Border Patrol Rules of Disengagement

Before our President decided that he would determine which lawbreakers were evil enough to actually face deportation, the US Border Patrol was working under absolutely ridiculous rules-of-engagement. In fact, I think it better to call them rules of disengagement:

The National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, Ariz., is just a little angry. Local 2544, which is the largest Border Patrol union local with over 3,300 dues-paying members, tags itself as “the real border security experts”. What are they angry about? Apparently, the current administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) senior officials have created what agents call “virtual brainwashing videos”. Their website states that Border Patrol agents have been forced to take a virtual learning course on “active shooters” where the bottom line is that if they encounter an active shooter, as in Fort Hood, the Giffords shooting, or Columbine, they — as law enforcement officers — are to “run away” and “hide”.

The site goes on, “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her.” As if the Border Patrol is not law enforcement, they are then advised to “call law enforcement and wait for their arrival …. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options … 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of ‘if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out’.”

Does this make a bit of sense? If a sworn officer of the law were told that he/she could not engage blatant evil and stop it, how much longer would he/she be able to effectively participate in law enforcement activities? How can one enforce laws if one is given ludicrous force to ensure compliance? If the bad guys and gals simply gave up and came away meekly (a la Scooby Doo), then such rules of disengagement would be sensible–but we do not live in a cartoon world. We live in a world where evil is real, and money, drugs and arms are a potent and heady mix to the criminals who cross our southern border with regular impunity.

All of the above is predicated on the belief that securing our southern border is a matter for law enforcement. More and more, however,  it appears that we are fighting a series of battles in an escalating war. If the rules of disengagement make absolutely no sense for enforcing laws, they make even less sense (if possible) for fighting a war.

Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and their many fellows in our government are directly responsible for making the US Border Patrol a laughingstock among the very criminals which it used to be responsible for stopping.

It is time for change.