Border agents who testified against convicted co-workers will be fired

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ^ | February 10, 2007 | Sara A. Carter

[truthkeeper]

Border agents who testified against convicted co-workers will be fired
Men who were at scene of shooting terminated for changing their stories
by Sara A. Carter

Two Border Patrol agents who testified against two co-workers convicted of shooting a drug smuggler will be fired for changing their stories about events surrounding the shooting, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.

Sources inside the Border Patrol also say Oscar Juarez, a third agent who testified against Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, resigned from the agency last month shortly before he was to be fired.

All three agents gave sworn testimony against Ramos and Compean for the U.S. Attorney's Office, which successfully prosecuted the shooting case in March. The agents were given immunity in exchange for their testimony despite changing their accounts of the incident several

"When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants)," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a former judge and prosecutor. "This case is a perfect example."

[antisocial]

"From reports I've read, Johnny Sutton is a real piece of "work"."

Have you read this:



http://www.narconews.com/Issue38/article1374.html

[1rudeboy]

I can't believe I had to read all the way to #284 to hear it . . . doesn't anyone think critically anymore? Or does the subject of Mexico simply make people see red?

[reformedliberal]

How do you expect women, children and the elderly to fight the government when they see that government railroad the people who are supposed to be protecting us, like US Marines, Border Patrol and even ordinary LEO?

It isn't about the citizenry working together, unless you mean that we need to begin a citizens insurrection against the government, which has the manpower and the weapons, not to mention the law, on its side.

The media has often quoted our children and our grandchildren saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them is just *too old* to understand and that after we are gone, they will be able to have the world they want. This evidently refers to their desiring to live without ever acting in self defense or allow anyone else to do so. These same young Americans deride the idea that we even need to be protected against anything except conservatives, the religious and the patriotic.

I agree that we will suffer the consequences, but for many of us, it will be at the hand of the younger generations of America. In the interim, it is just about all most of us can do to keep ourselves independent, healthy and below the radar.

[Sandy]

Bearcub: Those guys shot someone in the back as he was running away.
Salo: They shot someone who was running and attempting to shoot them.

Salo, your information is wrong. The Mexican was running away. He wasn't shooting at the agents at all. BearCub is correct.

[Sandy]

blu: They shot him in the butt, as he was turning toward them with his arm extended with something shiny in his hand.

Blu, your information is incorrect. BearCub, for the most part these folks are all just repeating talking points and lies they heard from others who don't know what they're talking about either.

Read the DHS report if you really want the actual facts of the case. Too many people on this forum are too easily spun. Just look at this thread for example. Some agents are being fired for telling lies early in the investigation, and the author writes it up in a way that leads readers to believe the agents are being fired for perjury. It's ridiculous. Really, read the report.

[blu]

Read the DHS report if

That would be the same DHS report that has had holes shot in it? That report, which is now being revealed as a bunch of lies? That report? No thanks, I've reached my fiction reading max for the weekend>

[Uncle Chip]

From your link:

A recently retired, high-ranking DEA official is calling on Congress to investigate the role played by a U.S. Attorney in the cover-up of an informant’s participation in mass murder in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico.

The DEA official, Sandalio Gonzalez, is pointing the finger squarely at Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney in San Antonio, Texas. He claims that had Sutton taken action sooner in the case, more than a dozen people might still be alive today. As a result, Gonzalez says Congress must act now to get to the bottom of what Sutton knew, and when he knew it.

Johnny Sutton certainly does appear to be dealing with some unsavory characters. Which side of the law is he supposed to be on now???

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, that's a point of view I didn't see from his comments, but I see that might be what he was saying (although in the article it seemed to be placed so as to cast doubt on the testimony of the immunized witness).

[Salo]

Sandy: I heard interviews on the radio, and the point of the thread is how testimony against the two jailed bp agents were lies.

I stand by what I said.

[Sandy]

I heard interviews on the radio,

Why not take the word of the agents who who actually did the shooting (you know, Ramos and Compean, the convicted agents)? They never saw a gun, never even *claimed* to see a gun, nor did they ever claim the Mexican was shooting at them. Never. You either misheard someone or were listening to a liar.

the point of the thread is how testimony against the two jailed bp agents were lies.

Hardly. The "point" of this article is to lead readers to wrongly assume that "testimony against the two jailed bp agents were lies". Fact is, this author is either incredibly stupid or just another dishonest agenda-driven so-called journalist. The co-workers aren't being fired for their trial testimony. They're being fired for lies they told early on in the investigation--lies intended to *help* the bp agents *cover up* their crimes. They're being fired for lying to investigators before the trial on behalf of their friends/co-workers (the defendants). They're not being fired for any sort of perjury *against* the agents. Get it? They got caught doing what corrupt government employees always do--lying to cover each others asses. Now they're losing their jobs, and rightly so.

[BearCub]

They never saw a gun, never even *claimed* to see a gun, nor did they ever claim the Mexican was shooting at them

I read an interview with one of the two BPAs (don't remember which) and he said as much.

I'm uncertain why the 'law and order' types here think it's okay for cops to shoot unarmed suspects that haven't committed a violent crime. The fact that the guy was drug-running is beside the point - that wasn't known until afterward.

That said, I don't think the prosecution should have cut an immunity deal with the drug runner - he ought to be locked up forever.