TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_mor ... 6_0_10_0_M

"Shootings against Border Patrol escalating
BY SARA INÉS CALDERÓN
The Brownsville Herald

January 5, 2006 — More than two dozen shots were fired at Border Patrol agents from across the Rio Grande on Friday and Wednesday, marking a large increase in such shootings in this sector of the border, an agency official said.

In fiscal year 2005, there were a total of six shootings, said Julio Salinas, spokesman for the Rio Grande Valley sector Border Patrol.

The shootings reported Friday and Wednesday are the sixth and seventh shootings since fiscal year began Oct. 1, officials said.

The increase in violence against agents is likely due to the effectiveness of the patrol’s enforcement, he said. The smugglers react violently to the Border Patrol’s presence, Salinas said.

“We believe it is due to operations, due to the fact that we are a threat to the narcotic or alien smugglers, and that is one of the ways they react,� he said.

On Wednesday about 7:30 p.m., about 10 shots were fired at the Border Patrol from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande near Veteran’s International Bridge at Los Tomates, said Roy Cervantes, a spokesman for the Rio Grande Valley Sector of the Border Patrol.

A Border Patrol vehicle was hit, but no one was injured, he said.

At about 7 p.m. on Friday, two Border Patrol boats carrying four agents were patrolling upriver from the Veteran’s bridge when 20 to 25 shots were fired at them from the Mexican side of the river, Salinas said.

The agents did not return fire during the shooting which was about a 1½ miles from Wednesday’s incident, and none of the four agents were hurt, he said. One of the boats was hit five times, he said.

“We don’t believe that this is a random shooting,� Salinas said. “Whoever did the shooting had to have the training or had some knowledge of how to use a firearm, because to be able to hit the boat, a moving target, five times in the cover of darkness is very difficult.�

The shooters allowed the first boat to go by with no shots fired and then fired upon the second boat, Salinas said.

Shooters on the Mexican side of the border were most likely involved in alien or drug smuggling, Salinas said.

Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio said his office is investigating the attack.

“We feel that perhaps these people were narcotic traffickers, and when they saw the Border Patrol, it upset their operation,� Lucio said.

The FBI is also studying the incident.

“We’re coordinating with Mexican authorities to determine who may have been the perpetrators,� said Jorge Cisneros, spokesman for the FBI in McAllen.

“The Border Patrol has had a rash of incidents here along the border,� he said. “It is obviously a big concern, since it’s escalating.�

The seven shootings involving the Border Patrol during fiscal year 2006 began are all currently still under investigation, Cisneros said.

sicalderon@brownsvilleherald.com"

What is the reason for not returning fire? Is it political or is there some legal reason why our agents cannot defend themselves against attacks that comes from over the border?

I would expect that the answer to your question is yes to both of those.
Shooting at Mexican nationals across the border, even if they fired first, is a pretty much guaranteed bad thing. The politics are probably the main reason, but the possibility of hitting an innocent, or some one who would suddenly become an innocent are just too high. I am personally getting a little tired our continued appeasement of a government that sees the US as a safety valve for their internal political and economic mis-management.

HighVelocity wrote:What is the reason for not returning fire? Is it political or is there some legal reason why our agents cannot defend themselves against attacks that comes from over the border?

Probably political.

Also, it's natural when under fire from an unknown source to take cover and/or leave.

I've heard that most of the drug runner's in Mexico have private armies. These private armies are generally made up of people with some sort of badge.

Yes, the reason for no return fire against frie from across the river is administrative procedures which are engendered by political ideology. Border Patrol SOP for discharging a weapon is: #1 defense of an Agent's life or #2 defense of an innocent thrid party. Firing at people, shadows or muzzle flashes across the Line will result in the Agent's being fired (if Sector-level people hear of it). The mind-set is: "if they're across the Line, increase the distance between you and them so they'll continue to miss".

I don't wish to complicate the issue, but also in play are the political paranoia which seems to have gripped the Border Patrol brass since (at least) the Johnson administration up to the present day. At one point, under Carter's administration, spies/informants were "engaged" by the Commissioner to be in places and under circumstances that would ensure their arrest by Border Patrol Agents. The purpose of their engagement was to determine the level (if any) of brutality experienced by persons arrested by the Border Patrol.

There are collateral financial reasons that fuel the Border Patrol administration's political paranoia. But suffice it to say that from my entrance on duty to the day of my retirement, the "body count" from unfriendly fire resulted in more wounded or dead Agents than wounded or dead smugglers. This is not because of a lack of training provided the Agents - theirs is the best. It is because of politically-driven administrative policies.

does anyone remember the episode of band of brothers when they were taking the town of foy? there was a sniper in that building and lt. spears told one of the guys, "i want mortars, rockets, and grenades on that building until it's gone." now to me, THAT is how you handle someone randomly shooting at you. are we now a bunch of panty wastes?

i don't get why our oceanic borders are protected by a branch of the military, but our land borders are protected by what are otherwise classified as civilian law enforcement? why not just make the USCG the US border guard and let them have land and water?

Chris wrote:i don't get why our oceanic borders are protected by a branch of the military, but our land borders are protected by what are otherwise classified as civilian law enforcement?

The Coast Guard is a "civil military", whose classification has gotten murkier in recent years.

Until 1967, the USCG belonged to the Treasury department. From then until 2003, they belonged to Transportation. Since 2003, they've belonged to Homeland Security. They never, as an entire service, belong to DoD; but, units are placed under DoD during wartime and for securing foreign ports during naval operations.

If the USCG weren't "civilian", then there would be a Posse Comitatus conflict for their everyday police work, where they ensure boating safety compliance, interdict smugglers, etc.

These days it amounts to a polite fiction to say that the USCG aren't military; they even use a .mil web address. With the militarization of police work, and the "policification" of military forces, the line is pretty gray. But, I'm sure there are teams of lawyers who stay busy in DC deciding just who can do what and stay clear of Posse Comitatus

Kevin