Daily Newspaper and Travel Guide
for Pecos Country
of West Texas
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
By Smokey Briggs
Civilian casualties are better
than American casualties
Last week I wrote that I was not sure I had anything profound to say
about the war in Iraq.
Well, by all that is holy, it may not be profound, but I sure have something
For a week now I have listened to a large portion of the Washington press
corps hound presidential and military spokesmen about civilian casualties
Their tone of voice, posture and questions insinuate that we are not
doing enough to prevent civilian casualties.
Avoiding civilian casualties is the politically correct thing to do.
It is also the right thing to do, when feasible.
The problem is that the morons with the microphones and the pens do not
have a clue about operating in a combat environment.
The other problem is that deep down they care very little about our boys
in uniform - the actions prove it no matter the lip service they pay to
supporting the troops.
The truth of the matter is we are already allowing American boys to die
in the name of protecting civilians. Four died last week when they did not
open fire on a civilian truck when it did not stop where it was supposed
to at a checkpoint.
Those guys died so that idiots can feel good about themselves as they
sit at home on their couch and whine about the war with their liberal friends.
That is a shame.
Those soldiers should have never hesitated. The truck should have been
a smoking ruin ten feet past the line.
I will bet everything I own that they hesitated because they were saddled
with ridiculous rules of engagement that promise swift punishment for shooting
the wrong Iraqi.
That is criminal and every officer in their chain of command should be
drummed out of the Army for dereliction of duty.
I would add gutless to the charges as well, except it is not a codified
crime under the Universal Code of Military Justice.
Still, the press corps continues to ask whinny questions like, "What
are you doing to protect the civilians in Baghdad?"
The insinuation is that we should simply go in and let our infantrymen
root out the bad guys with rifles, bayonets, and hand grenades so that we
do not risk dropping a bomb on the nice civilians.
I agree. Just so long as the press corps gets to go first. You can bet
your eyeteeth and any other parts of your body you are fond of that if that
bunch of never-seen-the-inside-of-a-barracks couch potatoes were faced with
that mission they would be calling for every piece of ordinance in the inventory
before they peeped their heads out of their foxholes.
It comes down to this - in war, our boys are more important than theirs.
No soldier, sailor, airman or Marine should die so that an Iraqi can live.
And one last thing.
I would like to let it be known that I am volunteering to personally
execute Hasan Akbar, the sorry piece of trash that attacked his own comrades
in the 101st Airborne Division at the beginning of the war.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Smokey Briggs is the editor and publisher of the
Pecos Enterprise whose column appears on Tuesdays. He can be e-mailed at: email@example.com
County Judge should not be facing truancy charges
Last Wednesday County Judge Jimmy Galindo was served with a complaint
charging him and his wife Michelle with violating the State's truancy laws
since they have not sent their son to school since December.
The Galindo's situation is not your average case of truancy.
Their son, John, is autistic. According to Galindo, they found out last
December that one of John's teachers had been putting ice down his pants
and spraying him in the face with a water bottle. They think this was going
on for several months before it was discovered.
The teachers involved no longer work for the school district, and a new
special education teacher was hired by the district.
But, the Galindo's say they are not satisfied with the district's response.
They say the school has not released all the information regarding what
happened to their son and until they know what actually happened, they are
not going to send John back to school.
And now, they are facing truancy charges.
That is ridiculous.
No parent should send their child into an environment that they feel
is unsafe. What kind of parent would?
If the school district is not sharing everything it knows about this
incident with the Galindo's it ought to. They deserve to know everything
the school district knows.
While no level of supervision might have prevented what happened any
parent would want to see how the situation developed, who was involved,
and what the response was - step-by-step.
On the other hand, the Galindo's have stated that, among other things,
they want cameras in the classroom and an observation room where parents
can observe the class. Both might help prevent a similar incident from
occurring, or at least it would not happen more than once before the misconduct
In a perfect world they might get them.
In a school district in a poor city in West Texas neither may be feasible.
As to the new teacher's experience - parents do not get to hire the teachers.
That is what school boards are for. If this board is not doing a good job
vote them out of office.
The bottom line is this - no set of realistic safeguards can guarantee
any child's safety from a teacher like this one. John is the only member
of his class and he cannot speak for himself.
There will be times when he will be alone with a teacher. That probably
cannot be avoided in Pecos, Texas and eventually all parents have to trust
that the teachers they leave their children with are not going to harm them.
This kind of misguided or evil person is not the norm or even a statistical
percentage when compared to all the good teachers out there.
This teacher was an aberration.
No matter, until the Galindo's are completely satisfied that their son
is safe when he is in the school district's care, they should not send him
to school and they certainly should not be subject to truancy charges.
Knowing everything the school knows would be a good start.
Was justice served?
Help STOP the corruption here in Pecos please print this letter as soon
as possible. Thank you and May God Bless you and your family.
This goes back to October of 2002 a 21 year old Hispanic was sentenced to
ten years in prison. When he violated his probation, he was seen by an officer
at a football game, (a family function) in Kermit.
Also when this individual was aware that he had a warrant out for his
arrest, he gave himself in voluntarily to the Sheriffs Dept. Also the arrest
warrant was motion to adjudicate not motion to revoke.
On the other side of this story, we have a 51 year old white male that
not too long ago was arrested on the street of Raul Florez Blvd. For a warrant
motion to revoke. He violated his probation for being in possession of more
drugs. His probation was Not Revoked instead he was sentenced to wear an
electronic device. Now both individuals violated their probation but both
individuals were not treated in the same manner.
Why? Well that is a question we should ask the District Attorney Randall
Reynolds, Honorable Judge Bob Parks, and last but not least, Probation Officer
MS. LENA V. CERVANTEZ
Return to top
York M. "Smokey" Briggs, Publisher
Division of Buckner News Alliance, Inc.
324 S. Cedar St., Pecos, TX 79772
Phone 915-445-5475, FAX 915-445-4321
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium.
We support Newspapers in Education
Copyright 2003 by Pecos Enterprise