Posted on 01/18/2007 2:13:50 PM PST by alienken
My message is there for anyone to see. If I was talking behind their back, I would send them an email off line. We disagree on this case. Totally disagree.
The main points of this case are as follows:
1. Bush doesn't want to protect our borders so once this case came to light, he pushed Gonzalez to prosecute to send a message to border patrol agents to stand down.
2. If you do your job and screw up, we will prosecute. We will take the word of illegal alien drug smugglers over border patrol agents.
3. We will throw our own guys under the bus even if we don't know if the guy was hit with a bullet by our guys or the Mexican Mafia.
You spoke of multiple people, multiple times, without pinging them.
That's cowardly and against forum rules.
As for your "points"...
Your #1 is nonsense.
As is your #2.
As is your #3.
Debate the legal aspects of the case or display your "feelings" to someone else.
Provide me with evidence that he wants to protect the borders?? He had to be forced to sign off on that fence bill and it will never be built.
Because you view my views as nonsense doesn't mean they are. Many Congressmen side with my view of this case. 76 so far have requested a pardon.
Your view is supported by many Democrats.
Gee, we have to ping so one when making a comment? You are too tied up with rules. This is a forum to exchange views. You haven't convinced me with any of your arguements. In fact, I haven't seen your arguements in favor of the government made in plain english.
Many Congressmen side with my view of this case. 76 so far have requested a pardon.
How many Congressmen are there?
You haven't convinced me with any of your arguements.
You're yet to put forth any relevant arguement. Do you deny they obstructed justice?
The request by Congressman Duncan Hunter just got started. 76 signors so far and they are just beginning to talk to Democrats.
Are you in favor of the border being protected from illegals? That is a good thing. The border agent will probably get life in prison for shooting the illegal. And we will debate another twisted case.
Do you have an arguements or are you reduced to answering questions with questions?
Johnny Sutton's closeness to George Bush, Alberto Gonzales and his administration--->>
It passed through the office of Johnny Sutton, the US Attorney for Western Texas - a close associate of George W. Bush. When Bush was Texas governor, Sutton spent five years as his director of criminal justice policy. After Bush became President, Sutton became legal policy co-ordinator in the White House transition team, working with another Bush Texas colleague, Alberto Gonzalez, the present US Attorney General.
Earlier this year Sutton was appointed chairman of the Attorney General's advisory committee which, says the official website, 'plays a significant role in determining policies and programmes of the department and in carrying out the national goals set by the President and the Attorney General'. Sutton's position as US Attorney for Western Texas is further evidence of his long friendship with the President - falling into his jurisdiction is Midland, the town where Bush grew up, and Crawford, the site of Bush's beloved ranch.
http://www.nbpc.net/news/house_of_death.htm
Answer the question, Do you deny they obstructed justice?
A rumor persists that Aldrete-Davila subsequently was arrested in October 2005 smuggling another 1,000 pounds of marijuana, but the indictment was sealed and later expunged because Aldrete-Davila was the star witness in the government's case against Ramos and Compean.
I'll bet this rumor is true!
In a telephone interview with WND, Shana Jones, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Sutton's office, denied Aldrete-Davila had ever been arrested for drug smuggling.
A "Myths vs. Facts" press release published yesterday by Sutton's office repeated the denial, stating, "The Western District of Texas leads the nation in the number of individuals we prosecute for illegally smuggling drugs into this country. If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him."
Sutton's press release denied Aldrete-Davila was given "blanket immunity" for any crimes he may have committed or may commit in the future.
The U.S. attorney argued giving Aldrete-Davila a promise that the government would not use his truthful statements gave up very little, because the case against him "was not prosecutable."
Do you believe this lie?? There was a van full of drugs
Sutton states there was no provable evidence against Aldrete-Davila "until he agreed to cooperate."
Do you believe this lie?? There was a van full of drugs
Bonner said the Bush administration has been a "big disappointment to those of us in the conservative base who worked hard to elect him president in 2000 and 2004."
"There is no doubt in my mind that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila is a lieutenant in the Mexican drug cartels," he said. "There is a drug war waging across our borders, and the Bush administration's unwillingness to pardon agents Ramos and Compean only serves to put the drug cartels on notice that our borders will remain wide open to them. Ramos and Compean should be given medals for doing what they did, not going to jail. The whole case is an outrage and a tragedy."
The jury pool in that area would be about as objective as a Durham jury on the Lacrosse player's case.
They may have. Not sure. Did they try to cover up a shooting incident?? Maybe. Could they have been punished in some other way? Absolutely! There is no evidence that their shot hit the guy. Maybe the smugglers bosses did that. Do you know ??
Why would a jury take the word of a drug smuggler?? Why would our government give a drug smuggler immunity from prosecution if they weren't using this case to scare other border agents? Why don't you answer some questions for a change.
Yes.
Yes. There was a van full of drugs. It was not registered to the defendant. There were no fingerprints recovered from the van, or the drugs. The alleged perp was in Mexico, and could not be arrested for questioning unless we had probably cause -- and the agents had not gotten the guy's name, or provided a description of him in a report that would be sufficient to actually FIND him.
The only reason they know this man was tied to the van was that this man actually TOLD them he was the guy, AND he came voluntarily to give information.
THe rumor seems to persist only because the WND folks keep repeating it. There is no evidence for it, and the prosecuter (who is a public figure, a sworn officer of the law, and not allowed to lie about this) has said there is no truth to the rumor.
You have to attribute evil deeds to a LOT of people to get to where you can defend the two agents -- and even so, you still can't get past the fact that they SHOT A GUY IN THE BACK who was running back to Mexico, with no evidence he was an illegal or a criminal. And they hid the evidence, and filed a false report. Those facts are indisputed.
The little bastard has been running drugs for years. The van was his. The incident took place at an illegal border crossing favored by drug smugglers. The two BP agents knew the van was his and the van was in plain sight during the fateful incident.
Now, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila may not be prosecutable for drug smuggling for the reasons you state but I sure hope you don't dispute that he was smuggling drugs that day. And don't give me any nonsense about "was not proven in a court of law"
Of course he was running drugs. If they Border agents had taken him into custody, he'd be sitting in jail now.
Instead, under some descriptions, they had him surrendered, but then for some reason Compean made a move that put him on the ground, and gave the guy a chance to run. Then he shot at the guy 14 times, without hitting him once, pretty much ensuring the guy wasn't going to make the mistake of surrendering again. And when Ramos shot the guy, he thought he missed, and failed to pursue the guy, allowing him time to make it over the border where he was seen later getting into another vehicle.
In any case, without apprehending the guy with the van, there was no way to prosecute him for what was in the van, or even a way to get him extradicted to ask him a question. Now, I don't like that Mexico doesn't help us in things like this, but they are another country, and whether we'd like it to be otherwise, the prosecuter is simply speaking the truth when he notes that Mexico would never send the guy to us based on the information we had.
I don't remember any story saying that the Van was registered in his name, or that it had a title with his name on it. Maybe there was something and I missed it, if you could point me to it that would help. I was under the impression from what I've read that they did NOT know the guy's name, and that there was no identifying information in the van.
For example, this from the latest WND article:
"I would much prefer to be here discussing the prosecution of the drug dealer, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, and how we put him in prison for 20 years. But, unfortunately, we had no case against him, because there was no evidence tying him to that van. The two agents who should have been investigating the case instead of covering up the crime scene told us at the scene that they couldn't identify him. The agents put us in a situation where there was no way to prove in a court that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was connected to that load of marijuana. We would not even know about him had he not come and the investigators for Homeland Security been able to find him through his family"
Even the two guys who shot at him said they couldn't identify him (which seems at odds with your statement that they recognized him, and knew the van was his).
Oh, unless of course that this WND article is quoting the presecutor in a lie.
LOL
So you are saying the van full of drugs was not contolled by him that day? Not being used by him that day? LOL LOLOL LOL
Like I give a crap who has a funked up Mexican title to a beat up van
But now I see there is no point. From your latest comment:
So you are saying the van full of drugs was not contolled by him that day? Not being used by him that day? LOL LOLOL LOL Like I give a crap who has a funked up Mexican title to a beat up van
From the post of yours I was responding to:
The van was his. The incident took place at an illegal border crossing favored by drug smugglers. The two BP agents knew the van was his and the van was in plain sight during the fateful incident.
Now, tell me, what is the point of telling me the van was his, only to tell me a little later you don't care if the van was his or not, because he was driving it?
Nobody doubts he was driving the van, or that the drugs were his. But the two agents said they could NOT identify the person who jumped out of the van. There was no identifying information in the van, and nothing to tie the van to any person living in Mexico.
You argue that the prosecutor should have put the guy in jail. How do you put "the guy" in jail when you have no idea who he is, and your two agents say they can't identify him? Well, you could if it was "his van" like you tried to pass off as the truth -- before I asked you for evidence, and you had to admit that you made that up and you didn't care about the truth.
So I guess you win -- I can't argue against made-up facts.
The van was being used by him that day to smuggle drugs into America. It was his in the sense that he controlled it that day. Is that simple enough for you?
As for legal tile to the van, I don't care
You must have missed my previous post where I agreed with you that this low life scum could not be prosecuted. Are you happy now
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.