Posted on 01/22/2007 8:26:15 PM PST by Kitten Festival
Justice: As the president weighs pardoning two imprisoned Border Patrol agents, the explanation for their prosecution raises more questions than it answers. Is U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton another Mike Nifong or Patrick Fitzgerald?
In response to public and congressional protests against what is perceived as a grievous miscarriage of justice, Bush told KFOX-TV in El Paso, Texas, that he would "take a sober look at the case" of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
The two have begun serving prison terms for assaulting a purportedly unarmed Mexican drug smuggler in a February 2005 incident, obstructing justice and violating the Fourth Amendment rights of an illegal alien. We hope Bush will take a long look, for some things about the case just don't add up.
In an interview with World Net Daily, prosecutor Sutton said the agents "shot 15 times at an unarmed man running away" after the smuggler first tried to surrender. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila ran away only after Compean hit him with the butt of his shotgun.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
ping
I guess the official policy of the Clinton/Bush clan is to kill Christians for KLA drug runners and jail border patrol agents for Mexican drug runners.
The 4th covers people not just citizens.
In this case, perhaps only in this case, I'm willing to say 'its Bush's fault'.
GWB policies in the White House simply mirror his obligations from years of Texas Valley/border politics.
I'm not surprised that a Bush appointee would parrot those same obligations and I do not anticipate any fair evaluation of the case.
These guys are likely to be released as soon as current law allows, but not by any executive action.
Sutton foolishly went out on a limb for the sake of the drug trafficker and Aldrete-Davila rewards him by kicking him in the teeth. Sutton now attempts to cover for him because it's the U.S. Attorney's reputation and credibility that are on the line. Sutton had to save face. It also undermines Aldrete-Davila's credibility and integrity in court.
This kind of thing has happened numerous times throughout history. Prosecutors grant some lowlife immunity from prosecution for a crime. Then the lowlife goes out and commits the crime again. Prosecutors then extend the immunity to cover the subsequent transgression in order justify the mistake of giving him immunity in the first place and to salvage his credibility as a witness.
"But you are taking the word of two convicted felons."
I don't consider these two felons, even if it is what they technically are. Johnny Sutton is a disgrace.
These two are in jail because of the word of a drug smuggler, who I guess you believe.
"You might consider learning a little more about what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story" before you go wailing to the defense of these cops.
I've even got the name of a website where you could learn a great deal:
FreeRepublic"
And where might one find THAT information? On the thread for a Day in the Life of President Bush?
So you attended the trial?
"The 4th covers people not just citizens."
Isn't the entire thing dedicated to "We The People, OF THE UNITED STATES"? I believe that citizenship is implied, but of course those who are pro-illegal aliens wouln't see it that way.
Or alternatively, go the barratry route and get Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center attorneys to get the property for you with a tort suit.
Who loves Johny Sutton?
The Open Borders Lobby loves Johny Sutton and anyone else who make our borders less secure. Johnny "the hack" Sutton has just made our Border Patrol fearful of being aggressive with the Mexican drug runners and people smugglers
OK. Let me understand the conspiracy. Sutton grants immunity to a drug dealer (fact). Then that drug dealer, now known to the world of BP agents as he's testifying against two of them, SMUGGLES DRUGS AGAIN. He is caught by other border agents. They turn him in. Sutton finds out, realises he'll look silly, so he extends immunity for absolutely NOTHING in return. He expunges the record, purges the arrest report, hides the agreement, and gets the arresting officer, the court, and the jail personnel to go along with it.
Thus, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the guy was arrested again, as a result of a high-level government conspiracy.
Except that some average-joe internet poster named Cyropaedia knows all about it.
When an argument gets to the "of course it's true, but there's obviously no evidence because he hid it all", there's little more to be said.
Right about the time it, and each Amendment, was adopted. Any other questions?
No, I believe an officer of the court/federal prosecuter, two BP agents, the collected evidence, and the judgment of at least 10 members of the 12-member jury. Well, not that I believe them, but that I have no reason to believe the latest stories from two convicted BP agents OVER all these other people, for whom nobody has presented any evidence that they are lying, or a good reason why they would be more likely to lie than the two convicted agents.
My opinion is bolstered by looking just at the statements of the two BP agents. If we are to believe the official statements they signed, they never shot at the guy at all. Of course, that was before evidence was discovered in his BUTT. Then they changed their story, and gave several versions, some at odds with the other agents on the scene.
And how about this. The BP agents had to give a reason why other BP agents testified against them. SO they claim that the one agent is working with the drug dealers (the one that turned them in) and the other agents are all LYING because they all knew a shooting took place, and didn't report it, so they could all be suspended for 5 days.
In other words, you want me to believe two BP agents because they are BP agents, even though they lied on their official report. But in order to believe them (because they wouldn't lie, even to stay out of jail for 10 years, because they are good men, and BP agents), you want me to believe that ALL THE OTHER BP AGENTS are scumbag liars who would sell out their buddies just to avoid a 5-day suspension.
Oh, that's not fair -- it isn't YOU that want me to believe that, it's the two convicted BP agents. You just want me to believe that there is a vast government conspiracy to open our borders to drug dealers, and that Bush spent 6 years appointing crooked prosecuters and appointing clueless judges so that he could railroad BP agents who tried to defend our borders by shooting unarmed men in the back as they try to run back into Mexico.
No, that post was based on evidence provided by the pro-BP agents, compared to what frontpage reported. Either the BP agents lied earlier, or frontpage couldn't even get the BP agent story correct.
You've been on a lot of the threads -- do you dispute that Compean has said that he waited on the other side of the canal because he knew the guy would run back that way, and that Ramos was in a car chasing the van?
We just had another long interview with Ramos posted, and he clearly says he was chasing the van, and saw the guy jump out, and run through the canal. Heck, he says he HEARD THE SHOTS and ran toward them, which obviously means he was already there, and not "called for backup" AFTER Campeon shot at the guy.
Whether you believe the BP agents or not, the FrontPage story has this very basic part of the story WRONG, by the very interviews the pro-BP side are using to assert their innocence. Can the Pro-BP side not recognise ANY false statements in this case by their side?
These two are in jail because of the word of a drug smuggler, who I guess you believe.
Yeah! Have you always believed you knew what you were talking about?
There is no quicker way to get you to run from a thread in tears than to ask you to describe the difference between "people" and "citizen" to me. I subscribe to a originalist/textualist interpretation of the Constitution.
context
noun1. discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation 2. the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; "the historical context"
The US Constitution was written as a guide to govern the "People of the United States" (US Citizens) NOT the world. Residing in the US illegally no more makes a person a "citizen" of the US than a stowaway is a member of a ship's crew. Both are criminals and NOT deserving of the same protections law abiding "citizens" have.
What is ironic (not sure if its a big surprise or not) is that this DA actually went to Mexico (foriegn soil) to actually seek out, investigate, meet with, and guarantee immunity to this "drug dealing smuggler" for his "testimony" to prosecute these two BP guys...
I have never met anyone in the ranks of the BP to be anywhere near a "loose cannon" that that a message like this that our government is pushing on us needed to be delivered...
This is just another example of how we are all being set up for the inevitable...
And we will pay for this agenda by risking our countries soverienty, security and our livelyhoods...
All for a block of voters, and cheap labor...
I'll say it again...We will have an amnesty deal worked out by Spring, and the gates will be locked open by the Summer...
Watch the wording in the State of the Onion address when he talks about Immigration Reform...
The reform will actually be that we will not inforce our borders, thus allowing the excusing of criminals and further flooding of our country with the dregs of other societies...
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.