Most of the law has been approved, but the most controversial provisions have been blocked from going into effect when the law becomes active tonight. The contest provisions are not overturned, and are merely placed on hold.
What is the practical implication of the decision? Experts and pundits alike are scrambling to determine the effect, and as I'm just as (un)qualified as many of the other pundits, here is my take.
The law allowed to go into effect tonight will have little practical effect on how police officers in Arizona do their jobs, but the considerable public support for the bill and the fact that much of the law was not successfully challenged means that criminal aliens will likely continue their exodus from the state. Remember that SB 1070 was Arizona's first high profile battle in their war against illegal aliens, and their is absolutely nothing that changes the political climate.
The politicians who pushed this legislation are still in office, and still afforded what amounts to a mandate by the people to continue their efforts. Public opinion in Arizona, as well, is strongly against illegal immigration, and the continuing interest in the case is fueling a drive in many states to pursue similar laws.
The public has had it with criminal aliens, and those that would exploit them for political power. This isn't over, not by a long shot.
1
Funny how the injuction doesn't seem to address the issue of "preemption"
Posted by: Neo at July 28, 2010 02:20 PM (tE8FB)
2
Yeah you are very correct. Da people as they are continually victimised by criminal aliens and thier own government by it's inaction....The poles tell the tale....are pissed.
Posted by: ron at July 28, 2010 02:36 PM (xAXEE)
3
I'd like to see the judges involved tried for treason and hanged. Explain to me why I should care about the 'rule of law' when it is consistently used against my interests and contrary to the plain wording of it.
Posted by: Jehu at July 28, 2010 03:58 PM (TEIU+)
4
@Jehu
It's one of those amazing thing about our system of government that we don't accuse judges of treason or hang them when they do not rule in favor of the interests of a particular individual or group of people or even a particular political viewpoint. It could happen in some countries. You could move to one of them. As I understand it, they tend to have more people trying to get out than trying to get in.
Posted by: Sol at July 28, 2010 07:26 PM (t+9+X)
5
Lemme see if I understand what happened. A fed judge has just ruled that a state law that pretty much mimics a federal law can't be enforced. And the feds aren't enforcing their version anyway. Anyone besides me see a problem here?
Posted by: emdfl at July 28, 2010 08:05 PM (6pfsL)
6
@neo - it does not appear that we have read the same court order, as it addresses preemption throughout.
@emdfl
It does not appear that you understand what happened. Having just read the 36-page order, as I'm sure you have before claiming to understand it, this is what appears to have happened:
The judge started off by explaning which provisions of the statute are being enjoined from enforcement and which are not. Almost all of the statute stands and is enforceable pending trial on the merits. Four narrow provisions are temporarily enjoined. She concludes this section by stating the legal basis of the injunction, viz., that the moving party is likely to succeed on the merits with regard to those provisions when the case is tried and the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if the court does not provide preliminary relief, as well as the tests of the balance of equities and public interest. This is the same standard used in any case.
In the next section, the judge provides a good overview of federal immigration law that is worthy of reading by a lot of people here and on other blogs who seemed to be confused by it. There is a good overview of the relevant portions of SB 1070.
The judge then gives a good explanation of why she cannot and will not enjoin all of SB 1070 as the Government moved.
Addressing each provision, she starts with Section 2(B), which does not mimic any federal law, but says that if someone who is stopped, detained, or arrested is suspected of being an unauthorized alien they have to have their immigration status determined before they are released. This places a substantial burden on both citizens and lawful aliens (citing Hines v. Davidowitz), as well as a burden on federal resources (citing Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm.) forcing reallocation of resources from higher priorities directly related to national security. The judge then footnoted the possible 4th Amendment issues, but did not use them as the basis of her ruling.
With regard to Section 3, this also does not mimic federal law, but rather creates a separate state offense with state penalties for violating a federal law. This runs contrary to Hines in several ways as clearly set out. Not really a shocker. Preemption is pretty obvious and success at trial very likely.
With regard to their Section 4 challenge, the Government is not likely to succeed, because they are seeking to enjoin a section of the statute that was amended by Section 4 of SB 1070 but not the actual change brought about by Section 4. No injunction.
The injunction with regard to Section 5 involves the portion that criminalizes unauthorized aliens who attempt to get work or actually work. Again, this does not mimic federal law. Congress specifically did not impose criminal or civil penalties on employees when it chose to do so on employers. The judge ruled that because the Arizona statute conflicts with a comprehensive federal scheme, it is preempted.
The Government attempted two further injunctions with regard to Section 5 but did not succeed.
Section 6 of SB 1070 does not mimic federal law and provides that an officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that “the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” This would include any offense that might have been committed at any time outside of Arizona. The judge cites Justice Alito in Padilla v. Kentucky:
providing advice on whether a conviction for a particular offense will make an alien removable is often quite complex. "Most crimes affecting immigration status are not specifically mentioned by the [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)], but instead fall under a broad category of crimes such as crimes involving moral turpitude or aggravated felonies." M. Garcia & L. Eig, CRS Report for Congress, Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity (Sept. 20, 2006) (summary) (emphasis in original). As has been widely acknowledged, determining whether a particular crime is an "aggravated felony" or a "crime involving moral turpitude [(CIMT)]" is not an easy task.
As a result or this and the fact that it would also require Arizona officers to make judgments with regard to non-Arizona statutes, Judge Bolton ruled:
Considering the substantial complexity in determining whether a particular public offense makes an alien removable from the United States and the fact that this determination is ultimately made by federal judges, there is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5). By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a “distinct, unusual and extraordinary” burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose. Hines, 312 U.S. at 65-66.
The judge concluded her order with a detailed explanation of how the provisions she enjoined meet the standards for injunctive relief. This is set out in a clear and reasonable way.
emdfl, neither you nor other readers of this blog may like the ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunctions, but it is based in law and it has nothing to do with provisions that mimic federal law. If you wish to substantively disagree with my legal analysis, feel free to do so.
Posted by: Sol at July 28, 2010 11:05 PM (t+9+X)
7
You offered no "legal analysis" Sol, you simply recounted what the judge said.
Judges opinions have no basis in law. They merely reflect the desires of the Ruling Class. The US Constitution does not confer on the federal government the sole power to regulate immigration. The entire constitutional mention of this topic is: "Congress shall have the power .. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
That's it. No mention anywhere of the theory that the states must treat illegal aliens the same as citizens. If Congress wishes to make the illegals all US citizens, it has the power to do so. But the federal government has no constitutional power to require Arizona to treat the illegals as if they were not illegals.
Posted by: flenser at July 29, 2010 06:55 AM (2VJ7E)
8
@flenser
You are probably right. "Legal analysis" may be an incorrect characterization. Perhaps it would be better to say that I parsed out what the judge said and put it in lay terms to help those who may have only heard rhetoric and not actually read the decision. It might help someone otherwise stuck in this "Arizona only mimics federal law so what's the problem" nonsense.
To say that judge's opinions have no basis in law is a rather bizarre statement, as this is at the heart of our concept of jurisprudence. Others (including other judges, particularly those sitting in appellate courts) may disagree with a particular judge's application of the law, but that doesn't mean it has no basis in law. Judge Bolton's order cites statutes, precedent, and persuasive authority.
Your proposition that they merely reflect the desires of the ruling class is no different that saying Congress is in the hands of special interest groups or the rich who fund their elections so the laws they pass have no basis in law.
That the Constitution does confer the sole power to regulate immigration has been clear since at least Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), though it was implied earlier in The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).
Judge Bolton's order does not say that states must treat illegal aliens the same as citizens. It says that legal aliens have certain rights and protections and that relevant portions of SB 1070 place an undue burden on those.
You are correct that federal government has no constitutional power to require Arizona to treat illegals as if they were not illegals. No branch of the federal government has required that Arizona do so. The federal government has only said that Arizona does not have the right to determine how illegals are treated.
Posted by: Sol at July 29, 2010 10:00 AM (6ohBu)
9
The thing that bothers me is that a governing body, such as Fremont Neb. and the state of Arizonia, passes a law that is struck down by a judge that basis an opinion on arguments that are not concerned with the law.
Posted by: bman at July 29, 2010 10:56 AM (Nobxl)
10
None of the Arizona law has been struck down. Four specific provisions have been temporarily enjoined from enforcement pending the outcome of the case.
bman, from your reading of the order, which aspect of the opinion or the arguments on which it is based are not concerned with the law?
In the Fremont case, the judge has not issued any rulings and hasn't even decided if federal court is the proper venue for the case. The parties have two weeks to file briefs on the venue issue before she even rules on that. Seems like you are jumping the gun a bit on this one.
Posted by: Sol at July 29, 2010 12:02 PM (EqHMJ)
11
I would suggest reading the appropriate articles contained on The Corner on the NRO site, and the opinion of William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.
The Heritage foundation also has some interesting opinions on the decision.
Yes these are considered right wing radical blog sites, but they do reflect the thinking of a lot of people.
Posted by: bman at July 29, 2010 02:14 PM (9uR9R)
12
I couldn't find anything on The Corner, so post a link please. The only thing I found from the NRO was a editorial that only addressed the first of the provisions enjoined. The Editors didn't bother to make fun of the other three.
William Jacobson says he cannot blame the judge for striking some of the provisions on SB 1070 (even though she didn't strike anything - just temporarily enjoined - but it is a hint of what her final ruling will be). Otherwise, I don't see anywhere that Jacobson contradicts what I have written in this thread.
I only found one Heritage Foundation article on the ruling that also only addresses the injunction with regard to Section 2(B). Nothing about the other three provisions enjoined.
I haven't commented on whether Judge Bolton made a good decision in every aspect of her order, or whether it is the correct thing to do in terms of what a lot of people would like to see happen. The only value judgment I made was that it was clear and reasonable. That doesn't mean that other people (whether appelate judges or not) can't disagree with her reasoning.
I wouldn't consider NRO, William Jacobson, or Heritage Foundation particularly radical. They are certainly political, which they are entitled to be. Except with regard to the subject of immigration a lot of people would consider me a right-wing radical. They are entitled to do so and I'm entitled to be whatever I want to be.
Even though they often do not fulfil this obligation, judges are to be above politics, take the law as it is, and rule upon it. I just explained what the ruling was, both in commenting here and in writing on my own blog. From reading the other blogs and sites to which you referred, it appears that at least I have explained all of the provisions of order and not just picked one and railed against it.
Posted by: Sol at July 29, 2010 04:08 PM (EqHMJ)
13
To say that judge's opinions have no basis in law is a rather bizarre statement
So if a judge says that an unconstitutional law is constitutional, or that a constitutional law is unconstitutional, that has some "basis in law" according to you, on the grounds that a judge said it? Judges are supposed to be the servants of the law, not its masters. Your view of the law is the rather left-wing one of a lawyer.
Your proposition that they merely reflect the desires of the ruling class is no different that saying Congress is in the hands of special interest groups or the rich who fund their elections so the laws they pass have no basis in law.
And your point is?
That the Constitution does confer the sole power to regulate immigration has been clear since at least Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893)
a) Supreme Courts rulings do not and cannot alter the Constitution. The Constitution confers no such power on the Federal government, and nothing which any judge or group of judges says can alter that.
b) Nobody in this case is challenging the power of Congress to "regulate immigration". Congress has the power to grant US citizenship to all the illegals. But "regulating immigration" is not what this case is about. As long as they're illegal, they are outside of the Congressional power with respect to immigration.
c) Fong Yue Ting v. United States is a funny example for you to cite. In that case Congress really was "regulating immigration". In other words, it is the exact opposite of what Congress is doing at present.
The federal government has only said that Arizona does not have the right to determine how illegals are treated.
In saying that, the Federal government is at odds with the Constitution, which confers no unique power over illegals to the Feds. And I notice you don't even try to argue that it does, preferring your usual tack of argument by assertion. Cite me the Constitutional basis for your position or else drop it. And by "Constitutional basis" I mean cite the Constitution, not some court opinion.
Now, it is true that the individual states cannot make up their own rules for how legal non-citizen immigrants can be treated. Such people are in a sense the guests of the Feds. But illegal aliens are criminals, outlaws, outside the law. They are not in fact "immigrants" at all in the legal sense, and therefore arguments about the power of the Feds to make law concerning the treatment of real immigrants have no bearing on the matter.
Posted by: flenser at July 29, 2010 05:46 PM (Mj40Y)
14
So if a judge says that an unconstitutional law is constitutional, or that a constitutional law is unconstitutional, that has some "basis in law" according to you, on the grounds that a judge said it? Judges are supposed to be the servants of the law, not its masters. Your view of the law is the rather left-wing one of a lawyer.
Interesting how you assume all lawyers are left-wing. It appears to be a profession you do not hold in great esteem.
Yes, if a judge says a law is constitutional or not, then that is what it is. That's the way the system works. There is a structure of appeals to change it, if the judge is wrong or if those appellate judges take a different view. This is true whether one takes strict contructionist or loose constructionist view of the Constitution. At both the trial and appellate levels, strict constructionist judges may take different approaches from loose constructionist judges in determining whether a law is constitutional, but regardless of their judicial and constitutional philosophy, the job it the same, as it is force in law of the resulting opinion.
It has a basis in law on the grounds that when the judge says it, the judge does by citing the law that supports the judge's decision. An appellate panel may think there is a better basis for a different decision and thereby give the better basis precedent value which the trial judge may be instructed to apply if there is a need to remand the case and future trial judges will use to base future decisions on similar sets of facts. Of course since ours is an adversarial system and no two sets of facts are the same, it is the role of the judge to distinguish between different precedents to apply those which fit best. And of course it is then the role of an appellate court to agree or disagree and establish further precedent.
I don't know why I should to teach you Law 101, because you've already decided what makes the law the law and what makes it constitutional or not in Flenster-World, which only has one document and no lawyers.
>>Your proposition that they merely reflect the desires of the ruling class is no different that saying Congress is in the hands of special interest groups or the rich who fund their elections so the laws they pass have no basis in law.
And your point is?
We may not like the system, but it is what it is. I suggest you find and break a federal law you don't like and then explain to the judge that it wasn't really law because it was passed by a Congress in the hands of special interest groups and rich people.
a) Supreme Courts rulings do not and cannot alter the Constitution. The Constitution confers no such power on the Federal government, and nothing which any judge or group of judges says can alter that.
Supreme Court rulings interpret and apply the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been doing this from the very beginning. And the amazing thing is that despite your protestations, every government at every level in the United States is going to follow what a judge or group of judges says they can or cannot do.
b) Nobody in this case is challenging the power of Congress to "regulate immigration". Congress has the power to grant US citizenship to all the illegals. But "regulating immigration" is not what this case is about. As long as they're illegal, they are outside of the Congressional power with respect to immigration.
The issue is the exclusive power to regulate immigration. Immigration does not just have to do with naturalization. If someone is present within the borders of the United States, regardless of their civil status in relationship to any other sovereign state, they are within the power of Congress with regard to whatever their status is in the United States. To suggest that they are not subject to the federal government because the federal governmnet has not issued them with documents is patently ludicrous.
c) Fong Yue Ting v. United States is a funny example for you to cite. In that case Congress really was "regulating immigration". In other words, it is the exact opposite of what Congress is doing at present.
This is a nonsense statement.
Federal government is at odds with the Constitution, which confers no unique power over illegals to the Feds. And I notice you don't even try to argue that it does, preferring your usual tack of argument by assertion. Cite me the Constitutional basis for your position or else drop it. And by "Constitutional basis" I mean cite the Constitution, not some court opinion.
The federal government does not need a unique power over those who are in the United States without the permission of the government. It is not the government's grant of permission that gives the government power over them. It has inherent power by the very nature of its sovereignty.
This can be contrasted with the fact that you do not have inherent power to demand that I offer you a particular citation or else cease to discuss a particular matter. If you are dissatisfied with my understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence you can choose to no longer discuss it with me and frankly I shall not loose any sleep over that outcome.
Now, it is true that the individual states cannot make up their own rules for how legal non-citizen immigrants can be treated. Such people are in a sense the guests of the Feds. But illegal aliens are criminals, outlaws, outside the law. They are not in fact "immigrants" at all in the legal sense, and therefore arguments about the power of the Feds to make law concerning the treatment of real immigrants have no bearing on the matter.
I cannot imagine where you get the legal basis for this argument. Anyone who was previously domiciled in one country and changes that domicile to another country is an immigrant. That's what the term means. It doesn't matter whether they change that domicile with the permission of, or at the invitation of, the country to which they move. They may be forced to change their domicile back to the first country as a result of not having permission from the second country, but whether or not someone is an immigrant is soley a matter of their intent.
That a person has committed a crime does not make them outside the law. That is ridiculous. They are subject to the law or else they could not be sanctioned under it. As such they are also entitled to the civil rights protections of the law. It makes no sense to say that only the federal government can tell people they can live in the United States, but any political subdivision can tell them they must leave the United States.
Posted by: Sol at July 30, 2010 01:14 AM (E7j8Q)
15
It makes no sense to say that only the federal government can tell people they can live in the United States, but any political subdivision can tell them they must leave the United States.
You are a remarkably dishonest person. It makes perfect sense in the case of people who the the federal government has never given permission to live in the Unites States to. Your statement insinuates that the federal government told them they can live here and the states are trying to expel them.
whether or not someone is an immigrant is soley a matter of their intent.
That's not the legal definition of "immigrant". There is no basis in law for describing somebody as an "immigant" simply for "intending" to be one. After all, you've been arguing up till now that Congress has the sole power over immigration - all of a sudden it is the sole decision of the would-be "immigrant"?
I've looked in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and its subsequent modifications, and I don't see your definition there. Care to cite the relevant section?
I repeat - Congress has the power to grant US citizenship to the illegal aliens, or to give them some other sort of legal status. Until it does so they remain illegal aliens and are not in any sense "immigrants". Since they are not immigrants they are not covered under the power of Congress to regulate immigration.
Posted by: flenser at July 30, 2010 02:17 PM (jMbKZ)
16
That a person has committed a crime does not make them outside the law.
The fact that a person is not an immigrant does mean that they are not covered by laws pertaining to immigrants.
you do not have inherent power to demand that I offer you a particular citation or else cease to discuss a particular matter.
In other words you are incapable of locating any part of the US Constitution which supports your position, but you're not going to let that minor impediment get in your way. Thanks for clearing that up.
If someone is present within the borders of the United States, regardless of their civil status in relationship to any other sovereign state, they are within the power of Congress with regard to whatever their status is in the United States.
Congress certainly has the power to grant these "someones" a legal status within the United States. In truth Congress can grant that status even to people outside the United States. But with respect to the people in question here, Congress has not done so. In fact Congress has done the opposite - it has passed laws which exclude illegal aliens from normalized status within the US, which make illegal aliens illegal.
In point of fact Congress is not on your side on this matter, it's on mine. The branch of the Federal government which is seeking to grant de-facto legal status in America to illegal aliens is not Congress, but the executive branch. It is the executive branch which is defying the law written by Congress and not the state of Arizona. And the executive branch has no legal authority to do such a thing.
Your position is not a defense of Congressional power, it is a defense of executive privilege. You are arguing that if the President chooses not to enforce the law Congress has passed, the states may not do so either. That position is legal garbage.
Posted by: flenser at July 30, 2010 02:42 PM (jMbKZ)
17
That's not the legal definition of "immigrant". There is no basis in law for describing somebody as an "immigant" simply for "intending" to be one. After all, you've been arguing up till now that Congress has the sole power over immigration - all of a sudden it is the sole decision of the would-be "immigrant"?
I've looked in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and its subsequent modifications, and I don't see your definition there. Care to cite the relevant section?
8 USC §1101(a)(15)
The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens— and you can read sub-sections A through V, just as I have done tonight, and you will see that entering the US without the proper documentation is not excepted. You will also see that the statute repeatedly refers to "an alien having a foreign residence which the alien has no intention of abandoning" as one of the criteria for most of the exceptions (the few instances when it is not involve spouses of citizens and children of spouses of citizens, and a few bits like that). That is because it is settled in law from time immemorial that whether one is an immigrant, that is, one has established a domicile in another country, is dependent upon the intention of abandoning the previous domicile.
Even in defining the term for the purposes of a specific statute (not defining the term for all legal purposes), the universal definition of the plain meaning of the term is applied.
Your grasp of the most basic concepts of law and jurisprudence can be equated to fingernails on the edge of a precipice. Nonetheless you cannot but involuntarily attempt to attack the hand that tries to pull you up and set you on solid ground.
I repeat - Congress has the power to grant US citizenship to the illegal aliens, or to give them some other sort of legal status. Until it does so they remain illegal aliens and are not in any sense "immigrants". Since they are not immigrants they are not covered under the power of Congress to regulate immigration.
You can repeat it all you want. Just keep clicking your heels while saying, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home." Even if somehow they were not defined as immigrants under the statute, your legal argument holds no water. However, the definition is there in 8 USC §1101(a)(15). Therefore by using your own reasonsing, since the statute defines them as immigrants, they are covered under the power of Congress to regulate immigration. They would be covered anyway, but frankly it's satisfying to see you hoisted by your own petard, even if you lack cognisance of both the hoisting and the petard. (This satisfaction is no doubt terribly unchristian of me, but since you have already adjudged me elsewhere as not much of a Christian - if even a Christian at all - adjudged with about the same level of theological expertise as your legal expertise - surely this doesn't come as a surprise to you.)
The rest of what you have written is such complete and utter nonsense, to use the technical legal term for it, it wouldn't even make sense to try to respond to it. Please be clear on this. I am not conceding to your arguments. One cannot concede to codswallop.
Posted by: Sol at July 30, 2010 10:17 PM (Q8Au0)
18
Sorry Sol that you can't find the Corner on the NRO blog site. I will, even after reading more discussion and evaluation, continue to express my concern that the central government can and will either through the power of the courts or the power of money disenfranchise the voters of their right to determine policy. You remember the old SDS slogan "Power to the People"
Posted by: bman at July 31, 2010 12:35 AM (l4ZrI)
19
bman, I have now gotten the Corner to load properly and have read Andy McCarty and Heather Mac Donald on the Bolton ruling. I agree with Heather that section 3 does potentially pose some problems.
I think Andy is a little off on the idea that Congress in concerned with law and the Executive branch with politics and his statement that we are a body politic and not a body legal. I understand the point he is ultimately trying to make that the more it looks like a political battle between Arizona and Obama, Obama is left politically exposed, so Obama wants to couch the battle in terms of the law. I think that's a pretty fair observation.
My point is that the judge's ruling is couched in law. Both McCarty and I agree that this is why the administration brought the suit. McCarty thinks it is bad law. I think it is a bit of a mix. I think both are reasonable conclusions - there is plenty of room for reasonable minds to differ on the law, even as there is to differ on the politics.
My original reason for commenting on this thread was not to approve or disapprove of Bolton's ruling, but rather to dispel the misconceptions about it that Neo, Jehu and emdfl appeared to entertain.
Posted by: Sol at July 31, 2010 06:22 PM (/+Mh1)
20
because its unforced action engages the helping presences of the Tao—the force of Nature that make things happen, and endure. These presences are what the I ChiKeep an eye out for trouble,¡¡¡¡And you invite it in.¡¡¡¡Make wealth your sole objective¡¡¡¡And your heart will grow rigid as ice.¡¡¡¡Let fame define you¡¡¡¡Anding the Cosmic rhythm. ¡¡¡¡We have a phrase in vernacular English for what Lao Tzu is describing here: it is called "paralysis by analysis." Nothing so stiffenss from this saturation of thought is a kind of hypervigilance and obsessive doubt known in both medical and popular pathology as paranoia. We run the same destr destiny. The correction to all of this is direct and immediately available: we can step off the treadmill and renounce the expectations that have been burned i paranoia, this constant, fearful referencing of experience and phenomena to the bizarre self-interest of a solipsistic world-view. The foundation of this world
Posted by: Vetement Ralph Lauren at May 24, 2011 03:45 PM (L6TMn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I was wrong.
The Afghan War documents published by Julian Assange and Wikileaks aren't just a compendium of old news. It also includes the names of Afghan nationals that have been trying to help defeat the Taliban, and now puts
.
The real suspected traitor in this mess is U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the analyst who bragged to a white hat hacker that he had stolen over a quarter-million military and diplomatic documents and sent them to WikiLeaks. Manning was taken into custody earlier this year after being fingered by the military as the source of the Apache gun camera footage Assange turned into a propaganda film called "Collateral Murder" that Assange used for fund-raising and not a little self-promotion. Manning is also the primary and obvious suspected leaker of these documents, which may be part of the $250,000 he stole.
that Manning should be charged with treason. If he is found to be the source of those documents, his only choice should be between rope, bullets, or a needle.
to do with this, at all.
Ignorance of the law is no defense, but her apparent attempt to cover-up the serial numbers of the NVGs she was smuggling seems to indicate she was well aware of what she was doing, and simply very bad at stealing the technology.
A squad of soldiers is given orders to go out and capture a high-value terrorist target in the mountains of Afghanistan. During a firefight, the target is killed, but the combat rages around them, and they are unable to retrieve the body for identification.
One of the soldiers improvises... and may now face charges. I don't see why.
The Afghans are horrified, and the spineless British, of course, seem intent on punishing the soldier for doing his job to the best of his ability.
Was the beheading barbaric? Did it horrify the Afghans, and strike fear into the hearts of the Taliban and al Qaeda?
.
The idea of "winning their hearts and minds" is wonderful, in theory, but striking fear into the hearts of your enemy and those who would aide them is a tactic that has been just as effective throughout history.
Let the Taliban sweat.
Sure, there isn't much in the way of news in WikiLeaks frantically-promoted Afghanistan War Diary, but doesn't Julian Assange have fantastic hair? After all... that's what this is really about.
.
I can only imagine that we will soon be treated to fantastical claims of tanks driven by Fred Barnes and Karl Rove chasing Iraqi dogs though plate glass windows.
Apparently the District Attorney and the accuser in the infamous Duke Lacrosse rape hoax weren't the only loons involved in the case.
Vetting. People in Durham should try some.
There is still no word publicly on why the men left their base alone.
If you don't, you deserve the scorn you get.
Dan Riehl has done some digging and found out why the media made Shirley Sherrod disappear so quickly. It seems both racism and Marxism run deeply in her family, including her husband, Charles Sherrod, who has no use for "the white man and Uncle Toms."
to read the rest.
attack Andrew Breitbart for the video excerpts he released of Shirley Sherrod (full disclosure: Brietbart sites Big Government and Big Journalism carry some of my blog entries, but no money changes hands), when anyone who watch the full video would note other references she made during the speech that reveal she does, in fact, view the world through a racial lens.
. Like Cindy Sheehan before her, the media gave her plenty of rope, and she hanged herself quiet violently with it. She exposed herself as being a liability instead of a useful idiot, and so her expected opportunity to turn the rare "full Ginsburg"
.
There needs to be a term for those inconvenient ideologues exposed at their expected apex in the news cycle, who are then ostracized by the media, never to be heard from again.
The "full Sherrod" seems just as good a name as any.
Sunday morning and afternoon came and went without an update, and so I sent both of them the following email:
Dvorak answered within minutes.
I wrote back to her, noting that she no direct evidence of any ranches being taken over, was ignoring the two local media outlets that dispute that such an event took place, the repeated disavowals from the Laredo PD, Web County Sheriff's office, Border Patrol, and FBI to multiple reporters and bloggers.
I noted she can't provide any evidence to support her story, and was not likely develop evidence to support it. I told her that at this point, she should issue a retraction, mentioning that her LE sources have made claims, but that they are contradicted by multiple agencies and Laredo media, both print and television.
Her response was even more telling.
The bolding, of course is mine. Kimberly Dvorak, Examiner.com's San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner, doesn't have any proof, but she's going to stick by her story... because. So much for her ethics.
... dead silence. No response to email. No updates on his blog, and the last update citied Dvorak's post as "
Dvorak is going to try to ignore her duty as a journalist and refuses to retract an article she cannot support with facts. Apparently, she is fine with destroying what reputation she has, and that is entirely her prerogative.
I hope that Digger is a bit wiser. Time will tell.
.
is that it perfectly encapsulated the racist and racialist divisiveness of the Obama White House, an Administration that has put relations into a dedicated tailspin every time it has opened its mouth.
of the White House, not Fox. The White House had her ousted before Fox News played so much as one-second of tape.
Howard Dean has always been somewhat crazed, which is why his fellow Democrats couldn't stand the thought of him being their Presidential nominee. But to blame Fox for Obama's racism?
That's a long stretch, even by Deans' standards.
As bizarre as the Invasion of Laredo is as a story, the most disappointing this about it thus far isn't that a handful of conspiracy theorists could concoct such a story, but that our federal government has created the conditions for such a flight of fancy to appear absolutely possible.
We are a nation governed by generations of Republicans and Democrats that desire an open border for nefarious political reasons, led by a President, U.S. Attorney General, and Congress that do not every pretend to care about the lives of American citizens or the sovereignty of our nation. We are citizens abandoned, adrift, and worried about our future, threatened by a very real and very violent war between Mexican authorities and powerful drug cartels.
Given all this context, all the evidence of failure of a government unwilling to protect our national sovereignty or our citizens, and it isn't difficult to understand how a story like the Laredo ranch invasion seems entirely plausible.
Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder have failed us. This invasion may have been a hoax, but at the same time, it serves as a very real reflection of their incompetence.
Tell Chuck Norris to stand down. Invasion USA never happened.
I contacted both the Laredo Police Department and the Webb County Sheriff yesterday and
that Los Zetas gunmen from the Gulf Cartel has crossed the border from Mexico and took over two ranches in Texas. The Laredo
. Pro 8 News, the NBC affiliate, didn't think enough of the absurdity to even comment on it... they found the
more newsworthy.
Absurdly, the same trio of sites that cried wolf are still sticking by their story, utter lack of credible evidence aside.
publisher John G. Winder is
, not because any additional evidence has been produced, but because the two sources for his version of the story, blog
are standing by their militiamen and anonymous police sources.
of the original Digger's Realm story.
and a San Diego California Minuteman named Jeff Schwilk who claims he got his information from... an anonymous Laredo PD officer.
San Diego County Poltical Buzz Examiner Kimberly Dvorak? She claims her information
from two anonymous Laredo PD sources.
Are we noticing a pattern here? Every bit of of this claim, which has now scattered far and wide across the Internet, can be traced back to two anonymous police department sources of a police department that does not even have jurisdiction where the alleged invasion is taking place.
I invite Digger and Kimberly Dvorak to provide me with the names and contact information of their anonymous police sources. Perhaps the officers will provide me with the answers to two simple questions that neither blogger has apparently thought to establish yet.
It seems rather odd that the stories promoting this claim say that people were forced out, but that neither has thought to name, locate, or try to interview the best possible eyewitnesses. That is what you would expect from competent journalists. We're not seeing it here.
Instead, we're offered a conspiracy theory where law enforcement at every level, the media, and the citizens of Webb County are conspiring to cover up an invasion by a handful of drug dealers.
Laredo Truthers? I think we've found some.
My curiosity got the better of me, and so I called the Laredo Police Department, and had a delightful chat with the acting watch commander, Sgt. Perez.
Sgt. Perez informed me that I was her seventh caller about this claim since she came on duty this afternoon. She stipulated two things that blows holes in the invasion claim.
She also provided me the number of the Webb County Sheriff's Department. The deputy that answered the phone there was less amused, having also dealt with this rumor multiple times in a short amount of time. She also told me that there was no invasion and no law enforcement siege, and that deputies were continuing normal operations.
Don't believe the hype.
as well.
If there is any truth at all to this story, there will be several simple, easily discoverable facts.
1
Thanks for posting this!
Posted by: David Ritko at July 24, 2010 05:50 PM (MQlzc)
2
Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas
Two sources inside the Laredo Police Department confirmed the incident is unfolding and they would continue to coordinate with U.S. Border Patrol today. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The full story is here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d24-Los-Zetas-drug-cartel-takes-control-2-US-ranches-in-Texas
Posted by: Mutnodjmet at July 24, 2010 06:22 PM (q3SFp)
3
Mutnojmet,
You trust a writer plagiarizing an article from a dubious news source, reprinting a blog entry, that cites anonymous sources in a law enforcement agency not even in the jurisdiction of the alleged event?
I have some oceanfront property for you...
Posted by: Dufus at July 24, 2010 06:39 PM (CwGYU)
4
I have been cautioning folks, be VERY careful in re-posting this story, NONE of the news services have it, no other source in Texas has it besides The Cypress News...
I called the Laredo Police and they said they have NO information and referred me to the Webb County Sheriffs Office, I called the Webb County S.O. and got NO answer...
I am NOT going to post this on MY blog, simply because one paper doesn't give enough citation of source... Especially when the paper says the Laredo PD is their source and the Laredo PD denies it...
Posted by: TexasFred at July 24, 2010 06:58 PM (izZ0s)
5
Not so fast. Maybe yes, maybe no. I actually DID speak to the Webb County Sheriff's and they would not confirm or deny that any ranches had been seized. They pleaded agnosticism.
I just spoke to Kimberly Dvorak who I know and has been a source on ACORN and other stories for Breitbart's sites. Kimberly wrote this article on the situation this morning:
http://is.gd/dEXq0
Kimberly is adamantly standing by her story, and gave me the name of one of her three sources inside the Laredo Police Department and Webb County Sheriff's Department she says not only confirmed the story of the ranches being seized, but elaborated in great detail what was happening. She also has other sources on the ground, non-law enforcement. She is mid-stream in developing and further reporting the whole story, and she has reason reason to believe that law enforcement is in mid-operation on the ranches, and do not want their operation interrupted with publicity before they are finished.
Given the shootout that occurred on the 22nd, it would also make some sense that the ranches were simply "seized" by retreating Zeta gunman.
Kimberly has a very long record as a very credible journalist, with established sources inside the Mexican cartels themselves.
I have no idea what quite is or isn't going on here, but I say let's give ol' Kim the hours ahead to track all this, and flesh it out, one way or the other. She's asked for the rope, and I'm giving it to her.
As someone else likes to say:
Developing...
Posted by: Pat Dollard at July 24, 2010 07:26 PM (E08Ey)
6
Well, she's going to twist on that rope Pat.
Let's look at one widely verifiable fact:
Google map the location the source claims the incident happened at.
The is NO "Minerales Annex Road" in or near Laredo TX. There's a Mines Road there but nothing else I can see.
Posted by: vanderleun at July 24, 2010 07:30 PM (NaoVv)
7
Confused internets is confused.
Posted by: mots at July 24, 2010 07:42 PM (DeehY)
8
I've talked to the Laredo PD and the Webb Co. Sheriff Dept? There is simply nothing happening.
Of course, the most obvious clue that this is entirely false is that every news van within 300 miles isn't closing in on these ranches at a breakneck pace. there is no way they'd miss the show... you know, if it was real.
When this is over, I have a sad feeling a lot of bloggers are going to lose their credibility because they were all too willing to repeat a fantastic rumor without doing any of the easily done legwork to see if it was remotely credible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2010 07:53 PM (CwGYU)
9
Google map the location the source claims the incident happened at.
The is NO "Minerales Annex Road" in or near Laredo TX. There's a Mines Road there but nothing else I can see.
Try googling "Minerales, Laredo, Texas"... there is indeed the location! And right next to Mines Road! Don't always trust Google either.
I stand by the story we broke this morning. I stand by Kim.
So much so, that I have written a follow-up:
Why The Los Zetas Ranch Story Matters - Confirmation And Why A Media Blackout?
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003440.html
You want to know why her story and mine match up? Some of my initial breaking story relied on some of her info and her info relied on the info I had put together earlier on the Los Zetas.
Everyone always thinks someone is trying to pull something over on them...
Posted by: Digger at July 24, 2010 08:06 PM (HVBCA)
10
I stand corrected and withdraw my earlier assertiøn.
Posted by: vanderleun at July 24, 2010 08:16 PM (NaoVv)
11
About the road. Why local police are denying and why no intense local news coverage still puzzles.
Posted by: vanderleun at July 24, 2010 08:17 PM (NaoVv)
12
"When this is over, I have a sad feeling a lot of bloggers are going to lose their credibility because they were all too willing to repeat a fantastic rumor without doing any of the easily done legwork to see if it was remotely credible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee"
Could be, but even the AP is reporting this as fact:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/24/gunbattles-paralyze-mexican-city-across-from-texas
Posted by: Karen S. at July 24, 2010 08:24 PM (2EqeT)
13
Digger, that fact that you and Kim cite each other hardly builds our confidence. If anyhting, it sounds like a classic definition of the blind leading the blind.
Karen, you need to discern the difference from Nuevo Laredo, the city in Mexico the AP article is about, and Laredo, the city in Texas.
Oh... and the local media is calling this story B.S. as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2010 08:39 PM (CwGYU)
14
Too many things line up here, CY... I think we might not have been invaded like D-Day; but we sure have like Pancho Villa...
Not to mention the 12-30 million "document-challenged guest-workers," the victims of human trafficking, the ID thieves, and their baggage train... because 12 Million foreigners entering a country illegally is an invasion, even if they do mow lawns, pick cabbages, and cook donuts for cash under the table and don't commit Social Security Fraud, Income Tax Evasion, drive without a valid license or insurance, send their kids to school without the right shots, etc...
Posted by: setnaffa at July 24, 2010 08:45 PM (aXIWz)
15
"Karen, you need to discern the difference from Nuevo Laredo, the city in Mexico the AP article is about, and Laredo, the city in Texas."
Yeah, I know, it's not as if Americans could die from ongoing gun battles across the street or something. The bullets stop at the border like in a WB cartoon, then the gunfire goes through customs.
Posted by: Karen S. at July 24, 2010 08:48 PM (2EqeT)
16
Yes, there are gun battles in Nuevo Laredo. Yes, people could die from errant gunfire.
But Karen, you tried to claim that the article you linked supported the hoax of cartel members taking over a pair of ranches. It did nothing of the sort. Simply admit you made a mistake. We won't think any less of you for it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2010 08:53 PM (CwGYU)
17
From someone near the scene, who knows Kim Dvorak and is monitoring the situation: "RE: Laredo: I just spoke to Kimberly Dvorak who has been a source on ACORN stories for Breitbart, and wrote this article: http://is.gd/dEVcy. Kimberly is adamantly standing by her story, and gave me the name of one of her three sources inside the PD/Sherrif’s Dept., two of whom…she says not only confirmed the story of the ranches being seized, but elaborated in great detail what was happening. She also has other sources on the ground, non-law enforcement. She is mid-stream in developing and further reporting the whole story, and she has.. reason to believe that law enforcement is in mid-operation on the ranches, and do not want their operation interrupted with publicity before (23 minutes ago via web)
http://patriotresistance.com/DEFCOM-STATUS-PAGE-2.html
Furthermore, Breitbart is confirming:
http://bigpeace.com/stzu/2010/07/24/breaking-news-multiple-ranches-in-laredo-texas-taken-over-by-los-zetas/
Additional details, with a classic "we can neither confirm or deny" twist are here:
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/07/mexican-drug-cartel-seize-texas-ranches-laredo-police-we-cant-say-anything/
Posted by: Mutnodjmet at July 24, 2010 09:02 PM (q3SFp)
18
"Yes, people could die from errant gunfire."
Well, that's a good start at least.
But since there are conflicting reports, as commenters here have noted, it's wise to wait to see what's what when the dust settles.
Posted by: Karen S. at July 24, 2010 09:03 PM (2EqeT)
19
Even assuming the facts of the story, it's still wrong on the law.
Under both international law and domestic law, the state of war can only exist between two nations.
Given that the Los Zetas drug cartel is a private organization, this is criminal activity, not casus belli.
Presumably, the quoted officer was speaking hyperbolically.
Posted by: M at July 24, 2010 09:06 PM (gtHtl)
20
"a classic "we can neither confirm or deny" twist are here"
Yes, if there is an ongoing problem, e.g. hostages, home invasion, violence, it's not likely that a receptionist is going to give the details to a blogger who's ringing her up. However, there are valid reasons why, if this is an ongoing situation, they're not issuing an official flat out denial or confirmation statement. Instead we're just getting leaks from the PD and other sources.
Posted by: Karen S. at July 24, 2010 09:10 PM (2EqeT)
21
Hey mutnodjmet, that was me on this comment thread and my website; man, it is funny and hard keeping track of fast-flying information on a breaking story of this size and nature, so perhaps we should all cut each other a little slack as we all do the best that we can, as honestly as we can.
After my post of this morning, and Bob's post here, both Michelle Malkin http://fwd4.me/YNe and Red State http://fwd4.me/YNd have now joined us in posting the story (clearly acknowledging here the very different editorial slants Bob and I have treated it with)
Posted by: Pat Dollard at July 24, 2010 09:45 PM (+BGkl)
22
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. The Examiner seems pretty confident that it has and is occurring.
Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2010 10:00 PM (GKXDW)
23
Mutnodjmet, Big Peace is "confirming" this by citing the same Examiner article that's been cross-fertilized with Digger's post. There's been no other confirmation independent of those posts. (And anonymous sources don't count.)
Until we see truly independent confirmation, I'm betting this is an Internet myth.
Posted by: Phineas at July 24, 2010 10:00 PM (eabeg)
24
Kevin:
Yeah, that's the thing. You should've heard this broad who wrote the story for the Examiner when I was talking to her. She was swearing up and down that she had spoken to two serious cops who "spilled their guts" about the events at hand. And she's got a decent rep as a reporter. If she's that loony tunes crazy that's she's 1. lyin like that, period and 2. that good at it, I'll be a little suprised. Not entirely, but a little. The one issue that sticks out to me here, is that she DOES have the motive of covering her ass after-the-fact, given that she had already posted it before I spoke to her; however, she already laid her credibility on the line, big time, by writing the story, making the claims about her alleged police sources, in the first place.
I'm about to hit her up on her cell phone again.
Kimberly Dvorak is the writer
Posted by: Pat Dollard at July 24, 2010 10:14 PM (+BGkl)
25
Every blog on the 'net is using Digger and The Cypress Times as THE source, all they are doing is parroting each other...
One of my readers is claiming it's all because the LIBBER media is covering for Holder and Obama... I replied:
I don’t think the *liberal* media is keeping ANYTHING quiet… I am pretty sure that it’s a hoax…
I don’t give a da*n WHO the POTUS or AG is, this is HUGE if it’s real and there’s no way in hell even Olbermann and Tingles wouldn’t be all over it…
If it is real, and if there has been a *forced* media blackout, the Constitution just became a trash basket liner…
Posted by: TexasFred at July 24, 2010 10:35 PM (izZ0s)
26
I believe you mean 'amused' not 'bemused'.
Posted by: Sebastian at July 24, 2010 10:42 PM (EbhIo)
27
There has been no spillover of the current violence in Mexico into Texas so far. None. There are no reputably-sourced claims anywhere that contradict this.
It is, of course, theoretically possible for gunfire from a battle in Mexico to cross the Rio Grande and hit somebody in the U.S. There is, however, no record of that ever happening, ever.
You want something to get worked up about, go get worked up about the kidnappings in Phoenix, which definitely are real, definitely cartel-related, and definitely happening on U.S. soil. Not phantom invasions of Texas sourced to anonymous people in a law enforcement body that doesn't even have jurisdiction where the supposed invasion is happening.
Look, I live right here on the border. I can actually see into Mexico from my home. I've been keeping an eye on the situation ever since the cartel war broke out. But this sort wolf-crying is not helpful. If there really was a ranch invasion, there would be pictures by now, at least of officials turning away people trying to go over to the ranch and see. Even Texans have camera phones, you know?
Posted by: Texan Conservative at July 24, 2010 10:46 PM (zG7cY)
28
A thought here, if as the story stated, families involved are safe, if might be even more beneficial to see how this unfolds. If it is a giant hoax, a better story might be found in who and why. If true then this White House again has egg on its face, rather them, than the bloggers involved. Trust is being attack by the administration, its our best weapon against them and they must destroy it. The fact that many here wish to be careful is in itself a telling truth of the distrust many Americans have in their Government.
Posted by: Rock at July 24, 2010 10:51 PM (0vRFS)
29
I'm just glad the Obamas are on another vacation instead of working too hard on issues like this silly border invasion nonsense, and that so-yesterday economic stuff.
Posted by: Judas Priest at July 24, 2010 10:52 PM (f840n)
30
"If there really was a ranch invasion, there would be pictures by now, at least of officials turning away people trying to go over to the ranch and see."
It's not as if it were unheard of, Texan Conservative - May of 2009:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6432122.html
"FBI: Texas drug cell trains on own ranch
By DANE SCHILLER Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
May 19, 2009
Suspects identified as belonging to Los Zetas are presented to the media after an arrest in last month in Mexico City.
The FBI is advising law enforcement officers across the country that a Texas cell of Los Zetas — an increasingly powerful arm of the Mexican Gulf Cartel drug trafficking syndicate — has acquired a secluded ranch where it trains its members to “neutralize” competitors in the United States."
When there is such an ongoing situation I think it's likely that you're going to hear the details for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Karen S. at July 24, 2010 10:57 PM (2EqeT)
31
It cannot happen here on our soil, and remember, this is Texas.
Posted by: yao Hamilton at July 24, 2010 10:58 PM (bhBsh)
32
This hysteria is very reminiscent of colonial Massachusetts circa 1692.
Posted by: Frederick at July 24, 2010 11:09 PM (VjsLS)
33
We're looking for some credibility here. A fact? A single credible named source? Video? Digger, Kim and Cypress have put this out here and no one is corroborating, but credible sites are refuting....
Posted by: CD at July 24, 2010 11:16 PM (G1p4n)
34
This appears to be a very believable story, but without a credible source I'd be wary about posting this story anywhere. No major news network has picked it up yet and the Examiner...they're not known for their credibility. All news agencies in Laredo haven't even touched this yet, that alone should tell us all something. If local news isn't reporting it, it's probably fake.
Posted by: SD at July 24, 2010 11:22 PM (7LW3E)
35
So if the MSM doesn't report on something it's not real?
I'll keep that in mind...
Posted by: alan at July 24, 2010 11:33 PM (ji9MI)
36
'This appears to be a very believable story'
haah no it does not, yall are performing a smell test knee deep in yr own feces
Posted by: j1mmy at July 24, 2010 11:44 PM (Z4FG+)
37
"So if the MSM doesn't report on something it's not real?"
John Edwards just called to confirm that.
Posted by: arb at July 24, 2010 11:45 PM (cSmSv)
38
All news agencies in Laredo haven't even touched this yet.
[Posted by SD at July 24, 2010 11:22 PM]
Actually, CY updated with a Laredo story. They got nothing.
Posted by: Dusty at July 24, 2010 11:49 PM (3WVdK)
39
The Cypress Times now has a Publisher's Note attached to the top of the story:
"We are now receiving numerous conflicting reports regarding the veracity of this article. Numerous sources on the web (found via Google search) are picking up on this report, just as we did at The Cypress Times. The original writer for this article stands by his sources. If you wish to inquire about the sources, please visit the original story source URL listed in the article body below. I can tell you that as of now The Cypress Times has been unable to confirm the story. - John G. Winder, Publisher - The Cypress Times."
Posted by: Dusty at July 24, 2010 11:55 PM (3WVdK)
40
So if Bob calls local officials and names them but some blogger cites some reporter saying that she spoke to three officials (but no names!) and confirm it, it IS real because the MSM is denying it?
Digger himself, from somewhere far away, can only sputter when somebody who claims to be from the area calls him on it.
Like we need this. Thanks for being tools of the left, digger, et al. Olbermann will be mentioning you on Monday mocking us all.
Posted by: rrr at July 24, 2010 11:57 PM (Th1Xz)
41
When there are 51 dead men dumped in a Laredo TX garbage dump then I'll get excited.
Posted by: russ at July 25, 2010 12:08 AM (IXWYu)
42
Yeah, looks like a rumor that grew legs on Twitter and was reinforced by some "Militia" groups that seemed to want it to be true. It had me there for a couple of hours.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 25, 2010 12:13 AM (ZbLJZ)
43
Hmmmm, with all the BS reporting from credible sources about the Macondo Well blowout and authorities who don't know anything about deepwater drilling (and nothing technical about any drilling) I am very leary of ANY claim on the net.
Just about every "credible" report was nothing but circle jerk reporting. Supposed conservative sites were playing a vid clip from a church that had a longtime card carrying communist pastor.
Posted by: Kermit at July 25, 2010 12:31 AM (ecLbt)
44
Even assuming the facts of the story, it's still wrong on the law.
Under both international law and domestic law, the state of war can only exist between two nations.
Given that the Los Zetas drug cartel is a private organization, this is criminal activity, not casus belli.
Presumably, the quoted officer was speaking hyperbolically.
Posted by: M at July 24, 2010 09:06 PM
******************************************
Tell that to Afghanistan!
al Qaeda is a "private organization" and yet, when they flew some airplanes into buildings it was seen as casus belli. Hell, we took out Iraq as well!
Mexico is out of control. It has no functioning government.
I don't think we need to invade Mexico .... yet .... but we can damned sure go down and secure our boarders.
Posted by: Gary at July 25, 2010 12:37 AM (s0fJO)
45
Tell that to Afghanistan!
al Qaeda is a "private organization" and yet, when they flew some airplanes into buildings it was seen as casus belli. Hell, we took out Iraq as well!
Mexico is out of control. It has no functioning government.
I don't think we need to invade Mexico .... yet .... but we can damned sure go down and secure our boarders.
[Posted by Gary at July 25, 2010 12:37 AM]
The attack by Al Qaeda was not seen as a casus belli with Afghanistan. The casus belli was Afghanistan harboring them, ie, refusing to surrender Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to American authorities.
Iraq had arranged an armistice with the UN as a result of the Gulf War. There were stipulations associated with the armistice for it to be maintained. Iraq had violated them for, what 10 years? We, as a party to the armistice, canceled it.
This, if it did happen, and I doubt it, would not, in isolation, be a casus belli. There would need to be something more associated with it.
Posted by: Dusty at July 25, 2010 01:02 AM (3WVdK)
46
Laredo Times says nothing is happening.
http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2010/07/24/front/news/doc4c4b6b53d2179200438464.txt
Posted by: vanderleun at July 25, 2010 01:19 AM (NaoVv)
47
I was sure it was a hoax, and I'm glad it is. Although if it had turned out to be true, I would be one of many Texans running to protect our border right now; and I have LOTS of 7.62x39 ammo to spare.
Posted by: naman at July 25, 2010 01:23 AM (hNkKl)
48
Texas Conservative said "There has been no spillover of the current violence in Mexico into Texas so far. None. There are no reputably-sourced claims anywhere that contradict this."
there is plenty of drug violence in el paso. dismissing local drug violence as unrelated to the drug violence 100 yards away in mexico is unwise.
Texas Conservative also said "It is, of course, theoretically possible for gunfire from a battle in Mexico to cross the Rio Grande and hit somebody in the U.S. There is, however, no record of that ever happening, ever."
several stray bullets struck el paso city hall a few weeks ago. so yes, it is definitely possible.
as for this story, i can't figure out why these ranches would be taken over in the first place. not exactly a subtle or strategic use of mercenaries to send them to slaughter/arrest.
Posted by: dea ex machina at July 25, 2010 01:55 AM (f39EF)
49
Well, would you believe someone who lives in Laredo?
There's nothing going on.
Local TV station (http://www.pro8news.com/): Nothing.
Local daily newspaper (lmtonline.com): Nothing.
Police department: Nothing.
Border Patrol: Nothing.
Watch commander: Nothing.
Sheriff's department: You can never say nothing is happening, but we'd have told you if anything was going on.
A friend of mine went down Mines Road a stretch and didn't see anything. No lights. Nothing. No roads blocked off. Nothing. Nothing to suggest anything had happened.
Nothing.
Posted by: laredoan at July 25, 2010 03:18 AM (I72Q/)
50
I always suspected Confederate Yankee was a Mexican, now we have the proof. BREITBART WILL UNCOVER THE TRUTH!
Posted by: Sirkowski at July 25, 2010 05:38 AM (UUOoq)
51
Mutjodnet writes "Breitbart is confirming"
Do I really need to add a punchline?
Posted by: Rus Irious at July 25, 2010 07:38 AM (cRDMw)
52
Yes, Breitbart will uncover the truth. Then he will massage it, twist it, remove any stubborn facts that don't fit with his ideology, and release his piece of 'news' to the poor unsuspecting souls who still somehow consider him a credible source.
But whatever happens, it will be Obamas fault.
Posted by: Rick at July 25, 2010 08:23 AM (8dxM1)
53
The cartels don't have to seize anybodies land. The Fed's are giving it away elsewhwere.
http/www.foxnews.com%2Fus%2F2010%2F06%2F16%2Fcloses-park-land-mexico-border-americans%2F&ei=vixMTILpF8T_lgfK56X2DQ&usg=AFQjCNGiXtRt-cETbYgSrmC1ehu7vMb9Mg
Posted by: journeyman at July 25, 2010 08:28 AM (lU49Q)
54
So, has this story been completely refudiated?
Posted by: Tregonsee at July 25, 2010 08:47 AM (LHLNL)
55
Yes he will, Rick.
Then the subject of said twisted report will keep flapping its piehole, proving that Breitbart was right all along.
And it will be Obama's fault.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 25, 2010 08:47 AM (lN56Y)
56
state run media hiding the truth just like the hid the true and full reverend wright story to get the commie racist elected
Posted by: george at July 25, 2010 09:01 AM (HlQQv)
57
just type in your browser " minerales,laredo,tx"
in the search bar of this site it takes you right there with a photo of cross roads mines rd & minerales-quite remote,barren area.
http://www.vpike.com/?place=minerales%2Claredo%2Ctx
Posted by: Grizz at July 25, 2010 09:04 AM (Ogsx9)
58
Having lived in Laredo for 5 long years, and having a spouse in federal law enforcement, let me say that a lot happens down there that the local media and police (and Border Patrol chiefs) don't cover or admit. They know that they're part of 'occupied Texas,' but but they don't want to hurt the tourism for bargain seekers from Houston and San Antonio.Also, be sure to check out the history of local law enforcement in Laredo ( DA Rubio's family, the last police chief, etc..) before accepting their word as gospel.
I have no idea what's going on at the moment, but that area off Mines Road is quite remote, many parts require 4x4s (it can be driven to Del Rio is you have an off-road vehicle.I doubt the reporters went that far out) and the Sherrif's dept. isn't known going that far, either. The Border Patrol can drive through the ranches, but they don't check the buildings, etc....
Posted by: WT at July 25, 2010 09:25 AM (4mvzl)
59
I would like to thank the members of Journolist, among others, for making the news such a wonderful place for cranks, crackpots and rumor-mongers. Before you pubic lice happened on the scene, we thought we could at least trust people in the news to tell us the, you know, news. Whether it fit a 'narrative' or not.
You and your kind really screwed that up, Ezra Klein.
So kudos to you for getting your candidate, Barry, elected. And a hearty Foxtrot Uncle Charlie Kilo You for creating crapstorms like this.
Posted by: MunDane68 at July 25, 2010 09:37 AM (dlS06)
60
The sad part about this story is that in the event that Mexican drug gangs did seize ranches --- there would be no reaction by our federal government and no reporting about the situation by big media.
In this case, you are forced on little bloggers to ferret out the truth, not the NYT or LAT. Any story that reinforces the fact that illegal immigration is harmful to citizens of the USA will utterly ignored as it harms the Democrat Party Amnesty Great Leap Forward.
Posted by: Suckas at July 25, 2010 09:50 AM (x0KXL)
61
I heard that the notorious drug cartel Los Lobos has taken over the American Airlines Center in Dallas. They have released a statement claiming to have a "bomba" of some sort, most likely a suitcase nuke.
Of course BARRY THE DEMORAT AMNESTY TRAITOR TERRORIST SOCIAMALIST COLORED PERSON is keeping it covered up because Glenn Beck says so.
Posted by: Chyron HR at July 25, 2010 10:16 AM (MrKdK)
62
Why dont one of you Texans take a ride out there and get us some eye witness reports.
Posted by: James at July 25, 2010 10:29 AM (NkEXE)
63
James said just what I was thinking. Someone (or a group of people) ought to drive out to visit these ranches. If nothing is going on there should be no problem, if it's for real they should run across road blocks, if so get pictures and GPS coordinates as evidence.
Posted by: Jeff DeWitt at July 25, 2010 10:47 AM (oCkvd)
64
Ooops, my mistake, the road runs to Eagle Pass, not to Del Rio. However, I have friends who have ranchitos out that way, and crossing, break ins, wire cutting have been rampant for years.
This would be in the sector patrolled by the Laredo North sector.
Paradoxically, it's just north of La Bota Ranch, and gated and barbed-wire fenced subdivision North of Laredo on Mines Road largely occupied by FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, and Customs agents who don't want to live in Laredo.
Did you hear the one about the Laredo district judge's son involved in an axe murder, and how the axe disappeared from the evidence room to be used to cut down a Christmas tree, this ruining the evidence? Laredo is a weird, weird place.
Posted by: WT at July 25, 2010 10:47 AM (4mvzl)
65
And to the commentators above who cry "whatever it is, it will be Obama's fault" Well of COURSE it will be, IT IS HIS WATCH. Good or bad or very bad, it IS his responsibility. Don't know what that strange R-word means and implies? Be careful, your socialism is showing....
Posted by: anonymous at July 25, 2010 10:53 AM (7a78H)
66
The truth of this particular story has not been verified, but anyone who believes that there are no mexican drug gangs operating in the USA is not just in denial they are delusional.Even the msm reports arrests of illegal aliens for drug dealing.
Posted by: dunce at July 25, 2010 11:48 AM (9WyfK)
67
Do PD's routinely give out information to folks who call in with questions regarding the activities of organized criminals?
Is it likely the cop answering the phone would say "Er, yeah, they have been taking over ranches,looks like we've been falling down on the job"
Sorry Confederate Yankee, does not ring true.
Posted by: Ontheborder at July 25, 2010 12:05 PM (PJ00b)
68
Excellent investigative legwork, Bob. I linked your post.
Back in April, I blew up the "Special Army Unit" hoax with exactly the same number of phone calls--two.
Skepticism is not only a healthy thing, it's absolutely necessary these days. All the birfers, troofers and other nuts running around give the mainstream media far too many targets, which they gleefully use to paint Tea Party activists and conservatives as wackos.
We on the right need to completely disown these idiots. The "conservative examiner" is becomming more like Prison Planet and godlikeproductions every day. It's a junk news blog and nothing on it should be taken seriously.
Posted by: David L., Lower Alabama at July 25, 2010 12:05 PM (aKcR2)
69
"There has been no spillover of the current violence in Mexico into Texas so far."
Kidnappings don't count? Because I've seen reliable reports of that. Although if I recall correctly not in Texas. I think it was Arizona.
Posted by: M. Simon at July 25, 2010 12:11 PM (5guZ1)
70
The Drug War violence and corruption have been moving steadily north for 30 years.
Mexico is now a narco state. And what is the next state North of Mexico? Let me find a map.
"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."
- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
Posted by: M. Simon at July 25, 2010 12:23 PM (5guZ1)
71
"When this is over, I have a sad feeling a lot of bloggers are going to lose their credibility because they were all too willing to repeat a fantastic rumor without doing any of the easily done legwork to see if it was remotely credible."
Why do otherwise reasonable men and women get taken in by this stuff? I have a theory--I believe that the Obama regime's unwillingness to protect the general welfare leads to people sincerely worrying that everything is coming apart. Anything that fits within that context--no matter how outrageous--is instantly more believable than it otherwise would be.
Posted by: David L., Lower Alabama at July 25, 2010 12:41 PM (aKcR2)
72
"Why dont one of you Texans take a ride out there and get us some eye witness reports."
I would do it for you, but I could get to Florida faster than I could get to Laredo.
Posted by: Sue at July 25, 2010 12:43 PM (qd3PA)
73
Not trying to be snarky, but Texas is big. I live in NE Texas and could really be in Florida before I could be in Laredo. You would probably need someone in Laredo to do the looky-see, otherwise it would be an all day affair, not just a ride out there.
Posted by: Sue at July 25, 2010 12:45 PM (qd3PA)
74
Karen S, a cartel buying a ranch and a cartel seizing a ranch by force are radically different situations. Yes, cartels buy property in the U.S. They even use it for illegal purposes. That's not the same as seizing a ranch by force of arms, any more than violence in Nuevo Laredo is the same as violence in Laredo.
dea ex machina, there is drug violence in El Paso, sure. But the city is reliably, year after year, one of the lowest-crime cities of over 500,000 population, and there has been no increase with the recent violence in Mexico.
M. Simon, read the last paragraph of my previous post and you'll see I specifically mentioned the kidnappings in Arizona as a real issue worthy of getting upset about. It just hasn't happened in Texas.
Posted by: Texan Conservative at July 25, 2010 12:46 PM (zG7cY)
75
Examiner is just a blog site, you can write what you want there. There is no media blackout, no invasion, no act of war. Grow up and get over it, no you will not be acting out Red Dawn with mexican drug cartels. I am not saying it would not be fun, it's just not happing yet.
Posted by: nDjinn Consulting at July 25, 2010 12:57 PM (O2xA7)
76
"Karen S, a cartel buying a ranch and a cartel seizing a ranch by force are radically different situations."
You're right, people would feel so much better if al-Qaida were also _buying_ such training camps. I mean, what could go wrong?
Posted by: Karen S at July 25, 2010 01:06 PM (2EqeT)
77
Truthers, birthers, ranchers...
Posted by: Sirkowski at July 25, 2010 01:56 PM (UUOoq)
78
Ok, even if you want to buy that there is a media black out, there are way too many people who live in the area that if this was happening, more than a couple of anonymous Laredo cops would be talking about it.
Google and other search engines makes it possible to see almost every little detail that's on blogs, fb, twitter, everything. If they were going to block out all discussion of this- why are the Examiner and the other articles not blocked out? If Kimberly was as credible as those who know her say she is, why is she not writing for Breitbart or a credible media site?
Why did the Minutemen pull the call for arms?
The fact that one guy was calling in minutemen as the very first source for this story is damning.
Posted by: Peg at July 25, 2010 02:49 PM (fGl5C)
79
Even if drug cartels are doing it, Karen, buying land in Texas is not a violent crime, and neither is shooting practice. So my point — "there has been no spillover of the current violence in Mexico into Texas so far" — stands unrefuted by your link.
And, per your link, they aren't even training to fight Americans, but Mexicans. So the analogy would be more like a pre-ceasfire IRA training camp being set up in a rural part of the US, not Al Qaeda. It's not desirable, but neither is it a particular danger to Americans.
Your crying wolf does nothing to help protect anyone, Karen. All it does is make sure when something real happens, people will be more likely to dismiss it. Are you deliberately trying to make America vulnerable to cartel violence, by making a big stink over nonexistent threats in order to distract us from the actual cartel crime in Arizona, and discredit in advance possible future reports of actual cartel violence in Texas?
Posted by: Texan Conservative at July 25, 2010 02:49 PM (zG7cY)
80
"Even if drug cartels are doing it, Karen, buying land in Texas is not a violent crime, and neither is shooting practice."
Hey, as long as you're okay with Islamic and/or Narco terrorists coming into the country and setting up training camps, then it's all good.
"Your crying wolf does nothing to help protect anyone"
LOL, had you read the Houston Chronicle story you would have known it was the FBI "crying wolf". Oy.
Posted by: Karen S at July 25, 2010 03:18 PM (2EqeT)
81
Every time TC dispels one of your points, you come up with another, different one, Karen. He points out the legal difference between cartels buying land and seizing land and how it is not a violent crime and you move to him being okay with terrorists setting up training camps in the country.
You even dispel your own statements...you say the violence in in Laredo, he says its in Nuevo Laredo, you say even if its not in Laredo, it could still harm those across the border-
Jeez, just stop it. You keep back peddling so far off the basic non-truth of this story, it's ridiculous.
Posted by: David at July 25, 2010 04:06 PM (fGl5C)
82
"He points out the legal difference between cartels buying land and seizing land and how it is not a violent crime and you move to him being okay with terrorists setting up training camps in the country."
Another person who hasn't read the article about narco-terrorists setting up a training camp, according to the FBI. I didn't know reading had become so passe.
But, by all means, as long as any illegal, violent entity with enough cash shows their capitalist creds via _buying_ ranches for use as training camps, you're more than welcome to give your stamp of approval. I'm not stopping you from doing so. I'm as much for encouraging the free market as anyone, but for some strange reason, I'm just not as willing to give such *interesting* real estate transactions my blessing.
Posted by: Karen S at July 25, 2010 04:19 PM (2EqeT)
83
Stay on topic. This article and his and others comments are about Webb county. No one is denying that there are narco-terrorists buying ranches, but that has nothing to do with this particular rumor and just because we are trying to keep the two stories separate does not mean that we are supporting that behavior, just pointing out that it is not part of THIS particular story.
I have been reading militia blogs regarding this story since last night and they are waiting, literally, with their guns at their side for the go ahead to hit Webb county. They are waiting for further confirmation, and if this reported story keeps getting traction as it is- from 2 blogs yesterday to over 1000 today, then there could be a huge problem with people going off. You are not helping.
Posted by: David at July 25, 2010 04:57 PM (fGl5C)
84
Re the matter of law. What do you call it if the states south of the border are "captured states" as discussed in a recent issue of the New Yorker?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/31/100531fa_fact_finnegan#ixzz0pwllQSXk
Posted by: Ron the Cop at July 25, 2010 05:16 PM (0N0LS)
85
That particular article is talking about Michoacán and La Familia. I would assume since there are Mexican soldiers fighting in Nuevo Laredo, and one of the rumors is that Los Zetas (which are actually fighting against La Familia) fled from them into Webb County, that Mexico is still in control of Tamaulipas.
Again, these are just criminals. If the Mexican army came and took control of property on the US side of the border, under direction of the government of Mexico, THEN and ONLY then, would it be an act of war.
It would like if the minutemen decided to go into Nuevo Lareto and took control of the city, they would not represent the US Government, but if the border patrol did-again, under the direction of congress etc, then it would.
Yes, there is a war on drugs- but it is not, a war on the government of the countries supplying the drugs-only the drug dealers.
Posted by: David at July 25, 2010 05:39 PM (fGl5C)
86
"Re the matter of law. What do you call it if the states south of the border are "captured states" -
Why that's just called the "free marketplace" at work, Ron, good ol' American (well....) enterprise! Just like the government-posted warnings about "no go" areas within the US. Not a problem, live and let live, it's just your everyday international real estate transactions. Give the narco-terrorists a break, they're just doing the home invasions, kidnappings and murders that Americans won't do.
Posted by: Karen S at July 25, 2010 06:46 PM (2EqeT)
87
I too live in Laredo, and can confirm *most* of what WT says, particularly about the inaccessibility of the area in question. There's no way to simply drive out there and check out the veracity of these reports without knowing more about the specific locations involved. These are large areas we're talking about -- and they're private property.
Also, I'm in the La Bota neighborhood WT mentions off of Mines Road, and I can say for *certain* that if something were happening out there, we'd be hearing helicopters, as we often do as BP patrols the area. Today, all's quiet.
Here's my take on this whole thing: Los Zetas running drugs around Mines Road is nothing new. They float it across the river, cut across the ranches, then up to Mines Road. They operate in one area until they're run off by BP, then they move on. Probably a couple of land owners called in to report suspicious activity -- they could have even been threatened -- BP came out to do their thing, some new agent shared the story, and it just got blown out of proportion.
If you aren't familiar with the way things operate on the border, hearing that ranches on the US side have been invaded and seized by roving, "bloodthirsty" Mexican gangs can sound frightening, and indeed, infuriating. I think that's a rather sensationalized description of reality. Border ranches are used by the cartels *all the time* -- some owners cooperate with the cartels, others don't, and most just turn a blind eye -- but really, this is nothing new for us.
Here's something else to chew on: For the cartels, drug running is a business. And doing stupid things like seizing US ranches and drawing in a massive federal response is bad for business....
Posted by: TAD at July 25, 2010 06:59 PM (mtBSZ)
88
It's happening.
it's also the POLICY of the City of Laredo and the Police Department NOT TO GIVE INFORMATION to the public or the media.
how do I know? I had to say that over and over, for the last 3 days!
Where would we be if we told every overzealous paramilitary person that called what's going on?
Posted by: lavozdelanoche at July 25, 2010 08:08 PM (Y93v/)
89
Do you mean this article from the AP?
Read to the middle of the article....
This article is dated 7/22/10
In the middle of the article it stated that on wednesday the following typed above happened.
Same words & everything.
Wednesday would have been 7/21/10, 3 days before this 2 ranch laredo tx incident was reported.
Posted by: hmm at July 25, 2010 08:16 PM (Hx9kQ)
90
forgot the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico
Posted by: hmm at July 25, 2010 08:17 PM (Hx9kQ)
91
Heres another link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38361485/ns/world_news-americas/
Posted by: hmm at July 25, 2010 08:20 PM (Hx9kQ)
92
"There's no way to simply drive out there and check out the veracity of these reports without knowing more about the specific locations involved.- Posted by: TAD"
If there were an incident, it's likely over by now. What doesn't help much trustwise is when there are incidents such as the dam bomb scare which was a secret for weeks -
"Agents feared Mexican drug cartel attack on border dam"
"An alleged plot by a Mexican drug cartel to blow up a dam along the Texas border — and unleash billions of gallons of water into a region with millions of civilians — sent American police, federal agents and disaster officials secretly scrambling last month to thwart such an attack, authorities confirmed Wednesday."
(Houston Chronicle, June 2010 article referring to an incident in May)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7033818.html
Posted by: Karen S at July 25, 2010 08:21 PM (2EqeT)
93
With all due respect, Yank, what number did Sgt Perez give you to call the Webb County Sheriff? I called the Webb County Sheriff because I already knew it was not a Laredo Police matter; however, the sheriff's office proper does not answer the phone on the weekends.
Guess we'll find out tomorrow whether there's any substance to this or not.
Posted by: Jimmy Jingo at July 25, 2010 08:37 PM (7vCyY)
94
@Karen: You're making way too much of that incident, I think. That wasn't really bomb scare, it was just bravado. And it wasn't being kept from the public necessarily, it simply wasn't credible given all the facts.
Don't get me wrong: there's bad stuff happening down here and we need all the help we can get. I've heard (unsubstantiated) estimates that upwards of 20% of Laredo's population is involved in the drug trade at some level. Dopers live in our neighborhood; dopers shop next to us at the grocery; dopers' kids go to school with our kids. It can be scary. But unfortunately, the incidents that seem to be garnering the most attention are over-hyped, non-events. And they distract from the *real* threats posed by the persistent, daily criminal activities of the cartels.
Posted by: TAD at July 25, 2010 09:34 PM (mtBSZ)
95
Apparently Minerales is a colonia, or shantytown of Hispanic squatters. Google map.
As I said Sunday in the meeting in Selma, my theory is that some Zetas went there to collect some drug money, met opposition, and in a firefight withdrew and took refuge in a couple of nearby ranches. By the time anyone could respond, they had escaped the scene, everyone in the area cleaned up and shut up, and we have no evidence other than the words of a few people whose information was second-hand.
There have been other such violent encounters elsewhere, in Arizona, California, and New Mexico, that have followed a similar pattern, except some leave dead bodies. Almost everyone involved has a stake in covering it up.
I spoke to some people Sunday afternoon at a gun show who are attending to security for some ranchers who provided confirmation of gangsters oppressing ranchers in the area, to get them to allow passage across their land without interference. So that part seems to be happening, and has been for a long time.
If nothing else, this made a good start at a dry run, and we can learn some lessons from it, like who we can count on.
So it may not have been a "hoax", but a report that made it seem like something it wasn't, as a long-term seizure of territory, rather than as a transitory incident.
Posted by: Jon Roland at July 26, 2010 09:16 AM (mZR/D)
96
Actually, if you come to my neighborhood in Houston, you will know that Mexico has in fact invaded Texas.
Posted by: Gordon at July 26, 2010 11:29 AM (NH/Om)
97
To David L., I have found no confirmation of the story either, and since the original examiner article only claimed 2 anonymous sources, one should take it for what it's worth. Regarding the wider issue, there are numerous acknowledged facts and travel warnings from the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo MX. These would concern people who are travelling through Nuevo Laredo to the U.S. You can see these outlined here Updated warnings from the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico: possible violence & food shortages http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27692-LA-County-Libertarian-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Updated-warnings-from-the-US-Consulate-in-Nuevo-Laredo-Mexico-possible-violence--food-shortages#
Posted by: Martin at July 26, 2010 04:27 PM (wy40/)
98
"Under both international law and domestic law, the state of war can only exist between two nations."
It's news to me that Gaza is a nation. Clearly a state of war exists between Gaza and Israel when Israel enforces a maritime blockade against Gaza.
Posted by: icr at July 26, 2010 04:36 PM (g+klx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And worse than the often exaggerated claims of the Taliban, ISAF confirms that two soldiers have gone missing.
The obvious questions is, of course, why did two soldiers leave their base without being part of a larger unit? There is something more than a little suspicious about the circumstances. Hopefully they'll be recovered alive and their COs will be able to question them about that.
CNN's Kyra Phillips and John Roberts aren't happy with Andrew Breitbart's exposure of Shirley Sherrod. They're of the opinion that the excerpt of the video he promoted unfairly labelled her a racist (Phillips and Roberts didn't apparently have a problem with their colleague Andreson Cooper, who filmed a segment with Sherrod that proved she is racist).
.
The last I checked, bloggers were subject to the same libel and defamation laws that news outlets were, and neither anchor has established why bloggers should be held to a higher standard than they themselves are.
? Beyond belief.
Progressives, of course, are absolutely thrilled that Obama is laying waste to the Constitution to enact their agenda, and there is no chance at all of them impeaching President Obama. Because of the unspoken code of honor among political thieves, I suspect that even Republican landslides in November resulting in the GOP takeover of the House and Senate still wouldn't result in in impeachment proceedings.
They're all interested in furthering their own power, and thee is little hope that they care enough about the Constitution to set a precedent that might be used against them later.
Unless someone comes up with explicit criminal charges, the only thing that will end the Obama disaster before January 20, 2013 is an act of God... and frankly, I suspect he's got more important things to do.
Impeachment is a wonderful fantasy. It just won't happen.
revelations, I almost with I could take those words back, but at the same time, they make an interesting marker in the continually evolving opinion many of us have regarding this now fired (maybe hired?) USDA employee.