Posted on 01/31/2007 11:14:23 AM PST by calcowgirl
A spokesman for Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, said the committee received the redacted report on the investigation from the DHS inspector general late Monday afternoon.
Lawmakers have been waiting months for the report. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, filed a Freedom of Information Act request last week to get the document.
Last March, McCaul then chairman of the subcommittee - convened a meeting with the inspector general and three other members of Congress for an official briefing on the report. During that meeting, said his spokesman, Jack Hirschfield, representatives from the IG's office made five major allegations they say were the basis for the prosecution's case against Compean and Ramos, including that they had said they wanted to "shoot a Mexican" that day, that they intentionally covered up the shooting and that they failed to accurately report the incident.
"Congressman McCaul's not saying these guys are guilty or innocent," Hirschfield said. DHS has "come up with excuse after excuse after excuse and it's unacceptable" as to why it's taken this long to produce the report.
"Now that we have it, we're trying to move forward and see what it says," he added.
The U.S. Attorney in El Paso who is prosecuting the case, Johnny Sutton, told FOXNews.com on Tuesday ..."I'm 99 percent sure the jury didn't see that report but the jury heard the evidence from people who were actually there" when they convicted Ramos and Compean, Sutton said. "If the report is helpful to somebody, fine, then I'm glad it's available to Congress."
The report is being viewed by select members in what's known as the "SCIF" the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility and is not allowed to be removed.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sutton does acknowledge that the sentence might be excessive, but blames it entirely on Congress (instead of acknowledging that it was the charges he brought that resulted in the punishment.)
Ping.
(if you don't want to be included in these pings, please let me know).
ping
Where's that Sandy Berger guy when you need him?
Any chance McCaul will stuff the report in his socks? I hear that sometimes works.
Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is with shooting people who are trying to invade your country. The Mexicans certainly do it to illegals trying to cross over from Guatamala.
And just who paid for the production of this report? I guess this is the Jorge administration telling the citizens to shove it.
Doc # | Filed: | Entered: | Terminated: | Description |
68 | 1/31/2006 | 1/31/2006 | 1/31/2006 | Sealed Motion |
75 | 2/6/2006 | 2/7/2006 | 2/13/2006 | Motion in Limine |
76 | 2/7/2006 | 2/7/2006 | 2/21/2006 | Sealed Motion |
80 | 2/10/2006 | 2/10/2006 | 2/21/2006 | Motion in Limine |
81 | 2/10/2006 | 2/10/2006 | 2/21/2006 | Motion in Limine |
84 | 2/10/2006 | 2/10/2006 | 2/21/2006 | Motion in Limine |
105 | 2/15/2006 | 2/20/2006 | 2/21/2006 | Motion in Limine |
106 | 2/15/2006 | 2/20/2006 | Sealed Document | |
107 | 2/15/2006 | 2/20/2006 | Sealed Document | |
122 | 2/23/2006 | 3/9/2006 | 10/19/2006 | Sealed Motion |
141 | 3/6/2006 | 3/9/2006 | Jury Note (Sealed) | |
143 | 3/7/2006 | 3/9/2006 | Jury Note (Sealed) | |
144 | 3/7/2006 | 3/9/2006 | Jury Note (Sealed) | |
145 | 3/7/2006 | 3/9/2006 | Jury Note (Sealed) | |
147 | 3/8/2006 | 3/9/2006 | Jury Note (Sealed) | |
191 | 10/23/2006 | 11/2/2006 | Sealed Document | |
199 | 10/24/2006 | 11/2/2006 | Sealed Document | |
200 | 10/25/2006 | 11/2/2006 | Sealed Document | |
208 | 10/26/2006 | 10/27/2006 | Sealed Document | |
209 | 10/30/2006 | 11/1/2006 | Sealed Document | |
212 | 11/1/2006 | 11/2/2006 | Sealed Document | |
213 | 11/2/2006 | 11/2/2006 | Sealed Document |
This whole case makes me sick.
For one thing, the two agents in the case are not allowed to speak to each other. This may be a spinoff of that requirement.
Looks like some serious CYA going on here.
Why?
Were the other BP agents, supervisors, or OIG investigator prohibited from talking to each other?
Here's an interesting item. SUpporters are making a big deal out of ballistics, saying the prosecution couldn't prove that Ramos hit the guy. I've asked before what difference that would make, and nobody has told me.
I note that Ramos got an 11-year sentence, while Compean, who did NOT hit Ramos with a bullet, got 12 years.
So tell me again, what difference does it make whether Ramos hit his target or not? It appears that SHOOTING at the guy was the criminal act, not the SUCCESS Of that shooting.
Or does the defense argue that Ramos actually did NOT shoot at him, and has just been lying up till now when he said he did?
My favorite line in the article is this one from the Union chief:
"There are so many violations in procedure that have not been out there publicly and this administration is keeping it all covered up. Any policy, every protocol is violated," Ramirez claimed.
This defending the two men who violated every policy and protocol regarding the discharge of firearms.
(Ramirez) blasted Mary Stillinger, the attorney representing Ramos, for not putting up a fight and accepting that the bullet came from Ramos' gun.
An indication that Ramos didn't fight the idea that he hit the drug dealer during the trial, but has only brought it up later. Maybe Stillinger will be added to the list of evil pro-Jorge people involved here.
Sutton said that despite Compean and Ramos' more recent claims that they didn't know they even hit Aldrete because he kept running away from them toward Mexico, a handwritten statement by Compean acknowledges that Aldrete began limping after Ramos shot at him.
Well, it's clear that Compean is a liar. He's probably working with drug smugglers and loves open borders. We shouldn't take his word over that of two hard-working BP agents who put themselves on the line for us... what's that, Compean is one of the two BP agents? Never mind...
"It's important to understand that not only was there a really consistent match of the bullet taken from the smuggler's butt to Ramos' gun, but Ramos said, 'I did shoot him,'" Sutton told FOXNews.com.
Oops. Well, even so, the lawyer SHOULD have argued that Ramos was lying when he said that. After all, we know Ramos is a proven liar, he lied on his official report of the incident, and destroyed evidence, so why should we accept HIS word for it that he shot him, when we have a good make-believe story about how the dealer actually was shot by someone else at some other time!!
FOXNews.com obtained a copy of the preliminary ballistics report performed by the Texas Department of Public Safety on the bullet extracted from Aldrete. ... Meaning, while the report did not rule out the possibility that Ramos gun could have fired that particular bullet, it did not conclusively say it did.
But Sutton said a later ballistics report confirmed that the bullet came from Ramos' gun.
Meaning that someone leaked only the preliminary report that cast doubt, and not the full report that did not. Hmm. I wonder how that could be, because we've never before seen a case where someone leaked only PART of a report to present a one-sided view of a story. Somebody call the New York Times!
I presume that the final report was actually presented in court, which means Ramos, Compean, their attorneys, AND the BP union chief all know about it. I'm betting WND knows about it as well. But they've never mentioned it in all of their stories. I wonder why?
The U.S. Attorney in El Paso who is prosecuting the case, Johnny Sutton, told FOXNews.com on Tuesday that that report was written by the agent in charge of the investigation.
"I'm 99 percent sure the jury didn't see that report but the jury heard the evidence from people who were actually there" when they convicted Ramos and Compean, Sutton said. "If the report is helpful to somebody, fine, then I'm glad it's available to Congress."
So this report was not part of the trial, and was not under the control of the Prosecutor. IT was under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, and was being held by them and has been released by them, NOT by Sutton's office. Sutton had nothing to do with it, and didn't use the report in testimony in the court case.
But that won't stop people from blaming him for it.
"I do think reasonable people can disagree whether 11 or 12 years is reasonable," he said. "I agree that those are harsh sentences but that's the law. That judge followed the law."
I think we all agree that these are harsh sentences.
You do realise that the complaint about Sutton in the link you cited is that he is being too hard-driving in going after mexican drug lords who brutally torture and murder others. That the person who wrote that is NOT complaining about Sutton's position in THIS case, but instead castigating him for not turning against the BP agents in the OTHER case and supporting the drug smugglers?
The same question pops up again, What are they covering up?
"There are so many violations in procedure that have not been out there publicly and this administration is keeping it all covered up. Any policy, every protocol is violated," Ramirez claimed.
I couldn't tell from reading that whether Ramirez was referring to Border Patrol procedures when a shooting takes place, or if he was talking about violations in court procedures.
Here's something else from the article that has me stumped:
Ramirez said that during that month between the alleged shooting and the time Aldrete had the bullet removed by the American doctor, the drug dealer could have been shot by someone else particularly because the bullet, according to the prosecution, "ruptured the victim's urethra causing a complete posterior urethral obstruction."
"I'm not buying it I think he got shot south of the border for not delivering his load," Ramirez said of the marijuana Aldrete was supposedly delivering that day.
Now, that's gotta cause some discomfort! And a month seems like a long time to go with an injury like that.
Maybe one of these days this case will get sorted out. Until then, it looks to me like both sides are tap dancing around the truth. Right now, I am on the side of the government doing most of the lying, obfuscating, etc.
And those sentences are the direct result of Sutton (and/or his AUSA's) deciding to bring assault charges against the officer (including his charge of Assault with intent to commit murder).
Instead of bringing excessive force charges under the Color of Law code, Sutton et al decided to twist the circumstances to support the contention that Aldrete-Davila had surrendered and that Compean and Ramos had no interest in arresting him, but instead aided and abetted each other in an intentional assault (crime of violence) in which a gun was used. That bogus "crime of violence" charge brought them 10 year sentences on top of the 1 and 2 year sentences for all other counts, combined.
This was totally under the control of Sutton and is the sole reason these agents were sentenced to these excessive terms in prison. Every time Sutton says that he had no choice, and this was all the fault of a law passed by Congress, he just proves himself to be an even bigger liar.
Another story explained that the drug smuggler got medical care in Mexico almost immediately, but the doctor there didn't think it would be safe to remove the bullet. He had a catheter installed.
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.