• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Get er Done

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sounds like GW needs to spend a few weeks working on the border and ducking a few bullets- then see what he would have done... Shootouts have been a part of the border history for years- just now they are much more frequent.....Another case of Bush cowing to the Mexican government....

-------------------------------------

Republican revolt builds over border agents
House resolution calls for tossing Ramos, Compean convictions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com




At least 70 Republican Congress members are co-sponsoring a House resolution ordering that the convictions and sentences of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean be vacated and that they be released from custody immediately.
Even after suggestions last week that President Bush plans to review the Ramos and Compean case, the White House has continued reaching out for support to several prominent conservatives who, so far, are rebuffing administration requests to back the Justice Department on this case.

The resolution, H.R. 563, is being introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

Despite public suggestions to the contrary, the White House on background has continued indicating to prominent national conservative leaders that their heels are dug in on this case, denying at this point any plan to pardon the agents. Some critics contend the Bush administration's open border policy is behind its unwillingness to defend Ramos and Compean.


White House talking points continue to stress themes articulated by prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in El Paso, who in an exclusive interview last week with WND claimed the two agents "shot 15 times at an unarmed, fleeing man," after which the agents "decided to lie about it, cover it up, destroy the evidence, pick up all the shell casings and throw them away where we couldn't find them, destroy the crime scene and then file a false report."

In a series of briefings with conservative leaders prior to the State of the Union message scheduled for this evening, the White House indicated that while the issue of immigration will be mentioned, it will not be a major theme. The president is expected to repeat his support of a "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that would include a guest worker program, prefacing re-introduction of legislation similar to the bill co-sponsored in the previous Congress by Sens. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., and John McCain R-Ariz.

While the speech is expected to sound the theme of border security, the president is not expected to give a commitment that the administration will press Congress to appropriate all the funds needed to build the full 770-mile double-layered fence Congress approved in a Sept. 29 vote just prior to the mid-term elections. Instead, the president is expected to emphasis electronic means to secure a virtual border and what the White House believes has been recent success slowing the number of "OTMs," or "Other Than Mexicans," who illegally cross the southern border.

President Bush has no plans to mention the Ramos and Compean case in the State of the Union speech.

In a press release issued on the introduction of H.R. 563, Hunter said, "Agents Ramos and Compean fulfilled their responsibilities as Border Patrol agents and rightfully pursued a suspected and fleeing drug smuggler. It is irresponsible to punish them with jail time."

Joe Kasper, communications director and legislative assistant for Hunter, explained to WND the Ramos and Compean case "creates a chilling effect on current border agents who will now be reluctant to do their duty on the border when they know that fellow officers have been given jail time for trying to stop a Mexican drug dealer from escaping back to Mexico."

Kasper told WND the "facts of this case are so nebulous that the case represents a severe injustice. Agents Ramos and Compean felt threatened and acted appropriately to apprehend the individual. At most, an administrative punishment is required but certainly not 11- and 12-year federal prison sentences."

Kasper noted additional congressmen are calling the office to add their names as co-sponsors. He said Hunter is also reaching out to Democratic congressmen known to be sympathetic.

In addition to introducing H.R. 563, Hunter wrote a letter to Harley Lappin, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, requesting that Ramos and Compean be separated from the general prison population to ensure their safety.

"These agents and their families have already received threats against their safety," Hunter wrote Lappin. "Therefore, it must be assumed that once they are required to mingle in general population with the very drug smugglers and felons they helped apprehend their security will be compromised."

Hunter's office told WND that readers were encouraged to call their congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, asking that they co-sponsor H.R. 563.

The resolution, if passed, would represent a congressional pardon, an unusual procedure given that criminal pardons typically are considered only within the constitutional purview of the president. A legal analysis provided WND by Hunter's office argues that the pardon power is not constitutionally vested exclusively in the president but may also be exercised by Congress.

The U.S. Department of Justice declined to provide a statement to WND about the resolution.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sounds like GW needs to spend a few weeks working on the border and ducking a few bullets- then see what he would have done... Shootouts have been a part of the border history for years- just now they are much more frequent.....Another case of Bush cowing to the Mexican government....

-------------------------------------

Republican revolt builds over border agents
House resolution calls for tossing Ramos, Compean convictions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com




At least 70 Republican Congress members are co-sponsoring a House resolution ordering that the convictions and sentences of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean be vacated and that they be released from custody immediately.
Even after suggestions last week that President Bush plans to review the Ramos and Compean case, the White House has continued reaching out for support to several prominent conservatives who, so far, are rebuffing administration requests to back the Justice Department on this case.

The resolution, H.R. 563, is being introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

Despite public suggestions to the contrary, the White House on background has continued indicating to prominent national conservative leaders that their heels are dug in on this case, denying at this point any plan to pardon the agents. Some critics contend the Bush administration's open border policy is behind its unwillingness to defend Ramos and Compean.


White House talking points continue to stress themes articulated by prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in El Paso, who in an exclusive interview last week with WND claimed the two agents "shot 15 times at an unarmed, fleeing man," after which the agents "decided to lie about it, cover it up, destroy the evidence, pick up all the shell casings and throw them away where we couldn't find them, destroy the crime scene and then file a false report."

In a series of briefings with conservative leaders prior to the State of the Union message scheduled for this evening, the White House indicated that while the issue of immigration will be mentioned, it will not be a major theme. The president is expected to repeat his support of a "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that would include a guest worker program, prefacing re-introduction of legislation similar to the bill co-sponsored in the previous Congress by Sens. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., and John McCain R-Ariz.

While the speech is expected to sound the theme of border security, the president is not expected to give a commitment that the administration will press Congress to appropriate all the funds needed to build the full 770-mile double-layered fence Congress approved in a Sept. 29 vote just prior to the mid-term elections. Instead, the president is expected to emphasis electronic means to secure a virtual border and what the White House believes has been recent success slowing the number of "OTMs," or "Other Than Mexicans," who illegally cross the southern border.

President Bush has no plans to mention the Ramos and Compean case in the State of the Union speech.

In a press release issued on the introduction of H.R. 563, Hunter said, "Agents Ramos and Compean fulfilled their responsibilities as Border Patrol agents and rightfully pursued a suspected and fleeing drug smuggler. It is irresponsible to punish them with jail time."

Joe Kasper, communications director and legislative assistant for Hunter, explained to WND the Ramos and Compean case "creates a chilling effect on current border agents who will now be reluctant to do their duty on the border when they know that fellow officers have been given jail time for trying to stop a Mexican drug dealer from escaping back to Mexico."

Kasper told WND the "facts of this case are so nebulous that the case represents a severe injustice. Agents Ramos and Compean felt threatened and acted appropriately to apprehend the individual. At most, an administrative punishment is required but certainly not 11- and 12-year federal prison sentences."

Kasper noted additional congressmen are calling the office to add their names as co-sponsors. He said Hunter is also reaching out to Democratic congressmen known to be sympathetic.

In addition to introducing H.R. 563, Hunter wrote a letter to Harley Lappin, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, requesting that Ramos and Compean be separated from the general prison population to ensure their safety.

"These agents and their families have already received threats against their safety," Hunter wrote Lappin. "Therefore, it must be assumed that once they are required to mingle in general population with the very drug smugglers and felons they helped apprehend their security will be compromised."

Hunter's office told WND that readers were encouraged to call their congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, asking that they co-sponsor H.R. 563.

The resolution, if passed, would represent a congressional pardon, an unusual procedure given that criminal pardons typically are considered only within the constitutional purview of the president. A legal analysis provided WND by Hunter's office argues that the pardon power is not constitutionally vested exclusively in the president but may also be exercised by Congress.

The U.S. Department of Justice declined to provide a statement to WND about the resolution.

This is one of the worst things that GW has failed to do--pardon those two agents, while the news reports that he had just pardoned, I believe they said, 5 convicted drug smugglers. BTW the US attorney or some gov. official said the drug smuggler that was shot in the incident has the right to sue the Government and is doing just that for millions. Watch Lou Dobbs, he covers this story every night.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The following is a partial list of people pardoned by George W. Bush. As of December 21, 2006, President George W. Bush had issued 113 presidential pardon to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of three people. [1]

This list is a subset of . list of people pardoned by a United States president. The order is alphabetical, the year is the date of conviction.

* Alan Dale Austin (1987 misapplication of mortgage funds)
* Bruce Louis Bartos (1987 transportation of a machine gun in foreign commerce)
* David Thomas Billmyer (1978 military conviction for making a false claim)
* Carl E. Cantrell (1967 moonshining)
* Charles Winston Carter (1964 conspiracy to steal government property)
* Meredith Elizabeth Casares (1989 embezzlement of US Postal Service funds)
* Randall Leece Deal Clayton (1960 and 1964 liquor laws)
* Charles Russell Cooper (1959 bootlegging)
* William Charles Davis (1983 income tax evasion)
* William Henry Eagle (1972 moonshining)
* Robert Carter Eversole (1984 theft)
* Gerald Douglas Ficke (1992 money laundering)
* Harper James Finucan (1980 marijuana possession with intent to distribute)
* Anthony Americo Franchi (1983 tax evasion)
* Kenneth Clifford Foner (1991 bank fraud)
* Victoria Diane Frost (1994 conspiracy to possess)
* William Grover Frye (1968 AWOL and 1973 sale of stolen car)
* Joseph Daniel Gavin (1979 military insubordination, drunkenness, threats, and other offenses)
* George Glenn (1956 accepting $50 bribe while in military)
* Samuel Wattie Guerry (1984 food stamp fraud)
* Charles E. Hamilton (1989 mail fraud)
* Stanley Bernard Hamilton 1990 (money order fraud)
* Brianna Lea Haney (1991 failure to report monetary instruments)
* David Custer Heaston (1988 false statement)
* Melodie Jean Hebert (1984 defrauding U.S. with false claims)
* Bobby Frank Kay Sr. (1959 moonshining)
* James Ernest Kinard, Jr. (1984 fraudulent firearms dealer records)
* Richard Ardell Krueger (1979 mail fraud and 1980 and false statement on a loan application)
* Devin Timothy Kruse (1979 AWOL from Coast Guard)
* Margaret Ann Leggett (1981 false claims)
* Raul Marin (1982 failure to appear in court)
* Melvin L. McKee (1982 conspiracy to make false statements on a loan application)
* Charles McKinley, (1950 moonshining)
* Michael Mark McLaughlin (1983 mail fraud and conspiracy)
* Michael Robert Moelter (1988 illegal gambling business)
* Billie Curtis Moore (1977 income tax evasion)
* Richard Arthur Morse (1963 transportation of a stolen vehicle)
* Kenneth Lynn Norris (1993 unlawful disposal of hazardous waste)
* Joseph Mathew Novak (1994 possession and transfer of an illegal weapon)
* Donald Lee Pendergrass (1964 armed bank robbery)
* Fred Dale Pitzer (1976 transportation of falsely made securities)
* Charles Blurford Power (1948 transportation of a stolen vehicle)
* Gerard Murphy Rayne (1972 car theft)
* James Edward Reed (1975 marijuana possession with intent to distribute)
* Cecil John Rhodes (1981 false statement on a loan application)
* John Louis Ribando (1976 and 1978 marijuana dealing)
* Ernest Rudnet (1992 conspiracy to file false tax returns)
* Gary L. Saltzburg (1995 theft of government property)
* John Gregory Schillace (1988 conspiracy to possess cocaine for distribution)
* Russell Don Sell (1995 aiding and abetting a false statement on a loan application)
* James Leon Adams Simpsonville (1965 selling firearms to out of state residents and falsifying firearms records)
* Scott LaVerne Sparks (1989 theft of government property)
* Wendy St. Charles (1984 conspiracy to trade narcotics and cocaine distribution)
* David Lloyd St. Croix (1989 disposal of stolen explosives)
* Johnson Heyward Tisdale (1994 food stamp fraud)
* Edward Rodriguez Trevino, Jr. (1997 theft, convicted in military court)
* Jerry Dean Walker (1989 cocaine distribution)
* Joseph William Warner (1995 arson on an Indian reservation)
* Jimmy Lee Williams (1995 false statements on a loan application)
* Tony Dale Ashworth Winnsboro (1989 unlawful transfer of a firearm)

Two commutations of sentence were granted on May 20, 2004. They were granted to:

* Geraldine Gordon (1989 distribution of phencyclidine) (sentenced to 20 years plus 10 years supervised release; sentence commuted after 15 years, term of supervised release left intact)
* Bobby Mac Berry (1997 conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, money laundering) (sentenced to 9 years imprisonment plus 5 years supervised release; sentence reduced to 6 and a half years, terms of supervised release left intact)

A commutation of sentence was granted on December 21, 2006 to an Iowa man convicted of a drug crime.

It seems that there are alot more criminals and drug offenders on the list then former law enforcement officers....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I chatted with an old Border Patrolman who has spent years on the southern border...He told me that about half of all Border Patrolmen could have been charged with doing the same thing these guys did...

He said the only violation these guys really did was not to call out the shooting team investigators and write a shooting incident report- which would have meant they would have had to stay on duty another 12-16 hours...Instead they just didn't report the shooting and went home- something he said has occurred many times with overworked BP just wanting to get home...He said shootings have got so frequent on the border that you spend 1/2 your time under investigation and the other 1/2 writing reports......

But this time they had hit someone, a drug smuggler, who after he got to Mexico stirred up enough controversy to get the BP and Attorney General to investigate....And then the Jury took the word of this convicted/admitted drug smuggler, that he didn't have a gun, over that of the Border Patrolmen....

The old Patrolman said his retirement date couldn't come soon enough...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I heard a complete discussion of this incident on talk radio some
time ago.

Basiclly, what they said on talk radio was exactly what you posted, OT.

I was hoping by now the men were released and not still facing
this.

WE, THE PEOPLE, need to do something. What can we do, OT?
This should not be allowed to happen. We need a leader...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
WE, THE PEOPLE, need to do something. What can we do, OT?
This should not be allowed to happen. We need a leader...

Sounds like we need to get on Bush and/or Congress to pardon them now...

I don't know what we're going to do to combat this "he's just a poor Mexican immigrant trying to feed his family" image every lawbreaking border jumper/drug smuggler is starting to get......
 

jigs

Well-known member
I am a big advocate of killing as many as we can who cross illegally, then the bastards will go through the gates like they are supposed to....then all that will be left trying to sneak are the drug smugglers....and we just keep killing them!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVASION USA
Imprisoned agent's wife:
President is a hypocrite
Calls State of the Union speech 'total sellout of the United States of America to Mexico'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 24, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Monica Ramos, the wife of one of two U.S. Border Patrol agents imprisoned last week for wounding an escaping drug smuggler, attended the State of the Union speech in person last night – and was sharply critical of President Bush, calling him a hypocrite and worse.
Ramos, wife of Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, attended the event as a guest of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences last week, of 11 and 12 years respectively, for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler who was granted full immunity to testify against them.

At the conclusion of the speech, Ramos, emotional and in tears, told WND in an exclusive interview, that she considered President Bush's speech compete hypocrisy. "

How could President Bush say that he wanted to secure our borders and that he would double the size of the Border Patrol when my husband is in prison," she asked WND. "Ignacio was trying to secure our border from drug smugglers. And what do we get? I have to show my children their father in prison in chains and I have to explain to them that the president of the United States is a liar."

WND waited nearly an hour after the speech was concluded to be able to speak with a clearly emotionally upset Monica Ramos.

"President Bush can say all he wants that the solution to border security is new infrastructure and technology," Ramos told WND, "but as long as my husband is in jail the American people should know that President Bush doesn't mean a word he says."



"What I sat in the gallery and heard tonight," she said, "was a total sell-out of the United States of America to Mexico. I heard President Bush's message loud and clear. All the president has to offer is electronic gadgets. Meanwhile, our borders are wide open to illegal immigrants, criminals and drug smugglers. God help the honest men and women of the Border Patrol who want to do their duty. It's a losing battle – just ask my husband, he'll tell you the truth."

"The American people only need to ask me," Ramos pleaded to WND. "Tell America that President Bush doesn't mean a word of what he says about border security. My husband is in jail for trying to capture a drug smuggler and President Bush wants electronics? My husband is a hero and President Bush is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. Let him tell my children that he wants new 'infrastructure' or 'comprehensive immigration reform' when their dad who wore the Border Patrol badge for years is shackled and in chains for doing his job."

Rohrabacher agreed with Ramos, emphasizing to WND that "the Bush administration has a hidden agenda with Mexico and that agenda is to keep our border with Mexico wide open, even to drug smugglers."

Asked what message he wanted to send by inviting Ramos' wife to attend the speech in person, Rohrabacher explained: "I wanted to give Mrs. Ramos the opportunity to be in the room and look President Bush right in the face, knowing that this was the man who was destroying her life by his decision to prosecute her husband to the hilt."

Rohrabacher described the injustice he perceived in emotional terms: "By prosecuting these two Border Patrol agents while the drug smuggler is given immunity, President Bush has brutalized the lives of agents Ramos and Compean with a decision that threatens to destroy their families. The wives and the young children of these two Border Patrol agents are now being driven into poverty. The families have no health insurance, they are now losing their homes, and they face a mountain of debt to lawyers. This is a travesty of justice and a personal tragedy that should make President Bush ashamed.

Asked if he had achieved his purpose in inviting Monica Ramos to attend the speech, Rohrabacher told WND:


My purpose after hearing the State of the Union tonight is doubly resolved. President Bush needs to know that we will not rest until Border Patrol [officers] Ramos and Compean are set free.
In history there are cases where heroic people were brutalized and sacrificed by political powers in order to achieve a certain agenda. In this case, I think that's what's happening.

We have an administration that has a hidden agenda with Mexico such that George Bush wants an open border, even though an open border is not in the interests of the American people.

These Border Patrol agents are caught in the middle. They're Americans and they know what their job is supposed to be. They are being persecuted and prosecuted for our sake because they are getting in the way of a power play that has yet been disclosed to the public.

It brutalizes the lives and destroys the families of men who have been willing to sacrifice their lives for us for the last five and 10 years. This is both a tragedy and a travesty.

The continued insistence of the administration to prosecute these Border Patrol agents and to put them in jail and to shackle them and see the families of these men being driven into destitution – this indicates that there has been a decision right at the top that's based on arrogance and cruelty that I think unfortunately reflects our president. It's a side of the president that is now coming out.

We get calls back from the underlings, the assistant congressional liaison officers. This president doesn't return phone calls and he is arrogant and nasty and doesn't treat people very well, not even members of Congress.

The statement we're trying to make is that the president's policy along the border is responsible for murders, drug dealers and terrorists entering the country, millions of illegals. His policy has resulted in the undermining of those law enforcement officers guarding the border, he has totally demoralized the Border Patrol, and in the process of him trying to send a message to the Border Patrol he's destroying the lives of two families. … This person looking right into the face of the president in the same room, this mother of three, her life is being destroyed by President Bush's decision to fully prosecute to the hilt her husband.

American citizens need to rally around these two Border Patrol agents and should call the White House directly to register their protest to this travesty of justice.

President Bush made no reference to the Border Patrol case in a 50-minute speech that focused on domestic issues in the first half and international issues in the second half.

Monica Ramos told WND she was in Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting yesterday afternoon with concerned congressmen.

At least 70 members of the House have signed on to a resolution ordering a congressional pardon that would toss out the convictions and immediately free the former agents.

Monica Ramos described her first meeting with her husband in prison as "heart breaking."

Ramos confirmed the account provided WND by her father, Joe Loya. She acknowledged her husband is being held in solitary confinement in a 6-by-12 foot cell, without windows. Ignacio Ramos is not being allowed any exercise time, and he is shackled every time he leaves his cell.

"This may be for his protection from other inmates," Monica Ramos acknowledged to WND, "but this is abusive. They are treating my husband like the worst hardened criminal imaginable."

She said one of her three young children is so disturbed by the imprisonment that the family has decided to seek counseling for the child.

"My children are planning to visit their father for the first time this Friday," she said, expressing concern. "This will be the first time they see their dad shackled in chains, when they are used to seeing me send him off in his badge and uniform."

The couple's youngest child is 7 years old, the others are aged 9 and 13.

"My youngest child wanted to know if we could order pizza for dad in prison," Monic Ramos said. "No, I told him. Let's wait and have pizza night when daddy gets home."
 

Texan

Well-known member
When I first heard about this case, I felt the same way most of you do. But after hearing the U.S. Attorney talking about the case last week, I changed my mind.

These guys screwed up and then tried to cover up what they had done. We don't need law enforcement like that. The fact that "everybody does it" or "it happens all the time" doesn't change that. I believe that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. The rest of us would be in jail for doing what they did, so why not them?

The jury heard evidence in a trial that lasted over two weeks....then found them guilty. Now some of you want the President to throw all of that away? To make an arbitrary decision that he knows more than the jurors that heard the case know? What kind of signal is that to be sending to jurors?

OT, have you just changed your mind about the importance of the jury system? Judge Strom overturns a jury's verdict...that's bad, right? But President Bush doing it is...good? Huh? I guess it just depends on whether or not you agree with the decision?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
When I first heard about this case, I felt the same way most of you do. But after hearing the U.S. Attorney talking about the case last week, I changed my mind.

These guys screwed up and then tried to cover up what they had done. We don't need law enforcement like that. The fact that "everybody does it" or "it happens all the time" doesn't change that. I believe that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. The rest of us would be in jail for doing what they did, so why not them?

The jury heard evidence in a trial that lasted over two weeks....then found them guilty. Now some of you want the President to throw all of that away? To make an arbitrary decision that he knows more than the jurors that heard the case know? What kind of signal is that to be sending to jurors?

OT, have you just changed your mind about the importance of the jury system? Judge Strom overturns a jury's verdict...that's bad, right? But President Bush doing it is...good? Huh? I guess it just depends on whether or not you agree with the decision?

Taking the word of an admitted drug smuggler over two Border Patrol Agents that admittedly screwed up is not justice in my mind....Especially when they were charged with a law that's intent was for druggies with guns- not law enforcement in a shootout with druggies...

And as is being shown in the Nifong case- if you get a prosecuter with his own agenda you can get bad prosecutions....

This is just more of the same as is happening in Iraq with "rules of engagement" lined up giving all the edge to the bad guys.....

I'll post some more on the rest of the story...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong law used to convict Border agents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 22, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



What crime is committed when two Border Patrol agents shoot in the buttocks a fleeing drug smuggler who has abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana?

Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., has on record a letter written to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Oct.11, 2006, charging that Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were charged under a statute that did not apply to the facts of the case. As previously reported by WND, the interview I conducted on Friday, Jan. 17, 2007 with the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, adds strong support to Rep. Jones's contention.

Jones notes that Ramos and Compean were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). This statute was written to increase the penalties when a violent criminal, such as a drug trafficker or a rapist, carries or uses a weapon during the commission of the crime. Law enforcement officers, including Border Patrol agents, are issued weapons by the Border Patrol to carry in the normal pursuit of their duties.


Ironically, Ramos and Compean were trying to apprehend an escaping suspect who was a drug smuggler. How is it that a law meant to punish armed drug smugglers is applied to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents who attempted to apprehend a person U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton properly characterizes as a drug-dealing ''dirt-bag?''

Jones notes that 18 U.S.C. Section 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) has only been applied to law enforcement officers who themselves commit heinous crimes, such as sexual assault, outside the scope of their official duties. As Jones writes, ''Ramos and Compean were within the scope of their official duties when they fired at an illegal drug smuggler they believe to be armed and dangerous.''

Besides, Sutton never argues that Ramos and Compean were committing a crime they aggravated by discharging weapons. Sutton's contention is that Ramos and Compean's crime was that they discharged weapons at all. This is a distinct fact situation from the one 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) was passed to involve.

Consider this exchange from my interview with Sutton:


WND: But one of the things here is that the law was passed, as I understand it, to basically punish criminals who in the process of committing crimes also fire weapons. The law was never intended to punish law enforcement officers who may have fired their weapons inappropriately when somebody else was committing a crime.

Sutton: The law applies to everyone. And there is no exception for law enforcement officers made.
Sutton misses the point. Sure, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) applies to law enforcement officers, but only when law enforcement officers themselves smuggle drugs or commit rapes and carry a firearm in the commission of those crimes. 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) was never written to define the rights and responsibilities of officers who carry weapons in the normal course of their law enforcement duties and decide to discharge those weapons at fleeing drug dealers.

Again, let's examine the next exchange in the interview with Sutton:


WND: But the original intent of that law, as I understand it, was to increase the punishment for criminals who when perpetrating their crimes discharge weapons. Is that not correct?

Sutton: I can't speak to what the Congressional intent was. All I can speak to is what the law says and the law says what it says, and it doesn't make any exception for law enforcement officers. It says that if you commit a crime of violence and you use a firearm during a crime of violence, it's ten year mandatory minimum stacked on top of what time you already have. No exception is made for law enforcement officers. The judge applied the law and if people want to change the law, then you can talk to their representatives.
What crime were Ramos and Compean committing, during which they decided to fire their weapons? Surely, Sutton does not consider it a crime for Border Patrol agents to stop and seek to arrest a person they suspect of smuggling drugs across the border.

As Jones rightly concludes, ''The application of Section 924(c) in this case is overly broad, setting a dangerous precedent of application to law enforcement officers trying to act within the scope of their official duties.'' Jones is correct. On appeal, the convictions should be dismissed because the prosecutor charged these Border Patrol agents under a law whose scope was clearly misapplied.

The real issue in this case should have been whether Ramos and Compean had justification for discharging their weapons in this situation. The applicable law would seem to first involve the INS Firearms Policy. In that policy, there appears to be the following.


Section 7(A). Discharging a firearm shall be done only with the intent of stopping a person or animal from continuing the threatening behavior which justifies the use of deadly force. When deadly force is justified, an officer may use any level of force necessary up to and including deadly force.

Section 7(B). Firearms may be discharged under the following circumstances:

(1) When the officer reasonably believes that the person at whom the firearm is to be discharged possesses the means, the intent, and the opportunity of causing death or grievous bodily harm upon the officer or another person.
Again, my interview with Sutton was informative. In explaining why agent Compean discharged 14 rounds and failed to hit the fleeing suspect, Sutton explained that agent Compean was experiencing a heightened physiological reaction that is commonly identified as a normal physical response to a perceived sense of imminent danger:


WND: So, Compean shot 14 times and missed everybody, but Ramos shot one time and hit the drug dealer in the buttocks?

Sutton: That's correct.

WND: Is Ramos that much better a shot than Compean?

Sutton: Ramos is a marksman.

WND: And Compean doesn't seem very competent?

Sutton: Well, get your adrenalin pumping some day and go to the target range one day and try to hit the target. It's sometimes harder than you think.
If the Border Patrol agents experienced adrenalin pumping, it is reasonable to conclude that they felt the drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, was armed and dangerous. The pumping adrenalin that Sutton admits impaired the aim of agent Compean should be prima facie evidence that agent Compean was experiencing an emotional response that could reasonably be associated with fear that the fleeing suspect yet possessed a weapon.

Moreover, in the interview, Sutton repeats almost as a litany a series of faults he has with the Border Patrol agents' conduct, including Sutton's conclusion that since Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila had his arms up at one point in the exchange, evidently wanting to surrender, the suspect must have been unarmed. Yet, when agent Compean slips in the mud, Aldrete-Davila takes off trying to escape. Simply because Aldrete-Davila did not fire a weapon back at the agents does not allow us to conclude that he did not have a concealed weapon at the time.

Maybe Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila had a concealed weapon he decided not to use, thinking that he only had a brief window where he could flee the scene and it would be better to keep running than to stop so he could shoot back at the agents.

Maybe Aldrete-Davila judged that if he had stayed to engage in a gun battle with the Border Patrol, he might have been himself killed or injured in the gun fire.

Certainly, Aldrete-Davila had reason to fear he was going to prison if he got apprehended. Sutton himself accepts this conclusion as evidenced by the interview:


Question: Why did Aldrete-Davila run?

Sutton: I'm sure he ran because he didn't want to go to jail. He's like all these other dirt-bag drug dealers; they don't want to get caught. We catch them every day and they know that when we catch them, they're going to go to prison.
How much time in the dirt and bush on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande did Aldrete-Davila feel he had before other Border Patrol agents would have an increased opportunity to apprehend him? Maybe it was simply better to keep running than to take the time to shot back at the agents.

An additional indisputable conclusion we must finalize is this: Since Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila managed to run away and escape back into Mexico across the border and was never apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol, truthfully nobody will ever know if he did or did not have a concealed weapon on him at the time.

From that conclusion follows this corollary: Because Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila got away, there is no argument the government can make that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed.

If Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean had properly been prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the INS Firearms Policy, the issue before the jury would have been limited to an investigation of the reasonableness of their firing at a fleeing suspect they had reason to believe was an armed drug dealer. Let's face it – how many drug dealers smuggle drugs unarmed?

The trial testimony shows that electronic sensors had warned Compean that Aldrete-Davila's van had crossed the Rio Grande illegally and was headed into the United States. Why was Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila driving a suspicious van on a route the Border Patrol agents knew from previous experience was a route routinely used by drug smugglers along our largely wide-open border with Mexico?

Next, why did Aldrete-Davila turn his vehicle around after Border Patrol Agent Oscar Juarez began pursuing him if his goal wasn't to try to escape back to Mexico on the dirt farm roads that headed back to the river?

How many job-seeking illegal aliens drive their cars into the U.S., only to turn and lead a wild pursuit along back roads in a desperate attempt to get across the Rio Grande before they're arrested?

Instead of presuming that Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean were guilty of criminal behavior, as the indictment suggested, the inquiry at the trial should have focused on how reasonable their assumption was that they were pursuing an armed and dangerous drug smuggler who had tried to escape first in his van, then on foot.

Clearly, this was not the case where experienced Border Patrol agents such as Ramos and Compean would have thought they were dealing with an obviously unarmed Mexican who crossed the Rio Grande illegally only because he wanted to get work to feed his starving family. Yet, from the trial record, this preposterous theory was what the government wanted the jury to presuppose. The government dared to suggest to the jury with a straight face that Aldrete-Davila might have been a harmless, unarmed Mexican who crossed the Rio Grande merely to find work. Moreover, the prosecution proposed that in running from the vicious Border Patrol, all Aldrete-Davila wanted to do was to go back home to his poor family. As ridiculous as these assertions seem, there are statements in the trial where the prosecutors asserted exactly this, virtually word for word. Too bad for the prosecutors that Aldrete-Davila just happened to run away from and leave behind a van with the 743 pounds of dope packed inside, instead of newspapers with ''Help Wanted'' ads circled.

The U.S. Army doctor who removed the bullet testified at the trial that the drug smuggler was not shot from behind, but that he removed the bullet from the side, with the bullet piercing the left side of his left buttock and traveled to his right groin. The doctor stated that Aldrete-Davila was in a running position when he was shot, consistent with pointing back toward the agents with his left arm and hand when the bullet hit him in the rear end. This is consistent with the testimony of the agents that they saw Aldrete-Davila pointing something back at them which they believed to be a gun.

Moreover, why would Ramos or Compean have any reason to believe Aldrete-Davila was hit by any of their shots? From the testimony at the trial, Aldrete-Davila got across the Rio Grande and disappeared into the tall, thick brush along the river. A short time later, Border Patrol agents observed Aldrete-Davila running across the dry river bed where he jumped into a waiting vehicle with two other suspects.

Yet, from the get-go, Sutton cleverly reframed the issue to bias the trial in the government's favor. This was the point of charging Ramos and Compean inappropriately under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The statute presumes those charged, namely Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, were involved in the commission of a crime when they fired their weapons. This is totally inaccurate and misleading given the facts of the case. Yet, the presumption of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) – that criminal behavior was already being conducted by the accused – appears precisely suited to the impression Sutton wanted to create. The criminals here, according to Sutton, are the law enforcement officers. Every presumption Sutton made was sympathetic to the drug dealer in this case.

If any criminal action were ever to be brought in this issue, an unbiased prosecutor would have brought charges accusing the Border Patrol defendants of discharging their weapons inappropriately under the provisions of the INS Firearms Policy, not for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). The suggestion in the indictment itself was that the Border Patrol agents were somehow already criminals when they fired their weapons.

By charging the agents under an inappropriate statute, prosecutor Sutton focused the inquiry on the supposed criminal behavior of the agents, rather than on the narrow issue of whether the Border Patrol agents had reasonable cause to believe the fleeing suspect was a drug-smuggling criminal who most likely did have a concealed weapon on his person.

There is a long and involved body of law that has evolved over decades concerning whether law enforcement agents are justified in discharging their weapons at fleeing suspects. The limits of credibility are stretched in this case to believe that Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean acted in a criminally inappropriate manner, especially when the fleeing perpetrator (described now by the prosecutor as ''scum'') was found to have driven a van with 743 pounds of marijuana across our border with Mexico.

There is nothing in this case, except the subtle presumption framed by the indictment, to suggest that Aldrete-Davila was anything but a criminal perpetrator. How can anyone fail to notice that the U.S. Attorney's office has in this case managed to transform a drug-smuggling perpetrator into the victim?

We should also note that one reason the prison terms of 11 and 12 years served up to Ramos and Compean respectively seem excessively harsh is because 10 years is the mandatory prison term attached to violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), as my interview with Sutton also made clear. This is the added penalty which the legislators who wrote 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) felt anyone already committing a serious crime, such as drug smuggling or rape, should have to pay as an add-on for the additional offense of carrying or discharging a firearm in the omission of the drug smuggling offense or rape. In other words, the excessive jail terms given Ramos and Compean is additional evidence that prosecutor Sutton brought the indictments under an inappropriate statute.

Sutton had the option of investigating in Mexico to find the perpetrator, even if the evidence on the scene was minimal. Again, a section of the interview with Sutton is relevant.


Question: People are going to say that 700 pounds of marijuana is a serious offense.

Sutton: Absolutely. This is what my office is dedicated to. We think smuggling drugs into this country is a serious crime. We prosecute those cases every day. We are one of the highest producing U.S. Attorneys offices in the United States, if not the highest for drug prosecutions. We are very aggressive. We prosecute drug smugglers every day. I'd much prefer to be having that discussion, but unfortunately, the criminal behavior of these two agents brought us to this point.
Earlier in the interview, Sutton had mentioned in passing during the interview that Department of Homeland Security investigators were involved with Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila's family. We are separately told that Homeland Security's Christopher Sanchez was in Mexico investigating Aldrete-Davila when the U.S. Attorney's office decided it was best to give him immunity. What was that all about?

Clearly, the drug cartels knew who Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was. Where did Aldrete-Davila get the drugs in the first place? We can imagine that a different prosecutor who was totally focused on stopping drug trafficking from Mexico could have used the facts of this case to begin a sweeping investigation into the Mexican drug traffic. But U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton chose not to go that route.

That Sutton was drawn to the presumption that the Border Patrol agents in this case were the bad guys weighs heavily upon the credibility of the Bush administration to be serious about protecting U.S. citizens by securing our border. We strongly believe that with Ramos and Compean in prison, U.S. Attorney Sutton has given Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila the upper hand in suing the Border Patrol for $4 million for violating his civil rights.

If Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a drug smuggling ''dirt bag'' from Mexico, ends up being rewarded $4 million while Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean are in federal prison, we believe President George W. Bush will once and for all lose the sympathy and credibility of the American people on the issue of border security.

We will then rightly conclude that George W. Bush has always had only one intention and that is to do anything necessary to force another ''guest-worker amnesty'' down the throat of the American people. This is the bill the Bush administration supported in the 109th Congress and it is the bill we suspect the Bush administration will force once more in the 110th Congress.

Meanwhile, the clever attorneys for Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila will be preparing to collect by calling the U.S. Attorney's office forward to testify as they pursue their client's claim for damages against the imprisoned Border Patrol agents.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53873


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Taking the word of an admitted drug smuggler over two Border Patrol Agents that admittedly screwed up is not justice in my mind....Especially when they were charged with a law that's intent was for druggies with guns- not law enforcement in a shootout with druggies...

This is just more of the same as is happening in Iraq with "rules of engagement" lined up giving all the edge to the bad guys.....
I'll post some more on the rest of the story...
I don't believe in giving the bad guys the edge, either. But I do believe that we should trust in the jurors that heard all of the evidence to make the right decision.

Granted, they don't always do that. But for our legal system to work, we can't just throw the work of the jury away, can we? That's what you are advocating. Telling the jury...and all prospective jurors in the future...that they wasted their time.

If there's some grounds for the judge to throw out the verdict, fine. But to expect the President to throw it out isn't right...
 

jigs

Well-known member
lets meet the jurors.......

Jose
Miguel
Carlito
Antonio
Maria
Conswelo
Margurite
Chavez
Hector
Vicente
Bob
Suzy
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
But to expect the President to throw it out isn't right...

You should have told that to Bill Clinton....

Texan- I also am the first to go after and prosecute law enforcement that are on the take or profiting from their position... Dirty cops have to be punished....But these BP were not profiting from their actions- their only mistake was to cut corners in an effort to keep from having to be on duty for many more hours- actions that in most state and local departments would be handled administratively- not criminally....

Now you tell me whats wrong with this picture- when the Administration/Prosecution takes the word of and decides its more important to grant immunity to an illigal alien drug smuggler who had just smuggled in 743 lbs of marijuana- over that of their own guys that they stuck on the front lines to supposedly stop that smuggling- so they can prosecute them for what shouldn't even be considered a crime....

Like I've been saying for sometime- when you tie Bush to that border things begin to stink to high heaven- and as Congressman Rohrbacher said:

Rohrabacher agreed with Ramos, emphasizing to WND that "the Bush administration has a hidden agenda with Mexico and that agenda is to keep our border with Mexico wide open, even to drug smugglers."
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
jigs said:
I am a big advocate of killing as many as we can who cross illegally, then the bastards will go through the gates like they are supposed to....then all that will be left trying to sneak are the drug smugglers....and we just keep killing them!

Jigs, You are DEFINITELY going to make that watch list I told you about.
 

txag

Well-known member
jigs said:
lets meet the jurors.......

Jose
Miguel
Carlito
Antonio
Maria
Conswelo
Margurite
Chavez
Hector
Vicente
Bob
Suzy

jigs, those aren't the jurors......add another Jose & it's my daughter's kindergarten class.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
txag said:
jigs said:
lets meet the jurors.......

Jose
Miguel
Carlito
Antonio
Maria
Conswelo
Margurite
Chavez
Hector
Vicente
Bob
Suzy

jigs, those aren't the jurors......add another Jose & it's my daughter's kindergarten class.

:lol: :lol:

I was thinking it was the Janitor crew at the Local Wal-Mart.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Jose
Miguel
Carlito
Antonio
Maria
Conswelo
Margurite
Chavez
Hector
Vicente
Bob
Suzy

I though it was Bob and Suzy's landscaping crew....but soon realized it was Nancy's SF house staff... :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
Jose
Miguel
Carlito
Antonio
Maria
Conswelo
Margurite
Chavez
Hector
Vicente
Bob
Suzy

I though it was Bob and Suzy's landscaping crew....but soon realized it was Nancy's SF house staff... :roll: :roll: :roll:

I thought it was the list of people with a restraining order against Jigs :lol:
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
I've been a supporter of GW, but I don't agree with his handling of the border. It's not just Mexicans who cross, it's also Muslims who wish to destroy America.

Both sides of the aisle should band together on this one. Imagine how we could balance the budget a little quicker without the ILLEGALS taking advantage of our "freebie" programs :!:
 
Top