Thread: Arizona border incident takes a political turn

Arizona border incident takes a political turn

The Associated PressPublished: January 28, 2007

PHOENIX: Over the last three weeks, the decision by National Guard troops to back off and call in federal agents as gunmen approached their post near the Arizona-Mexico border has disturbed advocates for tougher immigration enforcement.

While supporters of the decision said the Guard members did as they were supposed to, immigration hard-liners said officials have presented inconsistent details of the incident and questioned the point of having troops on the border if they can't confront such dangers.

The commander of the Arizona National Guard is expected to face this criticism Monday as he testifies before a homeland security committee of the state Legislature that's seeking specifics on the Jan. 3 incident at an observation post near Sasabe.

"As I learn more about this, I am more alarmed about this situation," said Republican Rep. Warde Nichols of Chandler, the committee chairman who believes the troops should have captured the gunmen.

Four National Guard soldiers from Tennessee were on the lookout at the border when they spotted six to eight gunmen wearing bulletproof vests. The soldiers contacted Border Patrol agents and pulled back, officials said in summaries released more than a week ago.

Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, National Guard officials and some state lawmakers defended the decision to call in the Border Patrol, saying the troops aren't supposed to perform law enforcement duties.

The troops were among the 6,400 National Guard members sent to the four southern border states as part of President George W. Bush's plan to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents, who then have more time to catch illegal immigrants.

The support duties include monitoring border points, assisting with cargo inspection and operate surveillance cameras.

"We don't apprehend," said Maj. Paul Aguirre, a spokesman for the Arizona National Guard. "We don't detain. We don't transport. We don't do any law enforcement."

Aguirre objected to characterizations of the incident as a retreat, saying the soldiers didn't run from their post, nor were they overrun.

The troops monitored the situation, never lost contact with the gunmen and moved to another site to avoid any engagement with the armed men, Aguirre said.

Democratic Rep. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix, a member of the homeland security committee, said immigration hard-liners would use the questioning of Maj. Gen. David Rataczak of the Arizona National Guard to push their agenda.

"They are going to try and embarrass him. They are going to fail," Gallardo said, predicting the panel wouldn't respond with any significant action.

Nichols said his intentions were nonpolitical and that he seeks a clear picture of the incident, because he has read accounts with conflicting details.

Shortly after the encounter, authorities had said four to five armed men came within 100 yards (meters) of the troops. The summaries released more than a week ago said the troops spotted six to eight gunmen, one of whom came within 20 yards (meters) of the observation site.

Officials said the number of gunmen was always in question, because the incident happened at night and in terrain that made it hard to spot people. They also said their investigation has revealed that the gunmen were closer than they initially thought.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, who maintains that drug and immigration problems in his non-border county prompted him to join the debate, said the retreat was an embarrassment and questioned the policies that prompted the troops to pull back.

"What purpose are they there for than to provide window dressing to a failed border policy," Thomas said.

Supporters of the Guard's support role said the presence of the troops has helped combat immigrant and drug smuggling in Arizona, the nation's busiest illegal entry point. One third of the troops along the nation's southern border are in the state.

Nichols said the incident had broader border security implications because armed people know the National Guard will retreat.

"From every account I can get, it appears they were testing our resolve and what our men at the border would do," Nichols said.

The governor's office has said the rules allow Guard members to use force when they believe they face an imminent threat and all other means are exhausted.

"I don't think that it's up to the committee to negotiate the rules of engagement," Napolitano said. "Those rules of engagement were negotiated with the National Guard at the federal level."

___
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/ ... Threat.php

"We don't apprehend," said Maj. Paul Aguirre, a spokesman for the Arizona National Guard. "We don't detain. We don't transport. We don't do any law enforcement."

and evidentally you don't protect the US from armed invaders either Aguirre.

Part of the mission of the national guard is protect America from invasions. The politicans need to admit that we have an invasion and that is an armed invasion regardless of what they are saying.

The governor's office has said the rules allow Guard members to use force when they believe they face an imminent threat and all other means are exhausted.

And the rest of us remain ........ On our own





Neils
5:00 pm
01/28/2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00673.html

Ariz. Border Encounter Gets Political

By JACQUES BILLEAUD
The Associated Press
Sunday, January 28, 2007; 2:32 PM



PHOENIX -- Advocates for tougher immigration enforcement plan to confront the commander of the Arizona National Guard about why troops backed off recently as gunmen approached their post near the Mexican border.

Maj. Gen. David Rataczak is to testify Monday before the state Legislature's homeland security committee in a hearing about the Jan. 3 encounter at an observation post.

While National Guard officials and supporters say the troops did as they were supposed to, critics question the point of having the troops on the border if they can't confront such dangers.

The encounter has broader border security implications because armed people will know the National Guard will retreat, said state Rep. Warde Nichols, the committee's chairman.

"From every account I can get, it appears they were testing our resolve and what our men at the border would do," said Nichols, a Republican.

Rep. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat on the committee, said he believed immigration hard-liners would use Rataczak's appearance to push their agenda.

"They are going to try and embarrass him. They are going to fail," Gallardo said.

Four National Guard soldiers from Tennessee were at a lookout post at the border when they were approached by six to eight gunmen wearing bulletproof vests. One of the gunmen came within 35 feet of the observation site, according to investigators' summaries.

The soldiers contacted Border Patrol agents and pulled back, investigators concluded. The Border Patrol tracked the armed men back to the border but could not locate them. No shots were fired.

Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, National Guard officials and some state lawmakers defended the decision to call in the Border Patrol, saying the troops are not supposed to perform law enforcement duties. The governor's office has said the rules allow Guard members to use force when they believe they face an imminent threat and all other means are exhausted.

"I don't think that it's up to the committee to negotiate the rules of engagement," Napolitano said. "Those rules of engagement were negotiated with the National Guard at the federal level."

The troops were among the 6,400 National Guard members sent to the four southern border states to support immigration agents, and leave the agents with more time to catch illegal immigrants.

The support duties include monitoring border points, assisting with cargo inspection and operate surveillance cameras.

"We don't apprehend," said Maj. Paul Aguirre, a spokesman for the Arizona National Guard. "We don't detain. We don't transport."

Aguirre objected to characterizations of the withdrawal as a retreat, saying the soldiers did not run from their post and were not overrun.

The troops monitored the situation, never lost contact with the gunmen and moved to another site to avoid an engagement, Aguirre said.

Many guard members are building fences. Seems the media doesn't want to put that bit of new out.

They would rather print the ones where the guards were in retreat, due to orders given.

Just like when in Vietnam, don't fire unless fired upon.....same in Iraq, as well as don't fire on a Mosque!

Added to Home Page:
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... =0&thold=0

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/01/a ... der070129/

Ariz. Guard chief to testify today

By Jacques Billeaud - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jan 29, 2007 11:05:40 EST

PHOENIX — Over the last three weeks, the decision by National Guard troops to back off and call in federal agents as gunmen approached their post near the Arizona-Mexico border has disturbed advocates for tougher immigration enforcement.

While supporters of the decision said the Guard members did as they were supposed to, immigration hard-liners said officials have presented inconsistent details of the incident and questioned the point of having troops on the border if they can’t confront such dangers.

The commander of the Arizona National Guard is expected to face this criticism Monday as he testifies before a homeland security committee of the state Legislature that’s seeking specifics on the Jan. 3 incident at an observation post near Sasabe.

“As I learn more about this, I am more alarmed about this situation,” said Republican Rep. Warde Nichols of Chandler, the committee chairman who believes the troops should have captured the gunmen.

Four National Guard soldiers from Tennessee were on the lookout at the border when they spotted six to eight gunmen wearing bulletproof vests. The soldiers contacted Border Patrol agents and pulled back, officials said in summaries released more than a week ago.

The Border Patrol tracked the armed men back to the border, but were unable to find them. No shots were fired.

Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, National Guard officials and some state lawmakers defended the decision to call in the Border Patrol, saying the troops aren’t supposed to perform law enforcement duties.

The troops were among the 6,400 National Guard members sent to the four southern border states as part of President George W. Bush’s plan to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents, who then have more time to catch illegal immigrants.

The support duties include monitoring border points, assisting with cargo inspection and operate surveillance cameras.

“We don’t apprehend,” said Maj. Paul Aguirre, a spokesman for the Arizona National Guard. “We don’t detain. We don’t transport. We don’t do any law enforcement.”

Aguirre objected to characterizations of the incident as a retreat, saying the soldiers didn’t run from their post, nor were they overrun.

The troops monitored the situation, never lost contact with the gunmen and moved to another site to avoid any engagement with the armed men, Aguirre said.

Democratic Rep. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix, a member of the homeland security committee, said immigration hard-liners would use the questioning of Maj. Gen. David Rataczak of the Arizona National Guard to push their agenda.

“They are going to try and embarrass him. They are going to fail,” Gallardo said, predicting the panel wouldn’t respond with any significant action.

Nichols said his intentions were nonpolitical and that he seeks a clear picture of the incident, because he has read accounts with conflicting details.

Shortly after the encounter, authorities had said four to five armed men came within 100 yards of the troops. The summaries released more than a week ago said the troops spotted six to eight gunmen, one of whom came within 20 yards of the observation site.

Officials said the number of gunmen was always in question, because the incident happened at night and in terrain that made it hard to spot people. They also said their investigation has revealed that the gunmen were closer than they initially thought.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, who maintains that drug and immigration problems in his non-border county prompted him to join the debate, said the retreat was an embarrassment and questioned the policies that prompted the troops to pull back.

“What purpose are they there for than to provide window dressing to a failed border policy,” Thomas said.

Supporters of the Guard’s support role said the presence of the troops has helped combat immigrant and drug smuggling in Arizona, the nation’s busiest illegal entry point. One third of the troops along the nation’s southern border are in the state.

Nichols said the incident had broader border security implications because armed people know the National Guard will retreat.

“From every account I can get, it appears they were testing our resolve and what our men at the border would do,” Nichols said.

The governor’s office has said the rules allow Guard members to use force when they believe they face an imminent threat and all other means are exhausted.

“I don’t think that it’s up to the committee to negotiate the rules of engagement,” Napolitano said. “Those rules of engagement were negotiated with the National Guard at the federal level.”

Many guard members are building fences. Seems the media doesn't want to put that bit of new out.

C'mon moose you know this is not directed at the rank-n-file. Besides we all know how the press is. This is directed at our politicians and upper echelons who support these policies. Building the fence is fine except we do not have control of our border as this incident so aptly points out. It is time to get serious and stop the flow. Mexico is not our friend and we need armed patrols on the border. The National Guard being sent to border was mainly dog & pony to assuage criticism.

Just like our boys in Iraq. I think most if not all support the troops but leadership is questionable. I appreciate each and every soldier out there. Let's let them do the job of securing our nation and quite playing political games at the border.

I heard that when the gunman were spotted, that they were not coming across the border FROM Mexico, but had actually already been in the U.S. and were headed SOUTH back to Mexico. Anyone else hear anything similar? IMO this is significant for the obvious fact that armed mexican nationals were able to waltz across the border without being spotted. If this isn't an argument for security of the border, what is?