Replies

What a bunch of...spin. This journalist takes the word of a drug smuggler and calls it "facts," and then calls the Border Patrolmen liars when they present their version of the incident. It must be just because I'm not a left wing journalist that I tend to believe the Border Patrolmen.

Uh, you might want to actually read the article, since you seem to have missed the "fact" that it was a jury that unanimously convicted these border patrolmen, not a journalist. And it was a jury that heard testimony and reviewed all the evidence in the case, including from other border patrolmen on the scene, not just taking the word of a drug smuggler. And to top it all off, you call Andy McCarthy a "left wing journalist." Do you have the slightest clue who you are talking about?

Andy McCarthy is a patriot and is one of the most consistent supporters of the war on terror.

Also for those who didn't know it, he was the chief prosecutor in the first World Trade Center bombing that jailed the Blind Sheik ( instigator of the blast ).

He is NOT a left wing journalist.

This case has to be looked at on its own merits, based on our rule of law, bereft of ideology.

Uh, you might want to actually read the article, since you seem to have missed the "fact" that it was a jury that unanimously convicted these border patrolmen, not a journalist. And it was a jury that heard testimony and reviewed all the evidence in the case, including from other border patrolmen on the scene, not just taking the word of a drug smuggler.

It was the drug smuggler's word that was the centerpiece of the trail. I would think he'd have an ax to grind. I'd also like to know what the demographics of that jury were and if anyone on their is sympothetic to the views of groups like MALDEF or La Raza. So it wasn't really hard evidence, as the article from WorldNetDaily posted in this thread already shows. Plus we know that a jury convicting on peoples' words isn't always accurate, so I wouldn't take their ruling as any real proof. I take it with a grain of salt. Twelve nobodies can easily be wrong.

Anyone really interested in the truth should read the real facts put out by the U.S. border patrol and posted on FreeRepublic here.

And it was a jury that heard testimony and reviewed all the evidence in the case, including from other border patrolmen on the scene, not just taking the word of a drug smuggler.

How many of the jurors got their amnesty in the 1980's?

The news this morning was that the government withheld evidence in defense of the patrolmen, that forensics proved byound a doughbt that the smuggler wasn't shot the way in which prosecuters say, and more or less raises a big question about corruption on the part of the u.s attorney and his side. McCarthy sounds more like one lawyer defending another.