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 ...
Here are two sources that say he was:
According to your thinking, and others like you, the constitution would cover anyone in the world, or at least anyone who was within sight of our troops, because they would then be within it's jurisdiction!
This criminal had no consitutional rights, even if he had been here legally he gave up the right NOT to be shot at when he tried to smuggle illegal drugs into the country. The whole point you open border people try to gloss over is this guy was committing a major crime, several major crimes actually, and he should have been the one convicted, NOT the law officers who were trying to apprehend him.
Taking the word of a law breaking, smuggling, illegal, felon committing scum bag over two officers of the law is extremely telling on the people who have done so.
Now I'm really confused. Are the pro-BP agents arguing that Davila is NOT a drug runner who left a van with a million dollars in marijuana, beat up a BP agent, pointed a gun at them, and then ran off to mexico?
It's really frustrating discussing this, because whenever you get close to pinning down a story, the story changes again.
What is it? Did they righteously shoot a drug dealer, or is Davila a random mexican PRETENDING to be the guy they confronted just to get them in trouble?
I have seen no indication that either man argued at trial that Davila was NOT the man involved on that day.
I think all the pro-BP agent people should get together and get their story straight. Then you can post your definitive "This is what we beleive really happened", and then the rest of us can come and use the evidence to show how your story is wrong.
Right now that is impossible, because every time we point out evidence that contradicts part of the story, the supporters just change the story (which usually makes it contradict OTHER evidence). And yet the supporters can't fathom why a jury might have found the agents less than believable?
Like I said, running from the thread in tears. Works every time.
Shhhhhh. Be nice my friend. This is a person that is still trying to figure out what the word "IS" means. There is a reason we don't enjoy the rights our US Constitution guarantee us while visiting other countries. It's because their governments read their Constitutions and our Constitution the same way we do.
Let him blab.
Neither of those are sources. They are both articles repeating a rumor with no evidence.
A "source" would be a name of a person with knowledge of the event.
Question. When is it NOT "righteous" to shoot a drug dealer?
You and Enoch are going to love this...Y'alls perspectives are very intriging to say the least...
Mirriam Webster (sp?) dictionary defines "citizen" as a "person"who owes loyalty to and is "entitled" to the protection of a government.
Section(s) of the definition of the people follow:
"people"
(a) The body of "persons" living under one governmentin the same country: nationality (the French people)
(b) Enfranchised citizens: electorate.
subscript:
"peoples" A group of persons who share a common culture, language or inherited condition of life.
The definition of "people" goes on with some similar explanations and examples...But I thought it best to get this out quickly enough so you two can see this...
What is funny is I bet when they were drafting this document up they yelled over to Mr. Webster and asked him if he had this written down in that little book of his...
LOL--"Plain," where?
No one has yet to respond to my argument that the Founders saw fit to distinguish between two terms in at least one section of the Constitution, but I am told to guess what they meant elsewhere. Why can't I just make the distinction they themselves made? "Liberal trick," indeed.
Just blabbing like Scalia. [hoot]
And to use the non-sensical War of 1812 example above, what if those invading British troops shot-up a tourist bus? No legal recourse? "Sorry, my bad, but you are outside the law?"
"SCJ Oliver Wendell Holmes, stated that the BOR is not guaranteed to aliens, he said, it may be extended to them but not guaranteed."
Which is my understanding as well.
This is what I'm talking about. I've got one BP supporter arguing with me that Davila's wasn't even there on that day, and that he made up the story, and another arguing that Sutton should have been able to indict and extradict Davilas with no evidence other than a 3rd-hand statement that somebody's mother knows a mother who's son claims he was shot by border agents.
Even if I wanted to entertain the notion that the BP agents are not guilty, or at least shouldn't be in jail for 10 years (and in fact I do want to do so), I'm not ready to burn down the forest for the cause, or indict people without any evidence to further my silly arguments.
The government gets wind of a mexican claiming he was shot by Border agents. They check the records, and find nothing about any shootings in the area in question. They ask further, and find out that in fact, there WAS a shooting, but the two agents involved destroyed the evidence, asked others to help them destroy the evidence, and then lied about the incident and filed a false report.
And you think that only a crooked pro-immigrant prosecuter would ever think to try to find the facts in a case like that? So Sutton tries to contact the man with the information, and I'm certain a lawyer got involved to ensure Davila's gave NO prosecutable information before the use immunity agreement was signed. Remember, there was no police report against Davilas for the possession charge, since they have NO WITNESSES that can ID him as a person in the van.
Until Davilas signs a sworn statement putting himself in the van, the mere conversations that were overheard and reported would never be enough to indict the guy. Hey, we have his sworn testimony, and the pro-BP crowd at WND publishes ARTICLES claiming that Davilas was never shot, or that he isn't even the guy that was there that day.
Where?
Well, when he is surrendering unarmed with his hands up?
When you have no idea he is a drug dealer?
When he is turning himself in to testify about other crimes?
I presume your comment was hyperbole, and that you are not in fact advocating summary capital punishment for every person dealing drugs, administered without due process by police officers on the street.
Don't forget that those officers are now empowered to determine citizenship status on-the-fly, and if the subject is illegal they get a free Constitutional pass.
Actually, in one sense an invading army DOES have a right to bear arms. If Canada declared war on the United States, and the Canadian army marched into New York, and got into a battle with the our armed forces, and 20 americans were killed, and then the war was ended, we could NOT prosecute the Canadian soldiers for killing our soldiers. They had a "right" to kill our soldiers, under the codes of military conflict.
Of course, they would have no right to kill non-military personnel, like a tourist bus -- that would be a war crime.
Correct, the powers that be want to make absolutely certain that the borders remain open to drug and a human traffic. Anyone that interferes with "Business" will be severely punished.
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.