FLE

New Border Incursion In Hudspeth County

For the second time in two weeks, American law enforcement officers say men carrying high powered automatic weapons and who appeared to be Mexican soldiers violated the international boundary and crossed into the United States in Hudspeth County, East of El Paso. In the past the Mexican Consulate in El Paso had stated that their Government policy is that no armed Mexican soldiers are allowed closer than three miles to the U.S. border. The latest incident happened just before sunset on Tuesday night, as a KFOX crew was on the scene. As a Hudspeth County sheriff's deputy was describing what happened during a reported incursion last week - suddenly one 'soldier' emerged from the brush on the Mexican side of the border and darted back under cover. Moments later though, two other men who appeared to be soldiers marched across a clearing, in plan view. Shortly after that, the Deputy spotted soldiers who were well hidden and out of camera range crossing into the United States - attempting to flank the Deputy and the news crew. According to the Deputy "They are doing the classic thing, flanking around each side of us and actually coming up into the U.S. and trying to figure out what we are doing, they are looking at us very heavily."....


Congress calls for border hearing

Border law enforcement officials and others were notified this week to appear before a U.S. House committee on Tuesday to give testimony regarding Mexican military incursions into the United States. Several members of the Committee on Homeland Security will be heading to El Paso, Texas, on Friday as part of a fact-finding mission to collect additional information. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, is leading the group and will be in discussions throughout the day with local law enforcement officials in the area. "We are going down there to find out what happened," McCaul said Tuesday. "The reports I have received are very disturbing, and we cannot allow and cannot tolerate armed Mexican drug dealers to cross our borders and endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers and citizens. Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West, whose law enforcement officers had an armed standoff with men dressed in Mexican military uniforms last week, said he is pleased congressional leaders are finally calling for an investigation. West said he has been told to appear before the investigations subcommittee meeting Tuesday. "There is no doubt in our minds that we confronted Mexican military personnel on the border," West said. "I'm not gratified that we had to back (the Congress) into a corner and carry video equipment instead of our guns to the operation." West, who was at the scene of the Jan. 23 standoff 50 miles east of El Paso, said deputies were in pursuit of three sport utility vehicles scrambling to get back over the Rio Grande into Mexico. West said deputies were in a chase with speeds reaching 110 miles per hour. Men who had Mexican military uniforms, vehicles and weapons were assisting those in civilian clothes, West added. "This isn't the first time we've encountered the military," he said....

U.S. Border Violence, Human Trafficking

Assaults against U.S. Border Patrol Agents in Arizona have been increasing once again. Shots fired at Agents patrolling remote smuggling corridors from Douglas, Nogales and the Tohono Odham Indian Nation is news rarely presented in the media. The frequency of “rock attacks” along Border city fences require a specially fortified patrol vehicle to protect the driver or passengers. A thick steel mesh braced with rods cover windows and headlights to repel “incoming stones” as well as improvised Molotov weapons. Gasoline saturated rags wrapped around rocks, ignited and tossed at agents is common. Through the years, many Agents have been severely injured by “Barrages of Stones” thrown or dropped” on vehicles. The lethal intent is obvious. Armed encounters with human or contraband traffickers, physical assaults, gunfire incidents were all reported to the F.B.I. In 2005 there were 778 major assaults directed against agents in Tucson Sector....

Ariz. gov. plans $100 mln on border control

With a projected $1 billion budget surplus and a growing illegal immigration problem, Arizona should spend $100 million on programs to shore up its border with Mexico, Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano said. In a telephone interview with Reuters this week, Napolitano said her plan to spend more state funds on border control is necessary because U.S. Border Patrol efforts in California and Texas have steered illegal Mexican immigrants to her state. "There is no doubt that it has increased substantially in recent years," she said. "The Tucson sector of the Border Patrol makes more than a half-million apprehensions a year." The scale of illegal border crossings in Arizona has pushed crime rates up, strained local law enforcement and forced the state to intervene, Napolitano added. "The federal government is not engaged enough on the immigration issue," she said. "I can't wait for the federal government any longer."....

Congress to Give Patriot Act Another Month

The House on Wednesday agreed to extend the USA Patriot Act for a month while conservative Republicans and the White House work out changes intended to protect people from government intrusion. The GOP-controlled House used a voice vote to keep the law in effect until March 10 so negotiators have more time to come up with a deal. The Senate was expected to follow before the law expires on Friday. Just before leaving for Christmas, Congress extended the law until Feb. 3. Senate Democrats and four libertarian-leaning Republicans had blocked a final vote on a measure negotiated by the White House that would have made permanent most expiring provisions. The Republicans were concerned about excessive police powers. Objections to the compromise last fall centered on the degree to which people and institutions that receive National Security Letters _ secret requests for phone, business and Internet records _ can appeal them in court. Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and John Sununu, R-N.H., say the law makes it nearly impossible to challenge such letters and their secretive demands for information. Craig told reporters this week that the White House had agreed to some changes that would address his concerns, but declined to describe the talks further....

Patriot Act provision could limit inmate appeals

Anthony Spears has been on Arizona's death row for nearly 13 years, convicted of the murder of his girlfriend near Phoenix. He isn't an international terrorist, has no links to al-Qaida and was in prison on 9-11. But tucked away in the pending renewal of the Patriot Act - the nation's controversial law to fight terrorism - is a provision inspired by Spears. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona inserted little-noticed language that could make it harder for state death-row inmates to appeal their cases in federal court. The provision is one of a handful that neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate has voted on but which Republican lawmakers crafted during closed-door negotiations last year after Democrats had been excluded from the talks. Another obscure addition, never debated in Congress, would broaden existing laws that prohibit disturbances at any event - such as those involving the president - at which the Secret Service is providing protection. Civil libertarians say it could restrict free-speech rights in the name of security. The changes illustrate how closed-door negotiations over legislation can inspire lawmakers to slip substantive policy measures into bills with little public notice....

AT&T sued over NSA spy program

AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in San Francisco's federal district court, charges that AT&T has opened its telecommunications facilities up to the NSA and continues to "to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans." The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the suit, says AT&T's alleged cooperation violates free speech and privacy rights found in the U.S. Constitution and also contravenes federal wiretapping law, which prohibits electronic surveillance "except as authorized by statute." Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney, said he anticipates that the Bush administration will intervene in the case on behalf of AT&T. "We are definitely going to have a fight with the government and AT&T," he said. If the Bush administration does intervene, EFF could have a formidable hurdle to overcome: the so-called "state secrets" doctrine....

The Grounds of Silence

As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to hold hearings on the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of American citizens and residents, the question is not simply whether the administration is right that FISA's restrictions are inappropriate for wiretaps intended to "detect and prevent" terrorist attacks. The question is also how the issue should be resolved: by Congress after a public debate, or secretly and unilaterally by a president who says public debate is dangerous because "the enemy listens." The administration's main objection to FISA seems to be that its standard for approving wiretaps is too hard to meet in fast-moving investigations aimed at heading off terrorist attacks, despite its provision for retroactive approval of surveillance within 72 hours. Under FISA, the government must show "probable cause" to believe a target is an agent of a terrorist organization. Under the NSA's program of warrantless wiretaps, by contrast, the government need only have what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales calls "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of Al Qaeda, affiliated with Al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with Al Qaeda, or working in support of Al Qaeda." This approach not only requires less evidence; it also applies to individuals whose connections to terrorism may be indirect and tenuous, thereby increasing the chance of mistakenly monitoring innocent people. And what should we make of the fact that in 2002 the Bush administration declined to support legislation that would have changed the FISA standard for surveillance of non-U.S. persons from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion"? James A. Baker, the Justice Department's counsel for intelligence policy, told the Senate Intelligence Committee such a shift—which President Bush already had authorized for a broader class of targets all on his own—might be unnecessary and unconstitutional. Was that stance deliberate disinformation intended to trick Al Qaeda? Legitimate concerns about revealing intelligence methods should not become an excuse for misleading the public or for cutting Congress and the courts out of momentous decisions about how to balance security against terrorists with security against an unaccountable executive branch....

Senate Panel Rebuffed on Documents on U.S. Spying

The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday. The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings. But the legality of the program is known to have produced serious concerns within the Justice Department in 2004, at a time when one of the legal opinions was drafted. Democrats say they want to review the internal opinions to assess how legal thinking on the program evolved and whether lawyers in the department saw any concrete limits to the president's powers in fighting terrorism. With the committee scheduled to hold the first public hearing on the eavesdropping program on Monday, the Justice Department's stance could provoke another clash between Congress and the executive branch over access to classified internal documents....

More Domestic Surveillance... Look up!

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a 300 nautical mile (NM) temporary flight restriction (TFR) bordering the United States and Mexico, specifically above the states of New Mexico and Arizona. The TFR affects a 2,000 foot segment of the airspace for a range of 300 NM, between 12,000 and 14,000 foot, mean sea level (MSL). Furthermore, the TFR is only in effect from 5PM until 7AM daily. Simply stated, all aircraft are prohibited to fly between 12,000 and 14,000 feet in this specified area. Why? The 300 by 17 nautical mile air corridor is used by unmanned surveillance aircraft (UAV) to patrol from the skies. Now, many would suggest that this type of surveillance is important to patrol America's borders and secure its citizens from suspected terrorists. But without understanding the scope of the surveillance, no one can be certain which agency is using the information that is gathered and stored. This new program should be of concern to many Americans, as civil liberties may be violated in the process. Americans should demand from their lawmakers the scope of the program and whether or not Americans are subject to overhead surveillance. The 40,000 people living and working in Sierra Vista, Arizona, are probably unaware of the roving cameras the fly above them while they sunbathe in their backyards. The same goes for those that live in El Paso, Texas or the sleepy town of Deming, New Mexico....