Whose Side Is Bush On?

Constitution Party ^ | 1/31/07 | Chuck Baldwin

[hellbender]

As others have posted, the charge is not that the convicted agents filed a false report, but that they didn't file any written report. However, BP rules did not require them to do so, anyway. The supervisors who were supposed to file reports did not do so, yet those supervisors were given immunity by the prosecutors, who were determined to make Ramos and Compean the scapegoats.
And let's quit this nonsense of saying juries never make mistakes. If juries are always perfect, why do we have people who were on death row for years suddenly discovered to have been completely innocent all along, thanks to DNA evidence? Everyone-- prosecution, judge, jury--was damn sure they were guilt, and everyone was wrong.

[pollyannaish]

Ah...do you mean in our state? I'm actually from the east side, same as you. We have problems in our neck of the woods, but to be honest things are slightly better now than they were in the mid/late nineties in our town. They still need fixing. We're working on it.

I have a very huge vested interest in seeing illegal immigration curbed without screwing it up with demagoguery. This is an issue that requires extreme finesse, imo.

How are things in your neck of the woods?

[pollyannaish]

Huh. That's not what I read in several thorough reports. I'll go back and check my facts and sources.

And YES, juries make horrible mistakes. That's what appeals are for. If new information comes to light, and I see other evidence, I can change my mind. But my biggest concern is that at this point, we are acting as if they are not guilty simply because "they are on our side." I absolutely do not agree with that. I think we need to be more careful, reasoned and less prone to hysteria. It causes really bad decisions.

[hellbender]

What kind of "character" is shown by a prosecution which cultivates a cozy relationship with a member of the Mexican mafia in order to utterly destroy 2 career law enforcement officers, at least one of whom (Ramos) had been recently nominated for Agent of the Year?

[hellbender]

"Despite its warts, the GOP remains head and shoulders above the Constitution Party."

That's because the GOP is standing atop the downtrodden bodies of American taxpayers.

[neverhillorat]

Sorry, but your post really doesn`t make much sense. How you tied Bush into this is kinda hard to follow. This might be not true, but I heard that he is a really busy guy and might not even had time to examine this. Oh, why should the Rats have all the fun, IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

[La Enchiladita]

The spinning has hurt the cause and this has turned into another Bush's fault rant. Pathetic.

In this case, asking whose side the President is on is a valid question. No way around it. From the time that he called the Minutemen "vigilantes," George W. Bush's stance has raised that question. He and other members of his family have shown inordinate sympathy for illegal immigrants from south of the border, in comparison to law-abiding Americans.

So, whose side is he on?

[pollyannaish]

I wasn't asked about the character of the prosecutor and frankly I don't know enough about him to know. That said, until I see actual evidence to the contrary, I am going to believe what he says. Rumors and innuendo are not enough.

I was told the President did not have good character because he won't go off half cocked and pardon these men. If he did so, I would find him irresponsible. He is calmly and rationally reviewing the evidence, waiting for appeal information and frankly doing the right thing. What he decides later based on the evidence he reviews, will be up for discussion once the decision is made. This is not a decision to be made by knee-jerk hysteria.

BTW, the information about Ramos being Agent of the Year is wrong. He wasn't, and while his problems with domestic violence are not apropos to this case, it does go to show he wasn't the lily white saint his supporters are making him out to be. Which may not have anything to do with his guilt, but should temper the urge of his supporters to overstate and overreach regarding this case.

Now I realize this is from the prosecutors office. But if these myth/facts are correctable, I have not yet seen proof.

Here's the link for reference.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769226/posts?page=44#44

[La Enchiladita]

Don't make me laugh, hombre. Everyone knows the border crossings into New Mexico have always been far less in number than those into California, Arizona and Texas... with Arizona being the leakiest place. If you look at the map of New Mexico, you see that --- unlike the other three states --- less than half of its southern border is with Mexico. The remainder of the border is with Texas.

Also, the New Mexico portion of the border is the most impassable. This is well known also.

If anything, El Paso would be the main source of illegals into New Mexico and you know the majority of them are just "passing through" to other states like Colorado, Missouri, etc., where they can get promised jobs. There have never been that many jobs for them in New Mexico.

[La Enchiladita]

You know, day in and day out, I read endless whining on this site about "Bush bashers" and yet, I have to tell you I myself am sick and tired of all the Border Patrol Bashers popping out of the woodwork and popping off their mouths in attacks on our troops. Yes, I consider the Border Patrol to also be our troops, although they are not strictly military. They have had one of the toughest jobs in this nation, LONG before the War on Terror, working day and night in a dangerous and humble job that protects all of us more than we know and certainly far more than some dunderheads are able to appreciate. They have worked under notoriously meager conditions, traditionally undermanned, grossly undersupplied and ridiculously underfunded.

Right after the November 2004 election, President Bush signed a Homeland Security bill --- the result of the 9/11 Commission --- which provided for an increase of 10,000 Border Patrol agents over five years, i.e., at least 2,000 new agents per year. Once that bill was signed into LAW, the administration broke that law and reduced the number of new agents to a few hundred.

So, let me tell you Border Patrol Bashers something: You would be much more welcome at places like ACLU, ANSWER and any of a number of Zapatista organizations. Have a nice evening.

[pollyannaish]

I actually agree with a lot of your post. I am not a border patrol basher in the slightest. In fact, I think it is one of the most difficult jobs in the country.

What I do not believe is that having a heroic job, whether it is a soldier, a border patrol agent, a policeman or a fireman gives you a free pass for not doing the right and lawful thing. And that goes for prosecutors as well.

In this case, I waited until a trial was held. At this point, it looks fair to me. I may change my mind at a later date. I feel the same way about military men who tarnish the reputation of our armed forces, and Americans who put us to shame because they don't do the right thing.

I believe the border is a problem and needs to be cleaned up. I am also strongly aware that perception is a very powerful tool that is used to stir people up in ways that can do more harm than good in actually solving the problem. I believe hearsay and rumor is not a good substitute for facts and analysis.

Therefore, I tend to approach this stuff with caution, don't wholly believe much of what I read from a single source, try not to demonize the President over things he does not control, and let the system do what it was designed to do.

Funny thing is, I always believed that approach was conservative. I have been confused lately...especially by folks who say it doesn't matter if these guys lied or covered up as one did on another thread on this topic. I'm sorry, but character still matters. Even when it is on our team.

I hope that clears things up, La Enchiladita. I really think we're on the same team.

[La Enchiladita]

I really think we're on the same team.

I don't and we're not. The degree of contempt and the derisive language you use regarding our BP agents in many of your posts is a giveaway. You can't have it both ways. You can't support the troops and be "ashamed" of them. I am ashamed of none, because there is no reason to be. I am on the side of the U.S.

[La Enchiladita]

Your words: I am not a border patrol basher in the slightest.

Your words: BTW, the information about Ramos being Agent of the Year is wrong. He wasn't, and while his problems with domestic violence are not apropos to this case, it does go to show he wasn't the lily white saint his supporters are making him out to be. Which may not have anything to do with his guilt, but should temper the urge of his supporters to overstate and overreach regarding this case.

It looks to me like you're overreaching to smear someone you do not know... One wonders why.

[TheLion]

Ping!

[raybbr]

No. Filing a false report and trying to cover their tracks.

I don't mind. They were trying to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. Apparently illegals come before sovereignty to you.

[raybbr]

It's actually hurting the cause.

What's the cause? Amnesty?

[raybbr]

I have a very huge vested interest in seeing illegal immigration curbed without screwing it up with demagoguery. This is an issue that requires extreme finesse, imo.

No. It requires guns, walls and a desire by the American people to save their country.

[raybbr]

I agree. It astounds me how many of the same people will condemn Compean and Ramos yet excuse the existance of the illegals in our country as "no big deal". Many of them will argue for the "rights" of illegls" and their "due process" and yet stand for this virtual lynching of two guys that were trying to protect them.

Support the troops? None of them do.

As far as Bush's fault in this those same people conveniently forget that the Executive Branch is in charge of the Justice Department. In other words, Bush is their boss. And, he was just as happy to let this go as any of the other quislings on this site.

[Obie Wan]

Time for work so I'll make it quick.I gave my opinion about the "big" coverup in posting #12 and I not interested in answering the same stupid question over and over,however you are correct about one thing,the person they were shooting at is someone I really,REALLY don't like !!!

[CharlesWayneCT]

We aren't the ones who are accusing BP agents of being in league with Drug smugglers, and giving false testimony in exchange for favors, in order to defend two convicted felons.

Whichever side you are on in this case, you can't label yourself "Pro BP Agents", because there were BP agents who testified against the two convicted agents.

And I am fine with being against BP agents who are found by a jury to have committed multiple felonies and judged based on evidence presented to have shot an unarmed man while he fled.

I don't think you do BP agents any favors supporting agents who have broken the law. It's fine to argue that there was a travesty of justice, that they didn't get a fair trial, or that the evidence against them is false.

But if those things were so, nobody here would be arguing to put them in jail. The suggestion that those who oppose you do so because we want BP agents in jail simply because they are BP agents is silly.

There are two ways for your side to "win". One is to show that the evidence supports your position. The other is to call people names and run a phone-bank campaign to try to sway the political process to force the result you desire, regardless of how people feel about the evidence itself.

The first is a noble endeavor, which I support wholeheartedly even though I believe it will fail, because my OPINION is the two agents were guilty.

The second is a subversion of our political and judicial process, and suggests that our criminal justice system should be governed NOT by evidence and procedure, but rather by political popularity and pressure.

My opinion is that the second is NOT a conservative approach to righting wrongs. It is a lazy way out, one that is often used by those who do not have facts on their side, but can sway public opinion.

I am dismayed by the increasing acceptance of the tactic among my conservative allies. It's a shortcut that only works when you've got a political majority, but which does not advance the cause of understanding.

You can usually identify such an argument by the terms used to describe the opponents. IN fact, the use of terms to define opponents is often a good indication of straying from a discussion of the merits.