Update: AZ Border Patrol agent killed

Border Patrol agents shot beanbags at a group of suspected bandits before the men returned fire during a confrontation in a remote canyon, killing agent Brian Terry with a single gunshot, records show.

And an illegal immigrant wounded in the gun battle who is now the only person in custody linked to the slaying contends he never fired a shot, according to FBI search warrant requests filed in the U.S. District Court in Tucson.

The documents provide the most detailed version yet of what happened in the deadly gun battle Dec. 14 in Peck Canyon, northwest of Nogales.

The documents say the group of illegal border entrants refused commands to drop their weapons after agents confronted them at about 11:15 p.m. Two agents fired beanbags at the migrants, who responded with gunfire. Two agents returned fire, one with a long gun and one with a pistol, but Terry was mortally wounded in the gunfight.

Border Patrol officials declined to answer questions about protocol for use of force, citing the ongoing investigation.

But Terry’s brother, Kent Terry, said the other agents who were there that night told him that they were instructed to use the non-lethal beanbags first. It’s a policy that doesn’t make sense to Kent Terry.

“You go up against a bandit crew that is carrying AKs, and you walk out there with guns loaded with beanbags – I don’t get it,” Terry said in a phone interview from Michigan. “It’s like going to the Iraqi war with one knife. It boggles my mind. … These guys (Border Patrol agents) are professionals; they should be able to use their judgment call on their own.”

Excerpt From:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_681d29cf-845a-5aea-9f34-3837d70b8a31.html

Update 2:

The guns found at the site of the killing were the same that the ATF allowed to be smuggled into Mexico.

The AFT has let hundreds of weapons into Mexico

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2976/

ATF Agent: I was ordered to let weapons into Mexico

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

Face Forward Comments:

I feel very bad for the family that lost a member. Everyone realizes that working as a Border Patrol Agent is not easy and often very dangerous. I respect these brave men and women that have taken on this needed dangerous and politically unpopular job.

From Ruby Ridge to Waco the ATF continue to show why they are the most dangerous and out of control federal agency we have. 

Republicans found fault with the Obama Justice Department on other issues, including its handling of a voter intimidation claim, drug enforcement issues and the status of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, said the department has not cooperated fully with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s investigation of alleged voter intimidation by two members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

Culberson said the commission’s report indicates Justice Department lawyers were encouraged to be aggressive in defending blacks from voter intimidation and other forms of harassment but were discouraged from being as active fighting discrimination against whites.The congressman referenced a quote from a former Democratic activist who said the Philadelphia incident was the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career. 

Holder said that implication “just flies in the face of history.”

He denied the Justice Department makes decisions based on race and said he took the issue particularly personally because his sister-in-law, the late Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama. Holder said the New Black Panthers case is not a good comparison “to what happened to my people” and that it is a disservice to those who risked their lives during the civil rights battles of the ’60s.

 Excerpt from Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/02/house.holder/index.html?

 Face Forward Comments:

You remember the Philadelphia case, right? Several Black Panthers try to intimidate white voters with threats to harm them and their children. Why that is not looked at as voter intimidation is beyond me.

 I don’t care if the Attorney General is black, red, pink or white. All I want from him is to keep his end of the bargain which is to lead the Department of justice and help enforce the DOJ’s mission statement.

 From the DOJ’s website is there mission statement

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

 Whenever a Attorney General refers to any group of people in question of breaking the law whether they are identified by a color, a creed, a religion or any other means as “My People” the battle to remain fair and impartial is long lost. Eric Holder must go.

With the recent events in Egypt and the debate over proposed legislation, “Cyber Security and American Competitiveness Act of 2011”, the term “Internet Kill Switch” has flashed into popular discussion. So what does the term mean, what does it look like, and can it be really be done?

Last week, Wired reported that the “Kill Switch” bill will introduce legislation that would give the US government power to limit Internet traffic in the event of cyber-security emergency. The intent of the bill is to provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector to respond swiftly to a significant threat. It is not a mandate to be able to shut down the entire Internet but rather authorizes the president to order access to “critical infrastructure” be turned-off.

Egypt’s actions follow other recent government ordered blackouts as seen in Myanmar and Iran. In each case, an autocratic government could assert control over a relatively small number of major ISPs (ASNs – Autonomous System Numbers). Flipping the switch was achieved by changes to the routing tables (CIDR deletions) used by the ISPs.

The question remains….. could the same approach be taken in the US? The ubiquitous and interconnected nature of the United States ISPs, and the reliance of the critical infrastructure sectors within the U.S. on those ISPs coupled with the lack of overall visibility present enormous technical challenges. Below are three to consider:

1) Master complete visibility and understanding of the Internet – In order to control, direct, or limit routing, which is essentially what would be required, the government would have to have visibility and a solid understanding of all Internet assets and their routing commands. When considering the global Internet, you must have the ability to view it, map it, and track it from multiple perspectives and vantage points. If this is not achieved, you could never be sure closing access in one area would not open access via another, nor could you be sure to maintain operations of those assets you wish not to impact.

 2) Overcome the size and scale of the countries Internet presence – (ASN’s in the US 16,000 in Egypt 96) When one considers the difference in scale of ownership and governance between the US government infrastructure and these other countries, it is hard to infer that the US government could induce a blackout to the same effect as these other cases.

3) Own the ability to take action – An effective surgical response requires sensing and validating the cyber-emergency from multiple sources, sharing the appropriate notice and responsibility with critical infrastructure partners and relevant agencies, and managing a distributed means to synchronize, execute, and monitor the shut down activity.

Until these challenges are overcome, a technical solution will be out of reach – even if a political solution is enacted.

Article from:

http://www.securityweek.com/internet-kill-switch-technically-feasible-us

Response By CompEngFriend

 1) critical infrastructure such as power generation and/or grid control, hospitals, traffic control systems, banking, etc. ARE NOT connected to the open Internet — they are implemented using isolated control networks. If these networks are NOT isolated, they definitely should be as a matter of standard, safe engineering practices. Any owners of critical infrastructure that is connected to the open internet should be fined or otherwise penalized.

2) The Suxnet worm gained access to the industrial control systems it infected via physical access to a computer system connected to the isolated control network. The worm was placed on a usb thumb drive that was physically inserted into a PC.

As you can see, there is no practical reason for a “Internet kill switch” to protect the “critical infrastructure” of the United States. The only reason to have an Internet kill switch is to limit the ability for the population to use the Internet as a communication media that is not controlled by the government.

The Internet is the most important, powerful, OPEN invention (since the printing press) for the dissemination of free speech and information. This is why the government wants to kill this technology!

Can You major in "Czar" while in college?

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) offered the amendment that blocks funding for various policy advisers to combat what he called “a very disturbing proliferation of czars” under Obama.

“These unappointed, unaccountable people who are literally running a shadow government, heading up these little fiefdoms that nobody can really seem to identify where they are or what they’re doing,” Scalise said Thursday. “But we do know that they’re wielding vast amounts of power.”

The jobs on the chopping block: White House-appointed advisers on health care, energy and climate, green jobs, urban affairs, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, oversight of TARP executive compensation, diversity at the Federal Communications Commission and the auto industry manufacturing policy.

These so-called “czars” have been favorite targets of Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts, especially energy and climate adviser Carol Browner, who is leaving the administration.

“The last green jobs czar we had left in disgrace because he expressed comments embracing communism and actually tried to blame the government, the American government, for September 11th attacks,” Scalise said.

Scalise got 13 Democrats to vote for his amendment and it wasn’t just the usual Blue Dogs: Dan Boren (Okla.), Ben Chandler (Ky.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Henry Cuellar and Gene Green of Texas, Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Ed Pastor (Ariz.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Mike Ross (Ark.), and North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell.

One Republican – Wisconsin’s Reid Ribble – voted no.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49781.html#ixzz1EKPaz3Nk

Face Forward says:
The fact is, we have had Czars in the government since the 70′s. The problem is not with the president having advisers outside of the cabinet (and therefore not confirmed by Congress), the problem is that this administration is trying to transform the US through redirection of wealth and by giving unprecedented power to the Czars.

This is a great move by our Freshman lawmakers. If they want to be voted back in, they will continue to produce this kind result.