Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
Calls State of the Union speech 'total sellout of the United States of America to Mexico'
Monica Ramos, the wife of one of two U.S. Border Patrol agents imprisoned last week for wounding an escaping drug smuggler, attended the State of the Union speech in person last night – and was sharply critical of President Bush, calling him a hypocrite and worse.
Ramos, wife of Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, attended the event as a guest of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences last week, of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them.
At the conclusion of the speech, Ramos, emotional and in tears, told WND in an exclusive interview, that she considered President Bush's speech compete hypocrisy.
"How could President Bush say that he wanted to secure our borders and that he would double the size of the Border Patrol when my husband is in prison," she asked WND. "Ignacio was trying to secure our border from drug smugglers. And what do we get? I have to show my children their father in prison in chains and I have to explain to them that the president of the United States is a liar."
WND waited nearly an hour after the speech was concluded to be able to speak with a clearly emotionally upset Monica Ramos.
"President Bush can say all he wants that the solution to border security is new infrastructure and technology," Ramos told WND, "but as long as my husband is in jail the American people should know that President Bush doesn't mean a word he says."
"What I sat in the gallery and heard tonight," she said, "was a total sell-out of the United States of America to Mexico. I heard President Bush's message loud and clear. All the president has to offer is electronic gadgets. Meanwhile, our borders are wide open to illegal immigrants, criminals and drug smugglers. God help the honest men and women of the Border Patrol who want to do their duty. It's a losing battle – just ask my husband, he'll tell you the truth."
"The American people only need to ask me," Ramos pleaded to WND. "Tell America that President Bush doesn't mean a word of what he says about border security. My husband is in jail for trying to capture a drug smuggler and President Bush wants electronics? My husband is a hero and President Bush is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. Let him tell my children that he wants new 'infrastructure' or 'comprehensive immigration reform' when their dad who wore the Border Patrol badge for years is shackled and in chains for doing his job."
Rohrabacher agreed with Ramos, emphasizing to WND that "the Bush administration has a hidden agenda with Mexico and that agenda is to keep our border with Mexico wide open, even to drug smugglers."
Asked what message he wanted to send by inviting Ramos' wife to attend the speech in person, Rohrabacher explained: "I wanted to give Mrs. Ramos the opportunity to be in the room and look President Bush right in the face, knowing that this was the man who was destroying her life by his decision to prosecute her husband to the hilt."
Rohrabacher described the injustice he perceived in emotional terms: "By prosecuting these two Border Patrol agents while the drug smuggler is given immunity, President Bush has brutalized the lives of agents Ramos and Compean with a decision that threatens to destroy their families. The wives and the young children of these two Border Patrol agents are now being driven into poverty. The families have no health insurance, they are now losing their homes, and they face a mountain of debt to lawyers. This is a travesty of justice and a personal tragedy that should make President Bush ashamed.
Asked if he had achieved his purpose in inviting Monica Ramos to attend the speech, Rohrabacher told WND:
My purpose after hearing the State of the Union tonight is doubly resolved. President Bush needs to know that we will not rest until Border Patrol [officers] Ramos and Compean are set free.
In history there are cases where heroic people were brutalized and sacrificed by political powers in order to achieve a certain agenda. In this case, I think that's what's happening.
We have an administration that has a hidden agenda with Mexico such that George Bush wants an open border, even though an open border is not in the interests of the American people.
These Border Patrol agents are caught in the middle. They're Americans and they know what their job is supposed to be. They are being persecuted and prosecuted for our sake because they are getting in the way of a power play that has yet been disclosed to the public.
It brutalizes the lives and destroys the families of men who have been willing to sacrifice their lives for us for the last five and 10 years. This is both a tragedy and a travesty.
The continued insistence of the administration to prosecute these Border Patrol agents and to put them in jail and to shackle them and see the families of these men being driven into destitution – this indicates that there has been a decision right at the top that's based on arrogance and cruelty that I think unfortunately reflects our president. It's a side of the president that is now coming out.
We get calls back from the underlings, the assistant congressional liaison officers. This president doesn't return phone calls and he is arrogant and nasty and doesn't treat people very well, not even members of Congress.
The statement we're trying to make is that the president's policy along the border is responsible for murders, drug dealers and terrorists entering the country, millions of illegals. His policy has resulted in the undermining of those law enforcement officers guarding the border, he has totally demoralized the Border Patrol, and in the process of him trying to send a message to the Border Patrol he's destroying the lives of two families. … This person looking right into the face of the president in the same room, this mother of three, her life is being destroyed by President Bush's decision to fully prosecute to the hilt her husband.
American citizens need to rally around these two Border Patrol agents and should call the White House directly to register their protest to this travesty of justice.
President Bush made no reference to the Border Patrol case in a 50-minute speech that focused on domestic issues in the first half and international issues in the second half.
Monica Ramos told WND she was in Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting yesterday afternoon with concerned congressmen.
At least 70 members of the House have signed on to a resolution ordering a congressional pardon that would toss out the convictions and immediately free the former agents.
Monica Ramos described her first meeting with her husband in prison as "heart breaking."
Ramos confirmed the account provided WND by her father, Joe Loya. She acknowledged her husband is being held in solitary confinement in a 6-by-12 foot cell, without windows. Ignacio Ramos is not being allowed any exercise time, and he is shackled every time he leaves his cell.
"This may be for his protection from other inmates," Monica Ramos acknowledged to WND, "but this is abusive. They are treating my husband like the worst hardened criminal imaginable."
She said one of her three young children is so disturbed by the imprisonment that the family has decided to seek counseling for the child.
"My children are planning to visit their father for the first time this Friday," she said, expressing concern. "This will be the first time they see their dad shackled in chains, when they are used to seeing me send him off in his badge and uniform."
The couple's youngest child is 7 years old, the others are aged 9 and 13.
"My youngest child wanted to know if we could order pizza for dad in prison," Monic Ramos said. "No, I told him. Let's wait and have pizza night when daddy gets home."
It is a coverup if you: 1) ONLY "tell your supervisors" when other agents report the incident and your supervisor confronts you 2) collect the shell casings from the scene, in direct violation of protocols.
Your pandering references to "Hispanic-Americans" is amusing. The cops, who happened to be Latino, blew it.
IF shooting a fleeing felon is legal in NYS, one would hope that anyone who decides to shoot their weapon at that person had better know that the person fleeing IS INDEED a "fleeing felon". In the case of Ramos and Compean, they did not know who that person was who was fleeing. "Shoot first, ask questions later" isn't an acceptable strategy.
And others have evidence that Sutton is being, er... uh... less than truthful?
Where is the proof?
Those backing border agents want to see evidence of wrongdoing
"Being a United States Border Patrol agent is not a license to shoot people," Sutton told reporters. "It is especially not a license to shoot unarmed ... suspects who are running away from you. ... It is not a license to write a report and turn it in which leaves out the fact that you shot an unarmed suspect who was running away from you."
But an Office of Inspector General memorandum obtained by the Daily Bulletin Tuesday contradicts Sutton's claim that Ramos and Compean reported Aldrete-Davila was unarmed.
The memorandum of activity was written April 4, 2005, by Christopher Sanchez, the OIG investigator who questioned Compean about the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting. Sanchez was the same agent who went to Mexico to interview Aldrete-Davila, according to documents obtained by the newspaper. Sanchez brought the smuggler back under protective custody to the United States, where he was given medical care and was granted immunity by the Texas U.S. Attorney's office to testify against the agents.
Sutton could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The six-page memo includes Compean describing what happened after Aldrete-Davila wrestled with the agent and threw dirt in his eyes.
"Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder towards Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him," the memo reads. "Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's hand and because Aldrete-Davila continued to look back towards his direction. Compean explained that he thought the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot at him because he kept looking back at him."Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof told the Daily Bulletin in August that the agents never told anyone the smuggler was carrying a gun. Kanof also could not be reached for comment on the incident report.
A fact which will disrupt the efforts of the open borders crowd to keep these two Border Patrol agents lokced up for as long as possible.
In Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." [1]
In her dissent, in Tennessee v. Garner, Justice O'Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case. Moreover, burglary is a serious crime which often leads to rape and murder, and the Tennessee statute represents the state legislature's judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect's interest in his own life necessarily extends to the right to flee from the scene of a crime.
.
.
Following Tennessee v. Garner, a felony suspect has nothing to lose by escaping and as a result we, as a society, are rendered much less safe.
Milliions of people invading my country, a high percentage of whom ar ecriminals, doesn't mean my life is threatened?
Horiuchi should have been sent up for a long time. These guys shouldn't.
The BP agents' defenders theory, however, is tenuous as it is based upon a grand conspiracy. For their theory to work, the supervisors and other agents must also be lying to railroad these two guys. On a more grand scale, the conspiracy theory is shaky because the trial judge is a Bush appointee; the prosecutor is a Bush appointee; the AG is a Bush appointee. Apparently, Bush is personally railroading these agents.....
You are incorrect, see post 241
"Mau Maus"???? ZULU???
Are you trying to make racial connections there?
The fact is these guys shot a fleeing suspect. BIG DEAL!
Up until a few years ago - relatively speaking, a cop COULD shoot a fleeing suspect. Conosequently, the police had more authority and respect than they do today.
FURTHERMORE, the fleeing suspect they shot was a drug dealer and an illegal invader - an uninvited violator of our national space here to commit crimes. Up until a few years ago, relatively speaking, shooting an illegal invader was no big deal. So the government cuts a deal with an illegal invader and a DRUG DEALER to help crucify a couple of border guards who are doing a VERY DANGEROUS job and face death at any moment from these lowlifes.
So BUSH, the same President who PARDONS a bunch of drug dealers, refuses to pardon two law-enforcement officers who were sent to prison for relatively MINOR offenses - offenses which warranted disciplinary punishment by their agency supervisors NOT A JAIL SENTENCE.
If you can't connect the dots I WILL.
George Bush + Alberto Gonzales + two border guards who are overzealous = an example to other border guards.
In my book, anybody who invades our borders deserves anything they get from a loyal citizen. Since they don't belong here, they shouldn't be entitled to any rights here.
Sic deinde quiscumque alius transiliet moenia mea!!!!
But the current administration is up to its armpits in colluision with the globalists, the mega employers of cheap labor and the Mexican government to obstruct the defense of our borders.
Do you realize that denying your open-borders sympathies when they are on display for allto see destroys your argument and credibility?
imminent: SYLLABICATION: im·mi·nent
ADJECTIVE: About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.
Unless a gun is pointed at your head, your life is not in "imminent" danger. Now I know how many FReepers love to exaggerate, but you are acting ridiculously like a little girl. With pigtails. Riding a tricycle. Who just spotted a spider.
I don't know but I have a "stock up" feeling because bad times are coming. Hope it is just my imagination. I have a lot of concerns about our border. Not just terrorists getting in because the barn door is already open. What happens if we are attacked though? How would we keep criminals from crossing our borders and taking advantage?
Yet the article showing that they DID report it to tehir supervisors was posted earlier in the thread. So the claim that they didn't is false.
thanks and lol!
"Much like shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back is against the law."
You know for a fact they did this? You were there?
I've heard different.(no I wasn't there so I don't know one way or the other).
But I am willing to give the defenders of our borders the benefit of the doubt when it comes to keeping invaders off our doorsteps.
The bottom line is, until the transcripts of the court proceedings are released, nobody will know what was said in that court room except those who were there.
Both Sides of this Issue have Right and Wrong in them, IMHO. At the End of the Day, I Trust my President to Do the Right Thing.
No, I'm not. They did indeed tell tehir supervisors. The articles on that were posted earlier in the thread.
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.