AP) Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz discusses the federal raid on his company's facilities Aug. 25, 2011 in Nashville, Tenn.
By Web Producer Fernie Ortiz
EL PASO, Texas -- Border Patrol officials are investigating an incursion by Mexican federal police into the United State on Thursday morning.
U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said armed officers with Mexico's Secretaria de Seguridad Publica federal police were in the incursion, which took place in El Paso, near the Border Patrol's Ysleta station.
The Mexican government, Border Patrol and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department are investigating the incident. U.S. authorities responded to the incident.An ABC-7 viewer contacted the station early Thursday, saying her son, husband and friends were hunting on the Rio Grande levy on the U.S. side when men on the Mexico side fired shots, narrowly missing them.
She said more men on the Mexico side drove up with automatic weapons and into to U.S. side. She said the armed men fired weapons and stole hunters' chairs and drove back into Mexico.Mosier said Border Patrol agents and Texas Parks and Wildlife officers were sent to the area immediately."Upon approach, our agents observed those subjects (Mexican officers) who committed the incursion return back to Mexico," Mosier said.
Mosier said that at no point of the initial investigation were there any allegations of shots being fired at subjects on the U.S. side of the border, nor is there any information to suggest that any personal items were stolen from the U.S. side of the international boundary."We remain in constant and direct contact with our partners in the government of Mexico as the investigation unfolds."
More From KVIA.com
Gibson Guitar Corp. is claiming the Obama administration wants more of its woodwork done overseas, as a bizarre battle heats up between the government and one of the country's most renowned guitar makers.
The dispute started in 2009, when federal agents raided the company over suspect wood shipments from Madagascar. Gibson took that case to court but has denounced the administration with a vengeance after agents returned late last month to raid several Gibson factories -- this time out of concern that Indian export laws had been violated.
Though some reports on the dispute have cited environmental concerns, court documents suggest the latest battle boils down to a simple, non-environmental question -- which country is working on the wood?
Gibson's CEO has said repeatedly that the only reason his company is in trouble is because U.S. workers are completing work on guitar fingerboards in the United States. In an interview earlier this week, CEO Henry Juszkiewicz claimed that the U.S. government even suggested Gibson's troubles would disappear if the company used foreign labor.
The Justice Department is hamstrung from talking about the case because it's an ongoing investigation. Justice spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle told FoxNews.com only that agents were looking for evidence of "possible violations" of a law governing imports of plants and wildlife.
Hornbuckle also confirmed that no charges have yet been filed in either of the two cases.
Court documents help explain the root of the tree dispute. According to search warrants associated with the latest raid, federal agents in June intercepted a shipment of Indian ebony apparently bound for Gibson in Tennessee. The documents noted that Indian law "prohibits the export of sawn wood," which can be used for fingerboards -- but does not prohibit the export of "veneers," which are sheets of woods that have already been worked on.
The search warrants alleged that the intercepted shipment was "falsely declared" as veneer, something that would have been legal. However, the documents said the ebony was in fact unfinished "sawn wood," supposedly illegal.
This led to the raid on Gibson facilities late last month.
Juszkiewicz said in a statement that the U.S. government has effectively suggested "that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department's interpretation of a law in India."
A representative at the Indian Embassy in Washington could not be reached for comment.
But Juszkiewicz has since claimed that his company's wood exports do in fact comply with Indian law, even if American workers are doing some of the work.
In an interview on the company website, Juszkiewicz said Gibson "for decades" has purchased fingerboard wood that is two-thirds finished.
"The fact that American workers are completing the work in the United States makes it illegal," he said, citing the government's position.
Juszkiewicz maintains Gibson is still complying with the law.
President Barack Obama will honor NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson and the 11 other Chase drivers from last year in a White House ceremony on Wednesday – but nearly half of the 2010 playoff contenders won't be there.
NASCAR said Thursday that five drivers – Greg Biffle, Kurt Busch, Carl Edwards, Kevin Harvick and Tony Stewart – will not be attending the White House visit due to "schedule conflicts."
UPDATE: Busch said Friday he will attend the White House visit after all.
They must be very busy people. Regardless of one's political views, the president is still the president – and an opportunity to speak with the leader of the free world is a rare and special one.
You'd think whatever photo shoots or sponsor appearances these drivers have lined up on Wednesday afternoon – if that's indeed the reason – could be rescheduled. After all, this is the President of the United States we're talking about here.
For a sport that prides itself on patriotism, having so many drivers turn down the president's invitation simply seems strange.
Johnson, Denny Hamlin, Jeff Gordon, Kyle Busch, Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton and Matt Kenseth will attend.
For more NASCAR news and analysis, head to SB Nation's NASCAR hub.
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.
"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space.
This meant, it said, that projections of temperature rise made in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports were too high.
The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.
They also commented on the fact that the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.
Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process.
In essence, Dr Wagner, a professor of remote sensing at Vienna University of Technology, is blaming himself for this failing.
But he also blames the researchers themselves for not referencing all the relevant research in their manuscript.
"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
"This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."
Scientific papers that turn out to be flawed or fraudulent are usually retracted by the journals that publish them, with editorial resignations a rarity.
But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said Dr Wagner had done the decent thing.
"It was a mistake, he's owned up to it and taken an honourable course, and I think he's to be commended for it," he told BBC News.
"I think it remains to be seen whether the authors follow a similar course."
Mr Ward described the tactic of publishing in off-topic journals as a "classic tactic" of scientists dismissive of man-made climate change.
"Those who recognise that their ideas are weak but seek to get them into the literature by finding weaknesses in the peer review system are taking a thoroughly disreputable approach," he said.
Roy Spencer, however, told BBC News: "I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published on my blog at drroyspencer.com.
"Our university press release necessarily put our scientific results in lay language, and what we believe they mean in the larger context of global warming research. This is commonly done in press statements made by the IPCC and its scientists, too, when reporting on research which advocates the view that climate change is almost entirely caused by humans.
"The very fact that the public has the perception that climate change is man-made, when in fact there is as yet no way to know with any level of scientific certainty how much is man-made versus natural, is evidence of that."
Dr Spencer is one of the team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville that keeps a record of the Earth's temperature as determined from satellite readings.
He is also on the board of directors of the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing thinktank critical of mainstream climate science, and an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an evangelical Christian organisation that claims policies to curb climate change "would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs" and "could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life".
Follow Richard on Twitter