for all time. That means the rest of the Army might as well stay in garrison, because they will be unable to fight and win wars.
Btw, do you finally understand the concept of odds, or do you need further instruction?
I fully understand the concept of "odds." You merely maintain the already high odds of al-Qaeda using another attack vector--specifically, one of the ones you would leave uncovered, such as over-the-beach or the Canadian border, which are both woefully uncovered today relative to the Mexican border--and cripple the Army's ability to deploy and fight overseas in the process.
Your stated mission of "homeland security" is a shield for the real mission of shutting down illegal immigration from Mexico. The mission of shutting down illegal immigration is not so vital to the safety of the Republic that it requires crippling the United States Army.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.