Illegals light border fires to sidetrack U.S. agents (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070619-121814-2527r.htm)

U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.


Use some of those nifty Anti-Terrorism laws on this Terrorist activity.

Prison planet's take on it (http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/border_fires_arsonist_illegals_burning_out_border_ security_agents.htm).

Border patrol agents, who are not legally allowed to defend themselves with force if attacked,The real question becomes, why not?

Border patrol agents, who are not legally allowed to defend themselves with force if attacked

Presumably not allowed to use force more than any other state employee who is attacked while doing their job.

Presumably not allowed to use force more than any other state employee who is attacked while doing their job.So if I'm a postal carrier and you come at me with a weapon, I can't fight back? That's ridiculous. Your right of personal self-defense should not vanish simply because you're at a government job.

Of course the solution to the underlying problem here is to create a guest worker program and to legalize marijuana. I cringe when I think of the amount of my tax dollars spent trying to confiscate plants that are less harmful than tobacco or alcohol.

They are told not to fire back. So, if they are being shot at, they are to duck and cover.

You gloss over the fact that starting fires qualifies as terror which was the point of my post. At this point there are mexican radicals that are blowing up cars in the southern US and no one is reporting it, but if it were to happen in the middle east it would be headline news.

So if I'm a postal carrier and you come at me with a weapon, I can't fight back? That's ridiculous. Your right of personal self-defense should not vanish simply because you're at a government job.

Exactly. If someone came at a border guard then they could defend themselves but they've presumably not meant to use violence any more than a postman would doing their job.

Prison guard, not postal carrier.

You gloss over the fact that starting fires qualifies as terror which was the point of my post.It doesn't. It's just a smoke screen to create confusion so that they can slip past. A common battle tactic.

Exactly. If someone came at a border guard then they could defend themselves but they've presumably not meant to use violence any more than a postman would doing their job.

They don't let us have guns while working at the post office, so only a madman would bring fists to a gunfight. I doubt many people would attack a post office worker in broad daylight in the first place. What are they gonna steal, some stranger's credit card bills?

You're not supposed to carry firearms on postal property at all, cops included. Told a New York cop that once and he laughed. But in the rulebook, federal law trumps state or city right to carry laws. So local and state cops who carry into federal post offices are actually breaking the law. No one would ever think to enforce it on a cop, but it's on the books somewhere. Or used to be.

Only offically designated federal "postal police", a subdivision of the Postal Inspector unit, which is a subdivision of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are allowed unrestricted carry permits upon federal postal property.

Of course, that don't stop the crazies when they decide to finally listen to the whispering voices. I have scoped out escape plans if one ever decides to take advantage of the post office's "gun free zones". Which in my book equals "fire with impunity, crazy people"

So if I'm a postal carrier and you come at me with a weapon, I can't fight back? That's ridiculous. Your right of personal self-defense should not vanish simply because you're at a government job.

Of course the solution to the underlying problem here is to create a guest worker program and to legalize marijuana. I cringe when I think of the amount of my tax dollars spent trying to confiscate plants that are less harmful than tobacco or alcohol.

Heh, it was guest worker programs which started this whole mess to begin with.

The solution is to allow them to immigrate legally.

The solution is to allow them to immigrate legally.Then we might as well annex Mexico.

I told you, I'd gladly trade Ohio for it.

Illegals light border fires to sidetrack U.S. agents (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070619-121814-2527r.htm)



Use some of those nifty Anti-Terrorism laws on this Terrorist activity.

Prison planet's take on it (http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/border_fires_arsonist_illegals_burning_out_border_ security_agents.htm).

It isn't terrorism, any way you slice it.

If they weren't lit with the intention of harming the border patrol, its not terrorism.

If they were lit with the intention of harming the border patrol...well the border patrol is a government entity. Terrorism requires civilian targets, otherwise its resistance, insurrection, invasion, or plain ole criminalism.

Stop throwing the word Terrorism around at everything, before the word loses all meaning.

Then we might as well annex Mexico.

I told you, I'd gladly trade Ohio for it.

Have you ever even been to Ohio?

And, no, there must be plans in place along with opening immigration, such as US investment in Mexico more than on an explotation level.

If Mexico could clean its corruption and come closer to Canada's economic level, they'd be the ones having to worry about immigration from central America (which they already do, actually. Evidently Mexico's treatment of Central American immigrants makes us look like blessed saints).

Terrorism: interpretation. 1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm

Granted this is the Uk's version but the american one is pretty much identical.

I whole heartedly agree that it's not terrorism but under the definition it qualifies.

Have you ever even been to Ohio?In fact, I drove through it on my way to California many years ago. And I recall seeing a few episodes of WKRP in Cincinnati.

I whole heartedly agree that it's not terrorism but under the definition it qualifies.The definition sucks. It's so overbroad you might as well not have a definition, and slap the label "terrorism" on any crime.

Exactly