Ask these questions. At what point do frequent and periodic border incursions constitute a violation of US sovereignty? At what point does the instability in Mexico become a direct threat against American citizens? How many Americans will have to die before our federal government takes serious action along the Texas-Mexico border? And finally, how long does the federal government delay before violence against American citizens on American soil constitute an act that prompts more proactive actions than stating that "it continues to support Mexico's fight against ruthless gangs smuggling narcotics into the United States."

Quite obviously, we are fighting a war against terrorists worldwide. Regardless of what you call it, al Qaeda's form of terrorism is an aggressive force on multiple fronts around the globe. More recently, American citizens influenced or motivated by some "need" have become another focus of terrorism concern. Yet, while we are working, fighting and dying to establish security and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mexican President Calderone's policies to control and combat the narcotics violence on/near or across our border appear to be ineffective and as some people believe, failures. Ask when (not if), it will fall to the United States to defend itself from continued incursions by the criminal and violent elements in Mexico?

Earlier this week, Texas Governor Perry deployed Texas military helicopters to begin patrolling the border as part of his Spillover violence contingency plan in response to the latest incursion by Mexico in the United States.

"As violence escalates in Mexican border cities, it's critically important for Texas, U.S. and Mexican law enforcement to communicate and appropriately coordinate our efforts to combat border crime and protect legitimate cross-border trade and travel...

[continued]

..."The helicopter incursion and uptick in violence in Mexican border communities underscore the urgent need for more U.S. law enforcement and surveillance along the Texas-Mexico border. I once again urge our federal government to add personnel and technology along the Texas-Mexico border to prevent spillover violence here and to combat drug cartels operating in the border region."

The actual Press Release can be seen here.

Saturday's local newspaper featured a quote from, Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Arturo Sarukhan that "Texas elected officials are disingenuous or naïve to believe drug violence is spilling across the border into the United States."

Disingenuous? Naïve?

It is pretty well established that one of the most successful methods used by Los Zetas "south of the border" has been recruitment of law enforcement officials through bribes and threats of death, dismemberment and dead families. To believe that police in the U.S. would be immune to the same bribes and threats would be naïve. In fact, the DHS has said that since 2008, the cartels have ramped up their efforts to bribe U.S. law enforcement. According to the F.B.I.:

Around 400 corruption cases have been investigated by U.S. federal agents. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) service is a particularly popular target for cartelista bribery or even infiltration. The CBP itself reported that over 500 corruption cases were made in 2009 against people working for the service.

Are some additional facts needed?

● In the last two years, more that 4000 murders occurred in Juarez, or one in every 325 residents

● According to the U.S. State Department, the death toll of Americans more than doubled from 2007 (35) to 2009 (79).

Texas politicians are "disingenuous and naïve" according to the Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Americans are to blame for the drug cartels in Mexico because Americans are the market for the narcotics. Americans are to blame for the violence in Mexico because guns and ammunition are being illegally shipped across the border. Sure! In today's San Antonio Express (link will not be available until later this week when the publishers post the article on the website), Professor Hector Padilla, a social sciences professor at the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juárez is quoted as saying: "It's not really a crisis of narcos and murders. It's a crisis of the state, which cannot protect the citizens and is not accountable to them."

"If Calderon doesn't change his strategy, the people will continue to leave. And if things here continue to get worse, it will be worse for Mexico."

Unavoidably, and without the rose colored glasses of some like the honorable Ambassador from Mexico, the border between the United States and Mexico is incapable of keeping people from crossing the border illegally. Drug cartel activity in McAllen and Pharr Texas earlier this year is indisputable.

Sometimes it has been easy to criticize Texas Governor Perry's border security efforts. There is even an an article this week commenting that Mr. Perry blames Washington for the border violence and then criticizes the Governor for misdirected efforts on the border (to arrest illegals) instead of focusing on Interstates 10 and 35 that serve as a the drug corridors to Texas cities and to much of the rest of the mid-part of the country.

Although Texas U.S. Senators Cornyn and Hutchison sent a joint letter to President Obama last week stating in part that "The spillover violence in Texas is real and it is escalating," many people agree with the Mexican Ambassador.

PERSONAL OPINION: A head in the sand approach toward this situation denies the obvious. Some of the Governor's previous border security efforts have been of arguable value (like the border surveillance cameras). However, it is hard to criticize deployment of the helicopters to patrol the border. One question (at least) does arise however. How far can a state go in defending its border when the federal government is perceived as not doing enough?

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (0)

Hillary Clinton is in Moscow, and a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty should be finalized soon.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there has been "substantial" progress on a new nuclear disarmament deal with Russia.

In Moscow, Mrs Clinton and Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov said a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) should be finalised soon.

The nations are trying to replace the 1991 Start that expired in December.

Meanwhile, Putin says Russia should have Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant operating by summer.

"May you live in interesting times."

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

Yesterday Steve Schippert discussed Attorney General Eric Holder's public revelation that terrorists like Osama bin Laden should be given the same rights as Charles Manson. Holder also claimed that Osama bin Laden "would be killed rather than captured alive, that Miranda rights would be read to the corpse of bin Laden."

Beyond the other problematic inconsistencies highlighted by Steve's post, we once again are witnessing a difference of opinion (schism?) between the Administration point of view in Washington DC and the statements of the Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said Wednesday that the military would "certainly" try to capture Osama bin Laden alive and "bring him to justice" -- contradicting remarks by a top Obama administration official.

OK. Maybe it can be argued that the "reality" (as Holder put it) is that bin Laden will be killed before he is ever in custody. Even if that is true, somehow equating bin Laden's rights with those of Charles Manson simply, also bends reality. Thirty-six years ago Sam Peckinpah made a movie about bounty hunting titled "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" (admittedly a pretty bad movie). Maybe it's not that important if bin Laden is taken alive or if he is killed in the process of his capture. But proof of his death is what is needed.

Holder denies that there is a split between Administration policy and the attitude of the American people when it comes to the treatment of terrorists. It is interesting that some of the same people who are concerned about the post-September 11th security measures abridging their Constitutional rights are the same ones willing to extend Constitutional rights to the terrorists who started this whole mess in the first place. The disconnect is so obvious that is hard to see how Eric Holder doesn't see it.

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (0)

This discussion on Afghanistan with Matthew Hoh at Bloggingheads.tv is excellent, thoughtful, and worth your time to listen for the entire hour. Hoh understands the local dynamics, particularly the rural Pashtuns in the southern and eastern areas of Afghanistan, and Robert Wright asks intelligent questions throughout.

Essentially, Matthew Hoh's judgment - one which ultimately compelled him to resign his position at State - is that we should withdraw from most or all of the highly compartmentalized rural areas of Afghanistan where we are fought by locals simply because we are there and increasing the Taliban's political capital as a result.

One of the most important takeaways for the average viewer, listener or reader is to understand the distinction between the actual Taliban ('Taliban Central') and those Pashtuns who, in their localized areas, are simply aligned with the Taliban. They align with the Taliban because they do not want to be occupied and they do not want a distant central government ruling over them and bringing in taxes.

While the episode is titled "Leaving Afghanistan," Hoh does not advocate a complete withdrawal. Rather, he advocates - as I understand - negotiated ceasefires (each very localized in nature) in order to allow the local populations/communities/tribes a measure of autonomy and self-governance in order to politically diminish the relationship between them and the Taliban and to politically weaken the Taliban. Left would be peace-keeping forces in Kabul and in the areas where the three primary ethnic groups territories meet.

He is spot on when he describes how the term Taliban is used too broadly and loosely. The first rule of warfare is to properly identify your enemy. Hoh is challenging you to revisit that. You may or may not agree with what Matthew Hoh is saying or the solutions as he sees them, but as John Derbyshire said, "He is an honest man."

His observations deserve your consideration.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

In today's DailyBriefing, the first item highlighted is Attorney General Eric Holder saying that Usama bin Laden has the same rights as Charles Manson. What he actually said is far worse than that, as you will hear in the first minute of the video clip of his testimony below. The Attorney General's exchange with Texas Representative John Culberson is eye-opening for those who have napped through the dissolution of the Artist Formerly Known As The War on Terror (aka. Overseas Contingency Operations).

Eric Holder holds that the rights that should be afforded to terrorists who have declared war on the United States and executed their mayhem and killed Americans are to be based on their crime, not upon their citizenship status or the fact that they are enemy combatants at war. Simply astounding.

HOLDER: The comparison to 'are they getting more rights than the American citizen' is not an apt one. The question is are they being treated as murderers are treated? And the answer to that is yes. They have the same rights as a Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer. Those are the types of comparisons people should be making when trying make the determination about how terrorists are being treated, and not compare them to average citizens who have created no harm, have committed no crimes.

CULBERSON: You said that terrorists have the same rights as Charles Manson, correct?

HOLDER: I said that murderers have the same rights as Charles Manson. And if these people are charged with murder, then in essence, that's - those are the kinds of rights that they would get.

CULBERSON: Terrorists who have murdered American citizens - and the approach of your Department of Justice is that they would have the same rights as Charles Manson?

HOLDER: In the sense that a murderer has the right to go before a jury and get the acts that he is charged with proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

CULBERSON: So, therefor, Usama bin Laden has the same rights as Charles Manson.

HOLDER: In some ways, I think that they're comparable people in some ways, uh...

CULBERSON: That's incredible. This is where the disconnect between this administration, and your mindset, is so completely, uh, opposite that of where the vast majority of the American people are.

Holder went on to say that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured alive, that Miranda rights would be "read to the corpse of bin Laden." First, it is true enough that it is highly unlikely that bin Laden would be captured alive. However, such a statement by the top American justice official smacks of predetermination and hypocrisy similar to the pronouncement that there is no way Khalid Sheikh Muhammed would ever be found not guilty. One simply cannot have it both ways.

Citizenship and the context of war and and captured enemies in that war have no bearing on the rights of the captured. The only consideration is the crime.

If you're like me, you're just about speechless.

UPDATE: For amusement purposes, here is a particularly tickler of a headline for you in the aftermath of criticism - such as my own above.

Justice Department Accuses Republicans of Being Weak on Terrorism

The world and reality are turned on their heads.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

The UK's Telegraph asks in a biting commentary, Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America? The short answer is yes, of course. As is its Peoples Liberation Army military leadership.

And while the commentary whistles by concerns that are not limited to the Chinese - such as the value of the dollar amid profligate US government spending that seems to know no bounds - the Chinese lectures contained within deserve sharp rebuke.

For all of the faults of the US government's hand in the flailing American economy, it frankly will be a cold day in hell when Chinese lectures to anyone this side of the Iranian regime on "workers' rights" and "human rights" warrant merit beyond comic strip anecdotes.

"I don't think the yuan is undervalued. We oppose countries pointing fingers at each other and even forcing a country to appreciate its currency," [Chinese premier Wen Jiabao] said yesterday. Once again he demanded that the US takes "concrete steps to reassure investors" over the safety of US assets.

"Some say China has got more arrogant and tough. Some put forward the theory of China's so-called 'triumphalism'. My conscience is untainted despite slanders from outside," he said

Days earlier the State Council accused America of serial villainy. "In the US, civil and political rights of citizens are severely restricted and violated by the government. Workers' rights are seriously violated," it said.

"The US, with its strong military power, has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights," it said.

"At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the US subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the US government revels in accusing other countries." And so forth.

We have some very real issues to tackle in the United States with regard to government spending, unfunded liabilities, government interventions and manipulations on the free market and protecting the value of the US Dollar.

But human rights and workers' rights are not among them. And anyone who gives an ounce of credence to such libelous Chinese (and U.S. State Department?) rhetoric is so deeply jaded that reality stands not a chance.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

Anwar al Awlaki is connected to each of the following: Nidel Hassan (Ft. Hood), Najibullah Zazi, Jihad Jane (aka Colleen R. LaRose), Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, Sharif Mobley and who knows who else.

Even if Mobley's father's claim is true that his son "is no terrorist" he is connected to al Awlaki and he did work at potentially five nuclear sites (have to agree with Sen. Schumer on this one - "We simply cannot tolerate at any time having someone with terrorist ties working at a nuclear plant, period."

It cannot be too far fetched to believe that a a drone could be in al Awlaki's future.

He at least has to be considered a high value target.

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (0)