Imprisoned agent's wife: President is a hypocrite

WorldNetDaily ^ | January 24, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[RobRoy]

Wasn't there also some nasty business about hiding spent shells?

[Pelham]

That's right. This thread needs to be a Border Patrol bashing thread, and with your efforts it will be one. Puto.

[Pelham]

You know the suspect was unarmed?

[1rudeboy]

According to the testimony of Compean and Ramos themselves. From the time the smuggler was in the ditch, to the time he crossed the border.

[1rudeboy]

A leader would have insisted that Berger go to jail for the rest of his life and made it clear that purloining classified documents at a time of war is an act of war.

On the other hand, a smart leader would realize that the maximum penalty Berger faced was a year in jail, and that he shouldn't get involved in a criminal prosecution.

[Pelham]

Compean and Ramos testified the smuggler was unarmed, and trying to surrender.

What is that, the Bill Clinton School of Reporting version? Just make up whatever sounds good for your argument?

The agents testified that they believed the smuggler had a gun. And far from "trying to surrender" he was fighting with one of the agents as he was fleeing back over the border.

[Washi]

What lengths will you go to to defend George Bush? What principles will you sell out?

There are two camps in politics that completely perplex me:

Those that are so hateful of G. Bush that they will attack him and disagree with him to the point of endangering America. Just because he is George Bush.

And Those that are so beholden to G. Bush and the republicans that they will support him and defend him to the point of endangering America. Just because he is George Bush.

[P-Marlowe]

On the other hand, a smart leader would realize that the maximum penalty Berger faced was a year in jail, and that he shouldn't get involved in a criminal prosecution.

Not necessarily. That may be the maximum for the charge he pled guilty to, but I'm certain there are a number of other laws, including conspiracy and even espionage that could have been brought.

The fact is that the documents he purloined were directly relevant to the war on terror. They were classified. They were needed by the 911 commission in order to secure the safety of the citizens of this nation and by stealing them Berger attempted to mislead the 911 commission. That would be at the least an obstruction of justice violation.

I suspect that with his statement that it was an "honest mistake" they could have charged Berger with lying to the FBI, the same charge that Scooter Libby is being prosecuted for.

Slapping Berger on the wrist is simply a sign of weakness. Our enemies can read our weakness. They know when we do not have the resolve to be ruthless enough to defeat them.

[Pelham]

On February 17, 2005, Ramos and Compean were patrolling the border town of Fabens, Texas, when a Mexican illegal alien and drug smuggler, attempted to secret nearly 800 pounds of marijuana into the United States in his van. 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. When he arrived on the scene, he heard gunfire, saw Compean bleeding on the ground, and the fugitive – still refusing to stop as commanded – stealing furtive glances over his shoulder while holding something shiny he believed to be a handgun. Both state they felt threatened, and both fired rounds in the alien’s direction, Ramos striking him in the buttocks. The alien got away, but the two men had jeopardized their own well-being to keep his noxious contraband off our streets....

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/frontpagemag.htm

[1rudeboy]

Pretty damn embarrassing when you've already resorted to throwing-around insults like "Bill Clinton" this, or "Bill Clinton" that, when you haven't even gotten to my comment #85. Step it up.

[Pelham]

"What exactly is their crime? In the words of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing.” That is, if an illegal immigrant – even a drug kingpin or terrorist – flees from a Border Patrol agent, regulations demand that he not further pursue or apprehend the fugitive. Patrol agents acknowledge this procedure is widely disregarded, for obvious reasons. Secondly, both men have said numerous agents were on hand for the shooting and had filed a report, so they did not file a report of their gunfire. Compean also picked up his shells from the scene, though Ramos did not. These actions breach Border Patrol protocol and should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Instead, the federal government portrayed Ramos and Compean as bloodthirsty racists and threatened them with 20+ years in prison."

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/frontpagemag.htm

[1rudeboy]

Not necessarily. That may be the maximum for the charge he pled guilty to, but I'm certain there are a number of other laws, including conspiracy and even espionage that could have been brought.

That's what is so annoying about arguing with folks like you. When you make a comment like, "[t]hat may be the maximum for the charge he pled guilty to," it implies that you are aware of the other charges against him. But you can't be bothered to share your knowledge with us. Small wonder why folks start pretending that their opponents are shills of one sort or another. They don't realize that they're talking past them.

[Pelham]

Lol. It's at least highly amusing to find you crying about insults.

That citation you posted was from the prosecutor, which apparently you believe to be an impartial source. But since that was the prosecutor's charge and not either agents' testimony you'll need to try again. A good place for you to start is at David Horowitz's online magazine:

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/frontpagemag.htm

[P-Marlowe]

Thank you for your comment. Please direct the rest of your comments to someone who cares.

[Pelham]

FrontPage Magazine might fit your desire for an impartial source:

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/frontpagemag.htm

[1rudeboy]

In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and just got busted.

[1rudeboy]

Some irony in the fact that you link leads to the Border Patrol agent's union website.

[Pelham]

Some irony in the fact that you link leads to the Border Patrol agent's union website.

And what? You think FrontPage Magazine's article has been altered by the Border Patrol union for their website?

I can understand that you would prefer to argue the red herring of where it is posted rather than the inconvenient substance of the information in FrontPage Magazine's article. Its content puts the lie to what you have been peddling:

"The prosecutorial caricature proved so transparent local media rapidly saw through it. The (Ontario, CA) Daily Bulletin provided outstanding coverage of all aspects of the trial, reporting:

[A]n Office of Inspector General memorandum obtained by the Daily Bulletin Tuesday contradicts [Prosecutor] 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.

The Sanchez memo notes:

Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder towards Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him. 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..."

[Pelham]

Here, see if you can weasel out of this link.

That should be easier for you than trying to dispute the substance of the article:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26224

[1rudeboy]

The problem is that your FrontPage piece is not an "article." It is an "editorial."