Friendly fire likely killed Border Patrol agent, FBI says - Los Angeles Times [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Catholic Church vs. Women with Human Rights Activist Fr. Roy Bourgeoiswww.facebook.com twitter.com thelip.tv EPISODE SYNOPSIS: The Catholic Church still officially regards the inclusion of women as priests as an abomination on the same scale as sexual abuse. Fr. Roy Bourgeois has taken a fervent position against this gender inequality in the church, much to the chagrin of his church brethren, and is being excommunicated for it. He joins us and puts the debate in context of human rights, and also shares his history of working against the notorious School of the Americas. Fr. Roy provides examples of how the battlegrounds have changed in the struggle to have autonomous governments in latin america that don't employ US-trained death squads. GUEST BIO: Fr. Roy Bourgeois is a graduate of the University of Southwestern Louisiana with a Bachelor of Science degree in geology. After college he served in the Navy for four years. One year was spent on shore duty in Vietnam where he received the Purple Heart. Following his time in the Navy, Fr. Roy was ordained a Catholic priest in 1972 and went to work in Bolivia for five years. He stayed until he was arrested and forced to leave the country. Following this Father Roy involved himself in US policy in El Salvador after four American churchwomen were raped and killed by El Salvadoran soldiers. This led him to become an outspoken critic of US foreign policy in Latin America. Since then, he has spent over four years in US federal prisons for non-violent protests against the training of Latin American ...
It will gather evidence on substitute drugs such as methadone, and is part of the Scottish government's national drugs strategy. It emphasises recovery from addiction - rather than the previous policy allowing addicts to use alternatives to heroin to ... Methadone policy review to improve addicts' treatment
BISBEE, Ariz. â€" There are "strong preliminary indications" that the shooting of two U.S. Border Patrol agents, one of whom died, was a friendly fire incident that occurred as they investigated a report of suspicious activity in rugged terrain south of Tucson, FBI officials said Friday.
James L. Turgal Jr., FBI special agent in charge in Arizona, said it appeared that Agent Nicholas J. Ivie was killed and another agent wounded as "the result of an accidental shooting incident involving only the agents."
Ivie was fatally shot early Tuesday while he and two colleagues were patrolling near the Arizona town of Naco, in an isolated corridor frequented by Mexican drug cartel members and illegal border crossers.
"The FBI is utilizing all necessary investigative, forensic and analytic resources in the course of this investigation," Turgal said in a statement. "At the appropriate time further information will be provided."
One of the agents was released from a hospital after being treated for gunshot wounds. The third agent was not injured. Turgal cautioned that federal investigators had reached no conclusions about what happened.
Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, said he could not confirm the friendly fire information but noted that agents often converge on a scene from different directions. Rugged terrain, lack of lighting and a barrage of gunfire can make for chaotic and confusing circumstances, he added.
For instance, San Diego-area agents are believed to have shot at each other during a confrontation about a decade ago, though no one was injured.
"When gunshots start, you always want to know where the friendly forces are, and sometimes in the heat of battle it's hard to keep track," Moran said. "It doesn't make the death of Agent Ivie less heroic or less tragic. It's a horrific incident."
Investigators scoured the desert area on horseback and all-terrain vehicles and with helicopters in the days after the shooting.
Gun-trace documents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives obtained by The Times show that a high-powered rifle and a handgun were found near the shooting scene, though it was not clear whether they were connected to the incident.
A .223 Bushmaster rifle, seized on Wednesday, was "recovered in Mexico in the vicinity where Border Patrol agent was murdered," according to one of the documents. It says the weapon was purchased in the United States but does not specify where.
A .38-caliber Titan Tiger revolver was recovered separately Tuesday in Mexico, also near the Naco area, a second document says. That trace record included this alert: "Urgent High Profile Border Agent Shot."
The record says the weapon was originally purchased in February 2009 from the Frontier Gun Shop in Tucson.
Ivie, a six-year Border Patrol agent, was killed not far from where fellow Agent Brian Terry was slain in December 2010. Two weapons recovered from that shooting were later traced to the ATF's failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation, which allowed illegal gun purchases on the border in an attempt to snare Mexican drug cartel leaders.
There was no suggestion in the gun-trace records that the two weapons found after Ivie was killed were tied to Fast and Furious.
On Friday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar visited the Ivie family in Sierra Vista, Ariz., to offer their condolences. They also spoke with agents at the Border Patrol station in Naco, now named after Terry.
Jeffrey D. Self, a top Customs and Border Protection commander in Arizona, said he advised Ivie's family that investigators believed it was possible the shootings were "a tragic accident."
"I explained to Agent Ivie's family that if the investigation ultimately reaches that conclusion, it changes none of the following facts," Self said. "Agent Ivie gave the ultimate sacrifice and died serving his country. He died in the line of duty and will be honored as such for his final act of service."
"The fact is, the work of the Border Patrol is dangerous," Self added.
Kevin Goates, a spokesman for the Ivie family, would not elaborate on the visit but said the family has "very strong feelings" about the situation, including Friday's developments.
"Strong doesn't mean negative," Goates added. "Obviously when someone passes, there are strong feelings."
Goates said the family is working on arrangements for Ivie's funeral, which is scheduled for Monday.
richard.serrano@latimes.com
cindy.carcamo@latimes.com
Serrano reported from Washington and Carcamo from Bisbee.
Times staff writer Richard Marosi contributed to this report.
Suggest Friendly fire likely killed Border Patrol agent, FBI says - Los Angeles Times Articles Question by Sam: What do you think about the "don't ask don't tell policy"...does it work in the military and keep moral high? I was kinda hoping to get an inside view from someone in the military and their experience with it. Best answer for What do you think about the "don't ask don't tell policy"...does it work in the military and keep moral high?:
Answer by okguitarist1
i think it is a good idea. some people are homophobic and if they are in war and know the guy next to them is gay they might not trust them like they should. its nothing against gays but i think it should remain the same
Answer by Dennis D
The current policy is don't ask don't tell. Homosexuals say that it isn't fair to be excluded from serving openly as a gay in the military. Is it equally fair to subject the majority who aren't gay and want nothing to do with gays, or the gay lifestyle to scenes like the street parades in San Francisco. That's what it is a lifestyle, if gays are going to live the lifestyle, then they should conclude they have no place in a military where the majority are heterosexual. However that is not the case. Gays want acceptance of their lifestyle so they persist in attempting to force their lifestyle on the rest of us. Even gays call it a lifestyle which infers choice. Reminds me of the picture o f Perez Hilton in his pink nightie and blond wig with nothing on below the waist pulling his suite cases down the street. The caption for that picture could be, "off to join the military". Homophobia isn't a disease, it just means that a person does not appreciate the gay lifestyle for whatever reason and isn't a bad thing.
Answer by synyster
I think it's stupid I think a person in the military can be openly gay if he chooses. It shouldn't make a different if he is gay or straight. If he/she is trained to fight and save your life if you are ever in the time of need would it matter if the person was gay or straight?
Answer by Stylehippo
i think it is a great policy for everyplace.. what u do behind ur door is ur business and should not be flaunted.. provided it is legal
Answer by Aestro
It really varies by squad/platoon. There are some groups where a soldier's homosexuality is known, but his/her fellow soldiers are fine with it because that person made the same pldge to serve their country that they did. In those cases, it likely hurts morale, because the soldier is still forced to remain discreet and keep their relationship hidden in case someone who it doesn't really effect finds out and reports them. On the other hand, there are plenty of homophobes serving too, that wouldn't feel comfortable knowing they're sleeping and showering in the same quarters as a gay soldier. It might be a good idea to leave the final decision up to the unit commander until the country as a whole is a bit more accepting, even if it is unfair that a soldier is forced to hide their sexuality while serving their country.
Answer by ausy
Its not really talked about other than jokes among us (talking from personal experience). Like someone will grab someones ass or something and say "no homo" and someone will respond with "are you gay?" in which the response "don't ask don't tell" is replied. Here is my main thing that my father, a 23 year retired 1SG in the Marines who served in Vietnam told me about homosexuality and see if it makes sense to you, cause its how my father and I few it, but its complicated. Lets say you have a female you are attracted to (lets also say females are allowed on the frontlines, like infantry?) and she is shot. Now if you go try to pull her to cover there is a 99% chance you will get hit also. But you are VERY attracted or say in love with her? You would probably do it. Now lets say you are shot and someone in our unit is a homosexual. They have the same feelings for you and want to save you but they most probably will get shot. What then? This is how my father explained it to me and it makes very good sense when you think of it from that point, but at the same time, if one of my good friends is out there shot, you are damn sure I am going to run out there and pull him out or at least die trying to bring him home. So its sort of a catch-22 with that explanation, but its the only one I have.
Answer by barbamatt
It is a good policy. It seems to work. Most people in the military don't sit around and talk about it. Maybe when society as a whole accepts gay life style and becomes more comfortable with it, then the military can change...but right now they are still fighting Prop 8 in California. It just creates a lot of uneasiness when you have openly gay men and women in a hostile environment. Right now it is better to keep your sexuality private. It should be a private thing anyway gay or straight.
Answer by Jamie H
"The don't ask don't tell" policy restricts homosexual families from receiving the same benefits as heterosexual families. It hurts the morale of the gay people in the Military because their pay checks do not include the lofty financial benefits of separation pay and other BAH benefits that their heterosexual counterparts receive. In addition living on base housing is not an option and as a whole their families are not acknowledged. It is an infringement on gay/civil rights. Gay members are NOT discharged from the Military. I witnessed someone write a letter to the commander stating she was gay. She wanted to use this to get out of the Military. Her request was denied. She was offered counseling and that was it. They completely ignored her statement. There are soooo many gay women in the Military...and they are quite open about it. Gay people in the Military have a "Whatever" type of attitude these days and are tired of being discriminated against. When NCO's and Commanders are aware of someone being gay they cant do anything and wont do anything...Hell...I even know of people caught in basic training sleeping in the same bunks together and admitted they were messing around. The worse that happened is they were restarted back to day 1 of basic training....and in another situation the two were simply counseled. Don't let the don't ask don't tell policy scare you into wanting to be a contributing member to protect our society. In my opinion the policy is bullshit and only used to financially hinder Gays. If your gay spouse decides to join the Military and you both want to stay together(deploy together/stay in same unit) through out your career it will be way more challenging then heterosexual married couples.
Answer by Sybil
As a female, I wouldn't feel as awkward as a male living or showering or working alongside someone who was gay. I do think there would be a big problem with the males, it's just not right to ask them to accept this. I can't imagine, the Army is already accommodating for different beliefs and religious practices, so now what? We will have to have one barracks for men, another for women, another for gay men and another for gay women? We should keep it the way it is: discreet., it prevents drama too. My husband is in the Army also, I don't hang all over him or make out in public, or even touch in public. We don't announce what we do behind closed doors to others. That is my private life, and it stays there. It doesn't bother me, why should it bother others, gay or not? Outside the Army, I don't mind at all, you can be openly gay, just please don't start making out in public. I hate to see that at a ballgame, or the park, especially when children are around, gay or straight, please be discreet. It may be your choice, and I respect that, but you don't have to impose your choice on others.
Answer by thomas.maricor@yahoo.com
No it doesnt keep morale up becuase believe it or not military doesnt really like gays even soldiers they dont like gay soldiers if they find out there quir.
Answer by Singularity
The gay men, I don;t know, men can be well...I disn't know any gay men, the females who were gay, now they would not keep their mouth sh ut, espcially the gay/wiccan females.
2012 First Presidential Debate - Romney vs. Obama (Full)US Presidential Debate 2012 First Debate - Domestic policy October 03, 2012 10.03.2012 03.10.2012 2012/10/03 Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama --- My Simplified, truthful analysis of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama: Romney: Pros - A presidential figure that is for small or medium-sized government, supports free enterprise, wants the United States to be mainly for citizens and real immigrants, and has experience in business and the economy, etc... Motives: restore faith in America, to cut government spending, shorten the debt, and strengthen American values Con - Mormon faith Obama: "Pros" - "Charismatic" speeches, professional campaigner, good at brainwashing and deceiving unintelligent, immature voters Cons: Un-American figure, dishonest politics, hypocrite, makes false promises, supports gay marriage, bigger government, countless debt, insincere change, illegal immigration, socialist-minded, supports higher taxes not only against the rich, but o n the poor, advocate of racism (against Caucasians), black-white conflicts, class-warfare, and wants a dead, divided America, etc... Your choice... (but I say NOBAMA! If you regard the status quo and the same old tricks from the past decade, then Obama is probably qualified to stay as president for the next four years... But if you want a newer, better, and more capable presidency that is ready to be successful, then Romney is more qualified to be the next president. At this point in time, a Romney presidency is most likely to overcome ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment