The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: jnevis on May 25, 2010, 12:20:52 PM
-
For discussion:
FOX NEWS
PHOENIX
(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/ad_taryn_monster_397x224.jpg)
This half-page advertisement appeared Friday in the Arizona Republic, prompting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to call for a clarification. A second version that featured beachgoers and additional words -- "who want to have a great time" -- ran on Saturday.
An Arizona sheriff is calling on Mexican officials to apologize for what he says is a "threatening" advertisement. The ad shows a man wearing camouflage looking through binoculars with the words: "In Sonora we are looking for people from Arizona."
The advertisement, which ran Friday in the Arizona Republic, caught the eye of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who posted the VisitMexico.com/GoToSonora.com spot on his Twitter page and asked citizens to call Mexican Tourism Board offices for clarification.
"Are they threatening us? Do they not want us to go to Mexico for tourism? It's mindboggling," Arpaio told FoxNews.com on Monday. "I don't think it was in good taste."
Arpaio said he found the advertisement "inappropriate" and called on Mexican officials to apologize.
"I want everybody to call the Tourism Board," Arpaio said. "To me, it's a threatening type of advertisement."
Javier Tapia, coordinator of the Tourism Promotion Commission of Sonora, said the second version of the advertisement, which ran on Saturday, features the words "who want to have a great time" following the initial line "In Sonora we are looking for people from Arizona." A scene of beachgoers also can be seen in the reflection of the binocular lenses, an element that did not appear in the original "teaser" advertisement.
Tapia insisted neither the first nor second versions of the ad were intended as a threat.
"We want to be very aggressive in our push, but we're not trying to scare anybody," he told FoxNews.com. "We're looking for the opposite -- we want everyone to feel very welcome here in Sonora."
John Zidich, president and publisher of the Arizona Republic, said he was not aware of any complaints to the newspaper regarding the advertisement. He declined to discuss its content.
"We have worked with the state of Sonora for many years to assist them with Arizona's tourism to Mexico," Zidich told FoxNews.com. "We started a discussion months ago to prepare for this upcoming season and have a good relationship with them as a client."
The sole purpose of the advertisement was to "drive tourism" to Mexico, Zidich said.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, the Mexico Tourism Board said the purpose of the advertisement was to attract Arizonans.
“This ad was not placed by the Mexico Tourism Board, but rather by the Sonora State Tourism Secretariat. It looks as if the ad was cropped by the person who posted it," the statement read. "I am sure that the Sonora State Tourism Secretariat will be glad to comment on the full content of the ad, but undoubtedly its purpose was to attract visitors from Arizona, one of Sonora's main tourism feeder markets."
Micky Klausner, of Scottsdale, Ariz., told abc15.com he found the advertisement bizarre.
"It's kind of bizarre, I don't get it, I don't like it," Klausner told the website. "They want us to come to Mexico. Does that mean they'll be watching us?"
Klausner continued, "It's enough, you can tell with what it says, 'We're looking for people from Arizona.' I don't care for it."
-
No reason to jeopardize life and limb in Mexico. You can do it closer to home, right here in Los Angeles, Mexico del Norte. Plus, you're a lot less likely to get Montezuma's Revenge from LA water. Here, you have excellent beaches, nice mountains, at least an equal number of Mexicanos, and the same kind of food--only in LA, it's made out of USA produce and meats. Arizona has all of the above, minus the beaches--and they really appreciate the tourism.
Mexico has seen the last of Crusader's dollars.
-
I wish I could afford a nice vacation. :-\ I would love to visit Arizona and show my support by spending some money there.
-
Hussein is sending 1,200 troops to our border. If they're not armed, they are all but useless. I can all but guarantee you they won't be. Bill T.
-
Hussein is sending 1,200 troops to our border. If they're not armed, they are all but useless. I can all but guarantee you they won't be. Bill T.
Any military force sent there cannot be used in a law enforcement capacity per the Posse Comitatus Act. They can be armed, but for self defence only. They are still allowed to surveil the border and pass information to ICE and if they run into an illegal they have to detain them and wait for ICE to actually do something about it. Just like I couldn't arrest a carjacker just off base, even if we had him in custody. We had to turn him over to the Sherrif's Dept.
-
Any military force sent there cannot be used in a law enforcement capacity per the Posse Comitatus Act.
Then Jan Brewer could order immediate enforcement of the, "Shootemindass Ifa Mexicans Act". ;D Bill T.
-
Any military force sent there cannot be used in a law enforcement capacity per the Posse Comitatus Act.
But doesn't this only apply if the military is being used to police our own citizens? Wouldn't this be considered an invading force? Therefore Posse Comitatus wouldn't apply.
-
But doesn't this only apply if the military is being used to police our own citizens? Wouldn't this be considered an invading force? Therefore Posse Comitatus wouldn't apply.
I highlighted "invading force" and not the question mark, because that is exactly what it is. United States Citizens are being murdered in cold blood on their own property by illegal invaders. If that doesn't constitute an "invading force", I don't know what does. This has gone well beyond "keeping the peace". It has escalated into stopping a foreign invasion. This country, and the Hussein administration in particular, had better quit playing politics, and skirting the law, and get their a$$ into high gear! Bill T.
-
Any military force sent there cannot be used in a law enforcement capacity per the Posse Comitatus Act. They can be armed, but for self defence only. They are still allowed to surveil the border and pass information to ICE and if they run into an illegal they have to detain them and wait for ICE to actually do something about it. Just like I couldn't arrest a carjacker just off base, even if we had him in custody. We had to turn him over to the Sherrif's Dept.
Not true, The feds skirt that law with impunity.
First off, defending our borders is pretty much the ONLY legitimate purpose of the Army.
At Wounded Knee in 73 the US Marshals deputized a Battalion of the 101st while at Waco the simply denied in the face of video evidence.
-
Not true, The feds skirt that law with impunity.
First off, defending our borders is pretty much the ONLY legitimate purpose of the Army.
At Wounded Knee in 73 the US Marshals deputized a Battalion of the 101st while at Waco the simply denied in the face of video evidence.
And we saw how well those worked out. :-\ You can't be a cop and a soldier at the same time. Two ROE's and (hopefully), never the twain shall meet, in either direction. Its why I dislike the militarization of police tactical teams. Hostage rescue and sniper support, yes. Routine felony warrants, no.
Still, if done right, the guard can help. W. did it wrong, just sending the guard to the border in '06. They were in the way. Now, if you did it right; drones, helos, communications, radar units, maintainence, field kitchens etc. You could give the BP guys resources they can only dream of, and take the slack off their support people and let them take the field.
FQ13
-
And we saw how well those worked out. :-\ You can't be a cop and a soldier at the same time. Ywo ROE's and (hopefully) never the twain shall meet, in either direction). Its why I dislike the militrization of police tac teams. Hostage rescue and sniper support, yes. Routine felony warrants, no.
Still, if done right, the guard can help. W. did it wrong, just sending the guard to the border in '06. They were in the way. Now, if you did it right, drones, helos, communications, radar units, maintainence, field kitchens etc. You could give the BP guys resources they can only dream of and take the slack off their support people and let them take the field.
FQ13
FQ13
:o Unequivocal agreement ? :o
-
Its why I dislike the militarization of police tactical teams. Hostage rescue and sniper support, yes. Routine felony warrants, no. FQ13
I tend to agree. Police have proven to abuse these type of "teams", and the law suits prove it. They never existed 40 years ago. Certainly not to the extent they do today. Now a days, if a city is incorporated it seems they "need" a SWAT team, along of course, with taxpayer money to fund it. That is ridiculous. And with it comes all of the armored personnel carriers, weapons, ninja suits, Kevlar helmets, repelling gear, and everything else they can possibly buy to portray themselves as John J. Rambo.
It's gone to far, as power always seems to, and it's abuse is well documented. The Chicago Police Dept. did enough damage in short sleeves with night sticks in Grant Park, during the Democratic National Convention 42 years ago. During the Rodney King Riots the L.A.P.D. was nowhere to be found, SWAT teams and all. And a few years later their so called "SWAT Team" was held off by 2 guys with AK's for over 2 1/2 hours.
In Sacramento, California in 1991 the tactics, (some refered to it as antics), of their SWAT team got 3 civilians killed in the now infamous Good Guys Electronics store shootout. These "teams" have shown to be minimally effective in relation to the trouble, death, carnage, wrongful entries, and millions of dollars of lawsuits they've caused, and the police have subsequently lost, as a direct result of a militarized police dept.
Personally, I think the peoples image of police departments has been going downhill ever since cops quit walking the beat. Law enforcement has become far too impersonal. That, along with replacing it's personality with weapons, military garb, and attitude, will end up being it's Waterloo. Bill T.
-
ROFL
Posted by: billt
It's gone to far, as power always seems to, and it's abuse is well documented. The Chicago Police Dept. did enough damage in short sleeves with night sticks in Grant Park, during the Democratic National Convention 42 years ago. During the Rodney King Riots the L.A.P.D. was nowhere to be found, SWAT teams and all. And a few years later their so called "SWAT Team" was held off by 2 guys with AK's for over 2 1/2 hours.
In Sacramento, California in 1991 the tactics, (some refered to it as antics), of their SWAT team got 3 civilians killed in the now infamous Good Guys Electronics store shootout. These "teams" have shown to be minimally effective in relation to the trouble, death, carnage, wrongful entries, and millions of dollars of lawsuits they've caused, and the police have subsequently lost, as a direct result of a militarized police dept.
Every single state has had one or more incidents where these guys have hit the wrong house, often as in NH's case, murdering a law abiding citizen in the process.
At least the Keystone Kops didn't have Full Auto ::)
-
It's gone to far, as power always seems to, and it's abuse is well documented. The Chicago Police Dept. did enough damage in short sleeves with night sticks in Grant Park, during the Democratic National Convention 42 years ago. During the Rodney King Riots the L.A.P.D. was nowhere to be found, SWAT teams and all. And a few years later their so called "SWAT Team" was held off by 2 guys with AK's for over 2 1/2 hours.
To be accurate, it was patrolmen without anything other than 9mm sidearms and shotguns who were held off - but who contained the BGs at the same time.
When the SWAT team showed up, their truck was AWOl, so they hit a local sporting good store and cleaned him out of ARs and 5.56 ammo. Then they stopped the second BG - the first had already killed himself at that point.
Lesson learned, sort of. Even our County Sheriff deputies all have full-auto M-16s int he trunk now - even the Captains. Our SWAT Team is regional, covers 2 counties in 2 states, and 3 municipal PDs as well as the 2 County SO.
Personally, I think the peoples image of police departments has been going downhill ever since cops quit walking the beat. Law enforcement has become far too impersonal. That, along with replacing it's personality with weapons, military garb, and attitude, will end up being it's Waterloo. Bill T.
+1000 on that one, Bill
-
We had one of our local "Fifes" stop a speeder in front of my home. If he is any reflection on our local PD, this little burg is in trouble. One of the most out of shape little trolls I've seen in a while.
I seriously doubt we have any kind of SWAT team here, maybe in Worcester but that's 10 miles southwest of here. I'm my own protection and always have been. SWAT may serve a purpose, just not one I'm aware of or have seen any need for where I've lived. As I've said before, I WILL NOT live near a metro area in this country ever again so I've no need for a paramilitary organization.
Ten miles is too close for me.
-
The problem with "SWAT" is two fold. First is the question of the necessity of their very existence in many suburban environments. The second is reason for deployment. I'm in no way saying they are useless, but rather are they needed, and if so what for? Some wealthy suburbs get away with it because they have a major infusion of tax dollars to spend, (waste would be a better choice of words), along with the attitude of "needing" the latest and greatest in law enforcement. This in itself leads to an over abundance of these guys.
Many are deployed based on the notion they need to use them for something if the bank isn't being held up by Neil McCauley and his crew. So they wind up sending these guys out to execute simple arrest warrants for local drug pushers, pimps, and the like. This is usually where information gets crossed up, and the wrong house gets torpedoed in the process, and big lawsuits are more often than not, the biggest result. Especially if Hondo Harrelson winds up taking out an innocent civilian who answers the door thinking it's Dominoes with his order of cheese sticks. In short much of the time these guys are simply overkill, and all they wind up doing is ratcheting up the volume in what would have been a low risk take down, had they stayed back at the station and read the latest issue of S.O.F. Bill T.
-
Our Local Swat team here is run by the Sheriff, but it is called the "Special Operations Team" They do the stand offs and felon arrest stuff, but they do far more Rescue type specialized stuff Water, search and recovery mostly.
-
But doesn't this only apply if the military is being used to police our own citizens? Wouldn't this be considered an invading force? Therefore Posse Comitatus wouldn't apply.
That was my thought as well, since they are not policing American Citizens. And isn't it part of the militaries duty to protect the US from foreign "invaders"?
-
That was my thought as well, since they are not policing American Citizens. And isn't it part of the militaries duty to protect the US from foreign "invaders"?
Technically, you could probably justify it, but man it ups the ante. Also understand that there will be a body count, thats just soldiers doing what they are trained to do. Neither are necessarily bad things, just not to be casually discounted either. As I posted earlier, the Guard could bring in drones, helos, radar, communications, sattelites etc, that would make the Border Patrol ten times more effective without raising those issues. Militarizing the border? Maybe not a bad idea, but there has to be broad support for it or a bunch of grunts will get hung out to dry.Remember Ramos and Campeon.
FQ13
-
I have a buddy thats about to come back from Iraq who basically is doing on the Iraq/Syria border what we would want here. Observing, detaining, and processing those that cross the border outside of sanctioned checkpoints. And judging by what he's told me about the process they use I don't see why it wouldn't work well here as a supplement to CBP agents. Especially considering, like you said, the ability to employ drones to cover such vast areas with thermographics.
-
The problem here is not laws, and or what they'll "allow" us to do, but rather with a democratic and Republican government that doesn't want to piss off the hispanic vote. It's the reason Bush did nothing with the border, and Hussein will do even less. Republicans want to exploit the cheap labor, and the dems want to provide them with handouts to buy their vote. It's just that simple. The sore is festering enough to where something is going to be done regardless of the politics of the moment. If anything "good" is being accomplished by the mexican drug cartels, it is the fact they are proving how we need to seal the border, and do it quickly. Bill T.
-
I haven't been able to verify this, but one of the talking heads onFOX made a passing comment that the National Guard would be, "in a support capacity behind desks, not on the frontl ine."
IF that is the case, and that's a big "if," then this is only posturing by Odamna with no real impact on the sanctity of our border. It sounds like something he would do and it may be accurte information--but I haven't found any confirmation.
I am looking forward to my AZ excursion this weekend, but I would dearly prefer to be armed. Unfortunately, I am in Kalifornistan, my guns are in Florida, and I'm feeling pretty naked.
Submitted by an anxious Crusader.
-
I haven't been able to verify this, but one of the talking heads onFOX made a passing comment that the National Guard would be, "in a support capacity behind desks, not on the frontl ine."
IF that is the case, and that's a big "if," then this is only posturing by Odamna with no real impact on the sanctity of our border. It sounds like something he would do and it may be accurte information--but I haven't found any confirmation.
I am looking forward to my AZ excursion this weekend, but I would dearly prefer to be armed. Unfortunately, I am in Kalifornistan, my guns are in Florida, and I'm feeling pretty naked.
Submitted by an anxious Crusader.
You expected something else from the cipher-in-chief? You can join up with Bobby Jindal and commiserate together as you wait for bho to get off his azz and do anything to benefit this country.
-
Technically, you could probably justify it, but man it ups the ante. Also understand that there will be a body count, thats just soldiers doing what they are trained to do. Neither are necessarily bad things, just not to be casually discounted either. As I posted earlier, the Guard could bring in drones, helos, radar, communications, sattelites etc, that would make the Border Patrol ten times more effective without raising those issues. Militarizing the border? Maybe not a bad idea, but there has to be broad support for it or a bunch of grunts will get hung out to dry.Remember Ramos and Campeon.
FQ13
Hate to break it to you FQ but CBP/ICE has had all the stuff you mentioned on the borders for decades. BorderSTAR flies helo surveillance and rescue missions out of San Deigo, plus the Aerostat radar balloons are all over AZ and TX with pretty good ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Arpeture Radar, think night vision camera with radar instead of optic and a little less resolution) and Moving Target Indicator (MTI, uses Doppler shift to determine movement and displays and target if moving above X speed). They now have a small force of Predator and Scan Eagle RPS also.
-
From FQ :
Militarizing the border?
What an incredible idea !
It's sort of like socialism, it's been tried by nearly ever nation that ever existed, the funny thing is, it often works.
-
Hate to break it to you FQ but CBP/ICE has had all the stuff you mentioned on the borders for decades. BorderSTAR flies helo surveillance and rescue missions out of San Deigo, plus the Aerostat radar balloons are all over AZ and TX with pretty good ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Arpeture Radar, think night vision camera with radar instead of optic and a little less resolution) and Moving Target Indicator (MTI, uses Doppler shift to determine movement and displays and target if moving above X speed). They now have a small force of Predator and Scan Eagle RPS also.
None of this crap would be necessary if they just shot the first 50 over the fence. The rest would run like rabbits. Bill T.
-
None of this crap would be necessary if they just shot the first 50 over the fence. The rest would run like rabbits. Bill T.
If we did that, we'd be at war with Mexico inside of a week. Worse still, we'd win. ;D
FQ13 who says thanks, but no.
-
If we did that, we'd be at war with Mexico inside of a week. Worse still, we'd win. ;D
FQ13 who says thanks, but no.
I doubt it. They have enough trouble fighting the drug cartels. That isn't going too well. They're losing cops and military left and right. The last thing they want is a war with us. They would rather just whine and scream about "human rights" and "racism". Bill T.
-
None of this crap would be necessary if they just shot the first 50 over the fence. The rest would run like rabbits. Bill T.
Electric fence. I'm sure Arizona wouldn't mind diverting the power from L.A. ;D
-
Posted this before:
Dig a moat along the US-Mexico border.
Stock it with the excess gators and pythons from the Florida swamps.
Use the excess dirt from digging the moat to shore up the levees around New Orleans.
;D
-
Electric fence. I'm sure Arizona wouldn't mind diverting the power from L.A. ;D
Not as long as they run 30,000 volts through it! ;D Bill T.
-
Posted this before:
Dig a moat along the US-Mexico border.
Stock it with the excess gators and pythons from the Florida swamps.
Use the excess dirt from digging the moat to shore up the levees around New Orleans.
;D
If you want FQ's support on this, you better have Iguanas in that moat too.
-
If you want FQ's support on this, you better have Iguanas in that moat too.
Just fill it with water from the Salton Sea. No one would dare set foot in it, man or beast! Bill T.
-
I've boycotted Mexico for years now. Of course, you never can say for sure if some of your dollars don't end up down there...if the restaurant you eat at shares tips I'm sure it has...But no travel/tourism from me. One of my ex friends, a second generation legal immigrant who married an illegal, asked why I didn't vacation in Mexico instead of going all the way to Hawaii. I said I didn't trust the Mexican law or Government to keep me safe and didn't feel like being a prisoner inside of a resort.
As far as border control? Post 911 we saw armed guardsmen in our airports and on our bridges. Why not on our borders? There are terrorists, criminals, and gang members crossing the border. Heck, we should be using the border as a "training" area for all of our combat forces.
-
The military and their spouses have been barred since before 2003.
-
The military and their spouses have been barred since before 2003.
[/quote
That I did not know. I had thought it was still fairly safe in places like Baja and the Yucatan. It seemed that the border areas and major cities were the worst. The stuff spreads though.
FQ13
-
I don't believe the military is barred from Mexico but have been "strongly urged" not to travel to Mexico. They must fill out some special travel documents prior to making the plans.
-
In 2003 during my first deployment were told that if you were caught in Mexico you would recieve a article 15 (Captians mast for squids). The base Commander at Ft. Bliss made it off limits. There was 6 soldiers that were caught by the Juarez police and when they missed movement to a combat zone they were waiting to be court marshaled.
-
I'll take you at your word Bulldog, Base CO's can surely make certain restrictions for their troops. I"m pretty sure places like Tijuana are off limits these days.
We had some similar restrictions when I was overseas as well though not necessarily for violent locals.
-
When I was stationed in San Deigo(96-99), Tijuana wasn't officially "off limits" but was "highly encouraged" not to go there. If you did you had to sign out/in with the duty office. We had a guy that was living with his GF (Mexican national) and signed out after work every night and checked back in on the way back in. I do seem to recall the rules changing not long after I left making all of TJ off limits at least.
-
When I was on Med Cruise, (78) we were restricted in Naples to South of the Via Roma, We were there for "Euro Communism day 78" and we were told it WAS because of "violent locals".
Some real good restaurants tucked away there. ;D
TB, Who did not expect to live this long ;D
-
When I was on Med Cruise, (78) we were restricted in Naples to South of the Via Roma, We were there for "Euro Communism day 78" and we were told it WAS because of "violent locals".
Some real good restaurants tucked away there. ;D
TB, Who did not expect to live this long ;D
I know what you mean.....If I had known I was gonna live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself. :D :D
-
When I was on Med Cruise, (78) we were restricted in Naples to South of the Via Roma, We were there for "Euro Communism day 78" and we were told it WAS because of "violent locals".
Some real good restaurants tucked away there. ;D
TB, Who did not expect to live this long ;D
My experience was the restrictions normally placed on drunken sailors. We (E-1 to E-5) lower ranked sailors weren't allowed off base in Iceland after 8:00pm except Wednesdays when all the bars in Keflavik and Reykjavik were not serving booze... Now, considering for five months it's daylight for 23 hours a day, that was a real pain in the butt.
I find it ironic that I was in the Navy for six years and never set foot on a ship or submarine and Tom was a Marine and went on a "Med Cruise"....
;D
-
I volunteered when I overheard the Company clerk asking one of my buddies about it, but he was on a legal or medical hold or something and couldn't go. ;D