Posted on 11/24/2007 5:16:09 AM PST by Salena Zito
... & pardon these 2 Saturday, November 24, 2007
The degrading, draconian and disgraceful incarceration of former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean indicates President George W. Bush, the self-anointed compassionate conservative, is capable of stone-cold stupidity. By doing their duty along the near-lawless border with Mexico, Messrs. Ramos and Compean have become tragic symbols of this nation's gross incompetence regarding enforcement of immigration law.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
FWIW, the estimate of the medical care OAD received was something around 50k. This was part of the plea deal presented to R&C before the trial...they had to reimburse the taxpayers for this amount.
Thanks. That’s a lot lower than I would have expected given the surgery.
SO now I’m at a complete loss as to how the previous poster could have thought Davila got over a million dollars for his testimony. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have tried to help him figure out how he got it wrong, it just caused a lot of people to argue over something that was never in dispute.
Because R&C supporters make it up as they go along. It’s useless trying to debate them.
It’s like arguing with children.
You two are like echoes of each other. Even your expressions and vocabulary sound as if based on the same talking points. You sure are obsessed with trashing BP agents and constantly post misinformation.
In the above quote, you singled out a particular BP agent, and then said you found “their” testimony totally unbelievable, I presume referring not just to the one agent but to all the agents who testified against C/R. You also claim that he lied under oath (not in those words, but in claiming that his final testimony was coerced you are saying it was not the truth, which means you have claimed he perjured himself). You didn’t specifically say that the others deliberately lied under oath, but in saying they were all unbelievable, you seem to imply that they all committed perjury — all but C/R of course, who I presume you think told the truth. In a post above this one, you claimed that Sutton committed perjury, that Kanof committed ethical misconduct worthy of disbarrment, and also attacked the judge. I don’t believe the fact that you attack those who oppose C/R is in doubt, or a controversial statement. We could argue over whether your attacks are false or not, but the fact that you are attacking them is certainly not in doubt. Having been told to “go back to mexico”, as well has having been falsely accused of misstating testimony that I directly quoted, and from misrepresenting testimony for posting a Patterico summary which accurately reflected the direct testimony, and for being attacked for the simple factual statement that Davila was seriously injured and required expensive medical treatment, yes, I guess I’ve gone a little overboard on the hyperbole.
********************************************
Are you denying that Sutton didn’t bring pressure upon the other BP agents to modify their stories? (we’ve got that manipulation on tape)
Are you denying that Sutton leaned on the judge to get the evidence rules changed? manipulated the justice system to assist the perp and portrayed the perp (the real perp not C&R silly wabbit) as something other than a drug smuggler?
Are you denying that C&R’s story has remained consistant from the very beginning less than an hour after the incident?
Are you denying that Sutton didn’t threaten the other BP agents with conspiracy and accessory charges to get the testimony from them and the union steward that he wanted?
Are you denying the main charge that this was a “coverup” despite the fact that C&R had 9 other BP agents onsite when they gave their report..
Until the perp contacted Sutton through their common friends in the drug smuggling/Mexico coddling biz this story didn’t exist.
I am not a big law enforcement cheerleader ,, I’ve seen way too many abuses to go along wily nilly but this is a ridiculous situation that needs to be addressed... El Gringo Hefe Boosch needs to get his head out of his *ss...
I’ll bet you a 24 pack of Yuengling lager that this gets resolved when we have a candidate that starts treating the border seriously and puts the criminals that run the Mexican gov’t on notice that we’ll cut off their remittance money...
Here are some examples:
I will insist that you misrepresent the facts
People ain’t buying the twisted version of the story you are selling.
Paraphrasing and revising testimony, then presenting it as "quoting testimony" is more than misleading. It is dishonest.
Still presenting your paraphrased version as "direct testimony," huh?
So in this thread, you called me dishonest, misleading, twisted, and misrepresenting. All synonyms for lying. You have directly charged me with lying about the facts I am presenting. Further, you have done so falsely, as in each cited case I was correct and accurate about the facts.
So when you claim you didn't accuse me of lying, you are in fact making a semantic argument that you didn't use the word, when it is clear that you did accuse me of lying, simply by using other words. Now you are claiming not to have done so, which does seem to be misleading as your intent is to convince others that you have NOT in fact impugned my integrity on this discussion.
I will further note that your attacks on my character started PRIOR to any of my counter-charges against you. When you call someone a liar, you have to expect some blowback, especially when your accusation is false.
Sorry, there is really no "civil" was to debate with someone who accuses the opponent of lying, especially falsely. The very accusation is meant to cut off debate, to prevent a discussion of the issues, and is generally used by those who realise they cannot win on the merits.
I don't know whether that was your purpose, or if you simply wanted to call me a liar.
Also, if we are parsing words, I did not say you called the doctor a liar, I asked if you were saying the doctor was lying. In other words, I gave you the opportunity to explain why you were disagreeing with the direct testimony of the doctor. Once you explained, I did not repeat the question, or accuse you of the deed, as your explanation showed that you in fact agreed with the doctor.
That is how one can have a civilized discourse, by questioning statements that seem off in hopes that the opposition can clarify.
You simply want to ignore what I've said and accuse me of things I haven't said in order to impugn my integrity so you don't have to answer the substantive arguments.
As to your backhand claim that I am ignoring what is posted, I challenge you to provide an instance from this thread where I responded in a way that ignored the argument made against my position. If you find one, I'll address it.
I specifically said that an argument could be made as to whether her attacks were valid or not. I have no interest in getting into that argument, as it has nothing to do with this thread, or the topic of why post #7 claimed Davila got over a million dollars to testify.
I don't disown my statements. They stand, as is, along with links demonstrating that you were wrong. That you come back and claim "I am right" does not make your original inaccurate statements any less inaccurate.
You can continue to say that I said things I didn't (see post #198) but it just diminishes your credibility more. Show me: Where did I accuse you of lying?
You spam the thread with longwinded misrepresentations and inaccuracies, ignore proof to the contrary, and call me an idiot, liar, and attack my honor. And then you ask why I would bail out? You are a real piece of work!
Because we are the only rational, objective participants on these threads.
” Even your expressions and vocabulary sound as if based on the same talking points.”
If facts and the truth can be “talking points”.
“You sure are obsessed with trashing BP agents and constantly post misinformation.”
Neither of us have ever trashed “BP agents” we have articulated the relevant points in this case and have championed the rule of law and strict adherence to constitutional principles regarding civil rights. That R&C engaged in a cover up, tampered with evidence and lied to supervisors is not our doing. That you would condone and champion such behavior because the recipient of their lead was only a Mexican or an illegal or even a drug mule, is not only disturbing but indicates the same mentality that allowed the ATF get off at Waco and FBI agents walk free at Ruby Ridge.
Not all cops are great cops. Some are corrupt and others just don’t have the stability to carry a gun. They must be weeded out because their actions denigrate the other 98% of cops who are professional, ethical and carry out their duties admirably and are worthy of our honor and praise.
You are one of the many on these threads that believe supporting all cops, no matter their actions, just because they are cops is a virtue. It is not. Supporting all good cops is a virtue but supporting bad cops along with them is counter productive and dangerous.
“Talking points” is such a cliche. In this case, both Bob and I have read the transcripts of the trial, and the same news reports.
It’s like thinking there’s a conspiracy when the teacher asks “what’s 2+2” and the entire class says “4”.
There are only TWO BP agents that I am coming close to trashing, and in fact I don’t really want to trash them either, I’m just not fighting their conviction. BTW, that’s at least 2 fewer BP agents than the pro-C/R people are trashing.
Get that — the pro-C/R people trash a LOT MORE Border Agents than either Bob or I do. And in fact, while Bob and I are simply agreeing with the verdict of a jury, many of the C/R supporters are accusing many MORE BP agents with criminal activity when they haven’t even been charged, much less arrested and convicted of any criminal activity.
So our “bashing” is much more grounded in reality than that of the pro-C/R folks.
You are missing the only important point... your encyclopedic knowledge of the irrelevant is impressive but the only thing I care about is that this is a political prosecution to placate the gov’t/drug interests in Mexico to ensure the free flow of oil into our TX/LA refineries.
These men are political prisoners of Mexico through their proxy Bush ,, that is why we care about these two agents , nothing else... We are pi**ing away our sovereignity.
See post 208, where I document several quotes from you that accuse me of lying.
I suppose now you will dispute the clear meaning of the words you used.
Anyway, maybe we are getting somewhere. Despite your insistance that nothing I posted was correct, can we agree that the doctor testified that the shooting injury was life-threatening, that the injury required surgery, that his injury was serious, and that those who claim it wasn’t were wrong?
Can you bring yourself to at least agree with that, since you have already agreed to all of that in your own statements?
Bad cops are paid off by drug dealers to look the other way. Much like this current administration and the entire Fedgov in regards to this epic violent invasion of our country. Good cops shoot professional drug dealers when threatened.
It's no secret, Johnny Sutton is part of the BushCo open borders cabal, and it would be no surprise, like bad cops, if money is being funneled to him and many others in this government
That is not an entirely irrational opinion, and as it is expressed as an opinion I won’t argue with you about it.
I have no real desire to try to “save” the pro-C/R people from their own opinions. I only care that they don’t trash other people with false statements in their zeal to defend C/R.
No, I did not call you that. And NO, I did not charge you with "lying about the facts." I pointed out that you were twisting facts, misrepresenting facts, and posting misleading (selective) information. I gave specific examples of each item. As to the "dishonest" comment--yes... the statement you posted, that you were "quoting testimony" relative to Dr. Miller, was indeed a dishonest statement.
Sorry, there is really no "civil" was to debate with someone who accuses the opponent of lying, especially falsely.
So, it is not possible for you to be civil with someone who challenges your posts as being inaccurate and misrepresenting facts?
Yet when you call me a "liar," it's okay? Whew! There is some logic!
Go to jail, do not pass go. We are back to square one.
NO! The doctor did NOT testify to that! He said that RENAL FAILURE was life-threatening, not OADs injury.
Please READ the testimony, and read my post! Under your definition, an untreated hangnail could be life-threatening as it might lead to a tear in the skin, and then an infection, which spreads to the (insert organ here) .... etc.
His injuries were serious--but NOT life-threatening.
Good Post CCG.
It’s funny, isn’t it? All we do is quote facts and trial testimony regarding the adjudicated illegal firing of weapons by LEO’s. They, on the other hand, trash anyobody and everyone associated with the case. Almost ALL the other BP agents (they’ve called them liars and corrupt), the supervisors at the station, the prosecutors, judge, jury, justice adminsitration...right up to Bush and DHS.
Yet we’re the ones “not supporting our fine men in uniform”.
Here are the synonyms for lie from an online thesaurus. I've highlighted the words and phrases which represent the false claims you made against me:
aspersion, backbiting, calumniation, calumny, complete distortion of the facts, corker, deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fable, fabrication, falsehood, falseness, falsification, falsity, fib, fiction, fish story, forgery, fraudulence, guile, hyperbole, inaccuracy, invention, libel, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, myth, obloquy, perjury, prevarication, revilement, reviling, slander, subterfuge, tale, tall story*, terminological inexactitude, vilification, white lie*, whopper
Some are not exact, but it is clear that your statements are synonyms for accusing me of not telling the truth, for trying to mislead people into believing falsehood rather than the truth. And your "examples" have been refuted.
As to the "dishonest" comment--yes... the statement you posted, that you were "quoting testimony" relative to Dr. Miller, was indeed a dishonest statement.
I have shown this statement of yours to be false, and yet you repeat it. The definition of repeating a statement that is shown to be false is "lie". That means you are lying. Sorry, the truth is the truth.
In the statement you referenced, I did NOT say I was "quoting testimony" relative to Dr. Miller, I said I was "quoting testimony" related to "limping". I then showed the original post which included a quoted testimony about limping, to prove I was telling the truth.
And yet you still insist I claimed to be "quoting" Dr. Miller, when I did not and I have shown you I did not. So you are either lying deliberately, or have completely ignored the clear evidence placed before you in order to score cheap points with your buddies who apparently you have little regard for as regards the truth.
The only thing you got right was your correction of my "3 million" statement (it was 1 million), and that Ramos did not stipulate to shooting Davila, but rather that his bullet ended up in Davila (a distinction without a difference).
But my response to those two instances shows that your claim I ignore things is also false, that in fact if you provided ANY evidence for your other claims I'd be happy to consider it.
As to your last point, it is illogical. I didn't say that my accusing you of lying was civil, I specifically said that your accusing me of lying made it impossible to respond civilly. Accusing you of lying was the result of not being able to respond civilly to your false accusations.
But no, I could be civil with someone who questions whether I am being accurate in my reports, if once I proved myself accurate they wouldn't continue to falsely accuse me of lying. It's not your questioning my posts that's the problem, it's your false attribution of motives and your refusal to admit when you are shown to be wrong.
But why belabor the point. Apparently I'd be OK with you so long as I just accused you of being dishonest, misrepresenting the facts, twisting the facts, and misleading the readers. So in the future I guess THAT's what I'll say, and you won't have reason to complain.
If I cut your throat, I guess you'd say that the injury wasn't life-threatening, since the cut wasn't going to kill you, it was all the blood that was going to pour out of the artery once it was cut. The cut itself is a trivial thing easily fixed.
I can't believe I have to actually explain this to you. The doctor testified that, without treatment, the bullet injury would lead to renal failure, which if not treated would kill the patient. If not treated, the death would be the result of the shooting injury, and a if the shooting was found to be unjustified, the person who shot the victim would be charged with murder.
Cause and Effect. You do know the bullet rarely kills anybody, it's the resulting damage which leads to death. Either bleeding out, or the failure of organs that are damaged by the bullet.
Next you'll say that a heart attack doesn't kill anybody, because it's not the heart not beating that kills them, it's the lack of oxygen to the brain. OR that if you jump off a building, that's not what killed you, it was the sidewalk you landed on.
The doctor testified that the injury, if not treated, could lead to renal failure, and thus the injury was life-threatening.
Your argument would almost be passable if renal failure wasn't the natural and expected result of the injury. Comparing the complete separation of the bladder from the urethra to a hangnail shows a profound misunderstanding of the seriousness of his injury.
Last point. My brother-in-law died of a tear in his colon. Well, according to you, he did NOT die of a tear in his colon. Because after his colon was torn, the fluids that leaked out infected his major organs, and they being poisoned shut down and he died.
So under your definition, the tear in his colon was 'serious, but not life-threatening'. Which of course is an assinine argument, one without merit.
So, in YOUR expert medical opinion, how long would Davila last with a separated bladder and no medical treatment? A week, a month, a year? IF you no longer could pee, would you consider that "serious, but not life-threatening"? Would you presume you could put off treatment for a couple of months since it's serious, but not "life-threatening"?
I would have stopped long ago, but given your statement I can't fathom what it will take for you to see how ignorant your statement was.
It is clear that you are not arguing for any purpose other than to be disagreeable. Just like others argued fruitlessly that Davila wasn't really injured.
Any thoughts on the over a million dollars Davila got for his testimony, according to post 7?
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.