Border standoff rattles National Guard troops

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rusher

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
156
Location
Gaston,NC
DEL RIO, Texas (AP) -- A recent standoff between National Guardsmen and heavily armed outlaws along the Mexican border has rattled some troops and raised questions about the rules of engagement for soldiers who were sent to the border in what was supposed to be a backup role.

Six to eight gunmen - possibly heading for Mexico with drug money - approached a group of Tennessee National Guard troops at an overnight observation post Jan. 3 on the U.S. side of the Arizona-Mexico border. No one fired a shot, and the confrontation ended when American troops retreated to contact the Border Patrol. The gunmen then fled into Mexico.

But the incident made some National Guard commanders nervous enough to move up training dates for handling hostage situations. And some lawmakers have questioned why the rules prohibit soldiers from opening fire unless they are fired upon.

"Why would this be allowed to happen?" Republican Arizona state Rep. Warde Nichols said. "Why do we have National Guard running from illegals on the border?"

Nichols said until the rules of engagement are changed, the troops are little more than "window dressing ... to say we are doing something about border security."

"We want to untie their hands," he added. "We want to put them in a primary role."

The standoff was the first known armed encounter between National Guard troops and civilians since President Bush ordered about 6,000 soldiers to the border in May to support the Border Patrol and local law enforcement. The guard was supposed to be the "eyes and ears" for other agencies and was not given authority to arrest or detain illegal immigrants.

The men who confronted the soldiers were armed with automatic weapons and wearing ballistic vests when they saw the soldiers, split into two groups and appeared to be trying to surround them, authorities said. Before the Guardsmen retreated, one gunman came within 35 feet of the soldiers, according to a National Guard report. The outlaws' nationality was unclear, investigators said.

Republican Arizona state Rep. Jerry Weiers said the rules of engagement put soldiers in a tough position.

"My real, true, honest concern here is that we don't return fire until we have been fired upon, and by then we have probably lost a life," Weiers said.

Arizona's Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, a Republican whose prosecution of illegal immigrants has drawn national attention, called the incident "a deep embarrassment" that highlights growing dangers from well-armed drug traffickers and human smugglers along the border.

Texas soldiers will undergo additional training on what to do if they are separated from their teams or taken hostage or kidnapped.

"It mainly encompasses how to treat your captors, what to think about when you are in that position and what to do when you are being rescued," Staff Sgt. Henry Aguirre said as he watched three soldiers on an overnight shift survey the darkened Rio Grande just outside Del Rio.

Guard officials had planned to run the training later this year, Aguirre said, but the standoff "increased the urgency."

Several soldiers said the Arizona confrontation worried them.

"I didn't think they were going to get that bold," said Sgt. Samuel Perez of Savannah, Ga. "It's kind of been chilling that somebody is going to be that crazy."

First Lt. Wayne Lee, a spokesman for the New Mexico National Guard, said soldiers "are not supposed to get into a firefight. It's not the Sunni Triangle."

T.J. Bonner, president of the Border Patrol agents' union, said the soldiers sent to bolster his agents are unnecessarily at risk.

"It's not like some picnic down there," Bonner said. "Anyone down there enforcing the laws is going to be caught up in the violence."

Bonner said he worried that the soldiers apparently can only defend themselves "once the bullets start flying."

"It's a recipe for disaster," Bonner said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
A recent standoff between National Guardsmen and heavily armed outlaws along the Mexican border has rattled some troops and raised questions about the rules of engagement for soldiers who were sent to the border in what was supposed to be a backup role.
Obviously, someone lied to them when they were told they would be 'in the rear with the gear.'
Several soldiers said the Arizona confrontation worried them.

"I didn't think they were going to get that bold," said Sgt. Samuel Perez of Savannah, Ga. "It's kind of been chilling that somebody is going to be that crazy."

First Lt. Wayne Lee, a spokesman for the New Mexico National Guard, said soldiers "are not supposed to get into a firefight. It's not the Sunni Triangle."
Gee, no one told the Mexicans there are supposed to be rules.

Pilgrim
 
This is unbelievable... We're running away from our own border!? This, and USCIS wants to RAISE the costs of LEGAL IMMIGRATION!
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1560315.php
My wife and I would probably be caught in the fee hike at the rate her immigration case is proceeding :fire: Nice to know that while we're paying out the nose to do things legally, our good government is doing nothing to stop illegals from flooding across the border :banghead:
 
Texas soldiers will undergo additional training on what to do if they are separated from their teams or taken hostage or kidnapped.

We are training soldiers to surrender and retreat?

I am at a loss for words... at least for words acceptable on THR. :fire:
 
The guard was supposed to be the "eyes and ears" for other agencies and was not given authority to arrest or detain illegal immigrants.



Wouldn't their "authority" come from the oath they took to uphold the Constitution?
 
Exam, Final Question:

A troop of armed infantry wearing the uniform and insignia of a foreign military power are approaching you in the dark and are behaving in a stealthy manner. They are speaking a foreign language, the language which just happens to be predominantly spoken by a country directly on your border and is not the most friendly place in the world for people of your nation. They are 20 miles within your nation's border. You are deployed with combat arms, having a tactical advantage with a comparable force.

Do you:

A) Retreat
B) Hide
C) Attack
 
I choose D -

Call in the helis, strafe their asses until out of ammo, and then the troops shoot the survivors. Let them know that this crap will NOT be tolerated anymore. What're they gonna do in reply, invade?

:banghead: :fire:
 
As an Infantryman with the New Hampshire National Guard, I can only say that if our orders were to withdraw without a shot fired, we would be beyond pissed.
 
What're they gonna do in reply, invade?

No,
They'll just hang those soldiers out to dry. Maybe a border patrol agent or two.
 
The invasion is already well underway. The best we can do at this point is to deny the invading force reinforcements.
Like that'll happen...

Biker
 
Yea, I know...

it'll never happen, (the whole strafe 'em bit,) but I get SICK AND DAMNED TIRED of reading/hearing about agents/guardsmen getting shot at and not being able to do anything about it.

I think that's a bunch of bull:cuss: - our borders belong to US, if someone violates them and fires on our people, then they richly deserve copious amounts of lead/depleted uranium introduced to their forms.

This stupid PC crap of just letting other countries walk all over us really has to stop before we have some podunk country's president pitching a tent on the White house lawn or some damned thing.
 
Our soldiers are expendable. Compared to an international incident politicians, gov't lawyers, and bueracrats don't care about us.
All you have to do is look at the hurricane devastation and it's ongoing.
The out right illegal violations of US Constitutional rights in the name of security when it was gov't bungling that let the World Trade Centers get blown off the map, soldiers being framed by gov't for doing there jobs,
citizen volunteers being called "vigilantes" for stepping up and doing something to watch the border at their own expence and risk, ranchers losing in court a whole ranch near Douglas Az awarded to illegal immigrants because they were caught by the rancher and ruffed up in the scuffle, the President gets angry because American uproar caused a Arab Emirates Co not to get the contract for our harbors cargo & security. The list goes on. Lawyers call it the "preponderance of evidence suggests that..........."

We need a Geo. Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, or a combination thereof for President or we're sunk.
 
I suspect that some NG troops are going to get killed before anything changes. There is absolute terror of the Hispanic voting block on both sides of the aisle.
 
In response to Caimlas queastion, I would choose option C. The 'commanders' who came up with these ROE, should be hung out to dry, as it doen't take a whole lot of smarts to figure out that a band of armed men, at o'dark thirty, crossing the border in the middle of BFE, aren't here for a social call.
 
No Problem?

We have to put an end to this crap. I saw one of our "leaders" talking about decreasing illegals by 50%. Is that a decrease of the projected increase? Our country is being given whole sale out by a pack of self-serving criminals to criminals illegally crossing the border.

I hope people are taking notes Re: all of this to prepare for voting. I hope you are all planning to attend town hall meetings and make life uncomfortable with hard questions in public. We need to be heard about our concerns over firearms, and other Constitutional rights matters.

"The writing's on the wall!" Oh, wait...we don't yet have a "wall"...we just funded it.

Doc2005
 
Last edited:
In response to Caimlas queastion, I would choose option C. The 'commanders' who came up with these ROE, should be hung out to dry, as it doen't take a whole lot of smarts to figure out that a band of armed men, at o'dark thirty, crossing the border in the middle of BFE, aren't here for a social call.

I think you have to blame someone higher up the food chain.

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement purposes. By federal law, guarding the border is a law enforcement function.

I am not sure we are ready to either abandon the Posse Comitatus act, or to declare that the illegals coming from Mexico are an invasion, since it would be difficult to make that argument with a straight face.

If the states still had militias, the constitution does allow for congress to provide that they be called up to enforce the law. They could be used to great effect, if they still existed.

Personally, I think we should get on with building the fences, and other deterrents. I also think we need to seriously consider what level of force we are willing to use to close off the southern borders. It is not a trivial question.
 
Yup...

Our National Guard Commanders are operating under Rules of Engagement that were set up between the Governor of Arizona (and other states involved) and the big shots in Washington - who did most of the dictating. If you think that this situation is outrageous (as I do also) go pick on the right people. The Guardsmen involved, as well as their superiors, had no choice. If the men at the bottom of this food chain had gone to shooting they would be facing some serious consequences. What is going on is not their fault.

Personally, I think we should get on with building the fences, and other deterrents.

Obviously you don't live here. I do. Fences and other deterrents for most part won't work because of the rugged landscape. Also consider that Cochise County (just the county) is almost as big as the State of Connecticut. :what:

Most of the border is not inhabited because to be blunt – it is uninhabitable. To protect that border we have a handful of men and women who often operate with at least one hand tied behind their backs, because of policies formulated back in Washington D.C. by politicians in both parties that really don’t want to seal the border.

When the “migrants” can’t get jobs they’ll stop coming, or at least slow down. The migration has nothing to do with deterrents and fences, and everything to do with economic opportunity – for both the migrants and the companies that hire them for low wages and few or no benefits.
 
When the “migrants” can’t get jobs they’ll stop coming, or at least slow down. The migration has nothing to do with deterrents and fences, and everything to do with economic opportunity

Very correct. The whole immigration thing is just like the War on Drugs. You can't watch every inch of the border. People are going to keep trying to smuggle in drugs as long as there is big money to be made if you get in. Illegal aliens are going to keep trying to find a way to get in if the economic "up-side" is better than staying home.

Yes, you have to have some border enforcement. But your REAL target should be the people who _illegally_ hire such people. If there were no jobs, they would stop coming. The only "illegal border crossings" then would be the real criminals not just people looking for jobs. And how many of those "real criminals" would there be crossing the border if there was no demand on this side for illegal drugs?

Illegal organized criminal activity is always attracted by large amounts of money. That's the way it's always been. Take the money out of the picture, the criminals go look somewhere else.

Gregg
 
I'm in the Texas Army National Guard and on the border mission. This story is news to me.
 
If people don't come for the jobs, they will come for the benefits, or just to be with their own. Yes, we need to crack down on employers but that alone will NOT solve this problem. Do we really have to eliminate all social safety nets in America just to prevent illegal immigration? It's just not that simple.

And illegal aliens ARE "real criminals." They are trespassing, stealing from our treasure, and subverting our culture and our values. Mexicans bring "Mexico," they can't help that, and we no longer seem to believe in enforced assimilation.
 
So, to the liberals, our troops having to run away from armed gangs at the border isn't a problem. Crime from illegal immigrants is also not a problem. The loss of 'working class' jobs to illegals is also not a problem.

What IS a problem, is anytime you or the troops have the ability to defend yourself (and not be dependent on THEM). You don't have to wet your pants while you dial 911 ? That's a big f***ing problem and they will relentlessly push congress to make sure this problem is corrected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top