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 ...
WTF? "Fourth Amendment rights of an illegal alien."
When did Constitutional rights begin covering non-American felons? Heck. When did they start covering AMERICAN felons?
According to the Border Patrol agents' website, the drug smuggler was granted a green card!
The prosecutor has put out a Myth and Reality fact sheet denying this, but the agents' website says the truth is that the green card was in fact granted, and only revoked after whathisname was caught trying to smuggle an even larger batch of drugs into the country.
I would love to know for sure what the truth is. I sure as hell am not taking Sutton's word for anything.
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
That looks like grounds for a mistrial right there, if the jurors thought a hung jury was not an option.
I think this prosecution stinks.
I'm not sure about whose fault it is. Sutton appears to be a Bush appointee and a Texan. No signs of clinton's hand in it that I can spot from the bio.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/us_attorney/
Still, the whole thing stinks. It seems to be part and parcel of the administration's determination to placate Mexico, no matter what.
That's not only wrong, it's politically stupid. The two Border Patrol agents are Hispanics themselves. They are our guys; the guy who was shot is a criminal drug smuggler.
It's also politically stupid, because what kind of a message does this send Mexico? Come on in and walk all over us, shoot our agents, chase our National Guard, shoot ranchers who get in the way of your smuggling activities. This is no way to make friends. This is no way to gain any respect from our neighbor to the south.
But you are taking the word of two convicted felons. Or more exactly, the web site set up by supporters of two convicted felons, probably by their lawyers.
The guy was NOT given a green card. He was given the right to be in the country for the trial, nothing more.
He was not re-arrested with more drugs.
I'm sorry.....didn't know.
Are you saying he was not given immunity from prosecution?
If he was, I find that revolting.
Sorry, that's not the case. He was.
No, he wasn't. Or more accurately, there is no evidence that he was, and a sworn officer of the court has publicly stated he was not.
Somehow, two convicted felons can't "possibly" be lying, but a federal prosecuter is assumed to be lying through his teeth, even when there's no reason for him to do so (because, for example, whether or not the drug smuggler was arrested again for drugs is completely irrelevant to the guilt of the border patrol agents.
But the BP supporters are willing to insist the guy was arrested again, but all evidence of the arrest has been purged, and every person involved is now involved in a grand conspiracy to hide this arrest, for absolutely NO REASON WHATSOEVER. Which of course is perfectly believable to the pro-BP-agent crowd, who think people would risk years in prison for lying just to make the prosecuter not look silly.
There is a non-zero probability that the BP agents were telling the truth. But the hysterical rantings of the pro-BP agents, callign other BP agents liars, crooks, calling prosecuters liars, suggesting the Bush administration planted people in these offices for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to drug smugglers and railroading BP agents, pretty much makes a mockery of whatever credibility these two BP agents might have had.
We have the official, signed statements of the two BP agents which contradict their own testimony. That alone makes their credibility suspect, before we ask a single question of ANY other witnesses.
He was given "use immunity" for his testimony, which simply means the prosecuter can't use his own words against him.
If he goes to a civil case and, in the civil case, says he was driving the van, the prosecuter will be able to arrest him for the drugs. He was never given immunity for the drug smuggling, only immunity for the use of his words.
However, there was no way to prosecute him for the drugs without his words. Why? Well, there were three agents who were involved in the pursuit -- Campeon, Ramos, and Juarez. However, all the agents said they could NOT identify the man. They didn't apprehend him. They didn't file a valid report about the shooting. There was no physical evidence in the van linking the man to the van or the drugs.
When the two agents testified that they could NOT identify the man who ran from the van, that ended any chance of prosecution. You can't prosecute a man if you can't even identify him.
The only reason we know that THIS GUY is the guy they chased is that HE CAME FORWARD. He did so only because he had use immunity, and that immunity was ONLY for the testimony he gave, not for the underlying crime, or for any other things he might say at any other time.
Most times when police are convicted of brutality, it's because they beat up a bad guy. Police rarely beat up innocent people. But they do use excessive force against bad people, and prosecuters grant immunity or reduced sentences to bad people to get testimony against cops.
That's because we consider it a much more serious problem when police take the law into their own hands. That is true in this case as well -- no illegal is EVER going to surrender if they know they could be shot anyway.
Agent Compean chased Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila by vehicle and on foot, ordering him to stop. Compean says Aldrete-Davila ignored him, pushed him down, and assaulted him, whereupon the agent called for backup, drawing seven additional units, including Ramos.
OK. First, on the day of the incident, Compean claimed he was NOT assaulted (he also told someone he WAS). Compean also said Davila had surrendered, but then ran when Compean slipped and fell. But since that might be a "disputed fact", here's one that's not. Compean did NOT wait until the "confrontation" to call for backup. Ramos and Juarez were involved in the pursuit. In fact, it is RAMOS that was chasing Davila. Compean had set up on the other side of the canal, expecting Davila to run that direction. Ramos CHASED DAVILA to Compean. So obviously Compean did not wait until after he confronted Davila to "call for backup". Sorry, frontpage has been sucked into this, and they should have known better.
January 19, 2007
Seeking the Truth About Ramos & Compean
The authorities need to go after sutton on this.It just doesnt pass the smell test.
Snicker, snicker, thanks for the ping to the article that I posted! I ran over to read it and thought it looked familiar! Said I recognize that formatting!;^)
ROFL! Thanks very much for posting it.
I was seething as I read it. Something definitely is not right.
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.