The wall

Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Richard Butler, who was chief weapons inspector for some time, came out and said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction: that the chemical weapons he was given by the US had a shelf life that had expired, that they had no factories capable of producing them, and that they had no ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The U.S.'s response was to publicly attack him, and try to destroy his credibility. There is only one reason for doing that, when your justification for going to war is WoMD.

That was only one of many signs that they wanted war without cause (eg. they kept changing their tune: from, Saddam had ties to Al Qeida, to Saddam had Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam wanted Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. As soon as that struck a chord with the public, they harped on that)

When they demanded Saddam prove he had no WoMD, it was then that I knew war was imminent. You cannot prove you don't have something that you don't have (ie there is no paperwork for something that doesn't exist). It was a laughable demand in any event:
- they wouldn't have believed any evidence that was produced (even though you can't produce evidence of the nonexistance of something you never had); and
- 2 years before that, we had newspaper articles that the Australian Army, with all it's computers, couldn't say exactly how much inventory they had, or what exactly was in it. How was Iraq to fare better?

Anyway, off topic of me, just thought it might be interesting.
cicerone imposter
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 05:14 pm
I'm afraid that is what Diane Feinstein was depending on; that the US claim that they had WMD's was there even though we could not find them. When the UN Weapons Inspectors were chased out, we all knew they wanted war. BTW, I worked with nukes in the USAF/Strategic Air Command in the late 1950's. I was stationed in Morocco for one year, and that experience initiated my love of world travel. Have traveled to some 128 countries, and have friends in many - even Moscow, Russia.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 08:15 pm
The U.S.'s response was to publicly attack him, and try to destroy his credibility. There is only one reason for doing that, when your justification for going to war is WoMD.

That was only one of many signs that they wanted war without cause (eg. they kept changing their tune: from, Saddam had ties to Al Qeida, to Saddam had Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam wanted Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. As soon as that struck a chord with the public, they harped on that)


Even with all these lies from the USA, even with all the voluminous, incontrovertible evidence, even with all the absolute impossibilities to be found in the official story, you still support the murderers.

Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 09:02 pm
Where have you ever seen me support US wars? Or US / Western financial impoverishment of other nations? Or their propping up of dictators? Or the coups they've run?

Fixated. Fanatic Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 09:18 pm
Seriously? You want to turn yet another thread into your 9-11 conspiracy theory playground?

I don't support one way or another, whether or not the official version is true. I don't support any of the subsequent wars. You know this. You replied to me criticising the US for going to war in Iraq. And you've seen me criticise other wars. So where is your justification for saying I support murderers? And you accuse me of holding fantasies... Rolling Eyes

Why don't you PM me if you really want to answer. And let this thread get back on topic.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 07:35 pm
Trump's 'Compromise' on Border Wall
Terence P. Jeffrey By Terence P. Jeffrey | October 4, 2018 | 11:06 AM EDT

"But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again," said President Donald Trump. "I'm not going to do it again."

That was at a March 23 press conference after Trump had signed a $1.3 trillion continuing resolution that would fund the government through the remainder of fiscal 2018, which ended this past Sunday.

One of the things that angered Trump about that $1.3 trillion bill was that it only provided $1.6 billion for work on the border wall he had made one of his signature campaign promises. Trump had been seeking a long-term commitment of $25 billion.

"Not happy with $1.6 billion, but it does start the wall," Trump said, "and we will make that $1.6 billion go very, very far."

Flash-forward six months to Sept. 15. Now Trump expressed his dismay in a tweet, not a press conference.

"When will Republican leadership learn that they are being played like a fiddle by the Democrats on Border Security and Building the Wall?" Trump said.

"Without Borders, we don't have a country," he said. "With Open Borders, which the Democrats want, we have nothing but crime!

"Finish the Wall!" he declared.

What inspired this presidential declaration?

A House-Senate conference committee had just finalized another massive spending bill. They called this one a combined "minibus" and "continuing resolution."

Unlike the "omnibus" Trump had signed in March, this minibus-continuing resolution did not fund the entire government in one bill. The "minibus" part of it, however, did "marry" the spending bill for the Department of Defense to the spending bill for the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. It would fund those departments through all of fiscal 2019.

The "continuing resolution" part of it would fund only until Dec. 7 — and, according to the House Appropriations Committee, only at "current levels" — any other federal departments that did not have their own appropriations bills signed into law by Sunday, when fiscal 2018 ended.

In other words, those departments would be funded until one month after the upcoming midterm elections.

The Department of Homeland Security — which is responsible for the border wall — was one of these.

During the year, the House Appropriations Committee had approved a Homeland Security bill that provided $5 billion for the wall for fiscal 2019. The Senate committee had approved only $1.6 billion, making no increase from the 2018 level. And the massive minibus-continuing resolution would presumably maintain fiscal 2018's funding level — but only through Dec. 7.

Three days after Trump's tweet, the Senate approved this bill, 93-7. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., joined Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-.Ky., in supporting it.

On Sept. 20, Trump tweeted about the bill again. This time, he put some of his words in capital letters.

"I want to know, where is the money for Border Security and the WALL in this ridiculous Spending Bill," he said, "and where will it come from after the Midterms? Dems are obstructing Law Enforcement and Border Security. REPUBLICANS MUST FINALLY GET TOUGH!"

Six days after this tweet, the Republican leadership brought their minibus-continuing resolution up for a vote in the House. It passed with 185 Democrats voting for it but only 176 Republicans. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., joined House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R.-Calif., in voting for it, while 56 House conservatives voted against it.

Funding for the border wall was not the only significant issue in this bill.

The original Labor-HHS-Education spending bill that the House Appropriations Committee approved in July included language that defunded both Planned Parenthood and research that uses tissue taken from babies killed in induced abortions. But that language was not included in the final minibus-continuing resolution that funded HHS for all of fiscal 2019.

Thus, the bill did not provide the funding Trump was seeking for the border wall, but it did provide the funding Democrats wanted for Planned Parenthood and aborted-baby-parts research.

On Friday, Trump signed into law this bill he had correctly called "ridiculous."

"This spending package reflects the compromise Republican leaders sought with the White House that postpones a fight over Trump's demand for a border wall until after the Nov. 6 midterm elections," the Washington Post reported that day.

If the Democrats win control of the House in November, Trump will have lost any chance he had of building the border wall he promised his supporters. If the Republicans hold the House and the Senate, Trump will need to decide whether he is going to follow them on border security or they are going to follow him.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2018 06:03 pm
Republicans warn: There's a 'big fight' brewing over Trump's border wall
By Clare Foran, CNN

Updated 8:16 AM ET, Sat October 13, 2018

Washington (CNN)Even with the midterm elections looming, Republican leaders in Congress made clear this week they're paying close attention to a looming battle over President Donald Trump's promised border wall.

On Monday, House Speaker Paul Ryan predicted a "big fight" over border security on the horizon, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that the GOP is "committed" to working to secure the funding the President wants for his signature campaign pledge.

Republican leaders managed to avoid a battle -- and the political peril of at least a partial government shutdown -- over border funding until after the November elections. But the hot-button issue is on track to flare up when Congress returns to Washington after the midterms, leading to questions over whether there could be a partial shutdown.

"That could be one of the big year-end fights and battles that still remains to be played out," Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Senate Republican, said on Wednesday. The South Dakota Republican added that "the President is very adamant about getting more money," though he downplayed the potential for a partial shutdown, saying, "I don't accept that that's going to happen."

The challenge for GOP leaders is that promises to fight for the wall could energize conservative voters the party needs to turn out in the midterms, but the threat of a shutdown could risk alienating moderate voters the GOP needs in swing districts. Republicans will also need at least some Democratic votes to pass a spending measure in the Senate -- due to some Senate actions requiring at least 60 votes -- and Democrats may feel even more emboldened to oppose a significant increase in border wall funding if they win the House majority in November.

With those dynamics at play, GOP leaders are dismissing the possibility of a shutdown while predicting a funding fight.

Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, acknowledged that a fight over border funding might lead to a "lack of funding for certain limited functions," but argued that would not amount to a shutdown even if it did happen.

"We've avoided the shutdown by getting the vast majority of the federal government funded through the next fiscal year," he said.
"We knew that that fight was important and it was coming," the Texas Republican added, "but we didn't want to go through another shutdown narrative."

Congress averted a halt in government funding ahead of the midterms by passing legislation at the end of last month to pay for a large portion of the federal government and a shorter-term spending bill to fund the rest until December 7. The package did not, however, include money for the President's long-promised border wall, effectively putting the issue on hold for lawmakers to figure out how to deal with before the December deadline.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, helped reignite the border debate this week by announcing plans for a bill that would set aside an eye-popping $23.4 billion to fund a wall.

That is far greater than the $1.6 billion for border security that Congress allocated in a spending bill enacted in March. In August, Trump said he is looking for roughly $5 billion in wall funding "for this next coming year," adding that "we're building the wall, step by step."

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the minority whip, said he would vote against a $5 billion proposal from Republicans and added that he had "no confidence that the administration can reach an agreement."
If there is a partial shutdown in December, Democrats are likely to portray it as a failure on the part of Republicans to govern.

Durbin said he hopes a shutdown "never occurs" but that if it does it wouldn't be "anything that the Republicans can brag about since they are in charge. I think it will be a further illustration of the ineptitude of this party when it's in control."

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, made a similar argument, saying, "There's a few hard and fast rules on shutdowns and one of them is the party making the demand is normally the party that ends up losing."
Murphy added, "So if Republicans are making the demand and threatening to shut down the government if they don't get border wall funding above and beyond what's been agreed to previously, I'm not sure that they will win that fight."

The President has repeatedly lashed out at lawmakers over funding for the wall, which he said on the campaign trail would be paid for by Mexico. Asked on Wednesday who would be paying for the wall, Thune paused, then said he guessed it would be "the American taxpayer" who would have to shoulder the bill.

Trump said Thursday on "Fox & Friends" that he is "not happy" with the status of the wall and vowed that Republicans would do "something very strong" after the election.

The question now is whether Republicans will have the votes to pass funding legislation that the White House will find acceptable and how bruising the fight will be.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described going from a $1.6 billion to a roughly $25 billion price tag as "a quantum leap."

The Alabama Republican said, "Our goal working together is to avoid a shutdown. It would be a partial shutdown, but it's very important. We don't want any shutdown." He called the possibility of a shutdown the "gorilla in the room," but said, "We've got time to work on that."

Ryan -- a Wisconsin Republican whose majority in the House is at serious risk in the midterms -- has echoed the idea that a border wall battle is coming, saying on Monday that Republicans will "fight for securing the border."

"We intend on having a full-fledged discussion about how to complete this mission of securing our border, and we will have a big fight about that," he said, adding, "We have a commitment to go fight for securing the border and getting these policy objectives achieved."

McConnell -- a Kentucky Republican who is also working to protect his majority -- similarly pledged that Republicans would work to secure funding during an interview with The Associated Press this week. He also downplayed the potential for any shutdown.

Asked if there would be a shutdown fight after the midterms, McConnell responded, "That episode, if it occurs, would be in that portion of the government that we haven't funded. Seventy-five percent of it we did fund before the end of the fiscal year." But, he added, "We're committed to helping the President try to get the wall funding."

In response to a question about what level of funding he would accept, McConnell said, "We're going to try to help him get what he's looking for," referring to the President's priorities.
cicerone imposter
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2018 08:04 pm
A bigot wall. What a waste.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2018 06:18 pm
Trump’s latest claim about his border wall makes no sense
The government could shut down over the president's demands for wall funding.
RYAN KORONOWSKI, Contributor, ThinkProgress
DEC 3, 2018, 10:36 AM

If taxpayers gave the president billions of dollars to build the wall on the southern border that he promised he’d get Mexico to fund, America would save billions.

That’s what President Donald Trump claimed on Twitter Monday morning, arguing the United States “would save Billions of Dollars if the Democrats would give us the votes to build the Wall.”

Donald J. Trump

We would save Billions of Dollars if the Democrats would give us the votes to build the Wall. Either way, people will NOT be allowed into our Country illegally! We will close the entire Southern Border if necessary. Also, STOP THE DRUGS!
8:45 AM - Dec 3, 2018

It’s unclear what the president meant, or how exactly he expects the government to realize savings thanks to a completed wall. Apart from the odd conservative op-ed arguing that building the wall would stop undocumented immigrants and drugs from crossing (it would not), which would stop remittances (something that would increase poverty in Central America and increase incentives for migration into America), there’s no rationale for the wall actually saving anyone money.

An article about the tweet from the Washington Examiner failed to mention Trump’s repeated promises to get Mexico to pay for the wall, and it also neglected to explain how the wall would save America billions of dollars.

Spending taxpayer money to build the wall is less popular than even Trump himself, a September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found.

It’s also unclear how much a wall would actually cost — the president is asking for $5 billion to start construction, but he had previously estimated the cost to be $12 billion, while an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo put the low-end cost estimate at $21.6 billion.

A recent GAO watchdog report found that “DHS faces an increased risk that the Border Wall System Program will cost more than projected, take longer than planned, or not fully perform as expected.”

The threat comes amid a budget battle that could result in part of the government shutting down this week (if no extension gets passed before Friday) or later this month (if a short-term extension get passed, but there’s no larger agreement over wall funding). This is how the Trump White House and the Republican-controlled Congress is choosing to spend its lame-duck session before the Democrats take control of the House in January.

Trump is so eager to break his main campaign promise, he’ll shut down the government to do it. Mexico ain't paying for that wall.

Trump also said in his tweet that he needs Democratic votes to “build the wall” — which suggests that the president does realize that he has not yet begun to build the wall, even though he has repeatedly claimed that he is already building it.
cicerone imposter
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2018 06:31 pm
It'll be much cheaper to build a wall around Trump properties. Nobody is saying this makes an sense, but it's more reliable than Trump's border wall.

0 Replies
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 09:27 pm
GoFundMe is refunding all donations made to the 'Fund the Wall' campaign
Mariana Alfaro 1h

On Friday, Brian Kolfage, who created the fundraiser, updated its GoFundMe page to urge donors to redirect their money to a new "501(c)(4) non-profit Florida Corporation named 'We Build the Wall, Inc.'"
The campaign, created in December, had raised $20 million.

The GoFundMe campaign that aimed to raise $1 billion for the border wall is shutting down, and the $20 million raised will be refunded to donors.

A GoFundMe spokesman, Bobby Whithorne, told INSIDER that the campaign's founder, Brian Kolfage, initially promised donors that all donations would be used to pay for a wall along the US-Mexico border, like the one President Donald Trump has proposed, if it met its $1 billion goal.

"However, that did not happen," Whithorne said. "This means all donors will receive a refund."

Kolfage, a US veteran who supports Trump, updated the campaign's page on Friday announcing the refunds. He said donors could redirect their donations to a new "501(c)(4) non-profit Florida Corporation named 'We Build the Wall, Inc.'" if they still wished for their money to be used, in one way or another, to build a wall.

In his update, Kolfage said he had reached out to several experts in "law, politics, national security, construction, and finance" and created a team that "has spent countless hours over the holidays reviewing all issues pertaining to the construction of a southern border wall."

"Unanimously," Kolfage said, "we have all come to the conclusion that the federal government won't be able to accept our donations anytime soon."

He said this was why his new nonprofit would accept any donations previously made to the GoFundMe campaign.

Among the group of people listed on the GoFundMe page as being involved with the nonprofit are Erik Prince, an American businessman known for founding the security firm Blackwater (he is also Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' brother), David Clarke, the former Wisconsin sheriff known for expressing controversial views on immigration, and Mary Ann Mendoza, a proponent of stricter immigration laws whose son died when his car was hit by an intoxicated driver who authorities said had been in the country illegally.

The group also includes Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state, who in a statement said that "when government fails in its most important duties — protecting its citizens and preserving the country's sovereignty — We the People have the right to do it ourselves."

In the update, Kolfage said the group was "highly confident" that it could "complete significant segments of the wall in less time, and for far less money, than the federal government, while meeting or exceeding all required regulatory, engineering, and environmental specifications."

In a statement to INSIDER, Kolfage said the group was "already taking action on identifying the most densely crossed areas of the border, soliciting affected landowners along the Southern border, and ascertaining the willingness of border landowners to provide no or low-cost easements on their property for wall construction."

He added: "Better equipped than our own federal government, we have made significant progress in less than a month, having begun extensive due diligence and commenced feasibility studies."

Whithorne told INSIDER that if a person who donated to the original GoFundMe campaign did not want a refund and instead wanted the money to go to the new organization, "they must proactively elect to redirect their donation to that organization," adding that "if they do not take that step, they will automatically receive a full refund."

"All donors will be contacted by GoFundMe via email, and they can also find additional the donor form directly on the campaign page," he said.

The GoFundMe campaign went viral during the week of its creation in December. Reports soon surfaced of Kolfage's previous endeavors, which included stints running conspiracy-theory websites and a related Facebook page that was kicked off the platform in October.

SEE ALSO: Someone created a GoFundMe campaign to 'buy ladders' to counter the fundraiser created to pay for Trump's border wall
0 Replies
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 09:54 pm
camlok wrote:

I'm not max but how about Russia and china as a reason for our military posture?

That silly meme flows from the same rank US propaganda. The US turned China from a total enemy into a huge trading partner almost over night. Nixon did it for nefarious reasons but it turned out fine.

Russia was deemed fine for US carpetbaggers to steal from but as soon as Russia wants to trade with the world, it's demonized once again.

So the US invents these falsehoods, Russia overthrows Ukraine, blah blah blah. Russia isn't in Kiev, the US is. Russia didn't fund the Ukraine neo nazis to the tune of 5 billion US dollars, the USA did. Putin wasn't walking arm in arm down the streets of Kiev with the neo nazis, Obama's Victoria Nuland was.

This is an embarrassingly stupid thing to say. I'm embarrassed for you.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 10:07 pm
camlok wrote:

They're not only racists, but ignorant ones at that! They believe what Trump said about Mexicans being "criminals and rapists." There's no cure for stupid, and we have too many in this country.

You have to be a racist too, ci. Against Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, ... because you stay silent about the massive US crimes against them, but you pretend to get your panties in a twist about others just to make cheap political points and set yourself up as some kind of good guy.

So why haven't you been complaining about Idi Amin's Uganda. Or, the country that gave him asylum.........I know why? Because you're grasping at straws and believe this ridiculous bluster is intimidating to people who have actually followed history and international affairs and aren't smitten with a stupid reality show like the foolish Apprentice crap.
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2019 04:20 pm
Jtt camlock has always been rabidly anti American.
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 08:35 am
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border Crossings
"Since more than one half of all US undocumented residents arrive by air, visa-issuing posts have become the real frontline deterrent to undocumented migration," the study concludes. "This report suggests that more attention and resources should be given to that crucial mission of the US Department of State."
cicerone imposter
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 12:51 pm
That seems to be the area of concern for illegal immigrants. It's not the border wall.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 11:11 pm
ThinkProgress wrote:
It’s unclear what the president meant, or how exactly he expects the government to realize savings thanks to a completed wall.
Mr. Trump believes that it costs the government a lot of money to deal with illegal immigration, and that the wall will curtail illegal immigration.

I neither know nor care if he is correct, but that is what he meant.
cicerone imposter
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 11:33 pm
Mr. Trump believes that it costs the government a lot of money to deal with illegal immigration, and that the wall will curtail illegal immigration.
. No, it does not. The reason we have laws and border control is to stem illegal immigration. The majority get through thru legal means. They are not illegal, until they overstay their visa. Those are the majority of illegals in this country. oralloy, How did you manage to graduate from grade school? You fail to demonstrate facts and figures that are readily available on the internet, and continue to make statements without any evidence. How do you know "Trump believes that it costs the government a lot of money to deal with illegal immigration?" Most arrive into our country legally through normal ports of entry. They have all been vetted by our country. From the Department of Homeland Security.
U.S. TOTAL: 10.8 million
TEXAS: 1.68 million

Q: How many are there, actually?

Not so easy. Plenty of people question the DHS figures, largely because many undocumented immigrants are reluctant to fill out census forms. But most researchers arrive at totals that are in the ballpark of the Census Bureau’s. Even groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which argues for strong controls on immigration, come up with figures that are only 10 percent higher than the official numbers. Which, by the way, have dropped in recent years. That 10.8 million figure is down from 11.8 million in 2007. Why the drop? Well, there is that bad economy, plus the stepped-up enforcement of border security and workplace immigration laws.

Q: Where are they all from?

Most are from Mexico—62 percent, according to the DHS. That’s more than six million undocumented Mexican immigrants in the U.S. No other country even comes close. The runner-up, El Salvador, accounts for only half a million or so.
As you can see (*if that's at all possible), that the majority comes from Mexico, but the majority of those come for jobs on our farms during harvesting periods. Without them, many of our food products cannot be produced in our country. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-economy-farm-workers-taxes/. Have you ever labored on any farm harvesting our fruits and vegetables? I doubt it; it's very hard work. All of my brothers and I worked with many Mexicans on California farms to pick fruits when we were children. Picking tomatoes is one of the hardest, because you must bend over to pick the fruit, and that's in the summer months without shade. We never saw any "whites" doing this kind of work, and we were city people.

Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 12:40 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
oralloy, How did you manage to graduate from grade school?
It's pretty easy for those of us with a 170 IQ.

cicerone imposter wrote:
You fail to demonstrate facts and figures that are readily available on the internet, and continue to make statements without any evidence.
Wrong again. I always provide cites upon request.

cicerone imposter wrote:
How do you know "Trump believes that it costs the government a lot of money to deal with illegal immigration?"
0 Replies
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 09:42 am


TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROSECUTORS argued this week that members of the borderland faith-based organization No More Deaths broke the law by leaving jugs of water and cans of beans for migrants trekking through a remote wilderness refuge in the Sonoran Desert. The arguments came in the first of a series of high-profile federal trials in Tucson, Arizona, where humanitarian aid volunteers are facing prosecution under a litany of charges.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Anna Wright, who is currently spearheading multiple cases against members of the humanitarian group, assured Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco that the evidence would clearly show that on the afternoon of August 13, 2017, four No More Deaths volunteers — Natalie Renee Hoffman, Oona Meagan Holcomb, Madeline Abbe Huse, and Zaachila I. Orozco-McCormick — broke the law when they drove onto the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, just outside the tiny town of Ajo, Arizona, and left humanitarian aid supplies for migrants passing through the region.

Christopher Dupont, an attorney for the defendants, argued that by devoting their time to putting out food and water in one of the world’s deadliest regions for migrants traveling on foot — where a minimum of 3,000 people have died making their way north since 2000 — the No More Deaths volunteers were acting on deeply held principles to confront a “crisis of the soul” that has turned much of southern Arizona’s most remote federal lands into a “veritable cemetery.”

There are currently two sets of separated but related cases stemming from a Trump administration crackdown on humanitarian aid volunteers in southern Arizona. The most serious charges have been leveled against Scott Warren, a 36-year-old academic, whom the government charged with three felony counts of harboring and conspiracy, for providing food, water, and a place to sleep to two undocumented men over three days last January. Warren faces 20 years in prison if convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms.

In addition to the felony case, Warren, who was not on trial this week, is one of nine No More Deaths volunteers accused of violating regulations on the Cabeza Prieta Refuge. Those cases are divided into three trials, with the first now underway.


Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
  1. Forums
  2. » The wall
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 05:18:21