Posted on 01/18/2007 2:15:47 AM PST by Man50D
Seems only fair to me, they would shoot you for trying to enter Mexico illegally we should recriprociate.
Good for goose.....
Sorry Sport. Hard for me to buy that it's worth a decade. Especially since I don't believe a damn thing the alien murderer says.
I spent 21 years in the military and fought in 3 wars. Thanks for the information.
Guilty people go free because of our rights and freedoms. Bad people get away with murder because of our rights and freedoms.
What? That sounds like some weird speech an ACLU defense attorney would spew on Oprah.
Our justice system isn't perfect, only God's justice is.
The rest of your post is somewhere between a basic civics lesson, a strange strand of Libertarianism, and some "shouting" by typing in all CAPITOL LETTERS.
I was not arguing it was OK now for police to shoot innocent people because they are forced to by terrorist tactics. If you had the sense to draw a parallel between what Professor Dershowitz was saying and this case involving the border agents, you would have seen what all the other posters have been trying to say to you. To wit: we play by civilized rules, but our enemies exploit those rules. It is a gross mistake by the Bush Administration to take the side of a drug running illegal invader - period.
We are not talking about innocent women and children in Waco Texas coming under fire from the BATF here. This case is the equivalent of Mike Nifong's bastardization of the law.
Alas, I have read what you have posted to everyone else, and I see you have dug in your heels and would rather go down with the Titanic rather than admit you are wrong.
Why don't we just agree that the whole situation is preventable by building a high voltage electric fence/virtual fence with moats on either side stocked with hungry barracudas.
A judge refused to let these two men stay free till they could appeal their case. That stinks.
But today in Texas, President Bush said he would take the case under review. THAT'S A START.
And admitting our hands are tied trying to apprehend Illegals, why don't you take on more of a just cause, like Illegals getting away with stealing Social Security numbers and forging documents. I'm sure you'll find real lawbreakers you can sink your fangs into..
sw
Agreed.
I'd probably convict on their OWN testimony.
But I actually agree with you on the sentence. But that's not anybody's fault but those who argue for mandatory sentences because they don't want to give judges "discretion".
Seems that in this case, we suddenly WANT a judge to be able to "do the right thing" and show some restraint in sentencing. Unfortunately, our side has imposed mandatory sentences for the crimes they committed and were convicted of.
Your making the mistake of thinking there are "sides" here, and that the "drug-running illegal" was on one side, and the BP officers on the other.
The BP officers COMMITTED A CRIME. We don't excuse criminals because they commit crimes against other criminals. We wouldn't let you shoot a jaywalker.
Sorry if my post sounded pedestrian and a bit libertarian, but the idea of being convicted for committing a crime regardless of the status of the victim is a pretty basic part of our judicial system.
It's not that our system isn't perfect -- although it isn't. Our system is DESIGNED to let some guilty people go free. It is a CONSCIOUS DECISION on our part, to ensure that people have the greatest freedom and liberty we can muster while still providing some basic sense of security.
There was a time that we all know that meant a police officer might die, rather than taking the chance that an innocent person might be harmed.
Yes, we play by "civilised rules", and the criminals DO NOT. You think that's something new?
But we simply don't throw out our civilized rules just because it makes it easier to deal with the criminals, or the terrorists. I'm supportive of common-sense measures that would otherwise be seen as infringing upon liberty, in the course of fighting a war on terror.
You want to declare war against Mexico? Do it, and I'll support shooting mexicans who are in the country illegally, because that might make sense if we are at war.
But otherwise, I'm not supporting shooting illegals in the back simply because they aren't playing fair. If that means a BP agent might get shot while waiting to confirm a threat, well that's a sad thing, but I'd rather have a BP agent get shot, than an unarmed person who did nothing more than sneak into our country to earn some extra money. That's not because I'm soft on illegals, or want them here, but simply because the punishment has to fit the crime.
And while that sounds like I dont support our BP agents, that's not the case. They should be supported, because they SHOULD be in a position where they might get shot because of our laws and our liberties. But if you are a shoot-first person, go into another field. I don't want you as a BP agent, or a police officer, or a security guard.
It sucks to be a law enforcement officer who commits a felony, but that's hardly a reason to let them get away with it.
I wonder why the judge thought they were a flight risk.
This is hardly a cause for me, I'm not the one writing letters or signing petitions. If the jury had found them not guilty, I wouldn't lift a finger either.
I just feel compelled to argue against those on my side who have decided to support shooting unarmed people.
Have you read the response by the prosecuter, who denies that the "immunity" given to the drug smuggler cost them a chance to prosecute? If you did, do you disagree with that judgment, and if so, what evidence to you have that this smuggler could have been prosecuted?
Remember, the guy escaped into mexico. The agents failed to apprehend him, they didn't ID him, they didn't know who he was, they couldn't pick him out of a lineup, and they had no physical evidence linking him to the van.
The only reason we know he was a drug smuggler was that he TESTIFIED to that as part of the trial. And of course he would not have done so without immunity, but without that testimony, we never could have convicted him, much less got him extradicted.
The problem I have with the prosecutor granting immunity is that it is the same as bribing a witness. If the defense offered a witness reduced jail time or complete immunity for testifying they would be breaking the law.
This is simply another shining example of how the system is broken.
The only reason we know he was a drug smuggler was that he TESTIFIED to that as part of the trial. And of course he would not have done so without immunity, but without that testimony, we never could have convicted him, much less got him extradicted.
Two things jump out at me. First of all should anyone believe the testimony of a bribed witness? (He is also suing for 5 million dollars). Second, without his testimony would the Border Agents have been convicted? I don't think so.
If the drug smuggler really felt victimized, then he should be willing to do the right thing and take responsibility for his own actions. NO BRIBERY IS NECESSARY. The prosecutor should be jailed for bribing a witness.
The system is broken.
The basic problem is that the system is inherently unfair and the wrong people are being targeted. The police and justice system are quickly becoming corrupt, trapped in an unjust system.
The real guilty people are the buyers. The people that buy the services of the illegal aliens and the drugs they bring across. Of course our system doesn't prosecute them because they are powerful and there are too many of them. So our justice system prosecutes the weak and not so numerous. I am noticing a new trend though, expect to see more police and border agent convictions. The system is starting to eat its own.
Nancy Pelosi hires illegal aliens. Nancy Pelosi should be serving time next to the border guards. But she is rich and powerful isn't she?
While I share a general disdain for immunity (although I think we all were happy to see the SP granting immunity when it was to get testimony against Bill Clinton), I don't think in this case there is any real indication of it acting like a bribe.
The guy in question was in mexico, and we had no evidence tying him to the van, so he was under no danger of prosecution.
But his testimony was only useful if he tied himself to the van -- and doing so would get him thrown in jail for a decade for drug smuggling. If the BP agents that had shot him had instead been a rival illegal immigrant drug cartel, I doubt anybody here would be arguing against the granting of immunity.
It is true of course that, without his testimony against the agents, he'd have little chance at the civil lawsuit. That is a disturbing part of the case, although it also is true that a person who was telling the truth would still sue. Further, we do have some facts in evidence that do not require believing the witness -- we know he was shot, we know he was shot by a BP agent, we know he was shot in the back (butt).
We also know that the agents hid evidence of the shooting, and that they filed a false report. We know from SOME of their statements (acknowledging that some of their statements conflict with others) and that of other BP agents that the man at one point had his hands up and showed there was nothing in them; we know that Compean raised his weapon against the man, and another BP agent testified that someone yelled "hit him".
Anyway, I think you realise that nobody is going to "do the right thing" by confessing to a crime and putting themselves in jail for a decade. Well, I guess a good man might do that on principle, but I think we ALL agree that an illegal immigrant drug-smuggler is NOT a "good man".
I agree that a top priority should be to go after those who HIRE illegals. Cut out the illegal jobs, you remove their reason for being here.
The guest worker program was meant to do just that. Bush's proposal was for a program that was strictly regulated, that forbid a path to citizenship for those who took part, that required companies in the program to make a good-faith effort to hire legals, that required fair pay (I think the senate version actually dictated bacon-davis wages, which are higher than minimum) which would lessen the chance of a compony hiring an immigrant to save money.
When the democrats pass their version of the bill this year, I think we'll all regret the house's decision last year not to get together with the senate and try to get rid of the worst parts of the senate bill and get 80% of what we wanted. Because now we will get NOTHING of what we wanted.
Anyway, I think the real problem isn't illegals, or legals, it's our embrace of multiculturalism. We wouldn't have any trouble with 20 million new workers in this country if they were all learning english and embracing our way of life. The problem is they are trying to turn our country into a rich version of their country.
How about a special counsel to investigate the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales?
1. 12 years in prison for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler in the ass, and lying about it.
2.100 hours of community service for Sandy Berger stealing and destroying top secret documents relating to acts of war, and lying about it.
Impeach the S.O.B. now.
I don't think the prosecution had that evidence without the drug smugglers testimony. No body, No crime.
Even in Bill Clintons case I don't believe that it is ever right to grant immunity or offer reduced sentences to get people to testify. The reason prosecutors need that 'tool' is because our laws are so screwed up. I really think that it should be against the law for prosecutors to offer 'deals'.
What is happening is that the laws are making it impossible for decent law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to do their job. They are all becoming dirty.
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.