Saw this latest melee at the CA / Mexico border...the poor misguided protesters of the minutemen calling them racists.. they are so ignorant to learn it is ILLEGAL...they are watching for border crossers..

Someone really has to shut those protesters down with the illogic that they have- and their only word that keeps them wanting to protest...strike it already..It is NOT racist...

Also some minutemen HAD guns and the protesters shouted how they werte NOT allowed to but when newsclips showed the discussion of the minutemen organizers..they clearly stated 'some do have guns because they were former cops or had the license to carry them'...either way the mm just walked and/or drove away...

NOTE TO PROTESTERS AND THE LIKE :GO LEARN WHAT ILLEGAL MEANS THEN BRING UP THE FACTS FOR A PROTEST

I don't know what those protesters where thinking going out in the blazing hot sun to scream at some vigilantes.  You might as well stay at home and scream at the bathroom wall for all you'll accomplish out there.
At least the "Minutemen" walked away instead of pounding on them.

Didn't know they were called 'vigilantes'..unless that is because they are vigilant?

If they HAVE permission to do it..they are NOT vigilantes.

Didn't know they were called 'vigilantes'..unless that is because they are vigilant?

If they HAVE permission to do it..they are NOT vigilantes.


Everytime I read about the Minutemen I think about  "paddyrollers".  During slavery they were bounty
hunters paid to return slave runaways back to their "masters". I see the people( sometimes we
forget that they are people) who are crossing as people who are just as desperate as the slaves
were to get to a better life.  The reality of their lives in Mexico is not to far removed from the lives
of the slaves. These people are desperate and risk their lives to come here not because they see a free lunch, what they see is the chance to save their lives, their parents lives, and/or the lives of their children. If that is what it took to save my child I would do it, so would you, and so would the those "paddyrollers"

...the poor misguided protesters of the minutemen calling them racists.. they are so ignorant to learn it is ILLEGAL...



I do not understand this statement.

Didn't know they were called 'vigilantes'..unless that is because they are vigilant?

If they HAVE permission to do it..they are NOT vigilantes.


Exactly.  They DON"T have permission.  They ARE vigilantes.  I think thugs would be a better choice of term, but that's just semenatics.

The border partrol don't want them there, the government doesn't want them there..

Then something is wrong with the WHOLE picture here....


If someone owns a store and others come in to the store to control the theivery problem, but they were not asked...the store owner could have them arrested for taking things into their own protective hands.

If people are voluntarily protecting the border from ILLEGAL law breakers...(ie entering our country without going through the proper paperwork/channels),HOW CAN THEY-THE VOLUNTEERS- NOT BE ARRESTED AS THEY ARE NOT ALLOWEED TO DO THIS ?

Something doesn't make sense here...what is the explanation?

If the minutemen aren't allowed..by the border patrol AND govmt. HOW CAN THEY NOT BE SHUT DOWN OR CHALLENGED???

Our govnt.essentially IS letting them do this so they may be GOOD vigilantes.

It's legal or its not...if it's not why aren't they being dealt with by the authorities?..that's all 

Myself, I do not see the so-called "Minutemen" as vigilantes.  The dictionary definition of a vigilantes is:

One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.


In no way are the Minutemen doing this.  To claim that they are vigilantes, is to also say that a security gurd is also a "vigilante".

"To take law enforcement into one's own hands" means that they not only arrest the person, but they also judge and pronounce sentence.  This is not being done here.They simply apprehend the suspects, and turn them over to proper authorities (or by their mere presence prevent them from crossing in the first place).

And I find the analogy to slavery rather lame (sorry).  Slavery they were leaving a system where they were property.  That is not the case in Mexico.  If you are saying that things are that bad South Of The Border, then we need to get the UN involved with occupation troops, for multiple violations of the UN Charter.

Escaping poverty is part of the "American Dream".  And as I have often said in here, I readily advocate immigration.  But I advocate legal immigration.  I do not advocate the "free for all" that some people seem to want.

We live in a "Post 9/11" wrold.  And there are a lot of people who enter this country who are of "OTM" status.  And a lot of them are hostile to us.  We need to tighten our borders, plain and simple.  And while I think they are foolish to do so, it is the right of groups like the Minutemen to do this, as long as they do not start to take the law into their hands, or abuse those they apprehend.

If any proof of such abuse comes out, I will be among the first to scream for their removal and arrest.

"To take law enforcement into one's own hands" means that they not only arrest the person, but they also judge and pronounce sentence.



No that is not true.  Taking it into your own hands does not have to mean you are judging and sentancing.  Policemen only arrest but do not judge and sentance, so does that mean police are not law enforcements?  Of course not.  They are still law enforcements.

No that is not true.  Taking it into your own hands does not have to mean you are judging and sentancing.  Policemen only arrest but do not judge and sentance, so does that mean police are not law enforcements?  Of course not.  They are still law enforcements.


Now you are splitting hairs.

We can play semantic games all day long.  We all should know what a "Vigillance Committee" is.  Back in the "Old West", groups of citizens "took the law into their own hands", and tried and convicted criminals.  The normal sentence was hanging, and there was no chance for appeal.  They normally existed in areas where there was no law enforcement available, or in areas where the system was corrupt (like 1856 San Francisco).  "Vigilance Committies" also often worked in other areas, like with Abolition groups.  These "Vigilantees" worked to prevent the "Fugitive Slave Laws", and assisted slaves in escaping.  In any case, they work outside of the law enforcement system, in direct contravention of it.

Vigilantees work in that way.  They ignore the legal system, and do everything themselves.  Groups like the Minutemen work with the law enforcement community.  This is the same way that other groups have worked for years.  After all, nobody has accused Curtis Sliwa's "Guardian Angels" of being vigilantees in many years.  Neither is anybody accusing "America's Most Wanted" of being a vigilance committee.  All 3 of these groups try to apprehend or prevent laws from being broken, and turn over anybody caught in the comission of a crime to proper law enforcement.

Myself, I do not see the so-called "Minutemen" as vigilantes.  The dictionary definition of a vigilantes is:

One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.


In no way are the Minutemen doing this.  To claim that they are vigilantes, is to also say that a security gurd is also a "vigilante".




That is exactly what they are doing.  They are not authorized by any gov't body to inforce immigration law, yet that is precisely what they are trying to do.  Have they even ASKED to be deputised by the Immigration Service?

Now you are splitting hairs.


LOL!  YOU specifically said that what makes something vigilante is that they don't just ARREST, but they do EVERYTHING.  Then when I talk about THAT SPECIFIC DIFFERENCE that YOU pointed out, you say that I am the one splitting hairs!  You have very strange logic Mushroom!

Mind you, I don't know that much about these minutemen. But I saw a report on them last night on the news. And they interviewed a border patrol officer about them. He basically said that while they don't condone citizens taking these matters into their own hands, he wasn't going to discourage them from doing it.

The way I see it. These guys (and women) are trying to stop (the report also mentioned that they haven't actually catch anyone) illegal aliens from entering the country. What is wrong with that? I don't care how bad these people have it in their own country, if you want to enter the US there are legal ways of doing it.

And that's hand in hand with what I have been saying...if it is wrong (vigilanteism is)..then why aren't they arrested..that is upholding the law...if they are considered vigilantes and OUR OWN GOVT. is looking away then THEY-the govmt. police, etc... broke the law for not enforcing arrests..It looks like the minuteman are in proper allliance and are properly and legally involved.

That is exactly what they are doing.  They are not authorized by any gov't body to inforce immigration law, yet that is precisely what they are trying to do.  Have they even ASKED to be deputised by the Immigration Service?

You can tell who approves of the "Minutemen."  It's very general.  The minutement are "guys like us protecting guys like us from the unwanted guys who are not like us because the guys like in who are supposed to be doing the protecting of guys like us from guys not like us are not doing a good enough job to satisfy guys like us."  Do you see?

The INS doesn not want them around.  However, the INS are bad government.  Good government builds gigantic weapons, gives us tax breaks, protects our right to bear arms, and protects us from guys who are not like us.  Bad government does everything else.
The "Minutemen," liket th right-wing militias, take their name from America's found not out of the ideal of liberty and justice for all, but because they pinie for the time  when "guys like us we had it made."

And yes, they are vigilantes.  Most vigilante movements start within the bounds of the law.  When push comes to shove, and they're arrested for breaking the law, they become martyrs for liberty.

No demographic in America today has a greater sense of self-pity and victimization than the White Male.

Not sure how the numbers are doing but I thought the 'white males or white race' will be outnumbered soon with the many mixed races now in America which has grown..so the majority of those whites feeling threaten will be another minority and will just have to stand in line like everyone else who got any bad deals...then the only arguement will be 'it's just some whites complaining'..

I have heard though many Mexicans who are for getting the borders secure but does anyone feature their stories? Guess not...

Not sure how the numbers are doing but I thought the 'white males or white race' will be outnumbered soon with the many mixed races now in America which has grown..so the majority of those whites feeling threaten will be another minority and will just have to stand in line like everyone else who got any bad deals...then the only arguement will be 'it's just some whites complaining'..

I have heard though many Mexicans who are for getting the borders secure but does anyone feature their stories? Guess not...

So-called "white" are outnumbered worldwide by a huge ratio, including the Western Hemisphere.
Most of what we call "race" is a crock, genetically speaking, but the idea of skin pigment being a great divider is hard to shake.  Look at how Mexico is divided.  It's quite a shame really.  Castillian Spanish on top, Meztisos in the middle, and Indians at the bottom.  It causes a lot of misery down there.

Minutemen: 15,000 strong for October

You can tell who approves of the "Minutemen."  It's very general.  The minutement are "guys like us protecting guys like us from the unwanted guys who are not like us because the guys like in who are supposed to be doing the protecting of guys like us from guys not like us are not doing a good enough job to satisfy guys like us."  Do you see?


Actually, what I approve of is people who take legal actions when there is a problem that the system is not dealing with.  The Minutemen, Guardian Angels, AMW, if there is a problem with security or law enforcement and the Governemtn (Local, State, or Federal) is not up to meeting the tak, then I approve of private citizens helping out.  And I say it again, as long as they do it legally, and do not take the judging or sentencing into their own hands!


The INS doesn not want them around.  However, the INS are bad government. 

And yes, they are vigilantes.  Most vigilante movements start within the bounds of the law.  When push comes to shove, and they're arrested for breaking the law, they become martyrs for liberty.

No demographic in America today has a greater sense of self-pity and victimization than the White Male.


The NYPD did not want the Guardian Angels either when they started up.  And neither did the Los Angeles Police Department or Los Angeles Sherif Department.  But guess what?  They made areas like Hollywood, LAX, and the bus system safe again.  I was living in LA in the early 1980's when they branched out there.  Back then, it was not safe to go into a lot of areas of Hollywood or McArthur Park.  But that is not so anymore.  I do not think the GA is active in LA, I have not seen them in years.  But once the areas were cleaned up, they stayed clean.

And please don't give that "poor white man" garbage around me.  My son is Hispanic, and his mother is an immigrant herself.  And yes, when we got married she was an "Illegal" (entered legally, was a Visa overstay for political reasons).

However, I do feel that the Minutemen need to be watched.  And if they break the law, I will be one of the first ones screaming for them to be disbanded and those involved prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

No demographic in America today has a greater sense of self-pity and victimization than the White Male.



"White males" don't have self-pity and victimization.  It's a problem when we lump people together by race and sex and economics and whatever and having the mentality that "they" think like this or like that.  I'm sorry, it doesn't matter if you are part of that group or not, it's not fair and its not constructive.  It's like Bill Cosby talking about "black people in the ghetto" like he knows anything about it.  I probably know more poor black people than he does.

Actually, what I approve of is people who take legal actions when there is a problem that the system is not dealing with. The Minutemen, Guardian Angels, AMW, if there is a problem with security or law enforcement and the Governemtn (Local, State, or Federal) is not up to meeting the tak, then I approve of private citizens helping out. And I say it again, as long as they do it legally, and do not take the judging or sentencing into their own hands!

The NYPD did not want the Guardian Angels either when they started up. And neither did the Los Angeles Police Department or Los Angeles Sherif Department. But guess what? They made areas like Hollywood, LAX, and the bus system safe again. I was living in LA in the early 1980's when they branched out there. Back then, it was not safe to go into a lot of areas of Hollywood or McArthur Park. But that is not so anymore. I do not think the GA is active in LA, I have not seen them in years. But once the areas were cleaned up, they stayed clean.

And please don't give that "poor white man" garbage around me. My son is Hispanic, and his mother is an immigrant herself. And yes, when we got married she was an "Illegal" (entered legally, was a Visa overstay for political reasons).

However, I do feel that the Minutemen need to be watched. And if they break the law, I will be one of the first ones screaming for them to be disbanded and those involved prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


I think we are confusing what is legal and what people think is right.  If people break the law they are arrested -- that's simple.  I think some people have a problem with the minutemen because they don't think what the minutemen are doing is right.

Not sure how the numbers are doing but I thought the 'white males or white race' will be outnumbered soon with the many mixed races now in America which has grown..so the majority of those whites feeling threaten will be another minority and will just have to stand in line like everyone else who got any bad deals...then the only arguement will be 'it's just some whites complaining'..

I have heard though many Mexicans who are for getting the borders secure but does anyone feature their stories? Guess not...


And that is a problem in what way?

I do not see the US as a "White Country".  We are a nation of people from all over the world, and that is just how I like it.  When our ancestors came here, they cast off their old national ties to become part of a conglomerate which was all the better for it.  For the most part, we do not go on into details about being "Irish-American" or "French-American" or "Japanese-American".  We intermarry freely, for a large part not giving a damn where our partner's family came from.  For the most part, "Xenophobia" does not exist here.

If some poor ignorant racist pricks are scared that their "White Nation" is dissapearing, then I say it is time for them to dissapear.  Let them continue to interbreed until their kind dissapears from the face of the Earth.  Then the Country of Americans will be all that is left.

"White males" don't have self-pity and victimization.  It's a problem when we lump people together by race and sex and economics and whatever and having the mentality that "they" think like this or like that.  I'm sorry, it doesn't matter if you are part of that group or not, it's not fair and its not constructive.  It's like Bill Cosby talking about "black people in the ghetto" like he knows anything about it.  I probably know more poor black people than he does.

Well, I couldn't stand the Coz even before he started bawling out "black people in the ghetto."  I always found him preachy, condescending, and unfunny.
Not all "white males" have a sense of self-pity and victimization.  Some, especially in super-liberal areas where I live, have a self-serving sense of "white guilt."  But that's a different kettle o' fish.
You will find that "white males" throughout history were at the forefront of lumping themselves together by race, sex, and economics, and lumping all in various degrees of inferiority.
Now they complain affirmative action is "reverse discrimination."  That's debatable.  What is not debatable is that they had no gripe when the shoe was on the other foot!

You will find that "white males" throughout history were at the forefront of lumping themselves together by race, sex, and economics, and lumping all in various degrees of inferiority.


I don't think that's a white male malfunction.  I think that's a human malfunction.  We know more about WMs doing it because we are taught more about WMs (but that's a different kettle o'fish, as you say).  ;) There has been slavery and oppression and hate in all parts of the world, with men and women.  Even Amazons probably had their own system of deciding who was better and worse.  ;)  White men do not cause the trouble in Darfur.  And some whites did not or do not care very much about the stuff Amin and the others like him did, and some of them might have helped them do it, but it was still them doing it.  So I try not to think that some group or race is this or that. 

Why do so many people make a racial issue out of border security? Not only do I applaud what the Minutemen are doing, but if I was a resident of a border state and had the free time to do so, I'd gladly join their ranks. And it's not because I harbor any kind of prejudice towards Hispanics, nor is it because, as a "White Male," I have any feelings of "self pity" or "victimization." It's because I feel that this is a genuine threat to our national security, and why President Bush didn't immediately deploy thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists to both our southern AND northern borders immediately after 9/11 is a complete mystery to me. God only knows how many al-Qaeda sleeper agents may have entered our country and what they might have brought in since then. Bush's lack of concern for border security, coupled with some of the more questionable provisions of the USA Patriot Act, makes me wonder what his true motives are.

Why do so many people make a racial issue out of border security?



Bush's lack of concern for border security, coupled with some of the more questionable provisions of the USA Patriot Act, makes me wonder what his true motives are.


I think what you are wondering is part of the answer to your own question.  I'm NOT saying race is Bush's motive.  But race bigotry is a fact in this country every way around, so I can understand why some people are suspicious about why some people are so angry about Mexicans.

I think even if people agree with a policy or an idea, if the policy doesn't look like its carried out fairly and equally, people are suspicious of why.  Like sure, insider trading is illegal, but when they spend so much time and money going after a famous woman who saved a few thousand dollars, when a lot of other men did a lot worse, I understand why people are suspicious sexism has something to do with it.  If 10 years later, people are still 10 times more upset about OJ  than Robert Blake and Scott Peterson and Phil Specter put together, I understand why people are suspicious race has something to do with it.  If you feel like certain groups see a lot of bigotry and pregudice a lot of the time, it is natural that your suspicious what peoples motives are.  You may be wrong or right, but I understand the suspicion, I have them too sometimes.  Don't get me wrong, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.  But just make sure that goes for everybody! ::)

Make no mistake , I too agree with the minutemen..the string about whites becoming minority is 'facts' from the census bereau..what happens next was what I was eluding to ie..how the whites may be complaining..they wouldn't have to be some macho males..and yes..the whites will get a taste of what it is like to be a minority.

Glad your talking sense on the issue Mushroom and others...as THE RACISM CRY IS THE ONLY LEG FOR THE PROTESTERS TO TRY TO STAND OM BUT IT'S SO WOBBLY THE SPINNING IS MAKING THEM DIZZY..Just recently another group tried raising a protest at the border again with a sign depicting a fist with the  word racists...whenthey come to realize that is not the issue and they LEARN money is being STOLEN from the country by ILLEGALS they'll either become rational or remain idiotic and like being taken advantage of because they don't understand the numbers...

Just WHY DO WE (USA) have to pay for babies, welfare and health of illegals?

THAT SHOULD BE IN THEIR TALKS AS TO WHY IT'S OKAY.      

For the most part, we do not go on into details about being "Irish-American" or "French-American" or "Japanese-American". We intermarry freely, for a large part not giving a darn where our partner's family came from.



Hey, I think that's too bad!  I like chunky stew!  I don't want it all put in a blender to come out like boring mush!  Why can't we keep on being French-American and Italian-American and Filipino-American and German-American and Italian-American and still get along?

I think what you are wondering is part of the answer to your own question.  I'm NOT saying race is Bush's motive.  But race bigotry is a fact in this country every way around, so I can understand why some people are suspicious about why some people are so angry about Mexicans.
I don't think race is Bush's motive either. The question I'm trying to raise is, why has our government passed these new laws which pose a real threat to our privacy and our basic freedoms in the name of protecting us from future terror attacks, while at the same time they've left our borders open to the very people (meaning al-Qaeda agents) who are trying to harm us???

My concern is not so much with the Mexicans who are coming here just to try and earn a better living (although it angers me that at the same time they're coming here, our corporations keep exporting good-paying manufacturing jobs south of the border). Again, my concern has more to do with national security.

It was brought up what I think Kruschev said to Reagan(Kennedy?-bad history memory) as to how the Russians don't need to attack Americans to make them fall apart, they'll do it to themselves!


Some people DO have issues with the whole French-American add ons..as I try to come to terms with it...They can call themselves moonoids ..but the arguement that people with a beef about it come up with is African-American, Italian-American..THAT'S CRAP! If you are born in the USA...YOU ARE AN AMERICAN PERIOD!

I can see their passion from the explanation...many of these people using the  double terms have NEVER even been to the first country they add on..Afican-Americans, do you know any who have even been there or know who the president of the country is... Be an American and be proud.

If you are into your heritage ancestry..maybe change it to I am an American with Spanish background...it's just a show it seems. 

Show your loyalty..AMERICAN only.

Hey, I think that's too bad!  I like chunky stew!  I don't want it all put in a blender to come out like boring mush!  Why can't we keep on being French-American and Italian-American and Filipino-American and German-American and Italian-American and still get along?


Well, to me the important part is what follows, "American".  I do not care where you (or your ancestors) come from.  If you are here and taking a positive role in society, you are an "American".  Anything you choose to put in front of that is purely up to you.

And you are more then welcome to marry whoever you choose.  It is your choice.  Myself, I have had it both ways.  I have married an immigrant, and was engagued to the stereotypical "Blonde Haired Blue Eyed" WASP.  All I ever saw was the person, not what they looked like or where they were from.

Saw this latest melee at the CA / Mexico border...the poor misguided protesters of the minutemen calling them racists.. they are so ignorant to learn it is ILLEGAL...they are watching for border crossers..

Someone really has to shut those protesters down with the illogic that they have- and their only word that keeps them wanting to protest...strike it already..It is NOT racist...

Also some minutemen HAD guns and the protesters shouted how they werte NOT allowed to but when newsclips showed the discussion of the minutemen organizers..they clearly stated 'some do have guns because they were former cops or had the license to carry them'...either way the mm just walked and/or drove away...

NOTE TO PROTESTERS AND THE LIKE :GO LEARN WHAT ILLEGAL MEANS THEN BRING UP THE FACTS FOR A PROTEST




i was actually invited to protest against these vigilantes!!!!

Glad your talking sense on the issue Mushroom and others...as THE RACISM CRY IS THE ONLY LEG FOR THE PROTESTERS TO TRY TO STAND OM BUT IT'S SO WOBBLY THE SPINNING IS MAKING THEM DIZZY..


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/08/minutemen-home-for-extremists_08.html

Yes, no racism at the minutemen rallies at all.. neo-nazis are practically liberals they believe in equality of race so much!

Just because the police aren't chasing after these people to arrest them, it doesn't mean they're supporting them.  It's real easy for these vigilantes to be sitting around or patroling and still be within the boundries of the law.  They don't violate the law until they detain someone.  Of course if you read up on how they physically assault their detainees and then band together and claim they don't, well, the neo-nazi connection appears that much stronger.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they are sued for assault.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/08/minutemen-home-for-extremists_08.html

Yes, no racism at the minutemen rallies at all.. neo-nazis are practically liberals they believe in equality of race so much!

Just because the police aren't chasing after these people to arrest them, it doesn't mean they're supporting them.  It's real easy for these vigilantes to be sitting around or patroling and still be within the boundries of the law.  They don't violate the law until they detain someone.  Of course if you read up on how they physically assault their detainees and then band together and claim they don't, well, the neo-nazi connection appears that much stronger.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they are sued for assault.


This is something that every extreme group attracts.  And it is not just a "right-wing" phenomonon.

The Democrats attract their own fringe.  Anarchists, "Revolutionary Communists", Weathermen, SLA, These and many others are attracted to "Liberal" or "Democratic" activities.  That does not mean any kind of endorsement one way or the other.  Mostly, these fringes are attracted by the publicity they can recieve.

I am curious if anybody has even checked out the Minuteman website?

http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php

I looked through it, and saw nothing in there about race or official political affiliation.  In fact, everybody who applies has to have a background check.  And if you look through the training manuals and SOP procedures, they are very specific about No Guns.  They also talk a lot about NOT trying to act as "Ninja Turtles".  Their job is reporting to NIS, not apprehension.

And through all the protests, I have yet to hear of any of them being arrested for illegal activity.

This is something that every extreme group attracts.  And it is not just a "right-wing" phenomonon.

The Democrats attract their own fringe.  Anarchists, "Revolutionary Communists", Weathermen, SLA, These and many others are attracted to "Liberal" or "Democratic" activities.  That does not mean any kind of endorsement one way or the other.  Mostly, these fringes are attracted by the publicity they can recieve.


yes, but they generally don't march side-by-side at rallies like this example.



I am curious if anybody has even checked out the Minuteman website?

http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php

I looked through it, and saw nothing in there about race or official political affiliation.  In fact, everybody who applies has to have a background check.  And if you look through the training manuals and SOP procedures, they are very specific about No Guns.  They also talk a lot about NOT trying to act as "Ninja Turtles".  Their job is reporting to NIS, not apprehension.

And through all the protests, I have yet to hear of any of them being arrested for illegal activity.


while that may be their official stance, it's not what's happening

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12216243.htm

...the Minutemen in San Diego have being carrying guns -- an invitation for trouble.

I've also seen newspaper reports about illegal detentions by the Minutemen in Texas (can't find it now).

You may not have heard of any arrests, but that doesn't mean they aren't commiting crimes.

This is something that every extreme group attracts.  And it is not just a "right-wing" phenomonon.

The Democrats attract their own fringe.  Anarchists, "Revolutionary Communists", Weathermen, SLA, These and many others are attracted to "Liberal" or "Democratic" activities.  That does not mean any kind of endorsement one way or the other.  Mostly, these fringes are attracted by the publicity they can recieve.



Excuse me, but leftist revolutionary fringe groups despised the Democrats.  The extreme leftists were not democratic, and not even liberal when you get right down to it.
They all thought the Dems were slaves to Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and the racist establishment.  Their diagnosis was pretty much spot-on.  Their prescriptions, unfortunately, were simplistic and juvenile.

Excuse me, but leftist revolutionary fringe groups despised the Democrats.  The extreme leftists were not democratic, and not even liberal when you get right down to it.
They all thought the Dems were slaves to Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and the racist establishment.  Their diagnosis was pretty much spot-on.  Their prescriptions, unfortunately, were simplistic and juvenile.


And on "The Right", most of us feel the same way about our "kooky fringe groups" also.  I would no more support the "Operation Rescue" people then I would the "Neo-Nazi".  I may have some sympathy for some of the "Operation Rescue" beliefs, but I feel they go about it totally the wrong way.

In another board here I made a comment to Cat about my core beliefs.  And the Minutemen is a perfect example.  If you notice, I have not given my approval of what they do.  I simply have defended their right to do it.

I have sat out on the border doing "border patrol" duty when I was in the Marines.  Trust me, there is little more boring and frustrating then sitting on a hilltop in the middle of the Arizona or New Mexico desert, doing nothing but watching the border for "Illegals".  However, it was effective because after less then a month, crossings in our sector decreased almost 80%.

The rights of people like the Minutemen are well founded.  They employ the same right as groups like the Guardian Angels, security guards, and everybody else in this country.  That is the right to perform a "Citizens Arrest".

Wether I agree with them or not is irrelevant to my defense of them (personally I think they are fools doing a purely symbolic action).  They are following the law, and are not doing anything illegal.  And as I have said before, if they cross the line then they should be slammed.

But until they cross that line and commit illegal acts, I will continue to support their legal right to do what they are doing.

And on "The Right", most of us feel the same way about our "kooky fringe groups" also.  I would no more support the "Operation Rescue" people then I would the "Neo-Nazi".  I may have some sympathy for some of the "Operation Rescue" beliefs, but I feel they go about it totally the wrong way.
I heard some of those Neo-Nazi-types say abortion should be illegal---for white Christians, and mandatory for everybody else!
:o

if you want to enter the US there are legal ways of doing it.


I totally agree BUT people like Martin Sheen don't want to have thier "Slaves" that they pay next to nothing to clean thier houses, to be shipped back to where they came from because then they'd have to hire someone at minimum wage at least....and we all know how much they need thier millions ;D ::)

I totally agree BUT people like Martin Sheen don't want to have thier "Slaves" that they pay next to nothing to clean thier houses, to be shipped back to where they came from because then they'd have to hire someone at minimum wage at least....and we all know how much they need thier millions ;D ::)


So it's Hollywood liberals who employ all the illegal aliens?  And they don't know slavery is against the Thirteenth Amendment. Hmmmm....
???

So it's Hollywood liberals who employ all the illegal aliens?  And they don't know slavery is against the Thirteenth Amendment. Hmmmm....
???
Well, Martin Sheen does and he obviously doesn't care ::)

Can't let that slave labor from Mexico ever stop flowing in here illegally, imagine having to pay 5 cents more for lettuce and getting less crime!  What a rip off!

http://www.teamamericapac.org/

So less Mexicans will mean less crime.  Gee, I wonder why those stupid liberals always turn immigration into a racial thing.

So less Mexicans will mean less crime.

I didn't say that.  Crossing the border illegally is a crime (redundant, isn't it?)  More border patrol equals less illegal immigration, and since illegal immigration is a crime, that means less crime.  See how that works?

Mexico is a bad neighbor.

Oh yes, now I understand that's what you mean by criminal.  I'm sorry.   ::)

So less Mexicans will mean less crime.  Gee, I wonder why those stupid liberals always turn immigration into a racial thing.


I do not equate crime with Mexicans.  I never have, and I never will.  But when you have an "underground society" who lives here illegally, and who can't hold down "legal" jobs, there does tend to be higher then normal crime rates.

You can go into a lot of Hispanic areas of LA with no problems at all.  But there are some areas which I would not go into willingly, because of the higher concentration of illegal aliens and criminal activities.  And if you consider that I have lived in both Inglewood and Compton, that is saying something.

  White men do not cause the trouble in Darfur. 


what of the centuries of colonization/subjugation of the African continent by the various European (White) empires? Didn't that  contribute to the torouble we now see???

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/08/minutemen-home-for-extremists_08.html

Yes, no racism at the minutemen rallies at all.. neo-nazis are practically liberals they believe in equality of race so much!

Just because the police aren't chasing after these people to arrest them, it doesn't mean they're supporting them.  It's real easy for these vigilantes to be sitting around or patroling and still be within the boundries of the law.  They don't violate the law until they detain someone.  Of course if you read up on how they physically assault their detainees and then band together and claim they don't, well, the neo-nazi connection appears that much stronger.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they are sued for assault.


hey Chuck!!! I was there that day, confronting all the neo-Nazi skinheads who have been associated with SOS and the Minutemen!!! I was up to my eyeballs with the dirtbags!!!

For their own protction, Nazis were escorted away by the cops!!!!

t was effective because after less then a month, crossings in our sector decreased almost 80%.

The rights of people like the Minutemen are well founded.  They employ the same right as groups like the Guardian Angels,


the Angels do not carry firearms, so your analogy is false

the Angels do not carry firearms, so your analogy is false


Have you read the regulations for Minutemen?  It plainly states "no firearms"!

And even if they do, so what?  As far as I know, it is not illegal in this country to either possess or carry firearms (unless you live in a place like New York or New Jersey).  And a lot of Angels do carry weapons.

Security Guards often carry weapons, but nobody seems afraid of them.  And I am sure that it would shock a lot of people in here if they knew that I used to carry a rifle to school almost every day (I was on the school's Rifle Team, as in shooting rifles).

If the Minutemen, or you, or me, or anybody else wanted to carry a gun and walk along the border, that is your legal right (as long as you are not tresspassing).  YOu may agree with it, you may dissagree with it.  But either way, it is perfectly legal.  Unless somebody can show me some kind of law that prohibits private citizens from walking along the border (armed or unarmed) and carrying out citizens arrests.

what of the centuries of colonization/subjugation of the African continent by the various European (White) empires? Didn't that  contribute to the torouble we now see???

America didn't do that!  America only does good things in the world!  Sean Hannity told me so, so there.
:P

Have you read the regulations for Minutemen?  It plainly states "no firearms"!

And even if they do, so what?  As far as I know, it is not illegal in this country to either possess or carry firearms (unless you live in a place like New York or New Jersey).  And a lot of Angels do carry weapons.

Security Guards often carry weapons, but nobody seems afraid of them.  And I am sure that it would shock a lot of people in here if they knew that I used to carry a rifle to school almost every day (I was on the school's Rifle Team, as in shooting rifles).

If the Minutemen, or you, or me, or anybody else wanted to carry a gun and walk along the border, that is your legal right (as long as you are not tresspassing).  YOu may agree with it, you may dissagree with it.  But either way, it is perfectly legal.  Unless somebody can show me some kind of law that prohibits private citizens from walking along the border (armed or unarmed) and carrying out citizens arrests.

I thought they could carry pistols.
???

I thought they could carry pistols.
???


Here are a few quotes from their SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) and Training Manuals:

No weapons in the San Pedro Riparian area near the San Pedro River. (that is one of their major working areas).

If challenged, you will physically remove yourself from the situation. At this point 'tis better to retreat and preserve the ability to return and fight another day. The idea is for your sidearm to remain holstered for the duration of your visit. There will be absolutely no need to ever remove your firearm from its holster - not for cleaning, not for show-and-tell, not for any reason. By never removing the firearm from the holster, never keeping it chambered and always keeping the safety on and keeping your hands away from it, there can be no accidents. End of discussion. Remove the firearm from the holster for any reason, and your group members will likely send you on your way back home.

Stun guns, mace, pepper spray are alternatives for personal safety, but remember you have agreed to abide by a no contact, no engagement policy, so your safety will never be an issue. Right? (boldface emphasis mine)

Absolutely you will not bring handcuffs our other devices used for the physical restraint of human beings.

A word of advice: you will be held responsible, not just by law enforcement, but by the rules of our society, of mankind. You can be guaranteed that the first response towards any irrational or illegal behavior will come from within your group of compatriots. We will hold each other accountable. Any volunteer who even hints at illegal activity will be quickly ostracized from the mission and will be reported to law enforcement.

The most common problem we face as an organization when dealing with over-zealous
volunteers is what we like to call the “Ninja Turtle Effect”. Many of us here have
backgrounds in military and law enforcement operations, and some see our operations
here as a way to “re-live the glory days”.
To put it simply, for a number of reasons, we cannot. Let’s be perfectly clear about
this: Minuteman Corps has a “Zero-Tolerance” policy regarding Ninja Turtles.
Primarily, Minuteman Corps is not a military-oriented organization and we have no
intentions of ever being one. While we encourage people to dress comfortably while on
the line, we will not accept anyone dressing in full military or “special-ops” garb; it sends
an image to the public that we don’t want sent. The last thing we as an organization need is to have volunteers running through the hills dressed in face paint and ghillie suits;
imagine how Border Patrol and other law enforcement personnel may respond to you if
they encounter you in those circumstances.
Minuteman Corps is a peaceful, non-confrontational organization that has no interest
in being labeled otherwise. If you encounter any “Ninja Turtles”, “Rambos” or other
assorted free-lance weekend-warriors, please report them to your shift supervisor
immediately. They will conform to the SOP or will be dismissed from the operation.

***

So I was partially wrong.  Firearms are allowed in other areas, just not in one area.  But as I said before, it is legal to carry firearms in most areas of the country.  When I worked in a Pawn Shop in LA, I was armed myself.  I would even walk to the bank carrying a pistol on my hip.  The cops never said anything about it, and the people at the bank never said anything about it either.

Check out their web site, it says a lot about their policies and procedures.  One thing I always encourage people to do is learn and research something before you make up your mind.  If you spend your entire life letting other people make your mind up for you, you can end up with a lot of garbage that is not true.

Just today I was looking for a replacement patch for my leather jacket, and found a site which basically said that I was a criminal.  In 1987, I attended the "School Of The Americas", for Jungle Operations Training.  But according to some people, anybody who attended this school is an assasin, war criminal, and murderer.  Good thing I took it with a grain of salt (and a lot of personal knowledge), or I would have to turn myself in to the Haige for justice.  8)

what of the centuries of colonization/subjugation of the African continent by the various European (White) empires? Didn't that contribute to the torouble we now see???


You do not give people enough credit for choosing how they react to situations.  I know you are not saying this exactly, but it reminds me the raceist ideas people have that some races are 'naturally' peaceful and loving and some races are 'naturally' evil and violent.  Like the idea the Native Americans were all one big peaceful happy family until the White man showed them how to make war, and Africans were all one big happy family until the White man taught them how to be corrupt.  A lot of people buy that, but I don't.  We are all human beings and we all have to take responsibility for ourself.  I'm not saying theres not reasons people start to act a certain way, but people choose how they react, there not helpless.  If someone oppresses me, I can make that an excuse to oppress somebody else or I can make that as a reason to be even more humanist.  Everybody has a reason to be angry, believe me.

You do not give people enough credit for choosing how they react to situations.  I know you are not saying this exactly, but it reminds me the raceist ideas people have that some races are 'naturally' peaceful and loving and some races are 'naturally' evil and violent.  Like the idea the Native Americans were all one big peaceful happy family until the White man showed them how to make war, and Africans were all one big happy family until the White man taught them how to be corrupt.  A lot of people buy that, but I don't.  We are all human beings and we all have to take responsibility for ourself.  I'm not saying theres not reasons people start to act a certain way, but people choose how they react, there not helpless.  If someone oppresses me, I can make that an excuse to oppress somebody else or I can make that as a reason to be even more humanist.  Everybody has a reason to be angry, believe me.


you didn't answer the question

Have you read the regulations for Minutemen?  It plainly states "no firearms"!

And even if they do, so what?  As far as I know, it is not illegal in this country to either possess or carry firearms (unless you live in a place like New York or New Jersey).  And a lot of Angels do carry weapons.

Security Guards often carry weapons, but nobody seems afraid of them.  And I am sure that it would shock a lot of people in here if they knew that I used to carry a rifle to school almost every day (I was on the school's Rifle Team, as in shooting rifles).

If the Minutemen, or you, or me, or anybody else wanted to carry a gun and walk along the border, that is your legal right (as long as you are not tresspassing).  YOu may agree with it, you may dissagree with it.  But either way, it is perfectly legal.  Unless somebody can show me some kind of law that prohibits private citizens from walking along the border (armed or unarmed) and carrying out citizens arrests.



to my knowledge the Angels carry radios. if you would like to provide evidence to the contrary......

the mini-men founder said that they would not bring out thei guns on public land. oh well...

here are some pix of the "unarmed" mini-men at Campo, California....

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/07/110039.jpg

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110301.jpg

see the video of the armed vigilantes in action....

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4798759/detail.html


more pix soon!!!!

you didn't answer the question


No centuries of colonization did not cause the atrocities in Darfur.

No centuries of colonization did not cause the atrocities in Darfur.


explain

You do not give people enough credit for choosing how they react to situations.  I know you are not saying this exactly, but it reminds me the raceist ideas people have that some races are 'naturally' peaceful and loving and some races are 'naturally' evil and violent.  Like the idea the Native Americans were all one big peaceful happy family until the White man showed them how to make war, and Africans were all one big happy family until the White man taught them how to be corrupt.  A lot of people buy that, but I don't.  We are all human beings and we all have to take responsibility for ourself.  I'm not saying theres not reasons people start to act a certain way, but people choose how they react, there not helpless.  If someone oppresses me, I can make that an excuse to oppress somebody else or I can make that as a reason to be even more humanist.  Everybody has a reason to be angry, believe me.

I encountered the "noble savage" myth among "politically correct" people at my university.  It is every bit a racist concept as "Mother Earth" is a patriarchal concept.

Tribes and nations have always made war, but there's a difference between war among equals* and colonial invasion.  When European empires invaded Africa, Oceania, and the Americas, they brought superior war technologies, the brought imperial goals, the brought diseases to which the indigenous people's had no immunity, and they brought utter disrespect for the cultures they would decimate.
Naval fleets, horses, and gunpowder enabled a few Europeans to subjugate whole armies of Africans or Native Americans.  Communicable diseases such as smallpox travelled even faster than the Europeans.  By the time the colonial invaders got to some areas, the populations had already been depleted by European disease. 
When indigenous cultures would battle eachother, they fought for control of territories.  War was driven by natural events, such as draught or floods, the need for control of hunting corridors, and of fertile soils.
No one would deny empires such as the Aztec and the Inca were cruel and domineering, but they sought mostly taxation and tribute from those they subjegated.
The European invaders saw the indigenous cultures as inferior and sub-human.  The goal of the colonists was to make the home country rich.  If this meant mass enslavement, genicide, and the methodical stripping resources from all the land, so be it.

The invaded were neither inferior or superior to the invaders, the were just different.  Again and again we find the combination of empire and technology to be the most destructive force on the planet, whether in 1505 or in 2005.

*relative equals.  For example, the Mohawk may have had greater numbers or better fighting tactics than the Abnaki (not sure historically, just a fr'instance) but neither nation had horses or gunpowder.

here are some pix of the "unarmed" mini-men at Campo, California....

see the video of the armed vigilantes in action....


Yes, and I say again, So What?

I read that article.  A few quotes stand out:

In an earlier interview, Gilchrist told Henry the armed Minutemen are within the law.

"Ten percent of our members are retired career law enforcement officers who have a right to carry a concealed weapon and will probably carry -- and you won't know it," Gilchrist said.

Henry noted that on the videotape, no weapons were seen drawn or pointed at anyone, even though the situation between the protesters and the Minutemen became very heated at times.

So once again, have they broken the law?  If they are not breaking the law, then they are well within their constitutional right.

I am always amazed when there are segments of the country that claim to be all in favor of "Civil Rights" and "Constitutional Rights", then they yell and scream when somebody they are opposed to does things that are well within their rights.

I do not care how many pictures you show me of armed or unarmed Minutemen.  It does not amount to a fart in a huricane.  If they are not violating the law, it does not matter.  You might as well show pictures of them driving down the street or filling their cars with gasoline.

And as to the "Guardian Angels", some carry weapons, some do not.  I know for a fact that in the 1980's, a lot of those that worked in LA carried MACE, and some even carried nightsticks.  And even today, they all carry handcuffs (which is something all Minutemen are forbidden to carry).

But even if they do, so what?  It is their right to carry these items.  And a lot of minutmen are retired and off-duty law enforcement personnel.  Are you going to say that they are not allowed to carry weapons?

I will close with the same challenge yet again.  Where is the illegal activity?  Where are they violating the law?  You can show me pictures of armed Minutmen all day long, but because they are not breaking the law, it does not matter.

explain


You want me to explain how something does NOT make something else happen?

I am curious if anybody has even checked out the Minuteman website?

http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php

I looked through it, and saw nothing in there about race or official political affiliation.  In fact, everybody who applies has to have a background check.  And if you look through the training manuals and SOP procedures, they are very specific about No Guns.  They also talk a lot about NOT trying to act as "Ninja Turtles".  Their job is reporting to NIS, not apprehension.

And through all the protests, I have yet to hear of any of them being arrested for illegal activity.


Yet later you say it's perfectly fine for them to carry guns because they are within their rights to carry guns and handcuffs.  Yet they aren't there for apprehension.  Most people don't carry handcuffs unless they expect to use them. 

I guess if they don't have to follow their own rules, no matter how specific they are about it. 

I contacted the police to see if I could walk around with handcuffs(in the event of someone in an altercation with me or I happen to be at a scene of a crime) and they said it was perfectly legal...not that I had to but since I am not armed, I wondered 'what if' I was in the middle of a situation.

NOW..Here's the AUDACITY of the portesters FOR ILLEGAL immigrrants at the border in it with the minutemen...LOOK WHO IS POSSIBLY BREAKING THE LAW NOW!!

As minutemen assemble at an entryway,protesters in trucks with loudspeakers are driving along the border aiming the speakers to Mexico and telling the illegal crossers to move East - where there is no one watching!

How DARE THEY!  This can possibly be against the lawe under the inciting others to commit ILLEGAL action AND THAT IS ILLEGAL!

Shows you who KNOWS the law and who wants to VIOLATE it...the dogs and FLEAS sleep together. 

I contacted the police to see if I could walk around with handcuffs(in the event of someone in an altercation with me or I happen to be at a scene of a crime) and they said it was perfectly legal...not that I had to but since I am not armed, I wondered 'what if' I was in the middle of a situation.


The best thing to do with handcuffs is dangle them from your rear-view mirror.  Helps you pick up kinky broads!
:P

I know, and why carry a rape whistle..they should only be used in discos and skating rinks. :-\\

Yet later you say it's perfectly fine for them to carry guns because they are within their rights to carry guns and handcuffs.  Yet they aren't there for apprehension.  Most people don't carry handcuffs unless they expect to use them. 


Look, I said from the beginning "if they are not breaking the law, what is wrong with it".  I do not care if they carry guns, or magic wands.  I do not care if they have handcuffs or not.  You see, that does not matter.

This all boils down to a simple question.  Do you believe in the Constitutional right to Free Assembly?  If you do, then how can you yell and scream when they do this?  They are not breaking the law.

Look, there are a lot of groups I find very distastefull, but I do not protest their right to assemble.  Klukkers, Nutzis, Anarchists (is that an oxymoron, organized anarchists?), Socialists, VFW, DAV, Democrats, Republicans, Catholics, Dykes On Bikes, NOW, FFA, the list goes on and on.

All of those groups share the same right under the Constitution, the right to bear arms and free peacefull assembly.  They have the right to congrigate wherever they want, and to even carry arms if they choose to.  If I agree with them or not is besides the point.  It is their right.

Once again, I find myself in the strange position of protecting the legal rights of people I am in disagreement with, against people in here who claim to be Liberal, and are interested in the rights of everybody.  But I guess with some in here, it is only the rights of those who agree with them, and to Hades with everybody they oppose.

And yes, unless there is a law against it (like New York or New Jersey), anybody can carry a gun down the street.  I have often walked down the streets of LA with a loaded .45 on my hip.  And as I said before, I even walked into the bank that way.  Years before, I used to carry my rifle around Boise, Idaho.  I would ride my motorcycle with it strapped across my back, and would carry it into the bank.  Other then the crazy ones, nobody said anything about it.

Then again, I guess I was a Fascist back then too, being in JROTC and all.

You can't debate what people have the right to do, it's a matter of the laws.  You can disagree if people SHOULD have the right to do this or that, but that is completely different.


Then you are wanting to place limits on Constitutional rights.  Everybody has the right to assemble.  I may not agree with Comunists, Klukkers, or Nutzi's, but they still have a right to assemble.

Either you agree on the right of law abiding people to assemble, or you do not.  There is no room here to go "Well this group can, but this group can't".  After all, the 1st Ammendment clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And I will say it yet again, I do not support the Minutement.  I think they are like guys who fail out of the Police Academy, who then get jobs as security guards.  Or those that joined other "Militia" groups, who want to pretend they are in the military, or who are trying to relive their younger days when they were in uniform.  I myself call them "Paramilitary Yahoos".  I think it is silly, and at most only symbolic in nature.  They may lower aliens entering in their sectors, but they will just move to another place to enter.

And people have the right to protest them also.  But nobody has the right to stop them, unless they break the law.  In the same way, people have the right to protest them.  They are just enacting the same rights that the Minutemen are.

You want me to explain how something does NOT make something else happen?


prove, using historical evidence, that the situation in Darfour would be exactly the same if Europeans had never set foot on the African continent.

So once again, have they broken the law?  If they are not breaking the law, then they are well within their constitutional right.

I am always amazed when there are segments of the country that claim to be all in favor of "Civil Rights" and "Constitutional Rights", then they yell and scream when somebody they are opposed to does things that are well within their rights.

I do not care how many pictures you show me of armed or unarmed Minutemen.  It does not amount to a fart in a huricane.  If they are not violating the law, it does not matter. 
).

But even if they do, so what?  It is their right to carry these items.  And a lot of minutmen are retired and off-duty law enforcement personnel.  Are you going to say that they are not allowed to carry weapons?

I will close with the same challenge yet again.  Where is the illegal activity?  Where are they violating the law? 



Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717728.php Print comments.

Minutemen Suspected in Border Shootings
by Chicomozteca Thursday, Jul. 28, 2005 at 12:30 AM

    "Rogue" Minutemen may be behind California border shootings

Minutemen Suspected in Border Shootings

Campo California –

Jim Chase of the California Minutemen admitted to the San Diego press this week that “rogue” Minutemen shot 2 unarmed Mexicans at the California border near Campo Saturday night. “The rogue theory is absolutely true,” he said.

Chase claimed no one in his formal organization has fired a weapon, and that he has turned away “extremists,” but that he’s encountered “rogue” patrols.

According to fellow anti-migrant activist Andy Ramirez of “Friends of the Border Patrol,” however, Chase had planned to bring “snipers” to the border, a move Ramirez denounced, saying “It scared the hell out of me. We decided we weren't going to have anything to do with him."

Associated Press reported earlier that Chase would not intervene against anyone chasing migrants on the “If somebody’s stupid enough to do it, I’m not going to stop them,” Chase said.

Chase had urged volunteers to bring baseball bats, mace, pepper spray and machetes to the border but said he rescinded the call after the Border Patrol expressed concern about potential violence.

Despite Chase’s claim to knowledge of the shootings neither the Border Patrol nor any other federal, state, or local agency has opened an investigation, despite an earlier claim by San Diego Sheriff Bill Kolender who said “We will not tolerate any kind of hate crimes, we will not tolerate any violations of the law…”

Mexican officials have meanwhile contradicted their original claim that the 2 Mexican nationals were shot by “bandits” – a claim the victims flatly denied. Authorities now say it is uncertain who shot the migrants.

Jose Rivera Perez was shot below the left knee while waiting to cross the border about 20 yards south of the steel fence that slices through the desert. His group was approached, Rivera said, by a masked assailant who, when they began to run, fired on them.

Rivera said he was not robbed, according to the Union Tribune. “If he were a bandit he would have robbed us and taken everything. He only shot at us and ran,” Rivera said.

A second man, Carlos Estrada Martinez, said he was shot some 200 yards on the US side of the border when, according to the Union Tribune, “he saw a laser dot tracing up and down the front of his body” before he was hit by the third of three shots fired in the darkness. Estrada also said he was not robbed.

Chase, who has reportedly angered police with a very frequent series of calls over minor matters, told reporters that he has been running into people conducting patrols “who have not gone through me…” There is no indication that Chase reported such patrols to the police, however.

Similar claims of “rogue” Minutemen activity were made when Minutemen invaded the Arizona border and several migrants were held at gunpoint. Chase claimed this week he had called the Border Patrol after he picked up a migrant couple hitchhiking along a state highway near the borderline, claiming he became “suspicious” only after stopping to pick them up. He dropped them off near the Border Patrol station in Campo, then called agents to arrest them.

"They looked like a nice couple," he said.

According to the Union Tribune, Heriberto Garcia, regional coordinator of the Mexican National Human Rights Commission, said of the Minutemen, “They are feeding feelings of hatred… It’s very strange that these acts are occurring in this context. We’re not discarding any possibilities until authorities find out who did this, one way or another.”

Meanwhile, anti-Minutemen activists in the Campo area reported encountering heavily armed men hiding in bushes the night of the shooting, some two miles East of Campo in the direction the shootings took place. The men used Morse code on their flashlights to demand a password from the activists.
---
For mainstream press reports see:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050726-9999-1m26border.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050727-9999-7m27shoot.html

add your comments

© 2000-2003 San Francisco Indymedia. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the San Francisco Indymedia. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy

No situation could ever be the same if it wasn't exactly the way it is. There is no such thing as something besides the way things are.  Everything else besides what is is just mind games.


explain

Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717728.php Print comments.

Minutemen Suspected in Border Shootings
by Chicomozteca Thursday, Jul. 28, 2005 at 12:30 AM

    "Rogue" Minutemen may be behind California border shootings

Minutemen Suspected in Border Shootings


Chase, now there's a great name for a "Minuteman"!

Sure, every time something bad happens with that lot, they'll say the perps were "rogues," not legit Minutemen.  Sure.

Then you are wanting to place limits on Constitutional rights.  Everybody has the right to assemble.  I may not agree with Comunists, Klukkers, or Nutzi's, but they still have a right to assemble.

Either you agree on the right of law abiding people to assemble, or you do not.  There is no room here to go "Well this group can, but this group can't".  After all, the 1st Ammendment clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And I will say it yet again, I do not support the Minutement.  I think they are like guys who fail out of the Police Academy, who then get jobs as security guards.  Or those that joined other "Militia" groups, who want to pretend they are in the military, or who are trying to relive their younger days when they were in uniform.  I myself call them "Paramilitary Yahoos".  I think it is silly, and at most only symbolic in nature.  They may lower aliens entering in their sectors, but they will just move to another place to enter.

And people have the right to protest them also.  But nobody has the right to stop them, unless they break the law.  In the same way, people have the right to protest them.  They are just enacting the same rights that the Minutemen are.


No, you made the argument that they weren't running armed patrols, so that was fine.  Now when it's pointed out that they do, you change the argument and say that it's still fine because they're within their rights.  You let a bunch of nutjobs pretend to be cops (or should I say security guards) and carry guns, they're going to use them.  They're intentionally putting themselves in a situation where they will feel threatened at some point. Do the math.

I'd love to see the reaction if 5 muslims with permits to carry, decided to form a patrol and walk around suburban neighborhoods.  They don't even need a reason.  They can walk around a public space all they want.  You think they'll get the same pass from law enforcement the minutemen are?

Since there is no record of who is, and who isn't a minuteman, everytime something negative happens, they'll be called "rogue".  No way to prove otherwise.

No, you made the argument that they weren't running armed patrols, so that was fine.  Now when it's pointed out that they do, you change the argument and say that it's still fine because they're within their rights. 

Now when it's pointed out that they do, you change the argument and say that it's still fine because they're within their rights.  You let a bunch of nutjobs pretend to be cops (or should I say security guards) and carry guns, they're going to use them.  They're intentionally putting themselves in a situation where they will feel threatened at some point. Do the math.


And I also retracted that when I found out more information.Some of their areas are "no firearms", and others have no such restriction.  And yes, it is within their rights.  The 1st and 2nd Ammendments are very clear that they have the right.  It is the same right that allows Klukkers to have rallys, the same right that allows groups like the Michigan Militia have it's rallys.  I do not have to like it, it is the Constitution.

And if you check, you will find that a lot of the people out there are cops.  There are others who are retired military and law enforcement.  Are you saying that they are gonna run around like lunatics?

And they are not the only such group out there.  I already brought up the Guardian Angels.  The KKK, Black Panthers and CRIPS started the same way, but sadly they went wrong.


I'd love to see the reaction if 5 muslims with permits to carry, decided to form a patrol and walk around suburban neighborhoods.  They don't even need a reason.  They can walk around a public space all they want.  You think they'll get the same pass from law enforcement the minutemen are?

Since there is no record of who is, and who isn't a minuteman, everytime something negative happens, they'll be called "rogue".  No way to prove otherwise.


Would I care if they were walking down the middle of the street?  I would be more concerned, but that is all.  There is a large difference between walking in downtown LA, and walking in the middle of the desert.  As long as they have the firearms legally, I would have no problem with it though.  You see, I equate problems with the people who carry the guns (criminals), not the guns themselves.  I am sure if the Minutemen were having a rally in Downtown LA and openly showed firearms, they would be questioned.  But since they are in the middle of nowhere, who can do anything in the first place?  And if they are not breaking the law, what can law enforcement do about it?

ANd I read the requirements to become a Minuteman.  Part of the requirement is a background check.  What is your source citing that nobody has records of who is a member?

And every orginization can have rogue members.  LAPD, LA Sherrif Department, even the US Military.  The CIA and FBI have had their share also.  But I do not condemn the entire orginization, unless there is a trend of this kind of thing happening.  We all know about how corrupt the NYPD used to be, but not everybody was corrupt.

But what do you think should be done?  Should the orginization be forcibely disbanded?  Should the be forbidden from carrying firearms?  Should they forcibely be removed from the border?  Should the membership roles become a matter of public record?  You seem to see a problem no matter what, so what is the solution?

What is is.  What could be is maybe worth working for.  But what coulda shoulda woulda been is just a waste of time. Its very simple.  If you don't understand it, there is nothing more I can explain, grasshoper. Go out in the world and maybe someday you will understand.  Hopefully.


explain, using logical reasoning, your assertiion that the situation in Darfur would be exactly the same if the Europeans never colonized Africa.

I did not say that assertion.  Its illogical to say what things would be like if they were different.  All there is is what really is. Anything else is made up.  You can't prove something that's made up.  And you can't prove somebodys action causes somebody else's action.  People can act however they want. 


this is what you said.....


No centuries of colonization did not cause the atrocities in Darfur.


here you are implying that the situation in Darfur would be the same if Africa were  never colonized by the Europeans

would you care to explain????

Maybe we are going back and forth because I did not explain what I mean by the situation in Darfur.  I mean the raping and killings by the Jangaweed.  Nobody is causing anybody to kill and rape somebody else there, that's all I mean.  No matter what experience somebody goes through, they choose there own actions.

explain, using logical reasoning, your assertiion that the situation in Darfur would be exactly the same if the Europeans never colonized Africa.


Can you prove it would be any different?

European colonialism ended in the most part over 50 years ago.  Yet as every decade goes on, we hear of more and more tribal fighting and genocide.

And I do not place the blame on "Africans", I place the blame on the power-hungry leaders, who exploit tribalism as an excuse to appease their own quest for glory, power, and blood.

I remember an article about 10 years ago (I think it was Time magazine), which showed that Tribal fighting in South Africa was responsible for 100 times more bloodshed then the worst of the Botha regieme.  This is not an African problem however.  The same thing happened a decade ago in Yugoslavia, and is ongoing today in several of the disputes that Inida is having.

Would things be better if the colonization never happened?  I doubt it.  I doubt that it would be worse either.  This is simply a cultural phenomonon that the warlords are exploiting to their own advantage.  Just like the Plains American Indians of 150 years ago and the Scotts/Irish of 400 years ago, they have little sense of "Nation", only of "tribe".  Tribe/Clan/Family is more important then "Nation".

Unifying concepts like "Nation" tend to occur when a population reaches a certain density.  That is when they have to learn to get along better with neighbors.  It also requires a certain level of dependence of static agriculture.  "Nation" goes along with land ownership.  Since nomadic peoples do not own the land, they move from place to place, competing for the land they are on at the time.  When they move on, other tribes come and take their place.

Most of Central and Southern Africa never hit those population densities before colonialism happened (and some have not really hit it to this day).  Toss in the drought, and you will have fighting for land, water, and food.  Toss in a few warlords, and you have fighting.

Can you prove it would be any different?

European colonialism ended in the most part over 50 years ago.  Yet as every decade goes on, we hear of more and more tribal fighting and genocide.


are you implying that Africans  are  naturally inclined toward civil war and genocide???

are you implying that Africans  are  naturally inclined toward civil war and genocide???


Not at all!

You need to look at what I said more carefully.

People tend to associate themselves into groups.  In areas with very small population density, family/clan/tribe is the most important group.  Once population forces people to gather into larger groups, then things like "Nation" start to develop.

In the Pre-Columbian Americas, there were very few indiginous peoples that had this kind of population density.  The Aztec and Incan peoples were about the only ones that had hit that kind of density.  The Iriquois and Algonquin people were just starting to hit that kind of population density.  The plains indians never got close to that kind of density, and were still nomadic.

When a people is nomadic, there is much differene sense of "Home".  Home is the region where you roam.  It is not a set specific region.  And during times of drought or invasion, they just move on, because one place is as good as another.  THis was the situation in Europe 1,500-2,000 years ago.  Back then, there was no "German" people, only people who lived in the area which became "Germany".  The Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, and other people who settled there were pushed from their original areas by the Huns.  TO them, their identity was in Tribe and Clan.  It was not until they settled down and hit a large enough population that a sense of "Nation" became stronger then the sense of "Clan".

There are areas in Africa where this is the case, the most notable being Egypt.  There is still clan identity, but it is not anywhere near as strong as the identity of Egypt as a nation.

Also remember, that the "Nations" in Africa are not natural nations created by the indiginous people who live there.  They are constructs of the Europeans.  Somalia covers a great many tribes, and each one of them wants to dominate the country of "Somalia".  The Warlords exploit this concept of "Tribe", and use it to continue the wars.

The only thing that makes it unique in Africa is that for the most part, it is the least populated continent on the Earth.  Because of this, the affiliation of "Tribe" over "nation" will continue for as long as there are people who will exploit it for their own gain.

Larger nations have simply replaced "Nation" with "Tribe".  Some nations (like Ireland and Scotland) still have affinity with "Clan", but when was the last time you heard of a Clan War in Ireland or Scotland?  It is not that they are more sophisticated or more intelligent, it is just that in the last 500-1,000 years, they have had to band together and form a national identity that is stronger then the Clan identity.

I had other thoughts tonight, and want to expand on what I wrote earlier.

In modern times, there have been groups that have been able to look beyond "Clan", and make themselves a nation.  Most notably, the nations of the Middle East and North Africa.

At the turn of the 20th century, most of the region was under the nominal control of the Ottoman Turks.  Their region of control stretched from Turkey, down the East Coast of the Mediterianian Sea, and northern Africa.  But after World War II, this empire was shattered.

What was left after was gobbled up by the European powers, most notably England and France.  Colonial Rule in this region lasted for roughly 30 years.  Some nations had their start during World War I however.  Most notably what would become Saudi Arabia.

Most people have heard of Lawrence Of Arabia.  However, most people do not realize the nations that he was later the father of.  The "Arab Revolt" taught the Bedu tribesmen that it was often more important to cast off their tribal affiliations, in order to help form nations.  Only in this way, could they prevent European colonialization.

For anybody who has seen the movie "Lawrence Of Arabia", the movie leaves off what happened afterwards.  "Sheik Ali" (played by Omar Sharif) was Hussein bin Ali, who proclaimed himself King of Mecca.  He was overthrown by Abdul Aziz al Saud.  One of his sons were Abdullah I, the first king of Jordan.  King Abdulahl II is the current King of Jordan, and Hussein bin Ali's Great-great grandson.

His other son became Faisal I (played by Sir Alec Guinness in the movie), the first King of Iraq.  His Grandson Faisal II was killed in 1958, when Abdul al Qassim staged a coup and took power, ending the Iraq Monarchy.

The movie made some changed in reality.  Prince Faisal was the son of Sheik Ali, not the other way around.

Most of the monarchies in the Middle East were based on Tribal Clans.  Oman, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, and all the other nations started as Tribal clans.  In order to secure themselves, they have had to put aside tribal differences, and work together.

This is also was the case of Lybia.  Sidi Muhammad al-Mahdi al-Senussi was King of Lybia, and was grandson of Senussi el Mahdi, founder of the Senussi sect of Islam.  He held power until 1969, when Col. Qaddafi seized power in a coup.  He died in exile in 1983.

While the middle east still suffers unstable governments, for the most part they have been able to look beyond clan differences, and form coalition governments.  One reason for this is larger population densities, and the adandonment of nomadic living.  For the most part, the nomads have settled down, and petrolium has become their national industries.

And every orginization can have rogue members.  LAPD, LA Sherrif Department, even the US Military.  The CIA and FBI have had their share also.  But I do not condemn the entire orginization, unless there is a trend of this kind of thing happening.  We all know about how corrupt the NYPD used to be, but not everybody was corrupt.




comparing the Mini-Men to the LAPD, sheriffs, FBI, CIA, etc., is a false analogy, as the Mini-Men ARE NOT members of a legally established and recognized law enforcement agency.

comparing the Mini-Men to the LAPD, sheriffs, FBI, CIA, etc., is a false analogy, as the Mini-Men ARE NOT members of a legally established and recognized law enforcement agency.


And your point is?  Does that make what they are doing illegal?

The excuse that no one wants to do the jobs the Mexican ILLEGALS will do is so lame...Whta you are advocating is EXPLOITING WORKERS!

Just as the slaves that did the cotton picking would only do that kind of job under those conditions..you are saying AMericans are turning down having crap work and conditions, BUT HEY LET'S LET THE ILLEGALS DO IT THEY REALLY WANT THIS..

Yeah, right!

The Mexican Government should be ashamed of themselves as their people are leaving any way they can to come here..and what they say: We let them!

For shame! 

comparing the Mini-Men to the LAPD, sheriffs, FBI, CIA, etc., is a false analogy, as the Mini-Men ARE NOT members of a legally established and recognized law enforcement agency.




And your point is?  Does that make what they are doing illegal?


it means they're ALL "rogues", as the Border Patrol is the ONLY agency with the LEGAL and FORMAL authority to have armed agents patrolling the border.