Arrest prompts Border Patrol case questions

WorldNetDaily ^ | April 5, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[Bob J]

Right. He purposely left it on the ditch slope because he hasd no intention of shooting to kill/maim, he just wanted to show OVD a little “what fer”.

[sumthinelse]

>>No, but he is being treated just like any other person in prison, no better, no worse.<<

And how would you know that? You are assuming that our correction officials have no axe to grind? If they were “just like any other person in prison” why did DHS lie about the case to congress? If you think it is just that Ramos is not allowed to read books, I wonder if you have the ability to look beyond laws and rules to see if something is right or wrong.

Did you notice that Alberto Gonzalez is involved in a scandal concerning improper political influence?

In the big picture, the government’s actions included some illegal lying (DHS), some lying that was probably just unethical (Sutton and prison officials), and a lot of excuses for doing the wrong thing. Even some of those who think the jury verdict was correct do not believe Ramos should be in prison.

Unfortunately, the whole truth probably will not be known. I agree that R&C are not blameless, but neither is the government.

[rednesss]

Well then I suggest to you and everyone that the next time some politician is out pandering for votes by putting on his “gettin’ tough on crime” act and is trying to sell some new mandatory minimum sentence to make them liberal judges give people real time, you should tell them that you don’t support it. As it would seem that you think that the mandatory minimum 10 year sentence is something that you disagree with here. If it weren’t for that, the judge probably could have taken into consideration other factors at sentencing and they probably could have been given a much more lenient sentence. Just a suggestion.

[AndrewC]

Jury members said they gave no weight to OVD’s testimony...the cover up and inconsistent testimony of R&C was what convicted them.

Well, if they gave no weight to OVD's testimony then there was no case against Ramos and Compean. They said they saw what they thought was a gun in Davila's left hand which he pointed at them. No other persons were involved in the final moments of the encounter.

Second, what inconsistent testimony of R&C? Compean was not involved in the car chase and Ramos lost sight of Davila and Compean when he jumped into the ditch. So are you going to bring up the fiction of Ramos testifying that Compean was flat on the ground?

[sumthinelse]

>>Well then I suggest to you and everyone that the next time some politician is out pandering for votes by putting on his “gettin’ tough on crime” act and is trying to sell some new mandatory minimum sentence to make them liberal judges give people real time, you should tell them that you don’t support it.<<

Agree, and also think that part of the problem is that, in general, legislators are too lazy to write laws carefully (or in some cases they may intentionally write bad laws), and we end up with something that is too easy to abuse.

However, I am not opposed to all mandatory minimum sentences. I can’t think of any mitigating factors that should lessen the sentence of a legally sane adult who rapes a child under the age of 14, for example. And there are judges who are very lenient about that.

[Rottweilerson]

“And what bearing could someone have on a trial by saying things to congress after the trial has ended????” —This was said before the trial for the sole purpose of steering the 3 Congressmen away from interfering with the Nifonging of R & C. Not to mention it goes to the creditability of their agenda & investigation.

“They were tried and convicted by 12 of their peers while being represented by competent counsel. This wasn’t a banana republic show trial.”— It’s not what was said or brought into trial that convicted them. It was the evidence that was not aloud into trial.

[sumthinelse]

>>“And what bearing could someone have on a trial by saying things to congress after the trial has ended????” —This was said before the trial for the sole purpose of steering the 3 Congressmen away from interfering with the Nifonging of R & C. Not to mention it goes to the creditability of their agenda & investigation.<<

Check your dates. All the DHS lying to congress I know of occured after the trial. Did DHS stall congress because they needed to shred documents? It is a fact, though, that Mexican inmates almost killed Ramos after DHS told congress that they “wanted to shoot a Mexican.” In my opinion this was a despicable act by DHS.

[Lancey Howard]

The corrupt-to-the-core Bush Justice Department continues its dirty work with brazen arrogance and impunity.

[Rottweilerson]

Your right, I stand corrected. My dates were wrong. That does not change the fact that Sutton used, at best, contrived testimony from admitted liar BG’s who changed their stories so many times they were fired or resigned, allowed smugglers to escape indictment twice for smuggling hundreds of pounds of contraband into The US. And at some point DHS lied to Congressmen about the case. Why would they lie? If everything was kosher, why would they lie?

[sumthinelse]

>>If everything was kosher, why would they lie?<<

IMO Bush, directly and indirectly, has done a lot of damage to the conservative cause. I remember defending him to some university people in Edinburgh, Scotland, just after he was elected. I think now that some of my confidence in him was misplaced.

[rednesss]

I honestly don’t intend this to sound racist, I might get flamed for it. But why is it that it seems that the majority of border patrol agents I have read about in the news have mexican sounding names??? Ramos, Compean, Ramirez, and on and on and on. Isn’t that kinda like asking a Gambino, or Gotti, or Luciano, or Genovese to be in charge of going after the Mafia???? Just what percentage of the BP is of mexican descent??? Just an observation.

[rednesss]

What evidence???? Have you read the transcripts of the trial??? I did. They got a fair trial. If anything, they should have just kept their teeth together from the beginning and not testified. They didn't do their cause any good.

Now common sense tells me that if the illegal had a gun, was a tough seasoned drug runner, and was on the receiving end of a hail of bullets, that he would have returned fire, at least a round or two. Instead the only shell casings found were from the 2 BP agents. It is illegal to shoot a fleeing, posing no threat, person, period, the US Supreme Court has ruled on that. They admitted they shot at him and one of them hit him. They hid evidence of the shooting and tried to sweep it under the rug. They admitted all of this themselves. From their own lips. No conspiracy, no cover-up, no GWB evil plan. In technical terms they "screwed the pooch". And it was exactly what was said and brought into trial against them that convicted them. They sealed their own fates. Read the transcripts.

[sumthinelse]

>>But why is it that it seems that the majority of border patrol agents I have read about in the news have mexican sounding names???<<

Well, being able to speak Spanish and being born into a Hispanic family might be a plus for BP agents, so they could have insights into what would be going on. Some Anglos, like me, do speak Spanish, but most do not, few of us Anglos really understand the culture that well.