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 ...
"Actually, in one sense an invading army DOES have a right to bear arms. "
Not as protected by the BOR. If they had a right to bear arms inside the United States, we would have to right to disarm them.
"Of course, they would have no right to kill non-military personnel, like a tourist bus -- that would be a war crime. "
They would have no Constitutionally-protected RIGHT to kill anyone.
But first, why don't you explain why you want a police officer to decide whether the 4th Amendment applies to you on a case-by-case basis? (The last act of the intellectually disarmed is to question the motives of his opponent).
Why should I explain anything to you? I have an education. I understand what I read and I'm able to keep it in context. Now if you wish to pay me a professor's salary I am sure I can enlighten you but until then I suggest you move on over and start trolling on your own leftist site eh?!
I'll check it out, for sure, but I thought you were talking about a Court opinion.
Once again the Editorial staff at Investors Business Daily speak clear truth.
"It may well be true but so far a name to stand behind the allegation is missing."
Frontpage is a very reliable outlet. I tend to have more faith in their integrity than that of the prosecutor.
Eventually the truth will come out.
"A "source" would be a name of a person with knowledge of the event."
Well, if they aren't telling the truth, the prosecutor can go after them for lible. Lets see if he does.
Now... the BP agents were doing their job. They have since been railroaded by a liberal judge. If a person doesn't want the police to shoot them then said person should not run when ordered to stop. If a person doesn't want to get shot then they shouldn't be trying to poison our society with drugs. If a person doesn't want to get shot they shouldn't try to harm American "Citizens." After all, it's we who are American "Citizens" that pay for these law enforcement officers to protect us from drug dealers and criminals of every stripe. Keeping this in mind I really don't give a rat's rear what you or your ilk think of real American patriots.
Understand? If not tough s***!
TJ Bonner with the border patrol explains this mess well,especially the SECOND arrest of the perp for smuggling drugs.
CNN aired 1/22/07
BONNER: But facts of this case do not bear out Mr. Sutton's version. The medical evidence from the army colonel who removed the slug shows that that person wasn't running away. He was turned at the agents just like they said pointing a gun at them. In essence, Johnny Sutton took the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn law enforcement officers.
DOBBS: And took on, really, quite a vigorous prosecution here. Because that really is the only evidence he had. Is the word of that drug dealer.
BONNER: Right, not just a prosecution, it was a persecution of two innocent men.
DOBBS: The idea that this could happen is just, to me, astonishing. Let's go to another aspect of this. In which Sutton says, "My office would have much preferred see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison," referring to the drug smuggler that had to be given extended immunity because have been given immunity on the million dollars of drugs in the incident with Compean, subsequently had to extend that to another effort to bring more drugs into the country, "because the agents could not identify him, found no fingerprints, could not tie him to the van and did not apprehend him after shooting him, the case against Aldrete could not be proven."
BONNER: Well, Johnny Sutton had no problem locating him in Mexico and offering him immunity, why couldn't he issue a warrant for his arrest?
Certainly he would have been back in the new future as soon as law enforcement officials found him, charged him with that and throw him in prison.
DOBBS: The idea that this Border Patrol is now, actually notice has been served. U.S. Attorney's Office doesn't care about $2 million in drugs. Doesn't care about an illegal alien drug smuggler but does care about two agents who serve the public, served honorably in the Border Patrol. There's no -- now, let's get this straight. There's no previous blemish on either of these agent's records is that correct?
BONNER: That's correct.
DOBBS: They've been described as rogue agents by those pushing this investigation. Do you know how that could come to be?
BONNER: Only if you believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two agents and ignore all the physical proof can you come to that conclusion. It's just remarkable that they would grant this drug smuggler immunity, not once but twice for smuggling millions of dollars worth of drugs into the country. It sends a terrible message not just to the Border Patrol, Lou, but to every law enforcement officer in America.
DOBBS: You have suggested that there is evidence that was not presented in the trial that would basically have given these men their freedom. What is that evidence? Why wasn't it presented?
BONNER: This was sealed evidence. There is evidence and I'm not sure if I can really get into this because some of the evidence has been under a gag order and those who are aware of the evidence were threatened with contempt of court.
DOBBS: By whom, the judge?
BONNER: By the judge, yes.
DOBBS: And the federal court on a criminal trial, they're threatened with contempt of court.
BONNER: Yes.
DOBBS: Why?
BONNER: One can only wonder. It seem it's you know, I'm not one of these black helicopter conspiracy people. But one can only wonder.
DOBBS: Well, let's go beyond wonder. Why -- can you give us a sense of what this information goes to?
BONNER: Well, some of the information goes to the sealed indictment regarding the second load of marijuana, of about a thousand pounds of marijuana. DEA agents were involved in that arrest. And there were other people who were called as witnesses for the defense but not allowed to testify.
DOBBS: But not allowed to testify. For reasons of? I mean ...
BONNER: For reasons I can't even begin to imagine. Why not give these agents a fair trial and give them the opportunity to present their best case?
DOBBS: And how many people would know about what is in this sealed evidence?
BONNER: I would imagine that there is a fair number of people because it was a fairly large bust. So you had DEA agents involved. You had other co-conspirators.
BONNER: That is the reality, Lou and it's a very sad reality for every American that there are forces at play that want our borders wide open.
BONNER: I would like to see the president of the United States pardon these men. Every day they remain in prison, they're in jeopardy. Right now they're in lock-up, isolation for 23 hours a day, Lou. It's criminal what has happened to these two fine heroes.
DOBBS: And we know where the responsibility rests. T.J., thank you very much. T.J. Bonner.
Now to be clear, we have asked and we did ask U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton who prosecuted this case to join us here on this program. He's declined.
Frontpage is a very reliable outlet.
Link for previous post.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/22/ldt.01.html
Why don't you pay a visit to one of our daily "Cop Shoots Pet Iguana" threads?
Thanks WatchingInAmazement. I am equally amazed and fear that things are destined to get worse.
No I'm not. I don't listen to Hannity because he's a squish. However, it does indicate to me what your problem is.
I see, its all serendipity.
BONNER: But facts of this case do not bear out Mr. Sutton's version. The medical evidence from the army colonel who removed the slug shows that that person wasn't running away. He was turned at the agents just like they said pointing a gun at them.
If you can explain to me how a medical examiner can determine from a slug that the perp even HAD a gun, much less was pointing it at someone, I'll stop posting.
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.