Replies

I'm with Charles on this. Until I see actual evidence—not innuendo or rumor or guessing—this is the definitive statement. If it easily proved wrong, do it.

Huh? I asked him for support for his statement:

He was granted a temporary visa solely for the purpose of giving testimony.

This isn't a question of evidence vs. innuendo--I was simply asking for a source for his statement (see post 52). He cited an undefined, unlinked "statement" by Sutton. Given the media blitz coming out of DOJ, that isn't exactly supporting his comment.

I followed your link.... that is one of the many press releases, as I mentioned, that does not say anything about a temporary visa. I searched and found (The text "Visa" was not found Thanks anyway!

If it easily proved wrong, do it.

HUH? What are you talking about???

THe section you are looking for in that reference (and I thank pollyanish for finding it for me while i slept) is this:

Reality: Aldrete was not given a green card which would enable him to have permanent legal resident status in this country. A military physician in the United States removed the bullet from Aldrete because it was an important piece of evidence and because the law requires the government to render such assistance. In order to have the bullet removed, meet with federal investigators and to testify in court in El Paso, he was entitled to come into the United States on a limited basis within a limited geographical area and only for those purposes. The last time he was legally allowed to enter the United States was in February 2006.

You are correct, it does not say the word "visa", which is why you didn't find it looking for that word. He was granted a temporary visa, which allowed him to be here for a limited time, place, and purpose. Sutton did not use that term in the answer.

This was his answer to the false claim that the smuggler was given a green card, giving him free legal access to our country.

And just to remind everybody why I felt it necessary to point this out, it was NOT to have an argument over the technical term "visa". It was in answer to a false claim made back around post 48 or so:

A pardon and Sutton's firing would help some, but not the neighbors of Sutton's pet. They are stuck with him living in the US and selling drugs to their kids.

My response was that the smuggler wasn't living in the U.S., because he was only allowed here for the trial.

I'm sure you knew that, you knew the poster had made a false statement, and you should have been able to understand I was correcting a mis-statement of fact.

Instead you responded as if what I was saying was false, implying agreement with the poster who falsely claimed the smuggler was given legal status to stay in the country.

I never would have guessed from your response that you were questioning the technical use of the term "temporary visa" (which I believe IS the correct technical term), because WHAT you call it is a meaningless diversion from the fact that the smuggler was NOT living in the U.S..