Anecdotal, to be sure, but an acquaintance of mine who happens to be a National Guardsman served along the border last spring when Guardsmen were initially deployed to assist the Border Patrol.

His description of the restrictive rules of engagement was not at all heartening.

Nor were his tales of nights out at isolated observation posts, as they were probed from across the border, and sometimes even closer in – and always, always coming right up to the edge, but not crossing into a situation where they could respond without ending up being crucified for their actions.

He also mentioned that there was not a lot of confusion (to use a term nada) about who were the nasties (coyote affiliates, drug guys) and the plain run of the mill illegal looking probably hoping for a job pushing a lawn mower.

Loosening the rules to allow the Border Patrol/Guardsmen to take out the nasties with as little second thought as taking out tangos in Iraq/Afghanistan would, of course bring howls of indignation and wailing about lost moral authority, and most likely angry words from Mexican officialdom, but, it would probably put an end to a lot of the happy horsecrap hijinks that have been going on for so long.

And it would probably be a pretty good deterrent to Juan and Juanita, the meat packing plant hopefuls, if it wasn’t exactly clear to them wether or not they not only had to worry about crossing rough terrain on foot, but being potential ‘red-dot’ magnets, as well.

Anyway, hey, if we can justify going after (as in applying sufficient military grade kinetic actions so as to render them …um, dead) ‘non-state actors’ i.e. the Taliban, halfway around the world, what’s keeping even some of the more mediocre noggins at the DHS et al from coming up with a viable reason to take on the ‘non-state actors’, i.e the drug gangs, at our own back door?

Bueller?

Never fear, Cherthoff is working hard to bring more knives very small rocksspit wads to the gun fight.

Dusty on November 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Fixed that for you. Even knives to the gunfight would be an improvment.

darury on November 15, 2007 at 10:57 AM

there fix it for you , cant take any chances of hurting a armed criminal drug smuggling alien with a rock now could we , that would be racist .

This article is a total fabrication by the same Union that gave the bad advice to Ramos and Compean to not take the sweetheart plea deal they were offered and instead it was

5 border patrol agents who witnessed the whole thing that convicted them NOT THE WORD OF A DRUG DEALER

If you have any doubt read the transcripts

The Trial Transcripts are an eye opener and thats why congress finally dropped it becuase these guys were not going to be the poster children for more enforcement

If we want to cut off their cash flow we can start by legalizing marijuana and then taxing it like tobacco. Potheads will pay more for legal and safe gov’t approved dope than they will for smuggled pot. High prices will keep too many new users from trying it and drug smugglers will dry up like bootleggers after the end of prohibition. Also, no smuggled drugs means no dope pushing scum trying to get kids to sample their product.

Bill C on November 15, 2007 at 11:57 AM

California’s medical marijuana laws have essentially decriminalized marijuana by proxy. Guess what happened to the market. It’s been flooded with high-potency pot. The black market has not dried up at all. There’s just better pot available; the market has created competition among growers to produce the best and most celebrated strains.

In refutation of your argument I will remind you that marijuana is a plant. If it’s legalized, people will grow their own.

Furthermore, are you demonizing pot-dealers as evil and preying upon children? If so, then why would you be willing to put the government in the same role as marketer of an illicit substance?

I personally believe that you or any adult should have the right to consume marijuana. I detest the arbitrary sanctions applied by our government to this utilitarian textile because of its intoxicating properties. But I don’t see your argument as helping.

It’s at this point that a lot of folks will bring up the Compean/Ramos trial, and there’s probably a there there: Prosecuting BP officers on the word of a drug smuggler can have unintended consequences. Among those might be a new perception on the part of smugglers and criminals that law enforcement officers will be more hesitant to draw their weapon in the wake of that case. And, the officers themselves might factor that case into their own actions as they make split second decisions.

I’m glad at least one blogger here gets it. We screamed this very point at the top of our lungs, but so many people here and elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere rushed to defend Johnny Sutton and is aggressive prosecution of these guys on the “law and order” pretense that they completely missed the bigger picture – i.e. the very damage that such an aggressive, malicious prosecution of our border patrol agents did to the very “law and order” idea they were resting their case on in the first place.

Don’t fence me in

If we want to cut off their cash flow we can start by legalizing marijuana and then taxing it like tobacco.

Why stop at marijuana? Black markets immediately create fabulously huge incentives for smugglers. Always has, always will.

How huge, do you ask? I know an ex-con, an ex-meth dealer, who made $10,000 per day. He never did laundry. He would throw clothes away after they got dirty and buy new ones. Yay, war on (some) drugs.

This economic argument is, unfortunately, way beyond the thinking ability of many very militantly stupid conservatives.

Criminals with that kind of cash flow can get almost anything they want.

bbz123 on November 15, 2007 at 9:55 AM

If we want to cut off their cash flow we can start by legalizing marijuana and then taxing it like tobacco. Potheads will pay more for legal and safe gov’t approved dope than they will for smuggled pot. High prices will keep too many new users from trying it and drug smugglers will dry up like bootleggers after the end of prohibition. Also, no smuggled drugs means no dope pushing scum trying to get kids to sample their product.

Something like 70 murders/kidnappings, mostly by drug dealers, and local officials know nothing, see nothing, do nothing…

this is a national security issue, yet Bush does nothing about it.

Like a computer, garbage in, garbage out.

Never fear, Cherthoff is working hard to bring more knives very small rocks to the gun fight.

Dusty on November 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Fixed that for you. Even knives to the gunfight would be an improvment.

Who knew?