Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[TJHairball]

But we're not discussing their involvement in many; we're discussing their involvement in this issue, and on this issue, their involvement is blatantly one-sided.

So what are you saying the ACLU should be doing?

Protesting trespass and vandalism? That sort of petty crime is beneath the ACLU, unless selective enforcement is making things hard for an identifiable racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual group.

No? You don't think telling people they can get away with breaking the law creates an atmosphere where people will break the law, and shows a serious disregard for those who are victimized by the crime?

Disregard, lousy management... sure.

But unless you factor in something else, we're pretty much just talking about property rights, damages, etc, not civil liberties.

No, I'm saying that the ACLU's stance is clearly pro-foreign and anti-American on this issue.

And you say this why?

So rather than merely generalization, they're also committing guilt by association fallacy. These people say it's good, therefore it's bad. Right.

These people say that it's good... which means these people are volunteering... which means these people are likely to be there.

It's a volunteer organization, is it not?

So, then, they didn't even have that as justification when they started. Thanks.

Simply suspicion.

And what did they start doing? Watching. Same thing the Minutemen are supposedly doing, only (perhaps) without guns.

Uh, no. Any argument that depends on the reasoning, "What don't we know?" is an appeal to ignorance.

The reasoning is "What little do we know?"

Presumably? You mean the ACLU didn't say what this horrible vigilante actually did to these poor criminal souls?

Not at all. Their press release only notes that the information given them by the authorities was very spotty.

I notice it did say that they flagged him down. Now, we might ask -- what if he was giving them a lift back to the border because they wanted to go back? Of course, we won't ask that, because as I just pointed out, that would be a fallacious argument.

We don't know what happened, no. We do know he got himself arrested over it.

Why would the Border Patrol tip off the ACLU? I can't back this up, but I have a strong hunch that the Border Patrol probably doesn't like the ACLU much, since the ACLU is interfering with their duties in the course of interfering with the Minutemen.

Hence the very low probability of the illegal detention the ACLU did take note of having been taken note of.

I'm estimating odds here, TQ. So, what shall we say?

1 in 10 to be pulled over with two illegals in the car.

1 in 10 to be arrested if pulled over with two illegals in the car.

1 in 10 the ACLU gets tipped off by the border patrol.

That's 1 in 1000. How's that sound?

Again, this is an appeal to ignorance. You could just as easily make up any damn thing about them you want to based on this, on the assurance that it happens and it's just not reported.

Statistics. Yes, I know - lies, damned lies, and statistics. It's a guess, and the most reasonable one.

So, the guilt by association fallacy is basically it, then. "These guys say you're good, and we don't like these guys, therefore you're bad."

See above. Where do Minutemen volunteers come from?

 

[The Question]

So what are you saying the ACLU should be doing... Protesting trespass and vandalism? That sort of petty crime is beneath the ACLU, unless selective enforcement is making things hard for an identifiable racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual group.

And isn't "selective observation" what the ACLU is doing?

Disregard, lousy management... sure. But unless you factor in something else, we're pretty much just talking about property rights, damages, etc, not civil liberties.

Well, yeah, I am factoring in something else. The federal government is deliberately creating an atmosphere which exposes its citizens to an increase in crimes against them when it talks about extending what amounts to a mass pardon to the people committing those crimes, and that's a civil liberties issue, isn't it?

These people say that it's good... which means these people are volunteering... which means these people are likely to be there.

I think you're missing the entire concept of the guilt-by-association fallacy.

Simply suspicion.

Suspicion based on what? The ACLU's stance on illegal immigration is simply to defend those who break the law at the expense of those who suffer because of it. I don't know how you can keep a straight face while pretending not to be aware of that.

And what did they start doing? Watching. Same thing the Minutemen are supposedly doing, only (perhaps) without guns.

Considering that no one's fired a shot at an ACLU observer, that makes sense. Considering that coyotes and drug runners have fired shots at those patrolling the border, it makes perfect sense that the Minutemen would arm themselves. They're not going to let illegals break the law, but neither are they going to let themselves be killed by illegals attempting to break the law, or in retaliation for Americans doing what Americans have not only a right, but a duty to do.

The reasoning is "What little do we know?"

Exactly, an appeal to ignorance. Trying to prove a point with... no information.

Not at all. Their press release only notes that the information given them by the authorities was very spotty. We don't know what happened, no.We do know he got himself arrested over it.Hence the very low probability of the illegal detention the ACLU did take note of having been taken note of.

Again, you can't make a case based on evidence you don't have. You can't prove something based on what you don't know.

I'm estimating odds here, TQ. So, what shall we say?

1 in 10 to be pulled over with two illegals in the car.

1 in 10 to be arrested if pulled over with two illegals in the car.

1 in 10 the ACLU gets tipped off by the border patrol.

That's 1 in 1000. How's that sound?

Sounds like guesswork. Sounds like you're pulling numbers out of your ass because you have nowhere else to pull them from.

Statistics. Yes, I know - lies, damned lies, and statistics. It's a guess, and the most reasonable one.

But still only a guess.

See above. Where do Minutemen volunteers come from?[/QUOTE]

All over the country, and (in case this is what you were getting at) from all ethnic groups. We're not talking a white-rednecks-only club, which is the nice little fantasy picture the ACLU is apparently pushing.

 

[TJHairball]

And isn't "selective observation" what the ACLU is doing?

What's so selective about it?

Are the Minutemen a race? An ethnic group? Being oppressed? No. They're having an eye kept on them because they're worrying about what they might do.

Well, yeah, I am factoring in something else. The federal government is deliberately creating an atmosphere which exposes its citizens to an increase in crimes against them when it talks about extending what amounts to a mass pardon to the people committing those crimes, and that's a civil liberties issue, isn't it?

No, that's a civil order issue.

I think you're missing the entire concept of the guilt-by-association fallacy.

And you're missing that what the ACLU is doing isn't arguing that the Minutemen necessarily are guilty of being murderous racists, or claiming that their associations prove this. Suspecting the possibility? Perfectly reasonable. Realizing that there's a very real possibility of problems cropping up? Also perfectly reasonable. Private armies are something you always want to keep an eye on.

Suspicion based on what? The ACLU's stance on illegal immigration is simply to defend those who break the law at the expense of those who suffer because of it. I don't know how you can keep a straight face while pretending not to be aware of that.

The ACLU's stance is to defend the rights of whomever... regardless of whether they are in this country legally or not.

Considering that no one's fired a shot at an ACLU observer, that makes sense. Considering that coyotes and drug runners have fired shots at those patrolling the border, it makes perfect sense that the Minutemen would arm themselves. They're not going to let illegals break the law, but neither are they going to let themselves be killed by illegals attempting to break the law, or in retaliation for Americans doing what Americans have not only a right, but a duty to do.

And? If the Minutemen aren't doing anything wrong by sitting around on the border watching things, then the ACLU is doing nothing wrong by watching them.

Exactly, an appeal to ignorance. Trying to prove a point with... no information.

Limited information. Prove? No.

You're saying the ACLU has no cause to be there. The ACLU in turn says that their suspicions are justified by the fact that - in what you yourself admit seems an unlikely event to come to the ACLU's attention - one of the Minutemen got arrested. We can conjecture all we want about whether it's an isolated incident of some fella going rogue, or a sign that there's a larger problem... but the point still stands that the ACLU isn't going to stop watching as a result of a Minuteman getting actually arrested. If anything, the vigilante-watch will continue more intently.

All over the country, and (in case this is what you were getting at) from all ethnic groups. We're not talking a white-rednecks-only club, which is the nice little fantasy picture the ACLU is apparently pushing.

And did I - or the ACLU - ever claim that the Minutemen are a racially exclusive group?

No, that's not in their charter. Although reviewing the Minutemen's own photo archives, it's pretty clear that middle-aged white portly men are the vast majority, and the historical reference of the name (IIRC, the name has been shared by a KKK-associated border patrol group in the 1930s and a virulent anti-communist/anti-civil rights movement group in the 1960s) is clear. Ties to - for example - the Nazi party of America were noted by former Minutemen leader John Chase.

There's plenty of reason for suspicion about their activities.

Incidentially, the Minutemen even took a picture of a sign that goes back into what I said about the Minutemen not always being wanted:

The Minutemen are claiming that their civil liberties are being oppressed by the ACLU. They are being nothing more and nothing less than facetious in doing so.

 

[TJHairball]

Something I found good reading as to why the ACLU keeps an eye on the Minuteman Project: http://www.borderwatch.us/ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=0

 

[The Question]

What's so selective about it?

Are the Minutemen a race? An ethnic group? Being oppressed? No. They're having an eye kept on them because they're worrying about what they might do.

Trying to prevent them from engaging in legal activities based solely on their exercise of constitutionally-protected freedom of association sounds pretty oppressive to me.

No, that's a civil order issue.

It's both, actually. Apprently, though, the government encouraging crime against a segment of the American public is just peachy with you.

And you're missing that what the ACLU is doing isn't arguing that the Minutemen necessarily are guilty of being murderous racists, or claiming that their associations prove this. Suspecting the possibility? Perfectly reasonable. Realizing that there's a very real possibility of problems cropping up? Also perfectly reasonable.

And they suspect it based on the predominant race of the activists. You know it, I know it, let's dispense with the bullshit. Other than that and the slant of the groups who defend the Minutemen, the only other reason the ACLU would harrass the Minutemen is because the ACLU does not respect the law.

Private armies are something you always want to keep an eye on.

Since when is the MCDC a "private army"?

The ACLU's stance is to defend the rights of whomever... regardless of whether they are in this country legally or not.

Then they don't respect the law. Do they defend the interests of pedophiles, too?

If the Minutemen aren't doing anything wrong by sitting around on the border watching things, then the ACLU is doing nothing wrong by watching them.

And if watching were all they were doing, I'd agree -- they tried to cross the line into actively interfering, the court bitch-slapped them for it.

Limited information. Prove? No.

Then without prove, you get a suckit-pop.

You're saying the ACLU has no cause to be there. The ACLU in turn says that their suspicions are justified by the fact that - in what you yourself admit seems an unlikely event to come to the ACLU's attention - one of the Minutemen got arrested. We can conjecture all we want about whether it's an isolated incident of some fella going rogue, or a sign that there's a larger problem... but the point still stands that the ACLU isn't going to stop watching as a result of a Minuteman getting actually arrested.

Except they, like you, seem unable to distinguish the actions of one person operating against established protocol from the actions of the rest of the group.

If anything, the vigilante-watch will continue more intently.And did I - or the ACLU - ever claim that the Minutemen are a racially exclusive group?

That does seem to be the idea the you're both operating from.

No, that's not in their charter. Although reviewing the Minutemen's own photo archives, it's pretty clear that middle-aged white portly men are the vast majority, and the historical reference of the name (IIRC, the name has been shared by a KKK-associated border patrol group in the 1930s and a virulent anti-communist/anti-civil rights movement group in the 1960s) is clear. Ties to - for example - the Nazi party of America were noted by former Minutemen leader John Chase.

Again, who they have ties to is irrelevant.

There's plenty of reason for suspicion about their activities.

Based solely on racial and political guilt-by-association.

Incidentially, the Minutemen even took a picture of a sign that goes back into what I said about the Minutemen not always being wanted:

Just because they're not always wanted doesn't mean they're not wanted.

The Minutemen are claiming that their civil liberties are being oppressed by the ACLU. They are being nothing more and nothing less than facetious in doing so.

Not when the ACLU tries and fails to use the law to interfere with their legal rights.

 

[The Question]

Something I found good reading as to why the ACLU keeps an eye on the Minuteman Project: http://www.borderwatch.us/ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=0

Again, guilt by association -- the article you quote, while bizarre, is not from the MCDC but a completely different group.

 

[TJHairball]

Trying to prevent them from engaging in legal activities based solely on their exercise of constitutionally-protected freedom of association sounds pretty oppressive to me.

And since when did freedom of association translate into armed border patrols?

You want to be looking at the militias clause of the 2nd. Even then, note the "well regulated."

It's both, actually.

No, it's just an issue of civil order.

And they suspect it based on the predominant race of the activists.

No, on the affiliations and ties to other groups. See again the article I linked you to.

You know it, I know it, let's dispense with the bullshit. Other than that and the slant of the groups who defend the Minutemen, the only other reason the ACLU would harrass the Minutemen is because the ACLU does not respect the law.

"Other than the very good reasons the ACLU has for having suspicions about the Minutemen, they have no good reasons." Try again.

Since when is the MCDC a "private army"?

"Militia" if you will.

What other names would you like to use for an armed and organized group?

Then they don't respect the law. Do they defend the interests of pedophiles, too?

The ACLU defends whomever whenever they feel it is called for - whether unpopular or in fact engaged in criminal activity. Members of the ACLU are strong believers in due process and the right to an attorney in court.

And if watching were all they were doing, I'd agree -- they tried to cross the line into actively interfering, the court bitch-slapped them for it.

They raised a legitimate question, through appropriate channels, with the state of Arizona. The state decided their objections had no merits and that the Minutemen did not in fact require a special permit to operate on state lands.

Except they, like you, seem unable to distinguish the actions of one person operating against established protocol from the actions of the rest of the group.

Except they, unlike you, are not willing to buy that the one person operating against claimed protocols is in fact operating completely independently from the group... in spite of the patent absurdity of the established protocol.

"In no way communicate with suspected illegals" is an absurd policy statement on the face of it.

That does seem to be the idea the you're both operating from.

No. See again the article I linked to. It is a question of the groups the Minutemen are willing to link themselves to.

Again, who they have ties to is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Hardly.

Commission of crime involves two things... motivation and opportunity. The associations provide easily understood motivations, the activities in question provide easily understood opportunities.

With all the elements in place, it is no wonder that watchdogs are keeping a close eye on the Minutemen.

Just because they're not always wanted doesn't mean they're not wanted.

Clearly not universally wanted.

Not when the ACLU tries and fails to use the law to interfere with their legal rights.

Their legal right to put together a private border patrol and operate it on public lands without a permit?

That's not a fundamental right. It happens to be apparently legal, but the matter was quite open to question.

 

[TJHairball]

Again, guilt by association -- the article you quote, while bizarre, is not from the MCDC but a completely different group.

It speaks about the MCDC and its willingness to tie itself to such groups as the Nazi party, KKK, etc etc. Read it again. The fellow writing it once had quite close ties with the Minutemen, and does no longer. His border patrol group operating in California, we may note, is not under scrutiny by the ACLU AFAIK, although they very clearly take their mission seriously.

 

[The Question]

And since when did freedom of association translate into armed border patrols?

You want to be looking at the militias clause of the 2nd. Even then, note the "well regulated."

And is the ACLU properly trained or officially authorized to regulate militias?

No, it's just an issue of civil order.

So you don't see how a government encouraging foreign aggression against its own people violates their civil rights.

No, on the affiliations and ties to other groups. See again the article I linked you to.

Again, guilt by association. Is one or all of the words in that phrase genuinely beyond your level of comprehension, or are you just refusing to understand it?

"Other than the very good reasons the ACLU has for having suspicions about the Minutemen, they have no good reasons." Try again.

I haven't conceded that they have any good reasons. Their behavior is discriminatory, plain and simple. They're interfering with the civil liberties of Americans in order to facilitate the illegal activity of foreign nationals.

"Militia" if you will.

And so long as they don't break the law -- which they haven't, not even the rogue who was arrested (remember that charges against even that one were dropped) -- then they're only exercising their civil liberties.

What other names would you like to use for an armed and organized group?

Oh, militia works just fine.

The ACLU defends whomever whenever they feel it is called for - whether unpopular or in fact engaged in criminal activity. Members of the ACLU are strong believers in due process and the right to an attorney in court.

Right, because maybe they feel they can prove to a court that the defendant observed illegally entering the country isn't actually in the courtroom. Illegal border crossing is sort of a crime that's proven just by the defendant being in the courtroom.

They raised a legitimate question, through appropriate channels, with the state of Arizona. The state decided their objections had no merits and that the Minutemen did not in fact require a special permit to operate on state lands.

Which the ACLU knew already to begin with, or should have -- the court didn't decide that, it was already on the books.

Except they, unlike you, are not willing to buy that the one person operating against claimed protocols is in fact operating completely independently from the group... in spite of the patent absurdity of the established protocol.

What's absurd about it? The protocol is, observation and reporting only -- no contact of any kind. The guy whose article you linked to advises armed (if defensive) force and forcible detainer, which is exactly what the rogue Minuteman was accused of.

"In no way communicate with suspected illegals" is an absurd policy statement on the face of it.

How so? How hard is it to not talk to somebody?

No. See again the article I linked to. It is a question of the groups the Minutemen are willing to link themselves to.

Again -- guilt... by... association.

Commission of crime involves two things... motivation and opportunity. The associations provide easily understood motivations, the activities in question provide easily understood opportunities.

But whereas crime requires motive and opportunity, the presence of motive and opportunity don't justify the assumption of a crime. I could beat the living shit out of my incredibly, obnoxiously loud upstairs neighbor, and I wouldn't mind doing it, but that doesn't mean I have done it, or that I will.

With all the elements in place, it is no wonder that watchdogs are keeping a close eye on the Minutemen.

The ACLU stopped being just a "watchdog" when they tried to actively interfere by misapplying the law.

Clearly not universally wanted.

Did I say "universally"?

Their legal right to put together a private border patrol and operate it on public lands without a permit?

Yeah, that's the one. A non-contact observe-and-report border patrol with the policy of acting as observers for the official border patrol, operating on public lands where they don't need a permit.

That's not a fundamental right. It happens to be apparently legal, but the matter was quite open to question.

No, it wasn't. They never needed a permit, because the law that allowed them to do what they're doing without one was already spelled out before the ACLU tried to interfere.

 

[The Question]

It speaks about the MCDC and its willingness to tie itself to such groups as the Nazi party, KKK, etc etc.

Which still doesn't mean a damn thing, and will continue to not mean a damn thing.

Read it again. The fellow writing it once had quite close ties with the Minutemen, and does no longer. His border patrol group operating in California, we may note, is not under scrutiny by the ACLU AFAIK, although they very clearly take their mission seriously.

Have you read the article even once? The guy you think is so great operates a group that is actually more aggressive than the Minutemen. I suspect the reason the ACLU isn't bothering with his group is that his group isn't as high-profile a target, and interfering with it won't generate as much publlicity for the ACLU.

 

[TJHairball]

And is the ACLU properly trained or officially authorized to regulate militias?

Are they trying to regulate militias here?

No, they asked the state.

So you don't see how a government encouraging foreign aggression against its own people violates their civil rights.

By all means, explain how this is so.

Again, guilt by association. Is one or all of the words in that phrase genuinely beyond your level of comprehension, or are you just refusing to understand it?

TQ, you keep repeating "guilt by association" as if the association isn't a reasonable cause to keep an eye on them.

It is. Plain and simple. Recall what we're talking about is not whether or not the Minutemen have some reason to be where they are; we are talking about the character of the Minutemen.

This is not cause to dismiss the Minutemen's claims out of hand, nor does it condemn the Minutemen beyond all reasonable doubt, but it does provide a reasonable cause to keep an eye on the Minutemen.

I haven't conceded that they have any good reasons. Their behavior is discriminatory, plain and simple. They're interfering with the civil liberties of Americans in order to facilitate the illegal activity of foreign nationals.

TQ, all you're doing here is repeating the clearly false propaganda of the Minutemen themselves.

Answer me this - specifically and with detail:

-What civil liberties is the ACLU of Arizona interfering with in their activities?
-How is their behavior discriminatory?

And so long as they don't break the law -- which they haven't, not even the rogue who was arrested (remember that charges against even that one were dropped) -- then they're only exercising their civil liberties.

If they don't break any laws or violate anyone's rights themselves, they're in no trouble from the ACLU, which will do no more than watch and protest.

Oh, militia works just fine.

I suspected it would. Means the same thing here.

Right, because maybe they feel they can prove to a court that the defendant observed illegally entering the country isn't actually in the courtroom. Illegal border crossing is sort of a crime that's proven just by the defendant being in the courtroom.

And is the ACLU there to demonstrate that illegal aliens crossed the border legally?

No. They are there to defend their civil rights and the mechanism of due process.

Which the ACLU knew already to begin with, or should have -- the court didn't decide that, it was already on the books.

Recall, TQ, that the reason the courts decided the Minutemen didn't need a special permit was because it classified them as ranch hands. A classification I doubt the ACLU thought would stick.

What's absurd about it? The protocol is, observation and reporting only -- no contact of any kind.

No contact of any kind?

When you show yourself, you are making contact. When you gesture with a gun, you are communicating.

At this point, I would link to the Minutemen blog showing where the Minutemen definitely made more direct contact than that, but it seems to be down. Suffice it to say that absolutely anything other than picking up trash and calling the border patrol involves contact or communication.

The guy whose article you linked to advises armed (if defensive) force and forcible detainer, which is exactly what the rogue Minuteman was accused of.

There are a couple key differences between that stated (and very stiff) policy and the actions of the so-called "rogue" Minuteman.

First and foremost, that stated policy involves contacting the authorities immediately.
Second, it doesn't involve transporting any "citizen's arrest"ed criminals.

These differences, along with any applicable differences between AZ and CA law, may very well make the borderwatch.us policy legal, while the Minuteman in question qualified as illegally detaining.

How so? How hard is it to not talk to somebody?

Communication is not (and never has been) limited to speech.

Again -- guilt... by... association.

Again... perfectly reasonable suspicion.

That the CA Border Watch is unwilling to associate itself with racist groups is exactly why the much larger and more active ACLU of California is not scrutinizing them to a similar degree as the ACLU of Arizona scrutinizes the Minutemen. The assumed motives are clear and aboveboard, and critically, they state this as a policy:

California Border Watchers may communicate in a normal friendly respectful manner to suspected illegal aliens. (note: always have a movie camera filming the contact!)

California Border Watchers must provide water, food, and blankets to needy suspected illegal aliens.

Including humanitarian policies is one way to demonstrate good motives.

Now... I'm not saying that there ought not be anybody keeping an eye on that group as well, but I don't see anything from the ACLU mentioning them.

But whereas crime requires motive and opportunity, the presence of motive and opportunity don't justify the assumption of a crime. I could beat the living shit out of my incredibly, obnoxiously loud upstairs neighbor, and I wouldn't mind doing it, but that doesn't mean I have done it, or that I will.

Nope. But if you were running around with a gun and kept talking about your neighbor, that surely justifies your other neighbors making a point to keep an eye out in case you do snap and shoot him.

The ACLU stopped being just a "watchdog" when they tried to actively interfere by misapplying the law.

Misapplying?

I ask you: Are the Minutemen really just ranch hands? Heck no.

Did I say "universally"?

No. But I severely doubt they are very much wanted.

Yeah, that's the one. A non-contact observe-and-report border patrol with the policy of acting as observers for the official border patrol, operating on public lands where they don't need a permit.

Go read through the Minutemen blogs and tell me again it's a no-contact group. Look for pictures including both Minutemen and aliens.

And again, recall that the Minutemen would've needed a permit if not managing to get themselves covered with the transparent legal fiction of being there as ranch hands.

No, it wasn't. They never needed a permit, because the law that allowed them to do what they're doing without one was already spelled out before the ACLU tried to interfere.

Review the case again.

This time pay particular attention to the statements made by the state.

 

[TJHairball]

Well, I'd love to comment more from these stories, but I'm having trouble getting the videos to play right, although the KPHO transcript looks pretty damning.

The other one appears to be talking again about something that James Chase of borderwatch.us mentioned when saying he refuses to work with the Minutemen and why members of his group cannot be part of the Minutemen groups - dubious finances.

 

[The Question]

Are they trying to regulate militias here?

No, they asked the state.

And by any reasonable standard, they should have expected that the state would follow existing law and deny their request for interference. It was a harrassment tactic, nothing more and nothing less.

By all means, explain how this is so.

I find it hard to believe that you honestly don't understand how the government encouraging crime against its citizens is a violation of their rights. It's certainly a violation of equal protection under the law to permit some citizens (business owners) to benefit from illegal activity at the expense of others (prospective legal employees who aren't considered for employment due to the unfair competition of illegal employees and border property owners whose safety is jeapordized by human-smugglers.) Your tenacity in refusing to acknowledge this point is simultaneously impressive and disturbing.

TQ, you keep repeating "guilt by association" as if the association isn't a reasonable cause to keep an eye on them.

It isn't. It's a reasonable cause to keep an eye on those who are the subject of association.

It is. Plain and simple.

No, it's a logical fuckup, plain and simple. It is faulty reasoning.

Recall what we're talking about is not whether or not the Minutemen have some reason to be where they are; we are talking about the character of the Minutemen.

Only because that's all you have to complain about, and when you invoke guilt by association, you're not even talking about the character of the Minutemen, you're talking about these other groups.

I'll also point out that the Minutemen do not have "a character" -- it's a group of individuals, all of whom has his or her very own character.

This is not cause to dismiss the Minutemen's claims out of hand, nor does it condemn the Minutemen beyond all reasonable doubt, but it does provide a reasonable cause to keep an eye on the Minutemen.

Actually, no it doesn't. Oversight is all well and good, but the political stance of those who appreciate them doesn't provide cause for that; their activities, and their activities alone, do.

TQ, all you're doing here is repeating the clearly false propaganda of the Minutemen themselves.

Nice dodge, but it's not propaganda, it's an openly demonstrated fact.

Answer me this - specifically and with detail:

-What civil liberties is the ACLU of Arizona interfering with in their activities?

Already answered that one, both in general and in specific.

-How is their behavior discriminatory?

Why are you asking a question I've previously given a clear answer to several times? Using the law to harrass Americans who are legally assisting law enforcement personnel in the prevention of criminal activity is, by default, support of the illegal activity in question.

Further considering that the chief means of income of illegal aliens once they get here often can potentially longer-than-legal workshifts in often less-than-safe work environments for a fraction of livable wages means that the ACLU, by harrassing and interfering with the Minutemen (and thereby interfering with official Border Watch activities as well) means that the ACLU is not only actively working against the interests of Americans, but supporting an activity which would be considered abusive if applied to legal employees. They're not doing either side of the issue any favors.

If they don't break any laws or violate anyone's rights themselves, they're in no trouble from the ACLU, which will do no more than watch and protest.

Except that trying to apply the law for the purposes of harrassment puts them over the line from just watching and protesting. And again, in the places where they're protesting, they have a negative effect not only on what the Minutemen are doing, but on official Border Watch operations, as well.

I suspected it would. Means the same thing here.

And? If what the MCDC were doing, even as a "militia", were illegal, they would have been legally barred from continuing.

And is the ACLU there to demonstrate that illegal aliens crossed the border legally?

No. They are there to defend their civil rights and the mechanism of due process.

But apparently, they're unconcerned with the little technicality of these people proving their guilt of the crime in question just by being here, and they're not at all concerned with preventing the crime in the first place.

Recall, TQ, that the reason the courts decided the Minutemen didn't need a special permit was because it classified them as ranch hands. A classification I doubt the ACLU thought would stick.

Personally, I don't believe the ACLU cared whether it would stick or not.

No contact of any kind?

When you show yourself, you are making contact. When you gesture with a gun, you are communicating.

When have they gestured with guns? And come on -- we're not talking contact in the sonar context here. Contact would be physical approach and dialogue.

At this point, I would link to the Minutemen blog showing where the Minutemen definitely made more direct contact than that, but it seems to be down. Suffice it to say that absolutely anything other than picking up trash and calling the border patrol involves contact or communication.

And sometimes that's unavoidable, especially when it's the Minutemen who are approached, rather than the other way around.

There are a couple key differences between that stated (and very stiff) policy and the actions of the so-called "rogue" Minuteman.

That would be why I pointed those differences out to you.

First and foremost, that stated policy involves contacting the authorities immediately.

Second, it doesn't involve transporting any "citizen's arrest"ed criminals.

Yet, oddly, citizen's arrest was one of the tactics advised by the guy you claim was somehow better than the Minutemen.

These differences, along with any applicable differences between AZ and CA law, may very well make the borderwatch.us policy legal, while the Minuteman in question qualified as illegally detaining.

If the Minuteman in question detained the pair of FNs illegally, why were the charges dropped?

Again... perfectly reasonable suspicion.

No, sorry, you just keep getting this wrong, it's a logical fuckup. If someone I don't like says nice things about you, that doesn't tell me shit about you.

That the CA Border Watch is unwilling to associate itself with racist groups is exactly why the much larger and more active ACLU of California is not scrutinizing them to a similar degree as the ACLU of Arizona scrutinizes the Minutemen.

So, once again, the ACLU's stance toward the Minutemen is racially motivated.

Now... I'm not saying that there ought not be anybody keeping an eye on that group as well, but I don't see anything from the ACLU mentioning them.

Right, because as I said, going after the smaller group wouldn't generate as much media buzz for the ACLU.

Nope. But if you were running around with a gun and kept talking about your neighbor, that surely justifies your other neighbors making a point to keep an eye out in case you do snap and shoot him.

I'm still waiting to see where all these guns you're talking about are.

Misapplying?

Do you not understand the word? Or are you just too goddamn dense to realize that when you attempt, and fail, to use the law as a political weapon, you've misapplied it?

I ask you: Are the Minutemen really just ranch hands? Heck no.

Just? No. But are they? If they're doing the work, then yes.

No. But I severely doubt they are very much wanted.

Not by people who employ illegal labor, no. But by those who have to live with illegal labor running through their property, sometimes escorted by armed mercenaries, yeah, very much so.

Go read through the Minutemen blogs and tell me again it's a no-contact group. Look for pictures including both Minutemen and aliens.

As I said, contact is sometimes inevitable. That doesn't mean the contactees are the illegals.

And again, recall that the Minutemen would've needed a permit if not managing to get themselves covered with the transparent legal fiction of being there as ranch hands.

Hey, if they're doing the work, it's not a fiction. And you can hire ranch hands to do anything you want, including guard and monitor your ranch.

This time pay particular attention to the statements made by the state.

You mean statements like this?

They are authorized to be there under the terms of the lease," deputy state Land Commissioner Richard Hubbard said Tuesday. He said a state employee who had told the Minutemen members on Monday they needed permits was incorrect.

Let me ask you a personal question -- what's your real problem with the Minutemen? You're making me repeat the same points over and over, and that tells me that you do understand them, you just don't like them. So where's your dogma stemming from on this? What is it that makes you give more of a shit about the well-being of people who are breaking the law than you do about the people who want the law enforced?

 

[The Question]

Well, I'd love to comment more from these stories, but I'm having trouble getting the videos to play right, although the KPHO transcript looks pretty damning.

Oh, yeah... pretty damning of a group that is not the MCDC. Really, do you have any dirt on them or are you just hoping a thousand misses will equal a hit?

 

[TJHairball]

Oh, yeah... pretty damning of a group that is not the MCDC. Really, do you have any dirt on them or are you just hoping a thousand misses will equal a hit?

Pretty damning of some of the Minutemen groups... which is what I've been talking about, and what the ACLU is looking at.

The ACLU is not merely trying to observe the MCDC, but also the Minutemen Project and a small assortment of other related groups.

If you want, though, look at the ABC channel 15 story. I finally got the plugin working, and it is specifically about the MCDC's finances. Again, this is just what the other border patrol group I linked you to is talking about - dubious finances, ties to racist groups, etc etc etc. The original "civilian border patrol" group was the KKK.

 

[TJHairball]

And by any reasonable standard, they should have expected that the state would follow existing law and deny their request for interference. It was a harrassment tactic, nothing more and nothing less.

By a quite reasonable legal standard, border control is within the province of the federal government, rather than private individuals - who are not authorized to act as a border patrol, detain individuals, etc etc etc.

The issue of trying to get them to get a special use permit for what they're doing is an attempt to require some degree of official "deputization," forcing the government to be accountable for the border control practices it is tacitly allowing.

I find it hard to believe that you honestly don't understand how the government encouraging crime against its citizens is a violation of their rights. It's certainly a violation of equal protection under the law to permit some citizens (business owners) to benefit from illegal activity at the expense of others (prospective legal employees who aren't considered for employment due to the unfair competition of illegal employees and border property owners whose safety is jeapordized by human-smugglers.) Your tenacity in refusing to acknowledge this point is simultaneously impressive and disturbing.

I find your refusal to name a specific civil liberty being curtailed by the ACLU's activity damning. Come up with a specific and direct argument.

It isn't. It's a reasonable cause to keep an eye on those who are the subject of association.

TQ... it looks like you're agreeing with me here that it's reasonable to keep an eye on those who are associated with known problematic groups. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to clarify.

No, it's a logical fuckup, plain and simple. It is faulty reasoning.

Not at all. When the KKK plans a march, the police plan for trouble from either the KKK or protestors. They hope it doesn't happen, but they put observers on site in a hurry. Same thing the ACLU is doing here.

Only because that's all you have to complain about, and when you invoke guilt by association, you're not even talking about the character of the Minutemen, you're talking about these other groups.

These other groups which the Minutemen groups have, by and large, wholeheartedly embraced.

I'll also point out that the Minutemen do not have "a character" -- it's a group of individuals, all of whom has his or her very own character.

And now you're denying that groups even have characters, or tendencies, or what-have you.

Actually, no it doesn't. Oversight is all well and good, but the political stance of those who appreciate them doesn't provide cause for that; their activities, and their activities alone, do.

The political stance of those who are involved - including, as the ACLU notes, numerous "white power" groups - is cause for oversight, namely inasmuch as those political stances include things like "shoot the damn wetback invaders!"

Nice dodge, but it's not propaganda, it's an openly demonstrated fact.

Clearly false propaganda. I challenge you again: Specifically demonstrate how the ACLU is infringing on any civil liberties here. All you've done is handwave.

Why are you asking a question I've previously given a clear answer to several times?

You haven't given anything remotely resembling a clear, cogent, and direct answer showing how the ACLU itself is oppressing the civil liberties of the Minutemen.

Further considering that the chief means of income of illegal aliens once they get here often can potentially longer-than-legal workshifts in often less-than-safe work environments for a fraction of livable wages means that the ACLU, by harrassing and interfering with the Minutemen (and thereby interfering with official Border Watch activities as well) means that the ACLU is not only actively working against the interests of Americans, but supporting an activity which would be considered abusive if applied to legal employees. They're not doing either side of the issue any favors.

Here, you claim that interfering with the Minutemen is interfering with official border patrol business.

So the Minutemen are an official government agency now? Bullshit, TQ.

Your claim boils down to this: "Having a political view opposed to mine is oppressing my civil rights."

Except that trying to apply the law for the purposes of harrassment puts them over the line from just watching and protesting.

Because getting a permit from the fairly cooperative state government of Arizona would be such a hardship on the Minutemen, and so stop them from doing what they've been doing.

So are you saying that if the Minutemen had been found to be acting in violation of the regulations for the use of public trust land, they should have been allowed to continue their criminal activity?

And again, in the places where they're protesting, they have a negative effect not only on what the Minutemen are doing, but on official Border Watch operations, as well.

TQ, the Minutemen are not the official Border Patrol nor any recognized branch of it.

And? If what the MCDC were doing, even as a "militia", were illegal, they would have been legally barred from continuing.

The ACLU of Arizona contends that the state of Arizona has been negligent in failing to arrest and prosecute Minutemen.

But apparently, they're unconcerned with the little technicality of these people proving their guilt of the crime in question just by being here, and they're not at all concerned with preventing the crime in the first place.

And you're so hung up about the vast crime of illegal migration in order to take minimum wage jobs that you think any action is justified in order to prevent it?

Personally, I don't believe the ACLU cared whether it would stick or not.

In which case, why crow about it?

When have they gestured with guns? And come on -- we're not talking contact in the sonar context here. Contact would be physical approach and dialogue.

Physical approach, dialogue, "Stay here until the border patrol arrives" - anything. Which clearly happens, stated MCDC policy or not.

And sometimes that's unavoidable, especially when it's the Minutemen who are approached, rather than the other way around.

Yes, isn't it?

It's unbelievable to even claim such a thing as a concrete policy as never speaking with, gesturing to, etc etc "potential illegals."

That would be why I pointed those differences out to you.

No, you said there were no differences.

Yet, oddly, citizen's arrest was one of the tactics advised by the guy you claim was somehow better than the Minutemen.

Did I say he was somehow better? No. I said his group wasn't affiliated with racist groups, and firmly rejects them - unlike the MCDC.

If the Minuteman in question detained the pair of FNs illegally, why were the charges dropped?

The ACLU contends that the state of Arizona has been failing to arrest and prosecute Minutemen appropriately.

No, sorry, you just keep getting this wrong, it's a logical fuckup. If someone I don't like says nice things about you, that doesn't tell me shit about you.

Depends what exactly they're saying.

Never mind, of course, that this isn't what we're talking about, but instead things like "Hey, look, those guys are setting up a border patrol! Come, my empowered White brethren of the superior race, let us sign up! I wonder if we can bring our white sheets?" popping up.

So, once again, the ACLU's stance toward the Minutemen is racially motivated.

No... it's racist-motivated. I'm sure the racial breakdown of the CA borderwatch group is little different from those of the Minutemen.

The question is not that the Minutemen exclude nonwhites (they don't, although few join), but rather that the Minutemen include racist groups.

Right, because as I said, going after the smaller group wouldn't generate as much media buzz for the ACLU.

Oh, going after small groups generates lots of media buzz. Take the story about Minutemen One, for example. That's a [presumably] small group.

I'm still waiting to see where all these guns you're talking about are.

What, are you now denying the Minutemen go around armed?

Do you not understand the word? Or are you just too goddamn dense to realize that when you attempt, and fail, to use the law as a political weapon, you've misapplied it?

So the Minutemen should be exempt from the law? That's what you're arguing here. Bullshit, TQ.

Just? No. But are they? If they're doing the work, then yes.

Nice dodge.

Not by people who employ illegal labor, no. But by those who have to live with illegal labor running through their property, sometimes escorted by armed mercenaries, yeah, very much so.

If that was true, none of the people living on teh border woud have a problem with them.

Hey, if they're doing the work, it's not a fiction. And you can hire ranch hands to do anything you want, including guard and monitor your ranch.

The best fiction always has elements of truth.

Minutemen as ranch hands is pretense, pure and simple. It's not why they're there, and it's like saying US soldiers are in Iraq in order to do in-depth quality testing on the M-16... something that's happening, but incidental to their purpose.

You mean statements like this?

Mmm hm. Note that somebody from the State first brought up the permits, and the ACLU pushed the confusion out in public to resolve it.

Let me ask you a personal question -- what's your real problem with the Minutemen? You're making me repeat the same points over and over, and that tells me that you do understand them, you just don't like them. So where's your dogma stemming from on this? What is it that makes you give more of a shit about the well-being of people who are breaking the law than you do about the people who want the law enforced?

TQ, you're making ME repeat the same points over and over again, so what don't you like about them?

Let's see what we have here. You've got a variety of poorly supervised, poorly regulated armed private militias running around on the border, many of which are closely affiliated with various groups, some of whose members think that illegal immigrants should be shot. In other words, trouble waiting to happen...

... and it's not really doing any good. All it does is pull liability for how the US manages the border and migration from the border patrol, INS, and other theoretically accountable groups onto these private groups. Too... "Oh, well, if they're going to do it for us, we don't have to work at it, and we're not politically held responsible whenever they touch off a shooting war with a drug dealer. So... time to get rid of border checkpoints? All in favor?"

 

[The Question]

Pretty damning of some of the Minutemen groups... which is what I've been talking about, and what the ACLU is looking at.

Then the ACLU, like yourself, doesn't know what target they're actually aiming at. The behavior in question is being engaged in by groups that have fractured off the MCDC (in all likelihood composed of individuals ejected from the MCDC) not the MCDC itself.

The ACLU is not merely trying to observe the MCDC, but also the Minutemen Project and a small assortment of other related groups.

The Minuteman Project is basically the same thing as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. These other groups are the ones they would be focusing on... if they were really interested in making sure no one's civil liberties are being violated.

If you want, though, look at the ABC channel 15 story. I finally got the plugin working, and it is specifically about the MCDC's finances.

About their... their what? Their finances? Are you serious? What the hell do their finances have to do with anything?

this is just what the other border patrol group I linked you to is talking about - dubious finances, ties to racist groups, etc etc etc.

Which still mean nothing to the specific question of whether they -- not anyone else -- are violating anyone's civil liberties. And I'll point out again that breaking the law isn't a civil liberty.

The original "civilian border patrol" group was the KKK.

So?

 

[The Question]

By a quite reasonable legal standard, border control is within the province of the federal government, rather than private individuals - who are not authorized to act as a border patrol, detain individuals, etc etc etc.

Wrong. Every state in the country has laws on the books permitting citizen's arrest (In California, it's known as a PPA, or Private Person's Arrest) under three conditions:

1. A public offense was committed or attempted in the citizen's presence.

2. The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the citizen's presence.

3. A felony has been in fact committed and the citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested has committed it.

Now a private citizen doesn't have the same legal protections LEOs do, and can be him- or herself detained by LEOs to determine whether or not the suspect's rights have been violated. This is probably what happened with the rogue Minuteman.

The issue of trying to get them to get a special use permit for what they're doing is an attempt to require some degree of official "deputization," forcing the government to be accountable for the border control practices it is tacitly allowing.

Except that that accountability was already accounted for in the law. It was harrassment, nothing more and nothing less.

I find your refusal to name a specific civil liberty being curtailed by the ACLU's activity damning. Come up with a specific and direct argument.

I have, and I've stated it now more than three times. If you choose to ignore it, fine, but let there be no mistaking that that's what you're doing.

TQ... it looks like you're agreeing with me here that it's reasonable to keep an eye on those who are associated with known problematic groups.

No, I'm agreeing that it's reasonable to keep an eye on the problematic groups, not the groups they defend. Until a Minuteman burns a cross on somebody's lawn, you and the ACLU both are reaching farther than your grasps are suited for.

Same thing the ACLU is doing here. These other groups which the Minutemen groups have, by and large, wholeheartedly embraced.

See, that's where you're wrong -- these other groups have embraced the Minutemen, not the other way around.

And now you're denying that groups even have characters, or tendencies, or what-have you.

Yeah, because that would be the same kind of thinking that leads to racism, and racism is baaaaaaaaaad, mm'kay?

The political stance of those who are involved - including, as the ACLU notes, numerous "white power" groups - is cause for oversight, namely inasmuch as those political stances include things like "shoot the damn wetback invaders!"

Well, until somebody actually does start "shooting the wetback invaders", the ACLU has no business defending the wetback invaders.

Here, you claim that interfering with the Minutemen is interfering with official border patrol business.

And it is, because the Minutemen are assisting in official border patrol business.

So the Minutemen are an official government agency now?

I didn't say that. I said they're performing the same function as official border patrol agents, and working directly with them. Thus, decreasing the efficiency of the Minutemen also decreases the efficiency of official ops.

Your claim boils down to this: "Having a political view opposed to mine is oppressing my civil rights.

No, my claim boils down to this: Defending people who break the law and subsequently disadvantage American labor oppresses American labor." as well as "Encouraging trespassing oppresses property owners whose property is trespassed on and whose safety is jeapordized by armed foreign hostiles."

Because getting a permit from the fairly cooperative state government of Arizona would be such a hardship on the Minutemen, and so stop them from doing what they've been doing.

When the permit isn't necessary, yeah. That would be like trying to force you to get a permit to go to your workplace when you don't need one.

So are you saying that if the Minutemen had been found to be acting in violation of the regulations for the use of public trust land, they should have been allowed to continue their criminal activity?

No, I'm not. I'm saying their activity was never criminal, and the ACLU knew that. I'm saying they only tried to use the law to interfere with legal activity and gain publicity for themselves.

TQ, the Minutemen are not the official Border Patrol nor any recognized branch of it.

Gee, no kidding. :roll:

The ACLU of Arizona contends that the state of Arizona has been negligent in failing to arrest and prosecute Minutemen.

Arrest and prosecute them for what? Reporting illegal activity? Sounds like the ACLU are the ones who need to be prosecuted.

And you're so hung up about the vast crime of illegal migration in order to take minimum wage jobs that you think any action is justified in order to prevent it?

Any action supportable by law, yes.

No, you said there were no differences.Did I say he was somehow better?

You certainly implied it, and if you weren't at least implying it, then what does...

No. I said his group wasn't affiliated with racist groups, and firmly rejects them - unlike the MCDC.

^^that have to do with anything?

The ACLU contends that the state of Arizona has been failing to arrest and prosecute Minutemen appropriately.

And what should they be arrested and prosecuted for, exactly?

Never mind, of course, that this isn't what we're talking about, but instead things like "Hey, look, those guys are setting up a border patrol! Come, my empowered White brethren of the superior race, let us sign up! I wonder if we can bring our white sheets?" popping up.

So basically, you'd rather see the American worker screwed.

No... it's racist-motivated.

Yeah, it's the racist thinking that goes, "Hey, those white guys are trying to help uphold the law at the expense of brown criminals -- stop those evil white guys!" :roll:

I'm sure the racial breakdown of the CA borderwatch group is little different from those of the Minutemen.

You're sure? But do you have any reason to claim that you know?

The question is not that the Minutemen exclude nonwhites (they don't, although few join), but rather that the Minutemen include racist groups.

How, and which ones do they include?

Oh, going after small groups generates lots of media buzz. Take the story about Minutemen One, for example. That's a [presumably] small group.

But too small to keep the spotlight as long as ACLU undoubtedly wants it.

What, are you now denying the Minutemen go around armed?

As long as they're armed legally, what difference does it make?

So the Minutemen should be exempt from the law? That's what you're arguing here.

What I'm arguing is that with all of the (one-sidedly) negative media attention focused on them, if they were to actually break the law, it would be on them faster than flies on shit. Since that hasn't happened, despite the media microscope, it's a good bet they haven't broken the law.

Nice dodge.

That's not a dodge, you unbelievable asshole, that's a solid refutation of your willfully ignorant bullshit.

If that was true, none of the people living on teh border woud have a problem with them.

Except the ones who employ illegals. Ooh, look, something else that makes sense -- quick, TJ, you better run and hide before you see it!

The best fiction always has elements of truth.

And the best truth needs no elements of fiction -- but I'm sure you wouldn't know.

Minutemen as ranch hands is pretense, pure and simple. It's not why they're there, and it's like saying US soldiers are in Iraq in order to do in-depth quality testing on the M-16... something that's happening, but incidental to their purpose.

And as far as the law is concerned... it isn't concerned. As long as they fulfill their end of the contracts, that's all the law cares about. Sounds like you've just got a case of sour grapes over it.

Mmm hm. Note that somebody from the State first brought up the permits, and the ACLU pushed the confusion out in public to resolve it.

Bullshit. Somebody from the state was either genuinely mistaken or lying through his teeth, and the ACLU seized the opportunity, either hoping they could take down "t3h eeev0L Americans who wanted border law enforced" or just to generate more publicity for themselves.

TQ, you're making ME repeat the same points over and over again, so what don't you like about them?

They're based on faulty reasoning? They're irrationally anti-American?

Let's see what we have here. You've got a variety of poorly supervised, poorly regulated armed private militias running around on the border, many of which are closely affiliated with various groups, some of whose members think that illegal immigrants should be shot.

Which fact means jack shit unless or until somebody out there starts shooting.

In other words, trouble waiting to happen...

Sorry, but I think you're missing one vital piece of information here -- there are groups like that on both sides of the border. The difference is, the groups on the U.S. side are trying to keep the groups on Mexico's side out, the groups on Mexico's side are trying to come in -- oh, and here's the other one: armed groups of Mexicans have fired shots, at LEOs and civilians alike. So where's the Mexican ACLU? Do you suppose there's someone on the other side of the border making points like yours on a message board about how it's wrong for armed Mexican nationals to cross the border and shoot at Border Patrol and ranchers? Yeah, somehow I don't think so.

... and it's not really doing any good. All it does is pull liability for how the US manages the border and migration from the border patrol, INS, and other theoretically accountable groups onto these private groups.

Actually, it's doing a lot of good. Capture and deportation of illegals has gone up a lot since the Minutemen started, if for no other reason than that all the media attention on them and the Border Patrol has forced Border Patrol to do their jobs more aggressively.

And I still want to know why you're giving the finger to American workers in favor of business interests who employ illegals in what amounts to slave labor conditions. I thought you were s'posed to be some kind of liberal or something.

 

[The Question]

Oh, but since you just looooooooove guilt by association, as if it has anything to do with the specific under discussion:

Have a look at this, from Georgia Congressman Charlie Norwood.

Groups opposed to the Minutemen include:

The ACLU; La Raza; Hispanic separatist Dr. Armando Navarro; street gang MS-13; Mexican drug and human trafficking gangs, and Earth Liberation.

MS-13! Drug traffickers and human traffickers! La Raza -- "The Race", in other words, and a Hispanic "separatist (if he were white, that word would be "supremacist", of course.)

Wow. ACLU's got some pretty, shall we say, "illustrious" connections of its own on this issue, doesn't it?

 

[TJHairball]

Wrong. Every state in the country has laws on the books permitting citizen's arrest (In California, it's known as a PPA, or Private Person's Arrest) under three conditions:

1. A public offense was committed or attempted in the citizen's presence.

2. The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the citizen's presence.

3. A felony has been in fact committed and the citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested has committed it.

Now a private citizen doesn't have the same legal protections LEOs do, and can be him- or herself detained by LEOs to determine whether or not the suspect's rights have been violated. This is probably what happened with the rogue Minuteman.

The way I read it, he got pulled over in a routine stop... rather than having called the Border Patrol over.

Read here, however, to read of the presumed illegality of the Minutemen's detentions. Note the "no contact" policy is described as new, and not part of the de facto operating procedures observers have described.

Except that that accountability was already accounted for in the law. It was harrassment, nothing more and nothing less.

That accountability is not present.

Should the Minutemen start shooting, the government can claim itself free of all responsibility.

I have, and I've stated it now more than three times. If you choose to ignore it, fine, but let there be no mistaking that that's what you're doing.

Your claims have been at best marginally relevant... and at worst, could be applied to anything. Even so much as my arguing with you online is "helping the illegals."

No, I'm agreeing that it's reasonable to keep an eye on the problematic groups, not the groups they defend. Until a Minuteman burns a cross on somebody's lawn, you and the ACLU both are reaching farther than your grasps are suited for.

You again miss the point. Minuteman group memberships have been directly drawn from known problematic groups.

It is not merely a question of problematic groups offering support; it is a matter of the problematic groups being the volunteers on the ground. Comprende, senor?

See, that's where you're wrong -- these other groups have embraced the Minutemen, not the other way around.

The embrace appears to have been mutual, with the exception of a few patrol groups (e.g., borderwatch.us)

Yeah, because that would be the same kind of thinking that leads to racism, and racism is baaaaaaaaaad, mm'kay?

Races aren't voluntary sociopolitical organizations with stated agendas. Try again.

Well, until somebody actually does start "shooting the wetback invaders", the ACLU has no business defending the wetback invaders.

Shooting, or illegally detaining, or committing assault (which, incidentally, includes the threat of violence with a gun, or pointing a gun at), or any other criminal action...

...oh wait, that's what they're there to document.

And it is, because the Minutemen are assisting in official border patrol business.

No it isn't, TQ. The protections extended to law enforcement officers in the line of duty don't extend to non-deputized individuals, e.g., the Minutemen.

No, my claim boils down to this: Defending people who break the law and subsequently disadvantage American labor oppresses American labor." as well as "Encouraging trespassing oppresses property owners whose property is trespassed on and whose safety is jeapordized by armed foreign hostiles."

And again you harp upon presumed economic damages, property damage, random gunmen roaming in the night, etc etc.

Again, we're talking about civil order, not civil liberty.

When the permit isn't necessary, yeah. That would be like trying to force you to get a permit to go to your workplace when you don't need one.

As someone working for the state said they needed a permit, wasn't it a good question to ask?

The ACLU pressed the point. Conflicting statements had been made; there was clearly a question of whether or not the Minutemen were even legally allowed to be camping out there.

Saying the question didn't need to be asked is saying that the law need not apply to the Minutemen.

No, I'm not. I'm saying their activity was never criminal, and the ACLU knew that. I'm saying they only tried to use the law to interfere with legal activity and gain publicity for themselves.

See above. The ACLU contends their activities have often been criminal.

The ACLU, mind you, has no trouble getting publicity. They were widely known fifty years ago, and they will be widely known 50 years hence, barring the rise of a facist dictatorship or theocratic state. The Minutemen, on the other hand, desperately hunger for it. So who here is trying to gain publicity? The ACLU - who have commented very briefly on the matter - or the Minutemen, whose loud screams that the ACLU is oppressing them provide most of the material on the incident?

Arrest and prosecute them for what? Reporting illegal activity? Sounds like the ACLU are the ones who need to be prosecuted.

For illegally detaining individuals, per the A.R.S 13-1303 False Imprisonment statute. Ybarra also notes that the United States law offers this (from Federal law on immigration):

No officer or person shall have the authority to make any arrest for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

A.R.S. 13-3884 allows for citizen's arrests in Arizona for misdemeanors (e.g., border crossings) only if committed in their presence and qualifying as a breach of the peace (which border crossings do not.)

Thus, the Minutemen have no legal authority to act as a private border patrol. Ybarra discusses this in his letter.

Any action supportable by law, yes.

Then you should have no problem with the ACLU.

You certainly implied it, and if you weren't at least implying it, then what does...

Better in terms of his associations, yes. Probably finances as well, compared to the MCDC. Perhaps in violation of federal statute.

And what should they be arrested and prosecuted for, exactly?

See above letter.

So basically, you'd rather see the American worker screwed.

What a failure to reply to what I said... which was about association.

Yeah, it's the racist thinking that goes, "Hey, those white guys are trying to help uphold the law at the expense of brown criminals -- stop those evil white guys!"

Try again, TQ. You're being deliberately obtuse.

The Minutemen are not being attacked on being of a race, but of being of racists.

You're sure? But do you have any reason to claim that you know?

Given that the group in question has a policy of avoiding putting pictures online, I really don't know.

Nor do I care. Their stated hatred of racism and racists I find reassuring, whether or not the group is 95% white and male.

How, and which ones do they include?

Borderwatch.us specifically cites the KKK (who, mind you, operated the original Minuteman border patrol) as one organization embraced by those other groups that "you cannot work with them and us" if you work for them.

But too small to keep the spotlight as long as ACLU undoubtedly wants it.

Which matters how to the ACLU?

I'll give you a hint.
MCDC: 264,000 hits.
ACLU: 23,400,000 hits.

The ACLU gets easily a hundred times the attention of the MCDC now... and the MCDC are, IMO, unlikely to last more than a couple more years in the public eye before being forgotten by most, outlawed, disintegrating, etc.

As long as they're armed legally, what difference does it make?

Nope. But if you were running around with a gun and kept talking about your neighbor, that surely justifies your other neighbors making a point to keep an eye out in case you do snap and shoot him.
"Where are all these guns you keep talking about?"
I rest my case.

What I'm arguing is that with all of the (one-sidedly) negative media attention focused on them, if they were to actually break the law, it would be on them faster than flies on shit. Since that hasn't happened, despite the media microscope, it's a good bet they haven't broken the law.

So Fox News isn't media anymore?

For all the media attention, there are a grand total of about 150 legal observers trained by the ACLU who have been keeping an eye on things. The talking heads have been talking, not sending teams of cameramen.

That's not a dodge, you unbelievable asshole, that's a solid refutation of your willfully ignorant bullshit.

The only bullshit is pretending that the Minutemen are there for the purpose of picking up trash on ranches.

Except the ones who employ illegals. Ooh, look, something else that makes sense -- quick, TJ, you better run and hide before you see it!

Wow. I never thought that many ranchers living on the very border of the country employed illegals.

And how do you know this? I don't employ illegals, and I'd probably be putting up signs like that myself if Minutemen started passing through my front yard.

It's a basic ad hominem. Not everybody either is illegal, employs illegals, or thinks the Minutemen are great.

And as far as the law is concerned... it isn't concerned. As long as they fulfill their end of the contracts, that's all the law cares about. Sounds like you've just got a case of sour grapes over it.

Oh, sometimes the law cares about more things. In this case, it doesn't.

Big whoop. And? I'll ask you again. What makes this such a grand victory for the Minutemen? "YAY! We don't need a permit to do this!"

Bullshit. Somebody from the state was either genuinely mistaken or lying through his teeth, and the ACLU seized the opportunity, either hoping they could take down "t3h eeev0L Americans who wanted border law enforced" or just to generate more publicity for themselves.

See above about the ACLU not needing more publicity and exactly who is making a flap over this case.

They're based on faulty reasoning? They're irrationally anti-American?

Try again.

Which fact means jack shit unless or until somebody out there starts shooting.

The whole point of observing is to make sure the shooting doesn't happen. Think about it.

Sorry, but I think you're missing one vital piece of information here -- there are groups like that on both sides of the border. The difference is, the groups on the U.S. side are trying to keep the groups on Mexico's side out, the groups on Mexico's side are trying to come in -- oh, and here's the other one: armed groups of Mexicans have fired shots, at LEOs and civilians alike. So where's the Mexican ACLU? Do you suppose there's someone on the other side of the border making points like yours on a message board about how it's wrong for armed Mexican nationals to cross the border and shoot at Border Patrol and ranchers? Yeah, somehow I don't think so.

There should be. If there isn't, that's only Mexico's loss.

Or are you saying Mexico is more advanced for not having the ACLU to keep the government and paramilitary organizations in check?

Actually, it's doing a lot of good. Capture and deportation of illegals has gone up a lot since the Minutemen started, if for no other reason than that all the media attention on them and the Border Patrol has forced Border Patrol to do their jobs more aggressively.

And I still want to know why you're giving the finger to American workers in favor of business interests who employ illegals in what amounts to slave labor conditions. I thought you were s'posed to be some kind of liberal or something.

"Slave labor conditions" ... "business interests" ... that suggest anything to you about what I would suggest doing to solve the problem of illegal immigration?