Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
you clearly do not have the facts of the case
The President didn't force her husband to shoot anyone, and if a jury convicted him, it possibly was on the strength of the EVIDENCE, again, nothing to do with the President.
what is your source for the 'facts'?
Thanks for looking that up. I went to the link you provided, and I'm assuming you got that from one of the .pdf's linked off the home page. Which one was it? I'd like to take a look at that in context.
If they have time to post five press releases on a website in PDF format justifying their position, they should have no trouble with taking the time to release the relevant excerpts from the actual testimony as well. But you're right; if the defense attorneys actually had a legal ground to stand on, I suspect relevant transcript portions would be all over the news.
That is always a possibility. You have what I have learned in my posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't bother going into some tirade about how we are being "invaded" or other such bleatings. Right now is NOT the time to drag out a fixation on the border, as there are a variety of ways to address the mess there. Like you said, lets stick with the "facts of the case." Please show me the error of my ways.
thanks for responding and admitting we all need the facts!! I would suggest you restrain your tone however as I do not 'bleat' as you term it but am seriously concerned about the open border issue.
The press release dated September 8th.
Go here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53873 to learn the facts in this case.
Quote from article:
"The U.S. Army doctor who removed the bullet testified at the trial that the drug smuggler was not shot from behind, but that he removed the bullet from the side, with the bullet piercing the left side of his left buttock and traveled to his right groin."
The more I read about this case, the worse it stinks.
I'd rather that my taxpayer money be spent prosecuting cases on the docket, instead of cases that are concluded.
Best analysis I have seen. These guys are overworked, underrespected, and constantly wondering whether they have Carlos, a poor peasant who thinks $6.00/hour is a dream job, or some MS13 punk who deserves to be shot, no matter which side of the border he is on. I can COMPLETELY understand shooting the guy.
However, investigative procedures for law enforcement are there for a reason. Otherwise, you have cops charging into the home of a 90 year old Atlanta woman and killing her..., no, wait, we already HAVE that.
It is precisely because cops DO have this kind of power that we must have ways of making the power accountable.
Maybe they flipped out, and were just trying to protect each other's jobs. That is my guess. I would have been very lenient on them, as no one was killed and the guy who was shot was a dirtbag. However, losing a job trumps prison every single time. Bad choices. I wish Bush would commute their sentences, but he now faces a "no win" situation due to the normal hysteria that surrounds anything that has the word "border" in it.
The above statement troubles me. We have the U.S. Attorney's Office stating to what Compean and Ramos tesitified. Are you suggesting that it's a lie? If so, their defense attorneys are clearly incompetent, and the U.S. Attorney committed a felony.
If we had conducted WWI and WWII in the same manner that we are conducting this war we would all be speaking German or Japanese.
Bush has been walking around with a deer in the headlights look for the last two years, and when you have a deer in the headlights look, that means that someone is about to run you over.
At this point I do not have confidence that he will do what it takes to win this war or to prosecute the war on terrorism or to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants who are destined to change America into a Latin American banana republic.
I do take comfort in the knowledge that whatever Bush does is essentially part of God's overall plan. I do fear, however, that what is happening now is the dawn of judgment rather than the dawn of mercy.
We live in interesting times.
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to read a statement from a prosecutor or a defense attorney in which they've slanted words in their favor, so I wouldn't be surprised if the testimony that press release refers to doesn't actually say what the U.S. Attorney says it does. The fact that the defense attorneys haven't released relevant portions of the trial transcript to counter that statement would lead me to believe the U.S. Attorney is telling the truth, though.
Stop it. Now. Either Compean or Ramos testified to that fact, or they did not. Listen to yourself.
So am I, but this is not the place to bring that issue in. I might subsitute the words "bray" "bellow" "howl" "screech" "rave" "splutter" or "rant" if you wish, as they sum up my analysis of the input of many Freepers on the border issue. Let's keep my analysis in the abstract, rather than personal, as I don't know about you. We have never had the pleasure of discussing it, to my knowledge.
My original challenge stands, though. You say that I am not acquainted with the facts of the case. I am waiting for you to tell me what they are.
I profoundly disagree, one becomes a felon at precisely the moment that one commits a felony. Conviction or acquittal is a discovery or "finding" of guilt or innocence not an imposition. I do not think that LEO's and citizens should carry out the punishment of felons sans due process but I easily make a distinction between apprehension and punishment. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a matter of regard not a matter of treatment (suspects are arrested) nor a matter of fact (the guilty are guilty from the moment of offense).
BTW: You should not steal your bicycle back from the thief because you have deprived him of his due process. What if you made a mistake? You would then be a criminal! You should have reported him to proper authorities who would have recovered your property and hopefully apprehended, tried and convicted the criminal, resulting in justice for all. Have you never heard: "don't take the law into your own hands"?
Without the actual transcripts, I don't know if they did or not. I suspect they did.
For one important thing, the agents DID report to their supervisors and were given the option to go home as it was the end of the shift, or wait a few hours. There was no 'cover-up'!! The truth will come out when the transcript is read.
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.