Gang activity is now a Homeland Security Threat??


PDA






CTRL-ALT-DEL
August 1, 2005, 05:51 PM
Two-week effort nets 582 gang arrests
Homeland Security operation targets members in 27 states

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities arrested 582 alleged gang members over a two-week period, officials said Monday, targeting an estimated 80 violent groups they say have spawned street crimes across the country.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the gangs "a threat to our homeland security and ... a very urgent law enforcement priority."

Investigators picked up most of the offenders between July 16 and July 28 on immigration violations for being in the United States illegally. Seventy-six face criminal charges, ranging from illegal possession of a firearm to holding fraudulent documents.

"For too long, these gangs have gone unchecked -- flouting all laws and demonstrating a blatant disregard for public safety," Chertoff said in announcing the arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. ICE is an arm of the Homeland Security Department.

Investigators targeted members in 27 states of what they considered to be the most violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; Surenos; the 18th Street Gang; Latin Kings; the Mexican Mafia; Border Brothers; Brown Pride and numerous others.

Many of the arrests came in large urban areas, including 61 in Boston, Massachusetts, 28 in Denver, Colorado, and 23 each in Los Angeles, California, and Detroit, Michigan. But even smaller cities have been infiltrated by the gangs, the arrests showed, including 42 in Birmingham, Alabama, and one each in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and North Platte, Nebraska.

The crackdown is part of ICE's ongoing "Operation Community Shield" campaign, targeting gang activity with other federal and state authorities. So far, ICE has made 1,057 arrests as part of the sting.

More than half of them have been members of MS-13, a street gang rooted in Central America where members have been known to behead enemies and attack with grenades and machetes. Federal officials estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 MS-13 members live in 31 states.

"We're just getting started," said ICE investigations chief Marcy Forman.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/01/gang.arrests.ap/index.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Gang activity is now a Homeland Security Threat??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AZ Jeff
August 1, 2005, 06:05 PM
While it's laudable that the feds are helping go after street gangs, it's just another example of a law created for one purpose being twisted for use in a totally different area.

Reminds me of misuse the "zero tolerance" rules in the "war on drugs", the misuse of RICO statutes.................

Kurush
August 1, 2005, 06:06 PM
Sounds like they're trying to lay the PR groundwork for using terrorism legislation against gangs. I am just so surprised :rolleyes: :barf:

Rebar
August 1, 2005, 06:09 PM
Dumb move. We need to be focusing in on terrorists and their enablers, not street gangs. Besides, if they really want to hurt gangs, they need to close the border.

Blue Line
August 1, 2005, 06:23 PM
While this may sound new its not. They went out and picked up a bunch of illegals and locked them up pending deportation. ICE since INS and Border Patrol are part of what was customs has always had this authority. They should round up a few more cause that is a very small % of what's out there.
Also you'd be surprised at where some of these gangs’ ill gotten gains end up all around the world.

I’m surprised at the previous comments because there’s always somebody wound up about illegal aliens and why no one is doing anything about it. Now they’ve done something and there are complaints about them doing it. :confused:

Ezekiel
August 1, 2005, 06:32 PM
Besides, if they really want to hurt gangs, they need to close the border.

I understand what you're saying, but its not as if all the folks in Watts, Harlem, and Little Rock (recall the TV special?) are illegal...

Alex45ACP
August 1, 2005, 06:33 PM
We are witnessing the rise of the police state.

Andrew Rothman
August 1, 2005, 06:42 PM
Investigators picked up most of the offenders between July 16 and July 28 on immigration violations for being in the United States illegally.

Federal immigration officials picked up a bucketload of the worst violent criminal illegal aliens, and y'all are bitching about it?

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING!

They're not cracking down on the Bloods (which would be fine with me, actually, but not Immigration's job), but on illegal immigrants who are part of violent gangs.

What's the problem, again?

CTRL-ALT-DEL
August 1, 2005, 06:44 PM
We are witnessing the rise of the police state.


I am afraid you are right. I thought long and hard about posting that aritcle. It scares me that Homeland Security would be involved in Gang activity, which is a LE problem. I have not problem with LE dropping the hammer on gangs, wish they would do more, I do have a problem with Gangs being labled a HOMELAND SECURITY problem. That just opens to many doors that we do not want opened. Think about it, do we really want this?

CTRL-ALT-DEL
August 1, 2005, 06:45 PM
Federal immigration officials picked up a bucketload of the worst violent criminal illegal aliens, and y'all are bitching about it?


NO, we are worried about this:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the gangs "a threat to our homeland security and ... a very urgent law enforcement priority."

chris in va
August 1, 2005, 06:51 PM
I talked with a few cops in Manassas VA about this, and they said it's just a blanket ruling to try and cut down on the MS-13 threat. Their activities are listed as extortion and racketeering IIRC.

Highland Ranger
August 1, 2005, 06:51 PM
More specifically what we are worried about is the predictable eventuality of this sentence being uttered:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called [GUN OWNERS] "a threat to our homeland security and ... a very urgent law enforcement priority."

Marshall
August 1, 2005, 06:52 PM
HR, you got an article on that?

Highland Ranger
August 1, 2005, 06:54 PM
Not yet . . . . but I fear we will see it in our lifetime.

DeseoUnTaco
August 1, 2005, 07:03 PM
You can be sure that "homeland security" is going to suffer just as much "mission creep" as the War on Drugs has. Pretty soon we'll be hearing that the threat of "economic harm to US interests" is a threat to our "homeland security". Anyone who takes steps to defend himself against possible actions from our Homeland Security thugs will also be considered a threat to homeland security.

What I wonder is who is going to protect us from the DHS? The DHS poses a direct and immediate threat to all of our liberty, freedom, and even lives. Terrorists pose almost no threat to anything really.

Waitone
August 1, 2005, 07:10 PM
Once you (editorial "you") make the policy that uncontrolled illegal immigration is acceptable public policy a whole host of follow on issues arise. In a welfare state services will become available to immigrants, wages in affected areas will drop, public health will suffer depending upon the nature of diseases being imported into the host country. If the illegal immigrant community stays together and fights assimilation ghettos will form in which the inhabitants will reluctant to make use of law enforcement for fear of being snagged and deported. When that occurs organized crime will make an appearance. What better pool of victims than a groups afraid to call LE.

So now you've got conduits for all kinds of crime including drugs, gun running, sex slavery, child abuse, robbery, assault, and murder among other offenses. Once the conduit is in place just any kind of crime can be abetted. Terror organizations can and will make use of the conduit and that is where the federales are worried.

I say, "What took you so long?" Gov't has worked hard to create the problem and now the consequences of its utter stupidity is now evident to anyone. Don't you think it interesting we are now worried about gangs right about the time the federales 'fess up about the danger of a nuclear hit on the US? You don't 'spose the reports of alliances between CA gangs and Al Qaeda have anything to do with the sudden interest in gangs? Bush's administration has not been shy about blowing the whistle on a terror threat just to immunize itself against the inevitable fingerpointing after a hit.

I think pretty soon we will see the federales get breathless about the deterioration in our public health because of the reintroduction of diseases long since suppressed in the US.

CTRL-ALT-DEL
August 1, 2005, 07:20 PM
Found this story, while researching the article in this thread some more. I posted it in another thread.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1832767#post1832767

Marshall
August 1, 2005, 07:24 PM
As Waitone said, gangs and terrorist are intertwined and figure to be more so.

Bear Gulch
August 1, 2005, 07:29 PM
Or just wait for the Atzlanders to figure out that theycan hook up with the muslim and make money out of it. We need to close the borders.

LawDog
August 1, 2005, 07:35 PM
Oh, bloody hell.

Investigators targeted members in 27 states of what they considered to be the most violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; Surenos; the 18th Street Gang; Latin Kings; the Mexican Mafia; Border Brothers; Brown Pride and numerous others.

MS13/Mara Salvatruchas are based in Central America, as are the Surenos and the 18th streeters.

So, just exactly who do y'all think should have jurisdiction over criminal acts based and planned in foreign countries? Podunk PD?

The Latin Kings and the Mexican Mafia operate in multiple states: Texas, California, Illinois, etc. Again, criminal enterprises operating across multiple state lines are the jurisdiction of the Feds.

Border Brothers and Brown Pride not only operate in multiple states, but they also have the habit of jumping back and forth across the border at will.

I don't get it. I've been reading about the border problems for months now on THR. People venting their spleens over the Minutemen ad infinitum. Now, the Feds are doing something about foreign criminals, and the first thing out of anyone's mouth is: OHMYGAWDPOLICESTATE!

The Federal Government is finally performing duties which are not only clearly within its jurisdiction, but can be argued are Constitutionally mandated, and all I can see are spleens exploding.

Make up your sodding minds. Either you want the FedGov to start doing something about criminals sneaking over the border, or you don't, but pick one and stick with it.

LawDog

rick_reno
August 1, 2005, 07:54 PM
DHS has to do something - and this is better than nothing. They can bust every gang banger in the country and I'll stand on the sidelines and applaud. These vermin have got to go.

308win
August 1, 2005, 07:58 PM
+1 for what Lawdog said.

Sindawe
August 1, 2005, 08:04 PM
LawDog: Some folks are not happy unless they are complaining. Me? I think its about darn time for this kind of thing to be happening, what took so frelling long?

I also think it bears close watching to avoid mission creep. Governments are like two year olds. You can't take your eye off of 'em for a second, else they'll burn the house down.

CTRL-ALT-DEL
August 1, 2005, 08:09 PM
I also think it bears close watching to avoid mission creep. Governments are like two year olds. You can't take your eye off of 'em for a second, else they'll burn the house down.


That was my point to posting this article. Hey, I am glad government is starting to do something. Going after criminal illegals is good, they just need to go after all illegals IMO, once you cross that border you are a criminal. They dont need to wait until a violent crime is committed. I am concerned about this, like the quote above. Who defines gangs? Is it the same people that define Illegal immigration?

Sir Aardvark
August 1, 2005, 08:17 PM
Function creep.

Next, it will be running red lights that is a homeland security threat.

gringolet
August 1, 2005, 08:23 PM
street gangs are a potential homeland threat...by their nature they are tribal and anti-authority and provide a vehicle for trafficking, etc.
BUT, in past some gangs have been an aid to the government...such as
"project L" in WW2 when Lucky Luciano aided the U.S. Navy (and got out of prison and a trip to Italy for his help). The facxt they could aid the government in Lucky's case is clear enough that they can also damage us.

71Commander
August 1, 2005, 08:34 PM
+2.

I see a bigger threat to our country from gang bangers, both imported and home grown, that I do from Abdule and his lust for virgins.

garyk/nm
August 1, 2005, 09:09 PM
Lawdog,
I'm sorry, sir, but you are making too much sense. We can't have that. Ruining the party and all of that. ;)

<golf clap>

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2005, 09:46 PM
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING!

I'd have used [YELL,BIG], but your message is directly to the point.

rhubarb
August 1, 2005, 09:59 PM
More than half of them have been members of MS-13, a street gang rooted in Central America where members have been known to behead enemies and attack with grenades and machetes.
Sounds like a terrist problem to me. We've got to protect our borders. Got to. I was watching the news last week and saw a report on an attack in Nuevo Laredo (across the river from Laredo, Texas) in which an RPG was used along with the requisite auto AKs. I for one am certain that some of those criminals are operating here as the description and tactics of crimes of which I have read about here are not constistent with regular street thugs. Until we secure our borders and keep these wastes of sperm and egg out, we will not have "homeland security." This ain't the first time I've posted along this line of thought.

That said, "Department of Homeland Security" is one of the most Orwellian agency names I could imagine. It is no surprise that a department that is ostensibly geared toward protecting our borders is arresting gang members for illegal weapons, having illegal documents (forged receipt for a big screen teevee?) and whatever else only 76 out of 582 arrestees have been charged with. Notice that? Some were arrested as long as two weeks ago and haven't been charged? This seems to be the new protocol. If you are arrested by the Ministry of Homeland Security, you may or may not be charged, but you're ours now.

<snip factually incorrect snippet>

Lawdog, isn't the Feddle Bureau of Investigalation usually the one that investigates and arrests those involved in interstate criminal activity? It seems to me that Homeland Security would tip off the FBI and mention them along with the BATF, National Park Service Police, CIA, Podunk PD and anyone else involved. That's usually the way these Government Releases of Information to Citizens go, right? Is it common in your locale for those arrested to not be speedily arraigned? The fact is that this is a story all about the growing police power of the department created to protect against foreign threats, particularly Arab terrorists. Remember? Or did someone send that little fact down the merry memory hole? That this new power is being used now against street crime is the point of the post, not that illegal immigrants were caught. Don't try to skew the point. Illegals immigrants bad, violent gangs bad, immigration and customs officers acting out of their appointed jurisdiction scary. :banghead:


"We're just getting started," said ICE investigations chief Marcy Forman. We know you are, Comrade. :rolleyes:

Highland Ranger
August 1, 2005, 10:15 PM
Make up your sodding minds. Either you want the FedGov to start doing something about criminals sneaking over the border, or you don't, but pick one and stick with it.

Let's be clear. Anyone sneaking over the border is a criminal.

So let's get ALL of them. Let's not use "Homeland Security" selectively.

That's the concern. In this case they use Homeland Security for a good reason (although arresting a 1 member gang seems incongruous)

Maybe next time it's those pesky gun owners.

Heard someone on the radio refer to the Patriot act as "harmless".

They're using the latest London bombings as an excuse to check personal belongings on the NYC subway systems.

Those ridiculous DWI checkpoints have been around for a while . . . . .

National ID . . .

It's all a helluva lot like "show us your papers".

This is not good and will not do diddly to stop these wacko bombers.

It will however allow the many LE agencies to take whatever liberties they please with their new "powers".

Flyboy
August 1, 2005, 11:38 PM
What's the problem, again?
The problem is the way it's being done. The anti-terrorism laws should be used for, well, terrorism. Street crime--even gang crime--isn't terrorism. (How much of it could be eliminated by ending the War on Some Drugs is best left to another discussion.) When the scope of such laws as USA PATRIOT (hey, did you hear that in the House's renewal, they added medical records to the list of things the Feds can get?) creeps beyond the original intent, those laws become entrenched. In fact, the DoJ is counting on that--they've been encouraging FBI and local investigators to use its provisions wherever possible, even outside of terrorism cases. Things like political corruption cases:
The FBI confirmed Monday that agents used the Patriot Act to get financial records as part of the ongoing political corruption probe involving strip club owner Michael Galardi's influence with local politicians.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003/nov/05/515822742.html

Of course, scope creep isn't a problem--I mean, we all hate political corruption, and anything's better than nothing, right? It's not like they're using the provisions to harass government watchdogs or anything, right?

Bev Harris--yes, that Bev Harris--would seem to disagree:
Bev Harris
BlackBoxVoting.org

And by the way, they read every word. Hi, agent Mike. This "investigation" no longer passes the stink test.

He says not to tell folks about the "investigating" they are doing.

I have cooperated ad nauseum to this absurd investigation of the "VoteHere hack" which looks to me like it is something entirely different. I'll tell you what it looks like to me:

A fishing expedition.

It appears that they may be using the Patriot Act to circumvent some of the civil rights protections laid down in the 60s. You see, it is illegal for a government agency to go in and demand the list of all the members of a group. And you can't investigate leaks to journalists by going in and grabbing the reporter's computer.

After the Diebold memos were leaked, and my web site was shut down, around the time of the California recall election, I started getting solicited to accept VoteHere software. I didn't bite, because it was obvious that this was an entrapment attempt.

...

Now, I have been interviewed by the Secret Service on this VoteHere "hack" story about five times. They never spend much time on the hack. Most of the time is spent on the Diebold memos, which they claim they are not investigating.

Here's the deal: The leaking of memos to journalists is not something the government can come in and demand to investigate very easily.

Under the Patriot Act, "hacking" crimes were turned over to a new division, called the CyberCrimes division, and placed under the auspices of the Secret Service. And let me tell you what they want from me now: They want the logs of my web site with all the forum messages, and the IP addresses. That's right. All of them. A giant fishing expedition for every communication of everyone interested in the voting issue. This has nothing to do with a VoteHere "hack" investigation, and I have refused to turn it over.

So, yesterday, they call me up and tell me they are going to subpeona me and put me in front of a grand jury. Well, let 'em. They still aren't getting the list of members of BlackBoxVoting.org unless they seize my computer -- which my attorney tells me might be what they have in mind.

[read the whole article--it's a doozy]
http://www.infowars.com/print/misc/blackbox.htm (Note that I didn't know about this one until I started writing this post.)

I fully support the idea of going after criminals. Those outside our jurisdiction are, well, outside our jurisdiction. As long as they stay there, leave them be. If they try to come in our jurisdiction, take them directly to processing, try them, convict them, and let them rot at the graybar hotel. Those in our jurisdiction, well, that's pretty easy. But whatever you do, don't start down the path of entrenching bad law and making police dependent upon it for every investigation. You really won't like the consequences.

Edit: Figured I'd add this little gem. The DoJ and FBI admit they've been encouraging scope creep.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/14/national1259EDT0480.DTL
The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers.

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

[again, read the whole article; it's a good read]

sturmruger
August 1, 2005, 11:49 PM
People that think this is a bad thing are out of their minds. THis is some of the best news I have heard in a long time!! It is about time we start shipping these illegals back where they came from.

RealGun
August 1, 2005, 11:56 PM
I guess my only question is where does the FBI stop and Homeland Security start? Granted I wasn't reading everything while they were putting it together but I never got the impression from the sales pitch on the new Homeland Security Agency that it was a new police force with unlimited jurisdiction. It just begs the question, what the hell is "homeland security"? I thought I knew what it meant, but this story got the same "huh?" reaction from me as it got from others.

gc70
August 2, 2005, 12:05 AM
Investigators picked up most of the offenders between July 16 and July 28 on immigration violations for being in the United States illegally. Seventy-six face criminal charges, ranging from illegal possession of a firearm to holding fraudulent documents.I would rather see ICE agents picking up illegals than giving them travel guides at the border.

I would rather see ICE agents grabbing illegals who are gang members or violent criminals than snagging some carpenter building a house.

If the Orwellian juxtaposition of the words "Homeland Security" and "gang members" is the worst thing folks can complain about, then have at it.

CentralTexas
August 2, 2005, 12:10 AM
Aug 1, 2008.
Today Homeland Security Marine forces raided the NRA headquarters based on a tip that militia members were part of the organizations membership.....
CT

Standing Wolf
August 2, 2005, 12:15 AM
Street crime--even gang crime--isn't terrorism.

It's not connected to Islamic terrorist savagry, no; it is, however, a form of terrorism all its own.

Big Bad Wolf
August 2, 2005, 04:17 AM
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6171/bushgonzo7ns.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

bogie
August 2, 2005, 08:57 AM
Everything is a threat to homeland security. Everything.

That said, I'd like to know what they're doing about prison gangs, etc., since the Islamists tend to recruit in US prisons.

Studduck
August 2, 2005, 09:09 AM
Broaden the scope of your mission.

RealGun
August 2, 2005, 10:30 AM
First Rule of Lawmaking

Hide the real intent in the "pursuant to" and "in accordance with", "notwithstanding", "except as provided in", etc. Avoid narrow definitions or specific statements of purpose.

Any expressed concerns about abuse can just be waved off with assurances that officials would never do that and implications that one is silly, offensive, or paranoid to have such concerns. Righteous indignation works especially well.

I think the broadening of application of the RICO statutes is an excellent case in point. Whether of not officials are doing "the right thing" is beside the point. Broadening RICO Act application (http://www.ricoact.com/)

It appears that we need to start over, defining the scope of "homeland security" and making it clear to what extent the federal government is maintaining "standing armies". The Constitution makes no provision I know of for free range "police". It does provide for defense of national sovereignty. It seems like some test of jurisdiction is needed here and a determination when an action is not military but rather directed to citizens and others to whom rights have been attributed. If there is a middle ground between State law enforcement and jurisdiction of genuine interstate commerce, then define it in the Constitution. Don't just make stuff up, leaving the actual Constitution a curious relic.

DRZinn
August 2, 2005, 10:39 AM
C'mon, guys, there's no mission creep here. Think about it. They're finally arresting illegal aliens, and it's the ones who most definitely are a threat to our security. These guys are not just here to pick strawberries.

longeyes
August 2, 2005, 11:08 AM
Our best homeland security is a reponsible and responsive citizenry. Connect the dots.

RealGun
August 2, 2005, 12:26 PM
They're finally arresting illegal aliens, and it's the ones who most definitely are a threat to our security.

We already had immigration authorities. Let's not try to put a fashionable face on it...the same kind of spinning that comes out of Washington. If authority and jurisdictions have been redistributed under the umbrella of HSA, that's a different matter and perhaps a good answer.

Old Dog
August 2, 2005, 12:30 PM
Some of you may be thinking that groups such as MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia are pretty much like the garden variety street gangs you may have operating in your local urban areas ... Got news for you: they're not ... these are some seriously bad people, these groups are spreading and their activities surely fall under federal LE jurisdictions ...

Flyboy
August 2, 2005, 12:48 PM
Even so, I don't think they quite fall under the "terrorist" moniker. How many buildings have they brought down, or bombings of civilian (uninvolved--other gangs don't count) targets? I haven't heard any on the news.

As I, and others, have said, the problem isn't that they're going after these thugs, it's the tools they're using. Encouraging the use of anti-liberty laws for other than their intended purpose causes those laws to be accepted more readily, and leads to A) the laws sticking around, and B) more laws like them being passed. I still haven't seen any dispute on my (and others') allegations of scope creep having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Throw in the secrecy element ("National Security! Can't See This!"), and you have a wonderful recipe for unaccountable government along with those broad and far-reaching powers.

Or am I mistaken?

yucaipa
August 2, 2005, 01:29 PM
The gangs the Feds are going after are extremely vicious and violent people, I would consider them more 'organized crime' than terrorists.

That being said, I understand why the Government is going after them. They are not terrorists (yet) simply because the opportunity has not presented itself, these people will do anything for money...anything. Because they operate over the border in several countries they are the prefect pipeline.

The government is try to cut them off at the pass and I hope they are successful.

The part that bothers me about using HSD is its obvious that this is selective/targeted enforcement and that the Governments position on illegal immigration hasn't realy changed.

CrisOR
August 2, 2005, 02:37 PM
More than half of them have been members of MS-13, a street gang rooted in Central America where members have been known to behead enemies and attack with grenades and machetes.

And people don't think this is a Homeland Security concern?


Latin America's Tri-Border Area (TBA), bounded by Puerto Iguazu, Argentina; Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; and Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, is an ideal breeding ground for terrorist groups.
[...]
The TBA, South America's busiest contraband and smuggling center, is home to a large, active Arab and Muslim community consisting of a Shi'a majority, a Sunni minority, and a small population of Christians who emigrated from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories about 50 years ago. Most of these Arab immigrants are involved in commerce in Ciudad del Este but live in Foz do Iguacu on the Brazilian side of the Iguacu River.
[...]
Argentine officials believe Hezbollah is active in the TBA. They attribute the detonation of a car bomb outside Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires on 17 March 1992 to Hezbollah extremists. Officials also maintain that with Iran's assistance, Hezbollah carried out a car-bomb attack on the main building of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires on 18 July 1994 in protest of the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement that year.

Read it all (http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/january_2005/1_05_4.html)

Too Many Choices!?
August 2, 2005, 02:47 PM
"Mission Creep" ....."Creeping Incrementalism"...."Slippery Slope" :scrutiny:

Yeah, after they get the "terrorists" and "gang members", I am sure that the government will simply get rid of the no longer needed vestiges of powers, abilities, and authority they usurped from the Constitution/People :uhoh: :rolleyes:....I mean come on, just look at how many laws affecting the GOVERNMENTS POWERS/ABILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AND NOT EXPANDED,(as it pertains to Civies) DURING OUR HISTORY :uhoh: ...

Don't give the government a Blank Check where our safety is concerned is the overwhelming sentiment I see in this thread. I will never trust a person/entity that has the power to ruin my life on a whim :) ...

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 03:10 PM
I will never trust a person/entity that has the power to ruin my life on a whim ...

Married?

Pilot
August 2, 2005, 03:12 PM
Lawdog +10. You said it.

These are foreign gangs that are being targeted as partners with the Islamic terrorists. MS-13 and their ilk can be used to transport nukes into the U.S. on behalf of the Islamic terrorists for money and/or drugs.

carebear
August 2, 2005, 03:29 PM
How bout 5 more....

Inter-Departmental TEMPORARY Joint Task Force

using existing LE methods and statutes against criminally focused, not ostensibly "terrorist" in motives or actions, wide-ranging gangs.

It could accomplish the same thing without widening the net of HS to purely criminal (though large scale) activity.

It doesn't have to be short term as long as it is recognized that it is not a permanant broadening of "anti-terrorist" powers against non-terrorist criminals, also would remove it from the secrecy and lack of oversight of "national security".

That way it would make it clear it is cop work by cops for strictly criminal suppression purposes without a broadening of mandate.

Oh, and show me the credible evidence that such negotiations (between terrs and gangs) have taken place and are in the process of being carried out. Otherwise we could as easily say that those who would place personal liberty ahead of "national security" (like, say, us) are potentially allies of those who wish to overthrow the current intrusive government.

It's a slippery slope and RICO shows us there's a lot of prosecutors out there just itching to go a-sledding.

lostone1413
August 2, 2005, 03:31 PM
Won't stop them from coming into our country. King George is a the border with his welcome sign. Maybe now that the King got CAFTA through think that will slow them down? lol

Biker
August 2, 2005, 03:32 PM
Hah! Good one, Marshall.
Biker

Too Many Choices!?
August 2, 2005, 03:39 PM
Too Many Choices likes Too Many Ladies for that ;). Besides, I think my guns might start feeling neglected if I started spending more of my disposable income on the ladies, rather than them ...

PS:The idea of some woman getting HALF MY GUNS TO DO WITH AS SHE PLEASES, is far too alarming for me :uhoh: ...

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 03:51 PM
:D Well as long as you know what you're potentially in for someday.

No, no, marriage can be great. ;)

Andrew Rothman
August 2, 2005, 04:06 PM
One more time, slowly.

This operation was conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). IC is, among other things, what used to be Customs, Immigration and Border Patrol.

In other words, this isn't mission creep, it isn't a police state and they're not coming for your guns.

This is the border cops doing their jobs: going after the worst criminals that have crossed into our country.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is one component that completes Border and Transportation Security (BTS), which is underneath the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- http://www.ice.gov/graphics/about/index.htm
The agencies slated to become part of the Department of Homeland Security will be housed in one of four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Science and Technology, and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

The Border and Transportation Security directorate will bring the major border security and transportation operations under one roof, including:

* The U.S. Customs Service (Treasury)
* The Immigration and Naturalization Service (part) (Justice)- http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0133.xml

RealGun
August 2, 2005, 04:35 PM
Good job, Matt, but consider the quote in the AP article referenced in the root post:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the gangs "a threat to our homeland security and ... a very urgent law enforcement priority."

If it's not homeland security per se, don't call it that. It's just as irritating as calling the war in Iraq the "war on terror".

Also don't call it "a law enforcement priority", if you have opted to prosecute immigration violations, pursuing deportations, instead of opting for criminal prosecutions, more likely an FBI matter..

Pilot
August 2, 2005, 06:00 PM
If it's not homeland security per se, don't call it that. It's just as irritating as calling the war in Iraq the "war on terror".

It is Homeland Security. Foreign illegals carrying out terrorist activities and potentially cooperating with Al-Queada isn't Homeland Security?

And who are we fighting in Iraq? The Girl Scouts? Zarquawi, Al Quada #2 operates there with hs supporters.

I see you received your DNC talking points this morning.

lostone1413
August 2, 2005, 06:48 PM
You really think it is about homeland security? 40,000 per Mo. just walk across the Arizona border alone.Then add the 40k to how many cross into the other states King George don't think it is a threat. But guess he would have to crawl out of Fox A** to see if it is a threat. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Remember all but one of the terrorist was a Saudi. Al-Queada was never in Iraq until we attacked Iraq. WMD? Now the Kings own people want you to believe it was bad intelligence. I voted for the King twice. Shows you how smart I was. GWB has done more to sell our our rights then any President in the last 60 years.
1- Homeland Security
2- Campaign Reform
3-An illegal war based on nothing but lies
4- Now CAFTA
5- Any bets on a guest worker program?

Too Many Choices!?
August 2, 2005, 07:23 PM
Don't foret the ,"Patriot" ACT :uhoh: ! Man that title gives me the creeps...Like if you don't support it you are a terrorist or un-American :cuss: !

Derek Zeanah
August 2, 2005, 07:35 PM
I understand that these rules make it easier for law enforcement to do whatever it is they're doing. I understand that in many instances, they're working tirelessly to make the world a better place. But if I'm convinced to buy the Justice Department an RPG for use against three-headed-bears-from-space, I'm gonna get pissed when they start using it for rat control in my neighborhood.

It's the same thing when meth cooks are charged with creating "weapons of mass destruction," and the same charges are being used against (failed) pipe bombers. It's the same thing when average folks are having their savings/possessions taken, without compensation or charges, on the grounds that the asset in question may have some relation to illegal profits.

Don't pass a law to target "terrorists," or "mobsters," or "drug pushers," or some other boogyman, then turn around and use it against my neighbors.

That ain't right.

longrifleman
August 2, 2005, 07:47 PM
Gov't has worked hard to create the problem and now the consequences of its utter stupidity is now evident to anyone.

It's not stupidity. Research the Hegelian Dialectic.

A place to start. (http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html)

And yes, I do have a fine collection of tin foil hats. :neener:

RealGun
August 2, 2005, 07:59 PM
Foreign illegals carrying out terrorist activities and potentially cooperating with Al-Queada isn't Homeland Security?

Boy, you really bought in. Show me one of those arrested who has any such connection. "Potentially" I'll buy, but this incident is not fighting terrorism in the usual sense of the word.

And who are we fighting in Iraq? The Girl Scouts? Zarquawi, Al Quada #2 operates there with hs supporters.

It's not a question of who we are fighting. It is a question of how the conflict was represented in the beginning and still is, because it was politically palatable and designed to gain support from the post 9/11 mentality. Actually I support the real reason for being there, but it is not a pursuit of Osama bin Laden. My understanding is that Zarquawi is an agent of Iran, active only in Iraq.

I see you received your DNC talking points this morning.

You can't be referring to me. I'm just trying to be objective. Save the ad hominem for a Democrat. ;) They are not always wrong, by the way. However, they are so frustrated, shrill, and nasty that I avoid them like the plague.

Blue Line
August 2, 2005, 08:37 PM
History: Who Became Part of the Department?
The agencies slated to become part of the Department of Homeland Security will be housed in one of four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Science and Technology, and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

The Border and Transportation Security directorate will bring the major border security and transportation operations under one roof, including:

• The U.S. Customs Service (Treasury)
• The Immigration and Naturalization Service (part) (Justice)
• The Federal Protective Service
• The Transportation Security Administration (Transportation)
• Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Treasury)
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (part)(Agriculture)
• Office for Domestic Preparedness (Justice)

The Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate will oversee domestic disaster preparedness training and coordinate government disaster response. It will bring together:

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical
System (HHS)
• Nuclear Incident Response Team (Energy)
• Domestic Emergency Support Teams (Justice)
• National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI)

The Science and Technology directorate will seek to utilize all scientific and technological advantages when securing the homeland. The following assets will be part of this effort:

• CBRN Countermeasures Programs (Energy)
• Environmental Measurements Laboratory (Energy)
• National BW Defense Analysis Center (Defense)
• Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Agriculture)

The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate will analyze intelligence and information from other agencies (including the CIA, FBI, DIA and NSA) involving threats to homeland security and evaluate vulnerabilities in the nation's infrastructure. It will bring together:

• Federal Computer Incident Response Center (GSA)
• National Communications System (Defense)
• National Infrastructure Protection Center (FBI)
• Energy Security and Assurance Program (Energy)

The Secret Service and the Coast Guard will also be located in the Department of Homeland Security, remaining intact and reporting directly to the Secretary. In addition, the INS adjudications and benefits programs will report directly to the Deputy Secretary as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The Real Hawkeye
August 2, 2005, 08:40 PM
This is no surprise. Every expansion of police power for a specific purpose is always used for ever expanding purposes. Eventually, people forget that it was supposed to be an exception for only an extreme purpose, and then it gets expanded again. It's like the old gold fish in an aquarium analogy. The generation that is shocked by it will eventually be dead, and the next generation thinks of it as the norm. Eventually, you have a police state. There was a time, not too long ago, when a bunch of twelve year old boys could stroll through town with shotguns over their shoulders. If it happened today, there'd be a SWAT team there in minutes. These things are done very gradually for a reason.

gc70
August 2, 2005, 08:50 PM
<SARCASM ON>
Since some of you are absolutely tied in knots at the very idea that Homeland Security might be doing anything not 100% related to terrorism, here's a suggestion: let the Immigration Control and Enforcement agents stop and questions illegals and if the agents don't think the illegals are terrorists, just send the illegals on their merry way. There! That should take care of the whole "mission creep" thing.
</SARCASM OFF>

The Real Hawkeye
August 2, 2005, 08:55 PM
You really think it is about homeland security? 40,000 per Mo. just walk across the Arizona border alone.Then add the 40k to how many cross into the other states King George don't think it is a threat. But guess he would have to crawl out of Fox A** to see if it is a threat. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Remember all but one of the terrorist was a Saudi. Al-Queada was never in Iraq until we attacked Iraq. WMD? Now the Kings own people want you to believe it was bad intelligence. I voted for the King twice. Shows you how smart I was. GWB has done more to sell our our rights then any President in the last 60 years.
1- Homeland Security
2- Campaign Reform
3-An illegal war based on nothing but lies
4- Now CAFTA
5- Any bets on a guest worker program?Absolutely!

308win
August 2, 2005, 09:04 PM
Married?

Now that is some serious cynicism but I like it - alot. :D

lostone1413
August 2, 2005, 09:14 PM
[QUOTE]There was a time, not too long ago, when a bunch of twelve year old boys could stroll through town with shotguns over their shoulders. If it happened today, there'd be a SWAT team there in minutes. These things are done very gradually for a reason.
__________________
100% right. I grew up in Illinois. I was about 30 miles South of Chicago in Will County. The road I grew up on in the 50s was RT66. Remember well at that age walking or riding my bike to the creek with my 22 to shoot crab apples. Many times seen the police and all they did was wave at me. All the freedoms we have lost through the years. A good part of them since 911. Guess i'm kind of glad i'm on the back side of time

Rebar
August 2, 2005, 09:31 PM
I grew up in Illinois. I was about 30 miles South of Chicago in Will County. The road I grew up on in the 50s was RT66. Remember well at that age walking or riding my bike to the creek with my 22 to shoot crab apples. Many times seen the police and all they did was wave at me. All the freedoms we have lost through the years. A good part of them since 911.
I know you like to blame "King George" for everything, but the gun laws in Illinois? Please explain how Bush is responsible for those.

lostone1413
August 2, 2005, 11:00 PM
Guess you look at someone who takes so many of our rights away as a good leader. Easy to see how we lose them when people don't see or care what happens. GWB did'n make the laws in Illinois. But you look back over the last 50 years more have had a Republican govenor then not.

carebear
August 2, 2005, 11:04 PM
Again, I don't think anyone has a problem with immigration doing their job but, again, that isn't how it was phrased.

It doesn't NEED to be a "matter of national security" for INS to act. They can bust illegals as is, it being "illegal" immigration and all. :rolleyes:

My problem is that every time we give the .gov more powers specifically aimed at particular threats they have every time immediately tried to figure out "legal" ways to use those powers far beyond the stated, intended purpose.

For example: NFA '34, RICO and drug asset forfeiture laws to name a very short list. And every time it's "to better fight crime" or "national security" or some other trumped up justification.

It's about power and it needs to be constrained and held to the minimum necessary to do the job for the minimum amount of time required.

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 11:06 PM
There was a time, not too long ago, when a bunch of twelve year old boys could stroll through town with shotguns over their shoulders. If it happened today, there'd be a SWAT team there in minutes. These things are done very gradually for a reason.

I'm sure that's true with many of us. But get real, that has to do with many more things than this discussion.

Population growth
City growth
Rural shrinkage
Crime growth
etc.

The more of this we have, the more restricted we will likely become by default. So, it don't look purdy does it?





Besides, I'm getting sick of this bash Bush crap, the scapegoat for everything. If I remember correctly, after 9/11 everyone was hollering, "whew, glad Bush won, not Gore. He's the man we need, glad he won." Guess you all would rather have Gore or Kerry? (sigh). After 9/11 you wouldn't be able to hold a damn gun if a Dem had been elected.

What in the world does everyone think should have been done? The Democrats were all over the Administration to come up with a "plan" for security in the USA. So, Bush comes up with Homeland security, to try to get all of the agencies to communicate and work together better. Remember the uproar of the FBI agents when in front of Congress testifying about reporting of some of the terrorist but their memo's were basically trashed or missed all together by the right people? Remember the CIA and FBI fighting, no cooperation between the two? Everyone wanted answers and a plan.

Well, your President gave you one. A very specific plan. Not only did he give us a plan, the Dems supported it. We haven't had a successful terrorist strike in the USA since.

We attack the Taliban in Afghanistan, we make it to where they had free elections and they no longer live under Taliban Rule. We have started them on their way to a democracy. Pretty good feat!

We had an insane dictator in Iraq that had attacked it's neighbors, launched rockets at Israel, gassed his own people to death and was paying terrorist and their families $25,000.00 per suicide bomber, a frigging terrorist recruiter! Al Qaeda had camps in Northern Iraq. There were terrorist fleeing to Iraq from Afghanistan. Their insane dictator was supporting terrorism.

We get reports, though false, maybe, that Iraq was developing WMD. (I still think they were and had too much time to get rid of them) Even Ex President Clinton said that was true. The vast opinion by Dems and Republicans was, "we can't let that happen." Saddam had years and years to comply, he wouldn't. He was warned, let the inspectors back in, he wouldn't. It became a joke, he was winning the game and making the UN and the USA look like flunkies. The UN and other nations, as we know now, were being bought off. Bush gave Saddam every chance in the world to operate in peace and comply with the UN, Saddam chose not to do so, we did not make that decision for him. What good are sanctions if they are not backed up? What good are repeated warnings if they are not backed up. The UN wimps, along with the countries "doing business with Saddam", were trying to block any military measure, now we know why and now we know why Saddam figured he had us taken care of.

Now, Iraq as well as Afghanistan are working on democracys. If that is the only thing that gets acheived, it's worth it for us to have two more friends and democratic countries in that part of the world, especially in this day and time.

We have a leader, a President, whose job is to protect this nation from threats and future threats. Everyone agreed, Saddam was a threat. Again, Clinton, when in office, stated the same, as well as later, he supported military measures in Iraq. The President did what was not only expected of him but, demanded as well.

Backseat driving is easy for 4th graders. It's easy for those that are still fuming that Bush was elected to begin with, to find blame and use anything they can to try to be able to tell themselves, "ha, I was right." "Here is a man that wants to rule the world, the big evil US President Bush, King George." Well, I'm here to tell you, considering what this President was dealt, I think he's done a hell of a job. I know of no man that we had to choose from that could have gone into that office and done half as good a job at handling what he has was given.

Do I disagree with the way some things were and are carried out, sure. Are the boarders a problem that I think he's missing, absolutely. But some of you would blame Bush if you were denied a CCL. :rolleyes:

The Real Hawkeye
August 2, 2005, 11:37 PM
Guess you all would rather have Gore or Kerry? (sigh).He'd probably have lobbed a couple of cruise missiles at them, and that would have been that. These wars do a lot more good for the countries we attack than for us. Not our job to free people from dictators and then flood their countries with US tax dollars to support their new socialist governments that we set up for them.After 9/11 you wouldn't be able to hold a damn gun if a Dem had been elected.You are probably wrong on that, if history is any judge. With a Gore or Kerry in the presidency, we'd not only have huge majorities in the House and Senate, but they'd be galvanized to stop anything he tried to do in terms of gun control, transforming us into a police state or sending all of our industrial jobs to India and Mexico, because we'd hold their feet to the fire. Those same Republican Congressmen and Senators, however, under Bush don't feel they have the popular support to go up against a Republican president.

And don't give me the BS about Supreme Court Nominees. A decent Congress can neuter the US Supreme Court at will in multiple ways if they felt the heat from their constituents enough to do it.

Marshall
August 3, 2005, 12:31 AM
He'd probably have lobbed a couple of cruise missiles at them, and that would have been that.
Yea, probably, see my sig line.

And, "that would have been that," for then, just like that was that with Clinton. Lob a missile, do an intern, yawn. While all the time the same group that bombed the World Trade Center comes back and nails the Twin Towers and our Pentagon with our own planes. I seem to remember a bunch of other AQ attacks on US interests too. Yea boy, doing nothing really worked well, great plan. :rolleyes:


You are probably wrong on that, if history is any judge. With a Gore or Kerry in the presidency, we'd not only have huge majorities in the House and Senate, but they'd be galvanized to stop anything he tried to do in terms of gun control, transforming us into a police state or sending all of our industrial jobs to India and Mexico, because we'd hold their feet to the fire. Those same Republican Congressmen and Senators, however, under Bush don't feel they have the popular support to go up against a Republican president.
I don't even know what your paragraph means, I read it three times, must need a fourth? Probably me, been a long, long day. Anyway, I'll take a Republican President, House and Senate, over the same with a Democratic anti-gun President. I dunno, maybe that's just stupid of me, the President of the USA doesn't have a bully pulpit or anything, no way he can sway public opinion any over four years. Oh yea, that veto power thing too, that might get in the way? ;)

And don't give me the BS about Supreme Court Nominees.

Sorry, if you would rather have a possible three more Democratic anti-gun Supreme Court Justices, that's your right. I'll take my chances with Republicans thank you.

Joey2
August 3, 2005, 12:36 AM
The borders should of been closed after 9/11. The government is acting after the horse got out of the barn.

DRZinn
August 3, 2005, 01:12 AM
We already had immigration authorities.They're the same ones we still have, who are now under DHS instead of DOJ. Simple.

If authority and jurisdictions have been redistributed under the umbrella of HSA, that's a different matter and perhaps a good answer.That's it in a nutshell. This is the same immigration authorities doing the same thing under a different umbrella. Sure, they don't do nearly enough of it, and sure, they hyped this one up to the media to make themselves look better by throwing out the T word, but it's the same thing.

Sam
August 3, 2005, 01:28 AM
Ease up guys.
it's just a way that ICE can do something to quiet us down in regerd to Illegals without P!$$Ing offf LULAC and La Raza. :D

Sam

rhubarb
August 4, 2005, 11:46 PM
Many of the arrests came in large urban areas, including 61 in Boston, Massachusetts, 28 in Denver, Colorado, and 23 each in Los Angeles, California, and Detroit, Michigan. But even smaller cities have been infiltrated by the gangs, the arrests showed, including 42 in Birmingham, Alabama, and one each in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and North Platte, Nebraska.

If Homeland Security had done their job, the arrests of criminals seeking to enter the United States of America would occurr on the north bank of the Rio Grande. That's as far as they would get. That's the job of "Homeland Security." :banghead:

Maybe they did. I know that the policy of the Border Patrol is to round up some of the river crossers when they feel like it. Some of them. Then they may take them to a processing center where they are given a court date before an immigration judge and set free. They may be taken to the nearest bus station and told to go back to Mexico. They may not be picked up at all if they don't appear to be suffering too badly from the heat. I have heard this directly from a former employee that became a BP agent, and it is common knowledge in southern Texas and northern Mexico. According to him, there are a lot of games played along the river and in the brush of South Texas. He is emphatic that his job is not about stopping illegal immigrants. He wants to protect his homeland (he is ... drumroll ... Mexican-American), but the truth of the matter is that his gummint overlords don't.

If Homeland Security had done their job, the arrests of criminals seeking to enter the United States of America would occurr on the north bank of the Rio Grande. That's as far as they would get. That's the job of "Homeyland Security." :banghead:

Sam
August 5, 2005, 02:05 PM
They never really have seemed to be terribly interested in capturing illegals around here unless some citizen made an actual complaint. What they do like to do is operate their checkpoints on the approaches to town. The generate a lot of narcotics arrests that way which is just fine but it could be done better at the border. They don't like to do as much at the broder because it slows down the workers and tourists and that my friend is a sin.

Sam

longeyes
August 5, 2005, 05:00 PM
There's a man out there who defines "homeland" as "Borders, language, culture."

When sixty per cent of the gang members in Los Angeles are illegals from Mexico and Central America, the issues of illegal immigration and terrorism have converged.

longeyes
August 5, 2005, 05:02 PM
I heard the other day that there are one million gang members in the United States now. One million.

Not a homeland security problem?

We need to think a little more deeply about what it is that we wish to secure.

carebear
August 5, 2005, 05:58 PM
Illegal immigrant crime is a national problem, but to throw "National Security" at it is an excuse to authorize more than standard law enforcement (Federal immigration and OC, state and local) assets and methods at it.

The idea that any law enforcement issue can now be labeled "terror related" without hard evidence is opening wide the door to more federal involvement with less oversight.

The organized crime, illegal immigrant gang that's labeled "terrorist" (though they are not politically motivated by anyones admission) today isn't that far from labelling citizen-membered, strict-Constitutionalist gun groups as "terrorist" due to the same nebulous "potential for harm" and, in fact, even greater proven antipathy to certain elements of our current government.

The Federal, state and local governments need to just call it crime, treat it as crime and quit trying to make everything "terror" related to get more money and power.

longeyes
August 5, 2005, 07:04 PM
Tell people who are afraid to go out of their homes at night that they aren't being "terrorized." Lawless thugism lies behind all terror, micro or macro. Radical Islamic extremists share the same gangsta mentality as the Bloods or MS-13.

GunGoBoom
August 5, 2005, 09:23 PM
Gang activity is now a Homeland Security Threat

Wait a sec - are you trying to tell me that a beauracracy with guns is trying to engage in mission creep to justify/increase its budget/clout/power, and apply its powers to common everyday USA citizen alleged bad guys, even though they promised it would just be for for the 'enemy' in this temporary exigent circumstance of a 'war on terror'? Shocked, shocked I tell you...

Sam
August 7, 2005, 08:37 PM
I'm shocked that you are shocked.
I know that you are an intelligent fellow, who should not be surprised or shocked by anything. Shame on you :D .

I haven't heard the term mission creep in a while.

Sam

Flyboy
August 7, 2005, 09:05 PM
Play it again, Sam.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gang activity is now a Homeland Security Threat??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!