Notice the part where he gets multiple entries?
Posted on 02/10/2007 2:05:41 PM PST by TheeOhioInfidel
For an agent of the Mexican government, Johnny Sutton speaks pretty good English.
That's the title anti-immigrant zealots hung on the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas after prosecutors in his office convicted ex-Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos of shooting 15 times at an unarmed suspect who was running away.
Sentenced to 12 years and 11 years in prison, the former agents are behind bars.
Because the defendants were once Border Patrol agents and because the convictions relied on testimony from the victim - a Mexican drug smuggler who got immunity - the prosecutors have become absolutely toxic in the minds of those who think an invasion is under way and that Border Patrol agents are the sentries against the tide.
Hence the accusation by some that Sutton - along with his bosses, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush - has become an agent of the Mexican government.
"We just evaluate the facts," Sutton said. "We don't get to choose the facts. We don't get to choose the witnesses. We just have to decide whether a crime was committed and whether it's appropriate that it be prosecuted."
According to the evidence presented at the trial, including the agents' testimony and their statements after the incident, here are the facts.
On Feb. 17, 2005, about 1 p.m., Compean and Ramos were on duty along the U.S.-Mexico border when they observed a suspicious vehicle - a van that turned out to be loaded with 700 pounds of marijuana.
The driver - later identified as Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila - jumped out of the vehicle and tried to run back into Mexico.
Ramos and Compean testified they made a point of looking at the suspect's hands and saw no weapon. Compean fired at least 14 rounds and Ramos fired once.
Ramos wounded the suspect and saw him limp into Mexico. The agents collected the shell casings and filed false reports, trying to cover up the incident.
The case has become a cause célèbre for radio talk-show hosts, anti-immigrant groups, congressional Republicans, Minuteman vigilantes and cable television talkers with a knack for turning ranting into ratings.
The convictions also have been sucked into the wind tunnel of the immigration debate and turned Republican hard-liners into bleeding hearts.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, wrote a resolution demanding that Bush pardon Compean and Ramos.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, has called Bush a "disgrace" and someone who is "on the side of our enemies."
Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach - who used to be a lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nativist organization that wants to limit even legal immigration - quipped that, since Bush wants amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants, he should simply add two more names to the list.
Basically, Bilbray lumped together former Border Patrol agents with illegal immigrants. What would the two have in common? Only Spanish surnames.
Apparently, you can take the congressman out of the nativist group but you can't take the nativism out of the congressman.
I asked Sutton about the insistence by some that this case illustrates the contempt the Bush administration has for border security and the Border Patrol.
"I don't take it too seriously," he said. "I'm a federal prosecutor in charge of prosecuting drugs and immigration for 660 miles of Mexican-Texas border. I'm in the business of locking up illegal aliens who come across and drug smugglers who come across, and so I work with Border Patrol day in and day out."
Sutton said he has a lot of respect for the Border Patrol and its responsibilities.
"They do have a very, very hard job," he said. "And 99.9 percent of them are out there doing it right, abiding by the rules in these very stressful situations, and they're doing just fine. But when you're in those kinds of high-stress situations, you can make big mistakes."
By all accounts, these agents made big mistakes. The same goes for those who are shamelessly using this sad case to advance their own agendas.
"It's just so rare that you have a situation like this," Sutton said. "But (Border Patrol agents) are human beings, and sometimes, just like anyone else, they're going to step over the line, and if they commit crimes, just like everybody else, they're not above the law."
Bush has said he will examine the case and determine if a pardon is warranted.
It isn't.
Navarrette is a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune. His e-mail address is ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.
Absolutely wrong, Chucky.
Compean's first statement from March 18, 2006, the night he was arrested (and the first time he ever was ever questioned about the incident) said:
You mean the links about the Government lying? Glad you liked them.
The people that lied to Congress were from the office of Inspector General - Department of Homeland Security, the lead investigator of this incident since day one! They most certainly were involved!
Telling me the first statement you know he made to investigators does not prove that he never made any contradictory statements.
The investigative report indicates he did make differing statements at different times, although I understand that the pro-pardon folks discount what other agents at the scene say the agents said to them at the time. But discounting the evidence isn't the same as saying there is no evidence.
I will happily concede that I have no first-hand knowledge of ANY of the statements made by the agents. Every statement I have seen are statements reported by other parties to the conversation, either investigators or other agents.
When we see the transcript, that will be the first time I think I'll have seen stuff directly from them and reported as written under controlled conditions. Although I feel relatively confident that investigators are properly reporting what the agents said to them.
I do apologize for my inaccurate statement. They are not saying they "saw weapons", that was an unfortunate shorthand, they are saying that they saw something that they thought could be a weapon.
BTW, your assertion that March 18 was the first time he was questioned about the incident is not accurate, as the record shows several people questioned him about aspects of the incident on the day of the incident, especially about the wound he had received.
I've looked at it and it does show sealed document and sealed proceedings. Some of that has been covered in the press during and after the trial.
That should have read 2005
The people who testified work in the same department of the government as the people who did the investigation. They are not the same people as those who did the investigation. Sanchez did not talk to the congresspeople, for example.
My point which is both clear and germane is that lying to congress about what evidence you have in investigative reports has no bearing on what evidence was presented at trial that convicted the agents.
Then I think you are foolish. This is the same group that lied to congress about them wanting "to shoot mexicans."
BTW, your assertion that March 18 was the first time he was questioned about the incident is not accurate, as the record shows several people questioned him about aspects of the incident ...
So, you're admitting he was questioned by superiors about the gun? Remember, that is the subject here--the gun (since you alleged he has changed his statement about that). Now, if you admit that, then you'll also have to admit that he did indeed tell the supervisor about the gun. Or, do you consider the hearsay he-said she-said casual conversations between co-workers "being questioned" (the phrase I used). I certainly don't. March 18 was the first time, to my knowledge, that he was questioned by any official or superior about the shooting. (Actually, it was after midnight so it was March 19--since these kind government officials decided to arrest him at midnight on a Friday night.)
calcowgirl replied: Then I think you are foolish. This is the same group that lied to congress about them wanting "to shoot mexicans."
Your posting of the "first time" Compean made a statement was in a REPORT written by the INVESTIGATORS. I was saying I was pretty sure that report was accurate. If you think it was a lie, then why did you post it?
I was going to agree with that part, but I'm not so sure. We'd have to know a lot more. The investigator controlled the investigation--all of the evidence, he interviewed witnesses, etc. If that person was not truthful in their duties, it could very well have a bearing on what evidence was presented--or not presented.
I was surprised to know that the defense was not aware that BP Agent Rene Sanchez (male) was the first point of contact of the Drug Smuggler until they heard it from the Drug Smuggler on the witness stand. Kinda curious, if ya ask me.
No... It's not.
It's from an image of his actual statement given when arrested (hand written).
Sorry Charlie... I mean Chucky. ;-)
Correction... yes, the image of Compean's handwritten statement is included in a DHS-OIG report. I don't believe that they fabricated it.... although they did misrepresent it, IMO, multiple times in the report when they attempted to 'summarize' it.
Only in your quisling mind.
Notice the part where he gets multiple entries?
A parole record which expires 4/18/2005. Not a green card.
He probably got another one of these later, since he had to come back for the trial as well, although I haven't seen the image of that one.
(I got a lot of heat when I called this a "temporary visa").
"Bull!! Illegal aliens are above the law. Why isn't the George Bush administration enforcing our immigration laws"
I'm on your side on the immigration issue, I live on the border, and see the crap that comes with this issue every day, but I will never advocate rouge Border Patrol agents tampering with evidence, and trying to cover up their stupidity. The prosecutor in this case is a dispicible human being for allowing immunity for the dope smuggler to testify. This crap will continue untill someone in our Govt grows a pair of brass cajones and puts an end to it. Sadly I just don't see that happening untill someone smuggles in a nuke over the Mexican border and destroys a city.
Doesn't surprise me. My gut reaction is normally to sign with the police, however, they aren't above reproach and aren't above the law.
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.