Excerpt:

"Officials told The Times that every potential smuggling corridor in Arizona is monitored by mountaintop spotters, who are usually low-level cartel employees or those who owe a debt to the cartel.
They are armed with radios and cellphones and occasionally with weapons, and are sometimes held responsible if the drug loads they are spotting for are interdicted by authorities."

Jesus wept,......

They're ALL armed to the [bleep]' TEETH !

GTC

Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/border-patrol-rules-hinder-effort-oust-drug-spotte/

The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol said Tuesday that his agents have a tough time ousting armed drug cartel spotters from the tops of U.S. mountains because the rules of engagement constrain them.

For years, cartels have stationed spotters on U.S. territory to help track American border efforts and to guide smugglers around roadblocks and past where agents are stationed. But in recent months, those spotters have gotten more attention as Congress prepares to debate an immigration legalization bill.



�Why don�t we take those people out?� said Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican.

Sen. Thomas R. Carper, Delaware Democrat, who chairs the SenateHomeland Security Committee, said he was shocked to learn of the spotters during a trip to the border earlier this year, saying that if U.S. troops had come across spotter locations in Iraq or Afghanistan, those sites would have been taken out.

Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher said there�s a major difference between those war zones and the U.S.-Mexico border, where agents have to obey strict rules of engagement.

�The rules of engagement, what we call our �use of force,� applies to individuals on the street or whether they�re up on a mountaintop,� he told the Senate panel.

Chief Fisher said the agency had had some success in ousting �dozens� of spotters from mountaintops, but he couldn�t say how many more locations remains.

The mountaintop spotters have been a thorny problem for years.

SEE RELATED: Public doubts immigration overhaul will strengthen border: Poll

Two years ago, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano engaged in a heated exchange over how many spotters there were. Mr. McCain said he had been told there were hundreds, while Ms. Napolitano replied that there were hundreds of peaks that could be used, but there weren�t hundreds of actual spotters.

�Look, they are there, and everyone knows they�re there, and for you and your staff to deny that they�re there is sort of symptomatic to me,� Mr. McCain said.

The Washington Times has visited well-camouflaged spotter locations in the Sonoran Desert National Monument 75 miles north of the border, with a view of Interstate 8, which runs from just south of Phoenix west to San Diego.

Officials told The Times that every potential smuggling corridor in Arizona is monitored by mountaintop spotters, who are usually low-level cartel employees or those who owe a debt to the cartel.

They are armed with radios and cellphones and occasionally with weapons, and are sometimes held responsible if the drug loads they are spotting for are interdicted by authorities.

I'm thinking a single 168 grain .308 would sort out those spotters

A not uncommon opinion, that.

GTC

Overkill. 22 hornet, 40 grain V-Max, and a case full of your favorite powder. In one ear and out the other.

Won't work when you're over 500yds...just sayin'

See them before they see you.

Ed

Will work at 400.

22BR will work way past 500.

I'm not into niceties.

155mm, HE.

I'd re-up a hitch as a Border Patrol Spotter if offered.

Not very subtle, but I like the way you think.

If the assclown's drones worked so well on thinning al qaeda why not introduce them to the cartel?

I'm losing interest in subtleties as well.

Now there's the idea of the year! How do we make sure they're NOT us citizens first so we don't kill US citizens on US soil without due process? With a drone?

While certainly inviting, killing them because they're spotters really isn't what this country's all about, is it?

I'm all for putting boots on the ground in OUR country, on OUR borders to preserve OUR way of life and liberty HERE.

Ed

With any luck, John Q. won't be shooting a drone coming in for pics.

Juan Q? Not sure.

In the end, a policy of confrontation that does have terminal efforts as a possibility is needed, but until politics is removed from the efforts, all the way around, objectivity in that process is a long time coming.

You are right about there needing to be swift, sure consequences.

As to the shooting of drones as they come in for pics, most of those drones operate at 8,000-10,000ft+ altitude. They don't need to come any closer.

I think RockyRaab's previous job would be ideal for this situation. Find a cartel spotter via FLIR or other intel, mark his position with smoke & GPS, and call in the cavalry. If Juan, Jose, or John engages with firearms, all bets are off and may God have mercy on their souls.

Ed

If the drones can read my license plate as I leave a gun store, then they sure as hell can tell the diff between Juan heading north with 50 kilos of weed on his back and John Q watering his livestock.

This country surely isn't about sovereign borders, or national security, or deterring crime, or enforcing immigration laws, or defending the constitution anymore.

Very true. Do we know that Juan deserves a death sentence for carrying weed into this country?

How about we just shoot everybody we find who uses illegal drugs? (insert sarcasm icon here)

No customers, no market, no smugglers, no problem.

I am one of the most virulent anti-drug people you will ever meet because I have seen the destruction, but that doesn't change the fact that we are a nation of laws, not a tribe of savages.

Put boots on the ground, give them the tools to work with INCLUDING a communication system that works and change the rules of engagement.

Ed

Yep, hire a few really GOOD snipers!

Lets change that weed to a drug resistant strain of tuberculosis, or a back pack nuke, or vial or weaponized small pox. You still OK with letting Juan walk on by?

In regards to policy on our borders, we are far too nice, in the original meaning, for that.

The origin of "nice":

I'm sure we will continue to be nice until it kills us.

I never said I was OK with Juan walking by, drugs, disease, nukes, or not.
Please read my posts. Put folks on the ground with the right tools and STOP Juan, OneHungLo, Muhammed Al Goatphucker, JungDumbass, and anyone else from coming across.

The rules of engagement HAVE to change if we're going to address this, but killing folks for just being there with no due process is wrong on SO many levels.

Ed

I could walk you to 2 sites south of Aravaca today. Found occupied coues deer hunting.

Why does a foreign national, that is a threat to national security, and is entering my country illegally get due process?

Because we are a nation of laws and our laws say that we cannot kill them without due process.

Don't like the laws? Change them.

There is a process we COULD use to define these people coming across the border illegally as "enemies of the state" and threats to national security, but until we declare war against the rest of the world and declare everyone but our citizens as enemy combatants and soldiers, we cannot just shoot them on sight.

Ed

Seem to remember stories by Bill Jordan about shooting as they came out of the river back in the sixties.

I would not want to be on top of a hill when an A-10 rolled in

Unfortunately, we don't live in the 60's anymore.

Ed

The cartels are paying off highly placed government officials in Mexico.

Just how high are they reaching into the US government? Any administrators in Homeland Security living above their means?

Anybody actively looking into this?

Yes, the fastest growing branch of federal law enforcement, DHS OIG. Their version of Internal Affairs.
A good friend and former co-worker of mine went to work for them two years ago.

They can't keep up with the number of investigations...

Ed

If you can say, how far up the food chain are they getting indictments?

Several years ago while Coues hunting a few miles from the border south of Tucson, I saw a relatively small Hispanic man (probably 50 to 60 years old) wearing a bright purple shirt and sitting on a mountainside holding a rifle. The reason I mention his stature is he looked much more like someone who had had a hard life south of the border most of his life than a Latino who grew up in the U.S. He could have been deer hunting (AZ didn't require hunter orange at the time), but he would be the first and last person I've seen hunting while wearing a bright purple shirt. The guy I was hunting with is familiar with that area and guessed that the guy was probably a lookout for either drug or human smugglers. That, to me, was a very plausible guess.

I can't say because he can't talk about his casework. I know that he said he has never been busier in his whole LE career, and that's over twenty years now.

As to any indictments? We would have to search every U.S. District Court docket to track the cases and that would take some doing. Each District has their own website & database to keep track of. Then add in those cases under seal because they are still working the investigations, and we still wouldn't know how many or how high up they are.

I would imagine that Nappy and Co. would want to keep all of this under wraps because it makes them look even more incompetent.

Ed

and it isn't necessarily just DHS employees who might be under the influence of the cartels. Who knows how many major political donors benefit financially from drug or human smuggling? Might even be one way to launder some cash and gain some political influence at the same time. Those political donors could exert pressure on elected officials, all the way to the top, to ensure the border stays open to the smugglers.

Yup. There's a lot money to go around.

I just wish I knew the real reason for keeping it wide open and not allocating assets to protect our citizens and our safety.

Ed

Haven't heard of any cases above field agents and supervisors, but have heard of more than a few border patrol cases. Most recent was a 10 year veteran who got busted depositing $61,000 in $100 bills in such a way to evade reporting requirements. No explanation of the source of the money was forthcoming. Another was an inspector at a entry port that would arrange for coyotes to come through his lane, where he would pass them through. He's busted, but the folks he let in will probably be citizens in a couple years. Sigh.

Start selling the stuff at liquor stores and put the whole bunch out of business overnight.

Take the tax revenue it generates and pay off the national debt.

Take a big bite out of crime *and* taxes.

Turn the country around.

Rumor has it the same organizations move people as well.


Travis

Maybe so,..who knows.

That doesn't change the fact that the mess created by "The War On Drugs" (patent applied for) could be eliminated simply by allowing adults to buy what they want.

,...or,..we can all go on pretending that we're free and watching the country go to hell.

Throwing in the towel on the war on drugs isn't going to remove spotters from the mountain tops.


Travis

It's your straw man.

You burn it.

Your argument is akin to the following exchange.

Me: The war on drugs results in *many* more problems than it fixes.

Deflave: The people selling drugs have warts on their dicks!

Me: Maybe so,....but the problem is the crime resulting from the war on drugs.

Deflave: Legalizing drug sales ain't gonna cure dick warts!!

WTF are you babbling about?

The report states there are spotters on mountain tops. You think they're there for the sole purpose of smuggling narcotics and that is a fallacy.

So while legalizing a broad range of controlled substances would most certainly eliminate a lot of expense and problems within our country, it would not eliminate the problem the report is highlighting.


Travis

I'm babbling about your babbling.

Yours is the babbling of a dumbchit.

My babbling points out that fact.

Oh. Thanks for "schooling" me on the southern border.



Travis

Definition of insanity: Trying to reason with a liberal.

Just let him down easily or all it will do is generate more stupidity.

Travis:

Bristoe is just messing with you. He doesn't really give a schidt one way or the other.

I just like when he types his tears.


Travis

Neither does Dave.

Valid point.



Travis

,...and I laugh when I see you admit on the internet,...to be enshrined in cyberspace forever,..that you traveled for hours to be checked for herpes.

That's some dumb-chit, right there.

Drive for hours to keep it a secret,..then broadcast it to the world on a format which will be available for the public view for eternity.

Laughin'...

If we all took ourselves as seriously as you do, the world would really suck.


Travis

Me?,...serious?

Man,...c'mon.

Why not mine the border and let them cross at there own risk. It is our border not theirs. I don't care if they are democratic voters. Mine the whole border a 100 yards deep. This will or should stop a few. Will not make any difference what they are carrying, it should deter them. Mine it all for 100 yards deep and put up warning signs in as many or any language you want. It is a crime to cross the border into the USA. Try crossing into Mexico and see what happens to you.

You know it's true...



Travis

You really think 100yds of mines are gonna stand in the way of a multi-billion dollar a year industry?

They'll be some tunnel buildin' muthaphuckas...


Travis

And for the record, that test was negative.

Thank you,
Dave

Might be blood thirsty but it is time to stop the border crossing. Time to return the land back to the ranchers and framers. They should not have to worry about working their own land. Not to mention getting attacked, shot at, property stolen, houses broken into, and not being able to walk their own land without getting into a gun fight.

Mines are the only way I know of securing the border in both directions. It would sure cut down on the amount of drugs being carried across the border.

Don't tell me,..I don't givva chit one way or the other.

Convince the women.

Her: Da fug is that?

Deflave: it's uh,...uh,....uh,...a planter's wart!,..that's the ticket!,..it's a fuggin' planter's wart!

Her: Well,....you should have put some Compound W on it before buying me dinner.

Blaming the rules is just an excuse to justify the lack effort in securing the borders

I think it is cute you fantasize about my dick.

Old serious guys sure are funny.


Travis

So what do the folks who live on the border do with their cattle and other livestock that rely on the river for water? What about the families that live on both sides of the border and have for centuries, whose farms and ranches straddle the border?
What about those area that are just too rugged to place an effective minefield?
Who pays the cost of some child who wanders into that minefield?
Who monitors those minefields to make sure that some enterprising person doesn't go in there and disarm & steal them, placing them elsewhere?
You need to go down there along the border, talk with the people who live there and have forever, and look at the geography before seriously suggesting we place mines anywhere down there.

Boots on the ground and the resources they need, including cameras, radios that work, sensors, and a change in ROE to allow instant deportation and ROE for firefights.

Go after these guys AGGRESSIVELY, not reactively.

Ed

I'm with you, man.

Scott you're a lot better at doping the wind than me or you haven't shot much in that south west wind.

I watched him shoot at Sierra Vista last January and he's no slouch, but then he wasn't shooting that Hornet in those conditions, either.

Ed

Supply and demand. What drives everything?

Prosecute the employers. Save the land mines for OCONUS.



Travis

Our esteemed politicians have a habit of constraining both our armed forces "in conflict", and our Border Patrol - also "in conflict" (although eternally denied)

Mark

That'll work about a well as some of our other efforts.

Prosecute the user, but don't make it a real penalty and make it take forever for the penalty to arrive.

Now if the rules were as they were intended, i.e. "Swift and Sure", it may work.

But something's gotta change.

Ed

While I can understand the sentiment,I'm not real stuck on turning our neighborhood into a minefield ( and I can say that neither are my neighbors).

"Boots on the ground and the resources they need, including cameras, radios that work, sensors, and a change in ROE to allow instant deportation and ROE for firefights.

Go after these guys AGGRESSIVELY, not reactively."

Well, that's a little more PRACTICAL approach.The character posting this is pretty well up to speed on all of the factors in play here, and is putting up good solutions.

Did any of you fine folks read the article covering HSA Radio communication debacle ?

Link: http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topic...s-management-challenges-experts-say.html


That's written BY THE "ORGANIZATION" (HSA) ITSELF ! In other words even THEY can't put lipstick on this grotesque pig of a situation.

Lots of beaurocratic double speak , and chic buzzwords do NOT change our situation here, people.........we need some serious changes in ROEs, and we need them YESTERDAY.

Anybody that thinks "legalizing drugs" is going to send all these Cartelista types home to their Corn Patch and Agave is dreaming. Kidnapping, extortion, abduction and child slavery, illicit organ harvesting, .....and so on would merely supercede, and replace the dope money.

By the way, there is MORE than adequate demand for the occasional Arty strike, or A-10 run, or other overwhelming violence in response in the sorting out of alla' this, so don't despair, alla' you more "bloodthirsty" types.

.....I can certainly relate to the application of that sorta'"Big Stick" myself, as and when it's needed.

GTC

Been a while since we done a Border thread.

Seems like most of the "shoot on sight" folks don't actually *live* anywhere near the Border.

In Texas at least, most Mexicans one sees on this side of the line are Americans.

The real outrage is this.... gangs of criminal, armed foreigners presuming to occupy our real estate.

And that we could so easily stop this happening, even within the rule of law.

Yup, and blindly romantacising about 168 gr .30 caliber slugs when a 40 MM Bofors gun would STILL leave one a little closer to the action than one would prefer. Well intention romance, but put up by folks with NO idea as to just how out-gunned we actually are , in this one sided screwup.

GTC

How many times have I made THIS statement on this forum?

"The border can ONLY be secured on the SOUTH side of the Rio Grand as far as the 1200 miles of Texas border."

I'm more certain of that now than when I first made the statement.

At 5:30 AM today, I left a large ranch where I've been doing some work lately. It is , as the crow flies, about 40 miles North of the ranch I hunted on for several years. THAT ranch was 8 miles off the River, and became a drug smuggling corridor during the 12 years we leased it.

They walked the dope from the river,thru "our" ranch, and two more ranches and they were at HWY 90. The BP ceded everything south of HWY 90 to the cartels years ago, and focused on catching them when they made contact with the pickup car on the Hiway.

Evidently they had some success, because now the corridor extends up North to the ranch where I've been working lately. They pick the dope up on a county road now about 30 miles South of Ft. Stockton.

Understand that I'm talking about ONE corridor for drugs. The only one I have first hand knowledge of. I'm sure there are dozens more in the Trans-Pecos.

Invade Mexico?

WHY THE HELL NOT?

Yup, and as I said earlier, I sure wish I knew why it isn't being done. We can guess, piss, moan, and yell all we want to, but we're not directly in charge, so we don't get to make the rules.

We citizens up here, a few hundred miles above the border, don't have it nearly as bad as those folks who live right there. Folks whose ancestral homes are there, their family businesses are there, and they raise their kids there to inherit it all.

We sit back here at our computers, going back and forth at each other, but we don't have the kind of skin in the game those folks do, nor do we have the complete perspective they do.

Anyone with a heart for this country is frustrated about the situation. We need to put our heads together and come up with some real solutions. Ones that won't get folks exposed to prosecution by our own government.

Ed

It would be nice to fire a 50 cal. Their direction.

If we're going to go there, make mine at least 20mm, 30mm even mo betta.

As my Dad taught me, hit them first and hit them so hard they don't get back up. Fair fights are those with rules. There are no rules when you really want to win a fight.

Ed

Your dad wasnt PC.

No, and I'm not always, either. I just learned to pick my fights since I don't live in that world anymore. It sure was simpler back then.

Ed

Thanks but it was pretty hard to miss with Greg's little sweetheart.

I have taken bunches of sagerats with the hornet to three hundred yards and several past four hundred with a #1 in 22 BR. Witnessed by two campfire members. Sagerats are a lot smaller than a human head.

That said, I really have no desire to try it on humans. Prevention is a LOT better than reaction.

The police can arrest you for warning people about cops with a speed gun. Why can't the arrest these crooks on the same basis? If you arrest them then they can't work for the bad guys while their in jail.

I would not be surprised to learn at some point that a lot of cartel bribe money winds up in some peoples pockets in Washington DC.

Isn't it funny how rules don't affect anything that's in the Ozero agenda though?

There's only two real solutions to immigration problems. Prosecute the schit out of the people providing the work, so that it is no longer available. Or make the schit hold they are running from, not a schit hole.


Travis

They can arrest them.


Travis

That's not gonna solve it either.


Travis

That's against the law in California?

You solve problems one at a time.

They could be, but you have to find them and put the cuffs on them. This is where the lack of resources, and properly deployed resources comes into play.
Then the prosecutor has to play along (The U.S. Attorney in this case) and the U.S. District Courts have to play along. Both of these entities have their own agendas and their own set of rules of engagement.
The US Attorney's Office is, as you know highly political, and the US District Courts are filled with judges who are appointed for life.

Most of the spotters are illegals as well, so they have already committed one crime.
The problem lies in DC, plain and simple. It's not that they can't be stopped, it's that they WON'T be stopped, and it is not the agents on the ground who are making that decision.

Ed

Ok.


Travis

It is in Alaska.

Ed

And even if they did arrest them, they'd be replaced and on a different highpoint within four hours. And even if you burned that entire crew and route, they'd just move over to another route.

People don't seem to understand that all the arresting, and prosecuting of criminal organizations are not going to stop the flow of contraband and people. It is big money. Lop off the head, grows right back.

The Berlin wall was what? 65 miles or some schit? Mines, vehicle barriers, floodlights, machine guns, watchtowers... All that schit that Joe Iowa says he wants to see along the southern border. And people STILL made it to the other side. So if you ever wanna take a stroll along the border from the Pacific to Brownsville, TX please do come back and explain to me how you are going to go about "securing" or "sealing" the border.

It ain't gonna happen. You need to make the schit hole, not a schit hole, or eliminate the possibility for jobs.


Travis

No body seems to want to address this.......... so I will.

The BP agents I know ALL agree on one thing; dealing with border's security properly requires that you separate the elements into TWO parts.

The "true wets", those who come to work here, can be dealt with by administrative actions of one sort or another. The Bracero program of the 'fifties worked well, for instance.

The smugglers, whether dope or some other commodity must be dealt with using "overwhelming force". And therein lies the problem.

"The border is like a tube of toothpaste". That's the common analogy, and as far as I can tell it's an accurate one.

The fact that the "Cartels" still use mules to walk the dope into the interior of the U.S. seems to indicate that we have been somewhat successful in policing the POE's.

If we were to build and man a fence along all our land border with Mexico, we would squeeze all the traffic to the Rio Grande. Because the "border" is the middle of the river, we would have to cede our riverbank to the Mexicans.

If we did that from Del Rio, Tx. to the Gulf of Mexico at a tremendous expense to us, but not an impossible task, we would squeeze them into the Trans-Pecos. THAT's where we would need the "overwhelming force".

Remember the Vietnam statement regarding the villages?

"We had to destroy it to save it".

Same thing.

Going to have to get some politicians in that will not ONLY prosecute the employers, but will also quit trying to sign up illegals for free food stamps and health care before they even cross the border.

Even if we build it, Gene, we still have to man it and keep the criminals from crossing over or under it.

Again, it comes back to what I said earlier. Resources. The idiots, and I'm being generous there, in DC will not allocate the resources.

There are a lot of miles that we could fence that we have not, and a lot of miles of fence that are under-patrolled.

Ed

Crap sakes, there's DOORS cut into the fence with locks on the Mexican side.

....as well, panels that slide vertically, and can be jacked up with a high lift jack.

Areas where these features are found are typically called out as "Too dangerous" to patrol.

Some friends, just back from Organ Pipe Natl. Monument, were told repeatedly, by any number of various Fed "Agents" there that the areas they were riding in were 'too dangerous' for them to be out there, "too much Crime",....etc.

[bleep]' pathetic, the shape things are in, and agreed we'd BETTER do something, and bloody quick.

GTC

Greg is absolutely correct. The technology is no good without boots on the ground. There is a ranch that has 40 million in dhs infrastructure applied there. Steel wall, cameras, sensors,roads etc. In the last year 29 vehicles made it through either the 10 0r 13 foot wall to the hiway three miles away UNDECTED. 40 million spent on 10.5 miles of border fence and they can't catch even one of 29 vehicles most of whom dropped their load at the hiway and drove back to mexico.
I challenged the head of the Joint Field Command [DHS] to a contest yesterday. I said that another rancher and i could sit in lawn chairs with our binoculars and catch more illegals than all his agents,cameras,sensors etc. He did not respond to the challenge at all.
Fred

The only practical way I see to deal with this is:

1. To put enough US troops (100K would be a good starting number) to give us a numerical chance at plugging the holes, routes, and crossings.

2. Go after ANY business that hires illegals. Shut them down, seize and auction all their assets and jail at a minimum of 10 years at hard labor the owners and other company officers responsible for hiring

3. Eliminate all anchor baby provisions and cut off all public assistance/social programs to illegals.

4. Inform Mexico that if they fail to secure things on their side it will be considered an act of war and will be dealt with accordingly.

5. Consider all the drug cartels as primary terrorist threats and go after them with the same force and ferocity as we do AQ and the Taliban. Also, inform any nation that harbors or supports the cartels that they will be considered state sponsors of terrorism and all diplomatic ties, trade, and aid from the US will immediately cut off.

Military action will be mounted against them if necessary.

Fred,

That's my point. Resources include the boots on the ground.

You wouldn't build a fence to keep your cattle in and then never ride it, why does DHS think they can do the same?

Thus my suggestion that we aggressively stop these bastards.

Reactive just doesn't cut it. It's the old adage "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away".

Realizing that they can't be everywhere at the same time, that's where additional sensors, cameras, and communications comes in.

Driving around in bright white trucks with broad, bright green stripes on them, never getting out until you think you see something, is not the way to catch people on foot.

Being stationed miles away from your area of responsibility is another failed technique.

That would be as effective as traffic cops waiting at the police station, hoping to catch red light violators across town.

I can think of a number of ways to improve both the capture ratio and the deterrent factor and it doesn't require a Congressional hearing or a visit from the bureaucrats in DC.

Ed

Those big white Whales,....the new jacked up Suburbans BP is using ?

They can't even turn the bloody headlights off. Bone stock "Safety" configuration, on all the time.

Really sneaky, and well thought out, what ?

GTC

I like the way you think

I would add that putting the troops on the ground should be done without ANY prior notice or fanfare. No press releases, nothing that would tip off the folks on the other side.

Once they are starting to deploy, give the Mexican government 24 hours to contain their side or face sanctions.

There would be a tremendous cry from the companies that have facilities in Mexico and those who benefit from trade across the border, but, sometimes you have to shut something down to fix it. It would take bigger cojones than anyone in DC possesses right now.

Ed

About as stealthy as a D9 Cat in a WalMart parking lot.

Ed

First item on the way to fixing the problem?
Elect people who want to fix it.

We have a winner! Second step would be to put the bureaucrats (non-elected types) in DC and the state capitals on notice that it is no longer business as usual. That includes grant administrators, rule makers, permit approval departments, and logistical support departments.

Let them know that they don't run this country, the citizens do.

Ed

Here�s a novel idea, let�s start jailing some bankers who launder their funds and confiscate their money and assists; banks, bankers and drug kingpins.

There are at least a half of dozen cases in the last couple of years, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan.. I could go on but you get the idea.

They do it for money, so make sure they can't keep the money.

That's already being done. Has been for years.

Ed

You need to brush up on that. Some fines have been paid. What I propose is jailing the bastards and taking all their money; the banks, the drug lord's, the banker's, and I forgot to mention, the attorney's. After we have all their assets, we can shoot them, hang them, gas them, whatever. We're talking an economy about the same size of say Spain's or Austria's. The drug barons have put more liquid cash into the banking system than any other entity. You really think a billion dollar fine did something?

No, you are the one who needs to brush up on that.

Example; In 2003 I was the co-case agent on a large multi-national drug investigation involving the Arellano Felix Organization (AFO) a now defunct drug cartel, and the Beltran-Levya Cartel, who are still up and running.

46 defendants, 44 have served time or are still in Federal prison for dope dealing and money laundering over $3M US. 36 of those defendants were just for money laundering at various levels.

That amount does not include the $1.5M we seized during the investigation, nor the assets that were seized and sold at public auction, nor the 132 kilos of cocaine we took off the street.

That is one case, in one state, and one of hundreds that take place every year, across the U.S.

I think you need to check your facts a bit better.

Ed

You are exactly right. Those steps would secure the border.
There is zero will in washington to do so. To give 11 million or by realistic figures 20 million of these [bleep] citizenship after they broke the law and destroyed our ranches is the ultimate kick in the nuts
Fred

Are you saying Border Patrol Agents don't work in their respective AOR's?


Travis

If AOR means "Area of responsibility"[ I'm guessing here], and, if the actual Border is their responsibility, then the answer is; No, they don't.

Look at a roadmap and follow HWY 90 from Del Rio to Marathon, Tx. That's [probably] a couple hundred miles.The area between there and the Border is larger than many Eastern States, and the BP quit patrolling it several years ago.

If you are a rancher and come across a trespassing U.S. citizen, you are allowed to detain them and call the Sheriff.

If you detain a non-citizen and call the Sheriff, his office calls the BP, and they come and arrest YOU.

A Brewster County Deputy told me, after our camp had stuff stolen: "If you shoot one [wetback], call me and I can clean that mess up for you. If you hold them against their will, the BP will charge you with kidnapping".

They will go into that area[maybe] if you call and report suspicious activity. But they haven't patrolled it in years.

Well done APDDSN0864, in no way to minimize your considerable efforts, however, that is a very small drop in a very big bucket.

Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer.

Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rug-war-is-a-joke-20121213#ixzz2SvmVgMFw
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

They DO work, Travis, most of them as busy as they can be, but they are mostly reactive, not proactive, certainly not as proactive as most of them would like to be.

AS curdog4570 pointed out, there are huge areas where the average driver will never see a CBP vehicle.

The ROE does not allow the kind of aggressive work that needs to be done down there.

Then, the citizens down there are hamstrung by the ROE that penalize them for trying to protect their property.

The guys truly are hamstrung by their own administration.

Ed

That's bizarre. How many landowners have been arrested by the Border Patrol?


Travis

Well I know they work, but I was referencing what you posted about their stations not being near their AOR.

Citizens are being penalized for protecting their property? Like they get arrested for running off illegals?

And I'm confused by your posts. In one post you seem to complain they are overt. And in this post that I quoted you seem to interpret their lack of overt presence is in some way a negative.

You guys live there so maybe you can explain what you mean by all this.


Travis

I don't know.

I'm relaying what I was told by a Deputy Sheriff of Brewster County, the S.O. dispatcher of Terrel County, and confirmed by a BP Agent.

Large ranch owners in the area I frequent are mostly of the absentee variety. They will be the ones raising Hell with the government and being interviewed on TV.

The managers who actually live on the ranches sympathize with the true wets, and fear retaliation by the criminal wets, so they pretty much let the BP take care of both kinds.

If a group of true wets steals something [as they did in our camp] everyone's attitude changes, including the local BP. They, the Sheriff's Office, and the ranchers coordinate and the thieves are usually caught.

"Citizens are being penalized for protecting their property? Like they get arrested for running off illegals?"

That's not what I said. You are not allowed to DETAIN them.

You better watch. Thinking like me could be dangerous.

I wonder where that BP Agent works.


Travis

One in Sanderson Tx confirmed it - actually two since there were two of them present - and one who is a forum member who has spent a lot of time in S.E. N.M. and the Trans- Pecos.

Does your local BP take a different view?

I'd be interested in any "official" information from the BP if it is different than than what I've been told.

IIRC, you are in L.E............ What are you supposed to do if you get a call from a citizen who is detaining a wetback?

"Detain" a wet around here and you WILL Be charged with unlawful confinement (at best).

When alla' the criminal charges are lined out and in progress, you'll THAN be hearing from the scum sucking lawyers that go after guys like Barnett and Corbett, bankrolled by La Raza, and any other # of deep Anti-American pockets.

GTC

I have no idea.

But I'd be interested in hearing from the agents that arrest citizens for detaining illegal aliens.

Thanks for the info.

Travis

In New Mexico, you can be charged with kidnapping if you "detain" an illegal immigrant against their will. It's a violation of both state and federal law. In our county, you are unlikely to be charged if no one is injured, unless the individual or individuals that you detain choose to file a complaint.

The Border Patrol may or may not report an illegal detention to the Sheriff's Department, but it may be mentioned in the arrest report. If that happens, you run the risk that someone in BP or the Federal Attorney's office will want to make an example out of you. That, as Crossfire noted, will almost certainly lead to a civil suit, as well.

Well if we put troops on the ground lets make sure the idea is to win the war. Yes we need to hit all the fronts, starting in Washington DC.

Interfering with a police officer.