home

Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:58:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

It sounded yesterday as if the government might endorse the boneheaded idea of encouraging civilians to patrol the nation’s borders, turning vigilante justice into a government policy. Today, saner heads have prevailed.

"There are currently no plans by the Department of Homeland Security to use civilian volunteers to patrol the border," spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement. "That job should continue to be done by the highly trained, professional law enforcement officials of the Border Patrol and its partner agencies."

No kidding. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner, who supported the useless and potentially dangerous Minuteman Project, apparently didn’t bother to ask around before floating the notion that Homeland Security should rely on volunteers to enforce immigation laws.

< Utica Residents Troubled By Police Insensitivity | O'Donnell's Latest on Luskin >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#1)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Yeah. The bozos are afraid the amateurs will make them look sloppy and incompetent.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    I supposed "potentially" dangerous is as close as TChris will come to acknowledging that all the worry about the MMP in Arizon was overblown and just plain mean. They showed up, hung out in the desert, and called the cops a few times. The only alleged crime turned out to be an act of charity. Vigantiism must not be all that bad...

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Crud, I just remembered I said I'd stop whining about the local MMP-abuse. Sorry.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Who on earth ABUSED them? Give me a break. Vigilantes get lots of attention when they draw it to themselves. Abused. Let them hike through the desert for a chance at a better life, then talk to me about abused. Good lord, how weak can you get? They received scrutiny. Which any vigilante groug ought to.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#5)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Activists and extremists love each other way to much. did i hear Bush yelling out Allah Akhbar?..Help!

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    The obvious point remains to be made: Bush has APPROVED allowing tens of thousands of Mexican trucks FULL ACCESS to American roads. He is planning on inspecting less than 5% of those trucks. Richard, you may think that immigrants crossing the desert on foot are a danger to America. Nevermind that they can land along the Oregon coast, as Michael Moore famously pointed out, with no opposition most days. But semitrucks, each of which could carry 70 tons of cargo (bombs, an entire terrorist cell, what-have-you) -- I just don't hear you complaining about that to your R party leaders. Attacking the poor immigrants -- that's just good fun. Attacking WALMART -- a bridge too far. Glad to see as usual that you're looking out for profit, not people.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    I'm sure it's completely unintentional that TChris - by opposing the MMP even in spirit - ends up in effect supporting political corruption, the anti-American goals of the Mexican oligarchy, large corrupt corporation profiting off illegal immigration, the lowering of American wages, and so on and so forth. But, perhaps he should spend a little bit more time thinking this through. As far as volunteers are concerned, apparently we want them on the coasts and in the ports, but not on the borders. I wonder, if most cheap labor entered on ships, would the Bush administration do a 180 on that policy? As for those groups "monitoring" the MMP, see this. Note that at least three protests involving the MMP or similar groups have turned violent. However, it was the "liberals" who were violent and the press hardly covered it. It's good to know which side TChris and TL are on.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Oh, sure, BMB, your rightwing media outlets don't cover something, don't blame it on TL. If you have a film or some witnesses, it is very hard to believe that Fox won't put you on. Call O'Reilly. He needs you. How about the militia leader who just ran his van into three protesters, including a founder of the Lawyer Guild (Jim Rafferty). When those lawsuits go before the court, it will be very clear who was violent. Surprise, surprise -- IT WAS THE RACISTS. No response to the semitruck SCANDAL. You really don't care about national security, about smuggling, about illegal immigration. That concern would require you to PROTEST WALMART, but that's where you buy your plastic flags and ammo. Tens of thousands of trucks. Let's round down: 10,000 x 70, times .98 = ~ SIX MILLION TONS of potential contraband, weapons, and terrorists, flowing unimpeded across the US border under order of Genghiz Bush, with the applause and salutes of the Rovian agents on TL. Blaming the messenger is the tool of TOOLS.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    PiL,
    How about the militia leader who just ran his van into three protesters, including a founder of the Lawyer Guild (Jim Rafferty).
    Do you mean the Garden Grove incident? If so, you might want to mention that the police found that the driver acted reasonably. The protesters surrounded and bashed the van, the driver tried to slowly get through. Others in the crowd (not those hit by the van) were violent, throwing full pop cans and the like. Should the driver have just hung around in a violent crowd, or gotten out and walked through them? Henry Kissinger told me the driver didn't do anything wrong.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    throwing full pop cans and the like They also found at least one soda can filled with marbles. In addition to Garden Grove there was also an incident in Baldwin Park and some just recently in Campo. Most of those incidents were videotaped.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    BowelMovementBlog quotes michelle "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling" malkin for his beliefs!? 'nuff said.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "Do you mean the Garden Grove incident?" I do indeed. "If so, you might want to mention that the police found that the driver acted reasonably." I forgot to mention that the Garden Grove Wingnut Police Chief and Wingnut officers expressed their total corruption YET AGAIN. "The protesters surrounded and bashed the van, the driver tried to slowly get through." Sure, sure, Roy. Were you there? There are films of what happened, and, gosh, Jim Rafferty is not the sort of green protester who might do something IN THE SLIGHTEST illegal. He's been to about a billion protests in the last 50 years. "Others in the crowd (not those hit by the van) were violent, throwing full pop cans and the like." Really! Why weren't those people arrested? There were plenty of cops on hand. I think you're lying. The tossing of the Vietnamese woman's apartment over a $10 penlight was Garden Grove racist coppery at its finest. Garden Grove is famous for the racism of its officers, and -- gosh -- they SUPPORT the militia and are intimate with its leaders. Like I said, the lawsuits will present the facts and, once again, shock of all shock, it will turn out the RACISTS are the ones doing the violence.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    Gee, that Malkin racism site mentions some hurtful protest signs. When did that become illegal? These racists are met by angry protesters, and by a lot of young people. While it's not impossible that one of those less-schooled or more radical protesters threw something, there is NO WAY that Jim Lafferty did ANYTHING illegal. Backing a van into pedestrians is ILLEGAL, it doesn't matter what the excuse. It's assault with a deadly weapon, which a soda can is not. One full of marbles? What a weird claim. Leave the link for that piece of nonsense, and not some racist smirk from your favorite "I'm brown -- I can't be a racist" lie-sites.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    c'mon BMBlog, surely you have actual facts you can link to?

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    I always have to check my Pepto Bismol supply before arguing with PiL...
    There are films of what happened
    I've tried to find them. I found several showing the protest, but none showing any vehicle hitting anybody. If you found any, I'd love to see them. Barring that, I'm going to listen to the police and the media over the protesters who showed up just to shout down a meeting. It seems there were actually two car-hits-protester incidents that day, and I got them mixed up. For the first, the protesters were pretty orderly, but crowding the street. One or two protesters were clipped by a slow incoming vehicle. They weren't hurt, they went back to the protest to chant and dance and whatnot. Later they laid down to pretend to be run over. I think that was Netkin's (the MMP guy) van. The second was the vehicle surrounded and banged on my protesters.
    Jim Rafferty is not the sort of green protester who might do something IN THE SLIGHTEST illegal.
    James Lafferty may well have been peaceful. From what little I know of his reputation he probably helped keep things from escalating. The crowd as a whole was not peaceful, though, and stopping a vehicle in their midst would be a bad idea. Check the KATV video here, at the 1 minute mark. Maybe you think that little old lady busted in her own window.
    Why weren't those people [protesters throwing cans] arrested? There were plenty of cops on hand. I think you're lying.
    They were arrested. Check here and here. But you can still cling to the cops being racist, so you'll think the arrests actually support you.
    Backing a van into pedestrians is ILLEGAL...It's assault with a deadly weapon
    Not always. Not if it's be accident caused by people crowding a street, as the clipped-by-a-mirror case seems to be. Not if it's necessary to get away from a dangerous crowd, as the other case seems to be.
    ...assault with a deadly weapon, which a soda can is not
    Nobody claimed they were arrested for "assault with a deadly weapon". I don't know exactly what a full can of pop weighs, but I've dropped one on my toe before. It hurt. Are suggesting that throwing them at people should be legal?
    One full of marbles? What a weird claim
    The NBC link above mentions it above, quoting a cop as saying "A small contingent of people that were troublemakers had backpacks filled with full cans of soda that they were throwing and also cans filled with marbles that they threw". Henry Kissinger made similar remarks.

    Re: Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "I've tried to find them. I found several showing the protest, but none showing any vehicle hitting anybody. If you found any, I'd love to see them." I do not know if there are civilian films of the actual incidents, but the police take video at protests. Those would be supoenaed in the court case. In NYC at the RNC arrest-circus which violated hundreds of non-protester's rights (and was highly illegal), the cops presented EDITED tapes as unedited, as was proven from piecing together the tapes of protester cameras, showing conclusively that the NYPD was LYING THROUGH ITS TEETH about the evidence. Nasty huge payout coming from this police malfeasance. "Barring that, I'm going to listen to the police and the media over the protesters who showed up just to shout down a meeting." Protesters will continue to turn out to SHOUT DOWN racists. As for trusting the police, you obviously read very little TL. The police OFTEN lie, and in the case of Garden Grove, home of the Crystal Cathedral, the racism and white supremacism is fairly naked. Likewise Irvine, not a Jew, but a business park turned into something like a city. 'Later they laid down to pretend to be run over.' Just keep on lying; we're used to it. "Jim Rafferty is not the sort of green protester who might do something IN THE SLIGHTEST illegal." "James Lafferty may well have been peaceful. From what little I know of his reputation he probably helped keep things from escalating." There have been almost NO 'escalated' protests in the last three years. Almost none. But racists get strong responses from the population, since you may have forgotten that the KKK is a terrorist organization. "The crowd as a whole was not peaceful, though, and stopping a vehicle in their midst would be a bad idea." Again, the cops were there. If the crowd was not within the law, I guarantee you GGPD 'gang' would bust with considerable pleasure. "Check the KATV video here, at the 1 minute mark. Maybe you think that little old lady busted in her own window." Crimes against property are not equivalent to running a van into pedestrians, sorry. "They were arrested. Check here and here. But you can still cling to the cops being racist," The GG cops ARE racist, many of them. There isn't any reasonable doubt about that. Almost any PD in the country has racist cops. No one disputes that -- certainly not in GG. "Not always. Not if it's be accident caused by people crowding a street," No, you're entirely wrong about that. If the guy needed to get out, and he was trapped, he should have cellphoned the cops to come open a path. Hitting pedestrians when reversing is a crime in every case. "Not if it's necessary to get away from a dangerous crowd, as the other case seems to be." Oh, I see -- so you think he can claim self-defense? I doubt if that would succeed in a fair court. After all, he was locked in his van. Unless the pedestrians/protesters were attempting to roll the van or something, that's no excuse. "Are suggesting that throwing them at people should be legal?" Actually, a full can of soda chucked at their head could easily be considered a deadly weapon. GG cops would have busted that in a second, and may have. "The NBC link above mentions it above, quoting a cop as saying "A small contingent of people that were troublemakers had backpacks filled with full cans of soda that they were throwing and also cans filled with marbles that they threw"." That's possible. I'm a nonviolent protester, as I'm sure Lafferty is. We have no problem with cops arresting KIDS who do such dangerous stunts. "Henry Kissinger made similar remarks." H F* Kissinger is a mass-murderer. You may not care about Laos, but HFK broke US law, broke the UN treaty, and should have been fired and prosecuted long ago. You kiss his arse all you want. He'll get no forgiveness from me.

    Homeland Security Rejects Vigilante Proposal | 16 comments (16 topical)