Armed standoff on Mexican Border

[Bottom Gun]

This is nothing new. We have been seeing groups of what appear to be real bad guys in uniform coming across the line for the last couple of years.
They are armed, appear to be well disciplined and move quickly and quietly. They use the Lyle Canyon corridor between the Huachuca Mountains and Parker Canyon Lake here in southern Arizona.
They post lookouts on high vantage points and communicate via 2 way radio.

We have called the Border Patrol countless times to tell them what we have seen and where they can intercept them. They DO NOT respond to these calls.
The BP will quickly respond to family groups or one or two illegals but they will not engage the bad guys.
We don't bother calling them any longer.

 

[coylh]

The Zetas were trained as elite commandos by U.S. forces...

This is becoming a trend.

 

[avpro]

I think we better wait for a congressional declaration of war before we start popping caps.

I think the problem is that most people feel the way you do. They don't think we are at war. So, our borders are not secure like they should be during a time of war.

There hasn't been a congressonal declaration of war since WW2. Since then we've had four wars with no congressional declaration: The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Persian Gulf War, The Kosovo-Yugoslav War. There has also been many military interventions without congressional declaration: Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti. This is just since WW2.

The constitution says that "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war", it does not say that they must pass a declaration of war before the president can put our troops into a conflict.

The congress did vote and approve of the global war on terror. Even though it was not a "Declaration of War". We are at war.

It's time we acted like it.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The constitution says that "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war", it does not say that they must pass a declaration of war before the president can put our troops into a conflict.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the way our Constitution works. Powers do not exist, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, unless first delegated to it by the States via the Constitution. That being the case, you must demonstrate where the Constitution permits the president, without a Congressional Declaration of War, to command our troops into combat.

The president's powers come from Article II. In there we read that the president essentially has two jobs, one being to execute the laws passed by Congress, and the other being to serve as "Commander In Chief" of the armed forces, but only when those forces are "called into actual service" (Art II, section 2). So, who is empowered to "call into actual service" the armed forces of the United States? That answer is found in Article I. Therein we read that it is Congress, and only Congress, that is delegated the "power to provide for the common defense ... of the United States. It is Congress, and only Congress, who is empowered to "raise armies" and to "declare war" (Art I, section 8). The president only has command authority over those armies after the Congress places the United States in a state of war by a declaration, i.e., only after the proper authorities (namely Congress) have "called [the armed forces] into actual service." Short of that, the president is merely the Chief Executive of the United States. If he orders the military into actual combat prior to a Congressional Declaration of War, he is doing so illegitimately, without law to support his actions.

When a State is invaded, short of a Congressional Declaration of War, it is the State on whom the duty falls to defend their boarders with their own militia forces, made up of its own armed citizenry. They can request that Congress declare war but, until that time, it is the State (the wellspring of Federal Authority), and only the State which is authorized to repel the invaders with its militia.

 

[Werewolf]

We have called the Border Patrol countless times to tell them what we have seen and where they can intercept them. They DO NOT respond to these calls.
The BP will quickly respond to family groups or one or two illegals but they will not engage the bad guys.
We don't bother calling them any longer.

Not that it would do any good but have you informed both of your State's Senators and all of it's representatives of this gross negligence and abject cowardice on the part of the border patrol?

Pictures, dates and times supplied to the press at the same time that you supplied the info to your congress critters along with a note that you've informed the media might get their attention - maybe...

 

[Chrontius]

This shows the need to give the border patrol sophisticated military hardware!! I'm not going to go as far as to say we need the military patrolling our borders because that opens up more worms that most people realize!! But arm the BP with, say, M60s, SAWs, or maybe a couple of Puff the Majick Dragons, and watch those narco terrorists run!! A couple of Abrahms tanks wouldn't hurt as well!!

Dude, I know how bad-ass the Abrams is, but the Merkava Mk.4 is far better suited to this than our Bolo Mk. 1 (spot the reference) is, with the same calibre gun in what I'd say is a somewhat better configuration -- being autoloaded, imagine ten 120mm buckshot rounds semiauto. It's also got a 60mm mortar with 2.7km range and the Lahat antitank missile launcher. Something for everyone here, folks. This thing sounds like something from the Battletech universe to me. It's more than a match for Abrams in speed, too -- sprints of 60 miles per, anyone?

In fact, I'll just link the encyclopedia articles for the Merkava and the M1 Abrams

 

[joab]

The constitution says that "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war", it does not say that they must pass a declaration of war before the president can put our troops into a conflict.

Research The War Powers Act of 1973
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

 

[NCP24]

I think the problem is that most people feel the way you do. They don't think we are at war. So, our borders are not secure like they should be during a time of war.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the way our Constitution works. Powers do not exist, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, unless first delegated to it by the States via the Constitution. That being the case, you must demonstrate where the Constitution permits the president, without a Congressional Declaration of War, to command our troops into combat.

Please allow me to bring the conversation back into context. To begin with, I strongly oppose illegal immigration and I do believe our country is currently engaged in several “wars”, including the war on illegal immigration.

Look- my comment wasn’t meant to reflect “the letter of the law” wartime enactment powers or police powers. It was only meant to point out the obvious- We all know what would happen if you started popping caps at unarmed illegal Mexican border crossers.

Should we secure our borders, yes I believe we should. However, I also believe we have a duty to operate within the current law and presently we don’t have the authority to shoot unarmed people.

 

[avpro]

Research The War Powers Act of 1973
SEC. 3.
URL]

The president did consult with congress and congress voted to approve the presidents action. He also made his case in the UN as per the UN charter. they too approved. But, I think my point was missed. I am not trying to argue the legallity of this current "war on terror". Just asking a hypothetical. If during WW2 a citizen were to shoot at a foriegn invader, would they have been prosecuted? From what I gather from the mind set then, I doubt that anyone would have blinked.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the way our Constitution works. Powers do not exist, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, unless first delegated to it by the States via the Constitution. That being the case, you must demonstrate where the Constitution permits the president, without a Congressional Declaration of War, to command our troops into combat.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll call my kid in Iraq and tell him to come home 'cause Hawkeye says we're not at war. However we got here, legal or illegal, we are in a state of "armed conflict" right now. I wasn't trying to argue the legality of this "armed conflict". I was simply raising a hypothetical based on past "armed conflicts". I don't advocate shooting your gardener for trying to get to work.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The president did consult with congress and congress voted to approve the presidents action. He also made his case in the UN as per the UN charter. they too approved. But, I think my point was missed. I am not trying to argue the legallity of this current "war on terror". Just asking a hypothetical. If during WW2 a citizen were to shoot at a foriegn invader, would they have been prosecuted? From what I gather from the mind set then, I doubt that anyone would have blinked.



Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll call my kid in Iraq and tell him to come home 'cause Hawkeye says we're not at war. However we got here, legal or illegal, we are in a state of "armed conflict" right now. I wasn't trying to argue the legality of this "armed conflict". I was simply raising a hypothetical based on past "armed conflicts". I don't advocate shooting your gardener for trying to get to work.

You and I agree on the seriousness of the border situation. There actually is a cause for a declaration of a state of war with Mexico, yet we treat the situation like nothing serious is going on down there, and God forbid we should offend the Mexican Army by using force to stop them from crossing our boarders, weapons in hand.

As for Iraq, that was entirely unconstitutional. They never attacked us, and Congress didn't declare war on Iraq. Declaring war on a concept, such as terror, is nonsense, and has no basis in US law. Also, Congress is not empowered to grant to the executive the authority to go to war, if he thinks its needed. That judgment is reserved exclusively to Congress by the Constitution. The division of powers is determined by the Constitution, and the only way to alter the division of powers is by the amendment process.

 

[NCP24]

You and I agree on the seriousness of the border situation. There actually is a cause for a declaration of a state of war with Mexico, yet we treat the situation like nothing serious is going on down there, and God forbid we should offend the Mexican Army by using force to stop them from crossing our boarders, weapons in hand.

Good point.

 

[longeyes]

"despite a guarantee this country made when it signed the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a decade ago.

Ruling on narrow procedural issues, the Supreme Court said the president has authority to open the border, and a federal agency responsible for truck safety has no say in the matter."


Once again, this is:

1. ELEVEN years old; and

2. Another Bubba legacy - NOT Bush's.

Let's not split hairs, especially to exonerate Bush. On this issue Bush (that incluldes the Old Man) and Clinton are one and the same. Bush has the reins now and he's been in there for five years. In that time the border problem has gotten far worse, and yet Bush talks about relaxing borders and expanding trade. Please. There's one party and Moloch is its name.

 

[wingman]

Let's not split hairs, especially to exonerate Bush. On this issue Bush (that incluldes the Old Man) and Clinton are one and the same. Bush has the reins now and he's been in there for five years. In that time the border problem has gotten far worse, and yet Bush talks about relaxing borders and expanding trade. Please. There's one party and Moloch is its name.

Yep, we live in the land of greed, the wealthy corporations want and sometimes get "slave labor" they do not care who is hurt or what it does
to this country.

 

[BryanP]

Correct link for story:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47497

However, this is worldnetdaily we're talking about. These guys make Mike Drudge look like a reputable journalist (as opposed to a blogger with delusions of adequacy). Until it's confirmed elsewhere this falls in the probably BS department.

 

[riverdog]

What's wrong with Borderland news?

 

[longeyes]

These guys make Mike Drudge look like a reputable journalist (as opposed to a blogger with delusions of adequacy). Until it's confirmed elsewhere this falls in the probably BS department.

Sure, MS-13 is a fabrication. Not to worry. Just more yellow journalism.

 

[longeyes]

However, this is worldnetdaily we're talking about. These guys make Mike Drudge look like a reputable journalist (as opposed to a blogger with delusions of adequacy). Until it's confirmed elsewhere this falls in the probably BS department.

The reality is that you're are ONLY going to get the real stuff on the margins these days. How many stories about the destructive impact of illegal immigration have you seen in the "reputable" journals like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the L.A. Times? THAT is where you will find the real B.S.

 

[BryanP]

The reality is that you're are ONLY going to get the real stuff on the margins these days. How many stories about the destructive impact of illegal immigration have you seen in the "reputable" journals like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the L.A. Times? THAT is where you will find the real B.S.

What can I say, I have a hard time taking seriously any "news" outlet that is reporting - with a straight face - about hurricane Katrina being caused by homosexuals.

 

[longeyes]

What can I say, I have a hard time taking seriously any "news" outlet that is reporting - with a straight face - about hurricane Katrina being caused by homosexuals.

Which means what?--that they agree with the assertion? I'd like to see the link to that story, by the way.

You may not give credence to everything in WND. Rightly so. I certainly don't give credence to much of what I read in Big Press these days. I'll wager you don't either.

 

[joab]

The president did consult with congress and congress voted to approve the presidents action. He also made his case in the UN as per the UN charter. they too approved. But, I think my point was missed. I am not trying to argue the legallity of this current "war on terror". Just asking a hypothetical. If during WW2 a citizen were to shoot at a foriegn invader, would they have been prosecuted? From what I gather from the mind set then, I doubt that anyone would have blinked.

Mexico has not been linked with the axis of evil, nor have they been accused of harboring or training terrorists and could hardly be considered an IslamoFacist nation

My comment, which refutes the assumption that the president does not need congressional approval to engage military troops in a long term action, was based on this comment

The constitution says that "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war", it does not say that they must pass a declaration of war before the president can put our troops into a conflict.

 

[Texpatriate]

Where are the Texas Rangers when we need them? I remember my dad telling me a story from the old days of the Rangers pursuing some nogoodnick to the border but the criminal made it across and began taunting them from across the Rio Grande. The Rangers shot the guy and dragged his body back across the river behind their horses. Not sure how much of the story is myth, but I agree with the senitment. Woodrow and Gus with an RPG would do the trick I think... Warm fuzzy.

 

[longeyes]

Mexico has not been linked with the axis of evil, nor have they been accused of harboring or training terrorists and could hardly be considered an IslamoFacist nation

No, narco-fascist might be the better appellation.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

These guys make Mike Drudge look like a reputable journalist (as opposed to a blogger with delusions of adequacy).

Gee, and I thought that MATT Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story, when the "reputable journalists" (socialist mainstream media types) either ignored the story or buried it...

 

[wingman]

reputable journalist

Somewhat like finding an honest used car salesman.

 

[308win]

hrmmm....want to explain what you think a good punitivie mission would be, and what it would accomplish?

I think it's a bit ironic to go on tirades about Mexico and its supposed troops when Americans are paying billions of dollars every year to invite their drugs over. We are risking our lives and fortunes by the millions to get the stuff, and here it's an act of war when someone does something to give us the drugs?

Odd Indeed...

I don't think that all Americans are buying drugs in fact I believe it is still a minority that use illegal drugs so there is no irony here. These people are (a) entering our country illegally; (b)taking up arms against sworn law officers; (c) engaged in other illegal activities; and (d) should be shot where they stand and left lie where they fall. Put some hurt on the bastards and they will either escalate to their detriment, or go under cover, or stop.