Posted on 02/06/2007 6:18:29 PM PST by calcowgirl
A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.
WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General's office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:
2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
3. stated that day they "wanted to shoot a Mexican";
4. were belligerent to investigators;
5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
This prompted a startled and angry response from the congressman.
"You lied to me and you lied to all of us," Culberson charged. "Your office tried to paint a picture of Ramos and Compean as dirty cops, and now you come before this committee and tell us you never had the information to back up those claims."
Ramos and Compean began prison sentences last month after their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler who was granted immunity to testify against them.
Responding to Skinner's testimony yesterday, Poe said it "explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress."
"DHS didn't turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason – the reports never existed," the Texas congressman said.
"Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?" he asked. "I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn't true?"
Poe said he's determined to get to the bottom of DHS's claim.
"I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we're done," he said.
Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS's actions "represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
"This admission today is yet more proof of how they are willing to distort the facts, as I have charged all along, in order to ensure a conviction," he said.
You honestly believe that if a federal agent discharges his firearm while on duty at a suspect, that there is no requirement for him to submit anything in writing???? I know there are plenty of LEOs on FR, can anyone of you confirm that in your jurisdiction, officers are allowed to discharge their firearms while on duty, not at the shooting range, and not have to make a report of the incident????? If true, it seems a little fast and loose for me.
The transcripts are not sealed, they have been requested and the audio tapes are being transcribed. I've read the trial lasted 3 weeks. My Mom had to request a transcript of her divorce proceeding, only 2 1/2 days of testimony, it was a couple hundred pages, cost hundreds of dollars, and took 2 months to get. Every page of the transcription must be sworn by affidavit to be completely accurate by the authorized court reporter. I would think that they take some time to insure their accuracy.
There has been adequate corroberation of the fact that written reports are discouraged for the border patrol agents.
Cause you read it on the internets?????? It must be true then. There is a universal truth, bureaucracies love paperwork, it's called job security.
When you read something on WND, you have a 99% assuredness that it is true. It is the world's most reliable source of political news.
According to a defender's post, the policy REQUIRES a verbal report, and prohibits a written report.
Thinking the supervisor must have heard about it is not a "verbal report". And since the policy requires the supervisor to INTERVIEW the agents, and file a report, the two agents KNEW that they had not properly informed the supervisors because they were not interviewed.
Absolutely! Why would they file any written report when it is against policy, and why would they make any false statement to their supervisor who was there and participating in the action. But they DID file a written report, according to the Sutton press release (I've not seen any difinitive statement from the defenders claiming that there was NO report filed). The report they filed did not mention the shooting.
Now, the policy says they should NOT do a written report about the shooting. The defenders jumped on that to claim that exonerates the agents. But not if they filed a report. The policy apparently wants to ensure that, in the case of a shooting, someone higher in the chain collects all the evidence and makes sure the shooting is properly documented. So in the case of a shooting, the agents are NOT SUPPOSED TO FILE A REPORT. Instead, they are to go verbally inform the supervisor, who will do a formal interview, and then write the report.
When the agents filed a report, it meant there was a report on file, and that report was false, because it didn't mention the shooting. If they had NOT filed a report, the supervisor would see there was no report, and would ask where the report was. The agents would say "because there was a shooting", and the supervisor would then question the agents and write a report.
THIS IS FOR THE AGENTS protection as well. If they had an official report filed with the supervisor that provided their entire story about being threatened, and the supervisor had launched an investigation to collect evidence at the scene, the official report would have probably not raised any question of legality.
Then, when the report of a "mexican who was shot" came to DHS, they would have found the police report about the incident, and would have figured "hey, we got our man", rather than "hey, we have no report of any shooting, what's going on here?"
Name the case you think is "even dirtier than this". The only other case I've seen mentioned is a far-left site complaining that in another case, Sutton was supporting the BP agents in a shooting of known drug dealers, saying the shooting was unwarranted. I can't believe that's the one you are refering to.
Perfecting the fine art of sarcasm I see.
The defenders are having trouble distinguishing the difference between "consistant with" and "shows that".
For example, my pencil is on the floor. That is consistant with my pencil rolling off my desk. It is also consistant with me dropping my pencil on the floor, my putting my pencil on the floor, and the pencil falling through a hole in my desk drawer.
So, knowing the fact that my pencil is on the floor, we can eliminate a few things -- for example, my pencil is not on my desk, and I did not leave it in someone else's room.
But the pencil does not prove that I dropped it, or that it rolled off the floor.
In fact, my pencil being on the floor SHOWS THAT I was unsuccessful in my attempt to make it stick into the ceiling.
Essentially, the bullet wound does not prove he was running away. That's all the report says. It is consistent with a person being hit while turning to one side. It's also consistent with a person running to one side, or running from side to side (for example, zig-zagging to avoid being hit by a crazy BP agent shooting at you when you tried to surrender but they tried to beat you up).
I also pointed out on another thread that a left-hander who wanted to really SHOOT a gun behind them would more likely turn to the RIGHT, not to the left, because pointing backwards is much easier by bending your elbow across your body, rather than stretching out your arm behind you on the same side. Go ahead and try it yourself to see.
Someone responded that it mattered "which foot you were on at the time you had to turn to shoot". Which almost sounded rational, until you realise to uncontroverted facts -- First, that the smuggler, IF he turned at all, did so on his OWN timing and volition, and therefore would turn the EASIER way. And Second, that NEITHER agent has said they were SHOT at, so in fact to believe the story you have to think a man who was running away without pursuit pulled out a gun, and pointed it backwards, with no intention of shooting it.
The agents circumvented this by filing their own reports without mentioning the shooting, and not verbally telling the supervisor about the shooting.
Their defense is that they figured the supervisor already knew. I have no idea what there defense is for filing a report when they were required to brief the supervisor and have HIM file the report.
The pro-BP people claimed that this rule exonerated the agents for "not filing a report mentioning the shooting". My guess is they will now argue there was no report filed at all.
Your "example" to be consistent would require that the bullet fragment and wound were caused by the crazy BP agent or agents' bullet fragment would it not?
Screw a re-trial. They should be pardoned by the President and the 3 that lied should spend 10 years in prison.
Based on what has been on the radio today (Roger Hedgecock), It looks like the wheels are coming off the entire case - and some "higer up" DHS types are looking as prison time....
Yes. That is something I pointed out last week. A recent claim by the defense is that Ramos never hit the guy at all. They make a big deal out of the "chain of evidence" for the bullet fragment, suggesting that the wound was inflicted by the drug kingpin.
But we are also told that the wound shows the guy was running away from the agent while pointing a gun at him, and therefore supports the story that Ramos felt threatened.
Those are contradictory arguments. If the bullet isn't Ramos's bullet, it's trajectory CAN'T prove Ramos was threatened.
Further, the path of the bullet is rather inconsistent with a drug kingpin shooting his employee to "teach him a lesson". Unless the employee runs away from the kingpin, and then turns toward him pretending to shoot at him while the kingpin shoots at him.
Consistancy is not a strong point for the defense. I can't blame them, since the two agents told several contradictory stories themselves.
I'm getting this mental image of you sitting for hours in your chair, catapulting pencils skyward, LOL.
Thanks for the chuckles, Chucky! :-)
Good! The defenders of the government in this case are overlooking HLS agents lied in this case to get a conviction. This morning on Fox one talk show person said outright this was a message to all other BP agents not to stop drug runners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.