Posted on 04/09/2007 10:25:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Yeah. That's what he said. You are a reading-comprehension wonder. Please construct another false dichotomy for our amusement.
Heh...
LEO’s are not judges, they’re not juries, they’re not jailers, their job is to apprehend suspects so the rest of our judicial system that we are so proud of can go to work to determine guilt or innocence and if necessary, mete out justice.
And through all this all the BP supporters care to talk about is the illegal alien situation at the border, as if that had one iota of relevance to the important issue being discussed.
So ya, I would say 90% of the BPA supporters are either shilling for their border security issue or just plain don’t like Mexicans, maybe both.
In either case, it stinks they are putting their own personal agenda before the integrity of our law enforcement and justice systems.
“It astounds me every day how little conservatives on FR know about their own Constitution. And of course, yes anyone who is in the US has the same Constitutional rights (which are different than citizenry rights). You see, that’s what our FF meant when they said they were “inalienable”.”
LOL. “Unalienable” rights are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and not the US Constitution.
And, no, not everyone who shows up on our shores is protected by the US Constitution.
It’s so easy to give away the constitutional rights and protections of others, I wonder if you would be willing to give yours up as well....you know, to make it easier for BPA’s to catch and/or shoot illegals at the border.
BTW - Will they be allowed to shoot anyone on sight looking a little Mexican or should they check an ID first?
I try to resist the temptation to chase red herrings.
I made the point earlier that there are “human” rights and there are “citizen” rights. And yes, anyone showing up on our shores has these certain “human” rights, that’s why we keep terrorists in Gitmo and why the Coast Guard tries to intercept Cubans before they get to this shore and declare their “rights”.
Anything you don’t understand is a “red herring” to you.
2. Any argument you are losing is a “red herring”.
Bob, you really should know better than to try to put words in people’s mouths.
You’re right, but the point could be clarified and expanded.
First, Up until 1985, it was legal in many states for LE to use deadly force against fleeing felons. That year, SCOTUS decided the Tennessee v. Garner case, and said “no, you can’t shoot at a fleeing felon for that reason alone”. (Garner was a burglary suspect.) So EVEN IF Ramos and Compeon KNEW that that suspect had a million bucks worth of weed in his truck, it’s illegal, everywhere in the US, to shoot at the dude for that reason alone. Their lawyers knew this, so they didn’t even argue it at trial, but this point has been raised repeatedly in the media and on the errornet to cloud the issue. Frankly, the Garner decision may be good public policy, or bad, or good law, or bad, but if people have a problem with Garner, it would be more interesting, and productive, to argue that point, not pretend that the decision was never rendered.
One quibble: one does not need to show that there was an “immediate” threat to justify the use of deadly force, only that the forced used was objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. I’m not gonna comment on the jury’s findings of fact regarding the shiny black object. I don’t find the story absurd on its face as you imply, but they heard the testimony, we didn’t.
Seems to me that if people want to have more old-school policing used in this country, they should just come out and say so, rather than gripe about the outcome of one trial.
“And yes, anyone showing up on our shores has these certain “human” rights, that’s why we keep terrorists in Gitmo and why the Coast Guard tries to intercept Cubans before they get to this shore and declare their “rights”.”
You know as much about our history as the Constitution.
The German saboteurs who FDR tried via military tribunals (ala Gitmo) showed up on our shores.
Here are your “other Boarder Patrol agents” and a few other Law Enforcement officers Johnny Sutton ordered & bought.
1.) Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez – a longtime friend of the Mexican drug smuggler granted immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean – a possible double agent. Rene Sanchez’s actions make it look like he could have been in the drug business with Aldrete-Davila all along. The Department of Homeland Security never investigated, and from the beginning of this case Johnny Sutton was out to prosecute the Border Patrol, not the drug smugglers.
Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila grew up together in Mexico, prompting some observers to question the propriety of a family friend of Aldrete-Davila playing such a major role in reporting the Ramos-Compean incident involving the drug smuggler.
2.) Former BP Agents David Jaquez and Arturo Vasquez & Oscar Juarez Who were fired for changing their stories under oath many times.
3.) DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner admitted under oath that his top deputies gave members of Congress false information, painting Border Patrol agents as rogue cops who were not in fear for their lives and who were ‘out to shoot Mexicans,’” Culberson said in a statement.
Keep in mind that The D.H.S. told the Congress UNDER OATH that Secretary Skinner’s office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:
1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;
2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
3. stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;
4. were belligerent to investigators;
5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS.
is that abu gharib where humiliation & fear = torture.
And what bearing could someone have on a trial by saying things to congress after the trial has ended???? They were tried and convicted by 12 of their peers while being represented by competent counsel. This wasn't a banana republic show trial. They were convicted in no small part by their own testimony.
THAT is a BIG dog! Jeepers.
Would you consider water boarding to be torture??? Where water + fear (fear of suffocating)= torture??? I know if someone had one big a$$ German Shepperd inches away from me and the command to “sick balls” was being threatened I’d consider that torture. I value the boys pretty highly.
typically torture is considered to be abuse that causes permanent damage. water boarding for example creates the fear of death but not death or tissue damage. there’s not even temporary damage.
would you consider some of the really big six flags rollercoasters to be torture.
Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING
there’s plenty of room in websters for torture to mean much of anything. but if you’ll notice there’s a concentration of meanings around pain and extreme pain which is agony.
water boarding for example, does not cause agony or pain. it causes fear.
all the pictures at abu gharib and were about humiliation. and not pain.
club gitmo just looked funny.
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.