DON'T DEPLOY MILITARY ALONG RIO GRANDE

Ohio congressman James A. Traficant Jr., D-Poland, wants to put troops
along the U.S. border, a policy that has led to civilian deaths in the
past. Unfortunately, he managed to convince a majority in the U.S. House of
Representatives that it's a good idea.

On Sept. 25, the House approved an amendment sponsored by Traficant that
would reinstate armed military patrols along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Citing concern for national security, the congressman - and the 241 other
members of Congress who voted along with him - seems to think putting the
armed forces on the border could prevent the loss of American lives on U.S.
soil.

West central Ohio's Republican congressional delegation was split on the
issue with Reps. Michael G. Oxley of Findlay and John A. Boehner of West
Chester rightly opposing this idea. Reps. Paul E. Gillmor of Old Fort and
David L. Hobson of Springfield, unfortunately, supported the amendment.

Perhaps Traficant, Hobson and Gillmor should talk to the family of Esequiel
Hernandez Jr., who was shot by a Marine as he herded goats near his home in
Redford in West Texas, close to the Rio Grande.

The young man was watching over his family's livestock one evening when he
decided to shoot at targets with his .22-caliber rifle. He had no way of
knowing a group of Marines, deployed as part of the federal government's
futile attempt to stem the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico into the
United States, was hidden nearby.

Marine Cpl. Clemente Ba uelos shot and killed Hernandez after the civilian
fired his rifle. The subsequent investigation revealed the Marines did not
summon help for the youth, who bled to death. Although Ba uelos and the
other Marines involved in the shooting were exonerated, the military
suspended its armed operations along the border.

Traficant has long wanted to end that suspension and put military personnel
back on the boundary with Mexico. He has pushed several bills that would do
so through the House in the past three years, but the Senate has correctly
discarded the measures each time.

Despite the concern over national security after the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks on the United States, there is no need to deploy military troops
along the U.S. border. There's no invasion force massing in Mexico. The
individuals who hijacked American passenger planes and crashed them into
buildings breezed right through customs and immigration on their way into
this country. The entire 101st Airborne would not have stopped them from
sneaking in.

We agree with U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, who has fought
Traficant's previous attempts to put armed troops back on the border.

"Militarization of the border with soldiers unfamiliar with border
situations and not trained to deal with them is an invitation to disaster,"
Reyes said. He should know; he's a former Border Patrol agent himself.

Most soldiers aren't trained for police functions; they're trained to
fight. If we put the military back on the border, it's just a matter of
time before another civilian gets killed by someone wearing a U.S. military
uniform. There's a legal reason not to deploy troops as well. The 1878
Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military from performing civilian law
enforcement functions.

Ohio is a long way from Texas, but Traficant should realize that putting
soldiers on the border with Mexico has not and will not do anything to
diminish crime or terrorism. We hope the Senate, with help from Ohio's
Republican senators - R. Michael DeWine and George V. Voinovich - will once
again vote down this bad idea.