Interview with Jeff Latas, Democrat for Congress In Arizona's CD8
Published March 21, 2006
J: If we do the things I talked about crossing will decline in number and we can sustain with our current border patrol and technology. We might no have to do anything. I don't know if those U-CAVS [pilotless drones] are really doing the job their supposed to be doing. You fly missions out there and they're seeing hundreds of people cross the border. The agents go out and the chase one group, hundreds of others get by meanwhile.
In the short term, maybe we do need to increase some sensors. I don't know that you need more agents. If you've been down there, the place is crawling with agents. The people down there who actually live on the border feel that the agents that are working it can be more threatening than migrants that are coming across. They cut fences, shoot dogs in defense of agent safety. Migrants do it too, of course. But more agents are not going to help. Building a wall is not going to help.
M: The Homeland Security Agency now a contract out to bid for a 25 billion dollar fiber optic system all along the border to detect vibrations as subtle as the footstep of an immigrant.
J: Well, Jeez, how many cattle are the going to get arrested by border agents? The trouble is how well tested are these systems people want to put on the border? Those we have now have false signals all the time costing huge amounts of man-hours. Technology is not always the right answer. Before I would approve such things, I want to see serious studies that we the people can get our hands on, proving they're effective.
M: Drug prohibition. A failed policy?
J: Yeah. I think it's definitely failed. All throughout the 1990s we were spending lots of money on the 'war on drugs'; didn't do a damn thing except waste that money. The way we are approaching illicit drugs in this country is a failure. It's not that difficult to obtain illicit drags in this country, so we need to approach it completely differently.
M: Would you be in favor of reforming the mandatory sentencing of drug offenders?
J: Yes.
M: Would you fund treatment and diversion programs?
J: Yes. Incarcerating someone is a hell of a lot more expensive than treatment, regardless of how many times that person has to go back through rehab. So this is a cost issue, as well. People who addicted to drugs need help; they don't need to be thrown in jail - even if it is Rush Limbaugh. (laughs)
FORIEGN AFFAIRS
M: What values should we bring to the fight against terrorism?
J: Well, terrorism can be view differently depending on the culture. I'm sure Hamas views Israeli attacks on the Palestinians as terroristic, as well as our bombing of Iraq all through the 1990s. To me, terrorism is when you try to instill fear in people. I don't know that's what we intend when we do military operations, whether I agree or disagree with what we did. We didn't bomb groups of people, we were trying to take out certain targets. Mistake got made. And I'll be the first one to admit innocent people died, and that's absolutely wrong.
- Interview with Jeff Latas, Democrat for Congress In Arizona's CD8
- Published: March 21, 2006
- Type: Interview
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Michael D. Bryan
- Michael D. Bryan's BC Writer page
- Michael D. Bryan's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
1977-1980 we reduced our oil requirements from the Middle East by 87% at the same time the GDP went up 27%, so it's obviously healthy for this economy to get off of oil.
He must have forgotten the average 12% yearly inflation rate during that period which went along with that GDP growth, which effectively reduced it to a -21% rate of growth.
Dave
I neglected to include his homepage. Thanks for pointing out the oversight.
Michael, you could go back and edit that into the article at an appropriate place.
Dave
I too share similar opinions about the F-22 V Joint Strike Fighter and alot of other systems to numerous to mention.
I recall while in High School,1959 to 1963, I wore a Hughes Missile Pin of The Falcon on my shirt every day, and being called to the cafeteria with other Hughes Families because Hughes paid a direct subsidy to the school for my being in attendance.
The same is true of the many good aircraft and systems that did not get off the ground because of "Favorite Defense Contractors inside the Pentagon," as was Boeing, favored by Dwight Eisenhower, and it got the contracts over Lockeed and Martin and Convair and many others that had a superior aircraft but lost to Politics.
General Spots the first Air Force General and whom broke off from The Army ,then called Army-Air Force, was a good friend of my Family and was born in Boyertown,P.A. where I was Born. Since the Town is so small everyone knew everyone else,and in the First and Second World War with Spots in Command we had alot of options open to us.
Hughes alone has Government Contracts now over a TRILLION Dollars, Iam a member of Davis Monthan Air Force Lodge #105 and have spent alot of time in the Bone Yard now and back in the 1960's as I hauled out 250 B-26's to be refitted and sent to Madam Nue and her Air Force in Viet Nam under The Kennedy Administration.
For anyone who wants to see their Tax Dollars , visit the Bone Yard to see everything from B-1 Bombers back in time to your favorite aircraft,all coated with white sun guard.
The point that my Father always made as he was stationed at Langley to Hughes was that when a contract was complete the JIG was Destroyed so that no more production of PARTS or THE AIRCRAFT could continue, this forced special jobs to make more parts from new JIGS that most engineers had a hard time matching the tolerances down to the original and the parts did not fit or work in many systems SCRAPPING many thousands of parts that had to be made over and over again,then if a repair order was ahead of schedule the parts were scrapped on purpose to continue the contract.
With this in mind beware of Politicians whom are connected to the Pentagon or its Contractors because you will experience Haliburton all over again.
Most of the complaints you raise about incompetent and inefficient management of the aircraft parts by the military would be true regardless of who built the planes. You make the mistaken assumption that any one of those aircraft contractors was less corrupt than the others, and even more that Boeing was corrupt just because they were the one that got the contract. If Hughes or Douglas or Convair or whoever had gotten the contract you'd be complaining about them today.
Dave




Great interview Michael! Is there a website where people can learn more about / contact / support Latas' campaign?