0 comment Wednesday, September 17, 2014 | admin
Is anybody surprised?
Judge denies freedom plea by jailed ex-agents
A federal appeals court judge yesterday denied a motion by former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean that they be released from prison pending appeals in their convictions for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect.
[...]
They sought release pending the outcome of their appeals, but the motion was denied by U.S. District Judge Fortunato Pedro "Pete" Benavides of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Austin, Texas, who said the men "had not shown unique or unusual circumstances that justify their release based on an exceptional reason."
Judge Benavides granted a motion by Ramos that his appeal be sealed and ordered the government's response to both men's motions sealed. ''
And here, there are allegations that another Border Patrol officer, who was a friend of the drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, was a double agent:
I believe Rene Sanchez acted as a 'double agent' in the Ramos-Compean case," Joe Loya, father of Ramos's wife Monica, told WND. "He was doing everything he could to protect his life-long friend, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, but at the same time he was working with Johnny Sutton to make sure Ramos and Compean were convicted."
Loya further charged that he had reason to believe "Rene Sanchez's actions make it look like he could have been in the drug business with Aldrete-Davila all along.'
But the possibility of ascertaining the truth of this whole matter, much less of obtaining justice, looks more remote all the time, as the system seems to thwart every effort made to determine what really happened, and why.
Doug Patton, in this piece at Human Events, argues for a Presidential pardon for Ramos and Compean:
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two former border patrol agents, are now serving hard time in prison. If you are unfamiliar with these two men, you are getting far too much of your news from the mainstream media, which has virtually ignored their story. Ramos and Compean were on duty along the Rio Grande in Texas when a Mexican drug smuggler named Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila tried to flee back across the river into Mexico. Aldrete-Davila brandished what the agents thought was a gun. Ramos and Compean fired their firearms at the suspect, but when he continued to flee, they logically assumed he had not been injured.
Fast forward two weeks, and our tax dollars were being used to transport the drug smuggler back into the United States, where he was given full immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean -- for shooting him in the buttocks! They were tried and sentenced to 10 years each.
Subsequent information has shown that "evidence" brought against Ramos and Compean was fabricated by officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[...]
So let�s review: Two border agents shoot a drug smuggler and end up serving time in federal prison. A bounty hunter brings a dangerous serial rapist to justice and gets extradited to face the hell of a Mexican prison. And Scooter Libby faces a possible sentence of 20 years in prison for leaking the name of a CIA employee whose name was already known, while Bill Clinton�s former security advisor, Sandy Berger, gets a slap on the wrist for stuffing Top Secret documents in his pants and stealing them from the National Archives.
Pardon these men immediately, Mr. President.''
Meanwhile, Ramos and Compean have their own song now. Michael Britton, a Southern California musician, has recorded a song he wrote about Ramos and Compean.
Michael Britton, who makes a living performing an acoustic one-man-band show, said he was inspired to act when he learned details of the case. Ramos and Compean were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively after a drug smuggler they shot fleeing across the border was given immunity to testify against them.
"I'm upset that men like Ramos and Compean are sitting in federal prison simply for doing their jobs, while drug smugglers are allowed to go free and sue the Border Patrol for violating their 'civil rights,' he said.
You can hear the song here.
And last, this op-ed piece implies that many immigration-restrictionist conservatives are rallying behind Ramos and Compean not because they are truly thought to be innocent, but because of frustration and anger towards our government in its refusal (I started to say failure, but decided refusal was correct) to enforce our laws.
Could the movement around Ramos and Compean simply be a byproduct of the American people�s frustration toward their government? Are Americans capable of excusing the actions of these men to make a statement to an administration that seemingly cares more about Iraqi confidence in their government�s ability to protect and preserve Iraq, than the American people�s confidence in its own leadership to protect and preserve America?''
The writer of this op-ed makes the same unconvincing arguments which I have read and heard from the usual 'respectable Republicans'; his supporting evidence being the U.S. Attorney's Office transcripts.
The writer points out that the official version of the story contradicts the version given by Ramos and Compean and other skeptics of the administration's version. But as usual, the administration, and Johnny Sutton's office, must be right, and the opposition wrong. Obviously this op-ed writer has not chosen to read any of the voluminous evidence, which I and others have linked to previously, casting doubt on the 'official' version of events. Even if one believes that the agents are guilty as hell, which the op-ed writer apparently believes, the fact remains that Ramos and Compean seem to have been way more important than they seemed, since the government seems to have gone to extraordinary lengths to see that they were made an example of and punished to the full extent of the law and more. I invite anyone who doubts that to check the records concerning the prosecution and sentencing of Border Patrol agents accused of wrongdoing. There are a number of such cases, involving agents who colluded with human smugglers, illegal aliens, and drug lords, often for an extended period of time, flouting the laws of the land, the laws they are sworn to uphold, and who received milder treatment from our government, and lesser sentences. How does that work? How do the knee-jerk defenders of the administration account for that? Surely men who may have gone a little overboard in doing their job should not be punished as harshly as agents who knowingly broke our laws and colluded with drug lords and illegals. It should give people pause that men who are trying to uphold our laws and protect our borders are made an example of, while rogue agents, with a long pattern of corruption, are given lesser sentences. It shows the priorities of our administration. But the op-ed writer's argument, following the usual pattern, is thus:
Either the US Attorney General for the District of West Texas, 12 jurors, two additional border patrol agents, and one judge are heartlessly lying to "get" these two agents for some dark motive or agenda, or these cause groups are using this event to elicit donations and pull media attention back to the border. Media attention that was lost when the majority of the politicians who responded to their pressure lost their offices in the last election.''
This writer is either being disingenuous or he has obstinately refused to read the many reports which cast doubt on the administration's case. I am not going to repost all the links I've previously posted here on the subject, but there is plenty of evidence of irregularities in the government's case. That is not the same as saying, in the straw man argument above, that Johnny Sutton, a judge, 12 jurors, and various others all 'lied' in a plot serving 'some dark motive or agenda.' Various people involved may have lied for venal ends of their own, and it is hardly unknown for the government to deceive in the name of 'secrecy' or in the name of plain old CYA. The op-ed writer surely does not think that people in official positions are scrupulously honest at all times; they are as human as anyone else, and government officials can and do lie and obfuscate. Homeland Security officials admitted during recent Congressional hearings on the Ramos-Compean case, that they did in fact 'mislead' the Congressmen in previous statements, admitting that the evidence they claimed to have never in fact existed.
And the stories of overzealous prosecution of law enforcement officers like Gilmer Hernandez and David Sipe should confirm that there is a pattern to these kinds of incidents: the message seems to be that those who are zealous in going after drug smugglers and illegals are going to be made an example of. As to what the 'dark motive or agenda' is, I can only guess, as can the rest of us; we need to examine this pattern and determine where the orders are coming from.
But the need of some people to defend their anointed elected leaders, and to defend their Party, often trumps the desire to know the truth, or to seek justice. It must make life incredibly simple, when your only concern is the well-being of 'your' political party our 'your' guys in office.
Judge denies freedom plea by jailed ex-agents
A federal appeals court judge yesterday denied a motion by former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean that they be released from prison pending appeals in their convictions for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect.
[...]
They sought release pending the outcome of their appeals, but the motion was denied by U.S. District Judge Fortunato Pedro "Pete" Benavides of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Austin, Texas, who said the men "had not shown unique or unusual circumstances that justify their release based on an exceptional reason."
Judge Benavides granted a motion by Ramos that his appeal be sealed and ordered the government's response to both men's motions sealed. ''
And here, there are allegations that another Border Patrol officer, who was a friend of the drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, was a double agent:
I believe Rene Sanchez acted as a 'double agent' in the Ramos-Compean case," Joe Loya, father of Ramos's wife Monica, told WND. "He was doing everything he could to protect his life-long friend, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, but at the same time he was working with Johnny Sutton to make sure Ramos and Compean were convicted."
Loya further charged that he had reason to believe "Rene Sanchez's actions make it look like he could have been in the drug business with Aldrete-Davila all along.'
But the possibility of ascertaining the truth of this whole matter, much less of obtaining justice, looks more remote all the time, as the system seems to thwart every effort made to determine what really happened, and why.
Doug Patton, in this piece at Human Events, argues for a Presidential pardon for Ramos and Compean:
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two former border patrol agents, are now serving hard time in prison. If you are unfamiliar with these two men, you are getting far too much of your news from the mainstream media, which has virtually ignored their story. Ramos and Compean were on duty along the Rio Grande in Texas when a Mexican drug smuggler named Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila tried to flee back across the river into Mexico. Aldrete-Davila brandished what the agents thought was a gun. Ramos and Compean fired their firearms at the suspect, but when he continued to flee, they logically assumed he had not been injured.
Fast forward two weeks, and our tax dollars were being used to transport the drug smuggler back into the United States, where he was given full immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean -- for shooting him in the buttocks! They were tried and sentenced to 10 years each.
Subsequent information has shown that "evidence" brought against Ramos and Compean was fabricated by officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[...]
So let�s review: Two border agents shoot a drug smuggler and end up serving time in federal prison. A bounty hunter brings a dangerous serial rapist to justice and gets extradited to face the hell of a Mexican prison. And Scooter Libby faces a possible sentence of 20 years in prison for leaking the name of a CIA employee whose name was already known, while Bill Clinton�s former security advisor, Sandy Berger, gets a slap on the wrist for stuffing Top Secret documents in his pants and stealing them from the National Archives.
Pardon these men immediately, Mr. President.''
Meanwhile, Ramos and Compean have their own song now. Michael Britton, a Southern California musician, has recorded a song he wrote about Ramos and Compean.
Michael Britton, who makes a living performing an acoustic one-man-band show, said he was inspired to act when he learned details of the case. Ramos and Compean were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively after a drug smuggler they shot fleeing across the border was given immunity to testify against them.
"I'm upset that men like Ramos and Compean are sitting in federal prison simply for doing their jobs, while drug smugglers are allowed to go free and sue the Border Patrol for violating their 'civil rights,' he said.
You can hear the song here.
And last, this op-ed piece implies that many immigration-restrictionist conservatives are rallying behind Ramos and Compean not because they are truly thought to be innocent, but because of frustration and anger towards our government in its refusal (I started to say failure, but decided refusal was correct) to enforce our laws.
Could the movement around Ramos and Compean simply be a byproduct of the American people�s frustration toward their government? Are Americans capable of excusing the actions of these men to make a statement to an administration that seemingly cares more about Iraqi confidence in their government�s ability to protect and preserve Iraq, than the American people�s confidence in its own leadership to protect and preserve America?''
The writer of this op-ed makes the same unconvincing arguments which I have read and heard from the usual 'respectable Republicans'; his supporting evidence being the U.S. Attorney's Office transcripts.
The writer points out that the official version of the story contradicts the version given by Ramos and Compean and other skeptics of the administration's version. But as usual, the administration, and Johnny Sutton's office, must be right, and the opposition wrong. Obviously this op-ed writer has not chosen to read any of the voluminous evidence, which I and others have linked to previously, casting doubt on the 'official' version of events. Even if one believes that the agents are guilty as hell, which the op-ed writer apparently believes, the fact remains that Ramos and Compean seem to have been way more important than they seemed, since the government seems to have gone to extraordinary lengths to see that they were made an example of and punished to the full extent of the law and more. I invite anyone who doubts that to check the records concerning the prosecution and sentencing of Border Patrol agents accused of wrongdoing. There are a number of such cases, involving agents who colluded with human smugglers, illegal aliens, and drug lords, often for an extended period of time, flouting the laws of the land, the laws they are sworn to uphold, and who received milder treatment from our government, and lesser sentences. How does that work? How do the knee-jerk defenders of the administration account for that? Surely men who may have gone a little overboard in doing their job should not be punished as harshly as agents who knowingly broke our laws and colluded with drug lords and illegals. It should give people pause that men who are trying to uphold our laws and protect our borders are made an example of, while rogue agents, with a long pattern of corruption, are given lesser sentences. It shows the priorities of our administration. But the op-ed writer's argument, following the usual pattern, is thus:
Either the US Attorney General for the District of West Texas, 12 jurors, two additional border patrol agents, and one judge are heartlessly lying to "get" these two agents for some dark motive or agenda, or these cause groups are using this event to elicit donations and pull media attention back to the border. Media attention that was lost when the majority of the politicians who responded to their pressure lost their offices in the last election.''
This writer is either being disingenuous or he has obstinately refused to read the many reports which cast doubt on the administration's case. I am not going to repost all the links I've previously posted here on the subject, but there is plenty of evidence of irregularities in the government's case. That is not the same as saying, in the straw man argument above, that Johnny Sutton, a judge, 12 jurors, and various others all 'lied' in a plot serving 'some dark motive or agenda.' Various people involved may have lied for venal ends of their own, and it is hardly unknown for the government to deceive in the name of 'secrecy' or in the name of plain old CYA. The op-ed writer surely does not think that people in official positions are scrupulously honest at all times; they are as human as anyone else, and government officials can and do lie and obfuscate. Homeland Security officials admitted during recent Congressional hearings on the Ramos-Compean case, that they did in fact 'mislead' the Congressmen in previous statements, admitting that the evidence they claimed to have never in fact existed.
And the stories of overzealous prosecution of law enforcement officers like Gilmer Hernandez and David Sipe should confirm that there is a pattern to these kinds of incidents: the message seems to be that those who are zealous in going after drug smugglers and illegals are going to be made an example of. As to what the 'dark motive or agenda' is, I can only guess, as can the rest of us; we need to examine this pattern and determine where the orders are coming from.
But the need of some people to defend their anointed elected leaders, and to defend their Party, often trumps the desire to know the truth, or to seek justice. It must make life incredibly simple, when your only concern is the well-being of 'your' political party our 'your' guys in office.
Labels: Border Patrol, Illegal Immigration, Justice System, Open Borders
0 comment Friday, September 5, 2014 | admin
Did anybody catch Tuesday's Lou Dobbs Tonight special on the border? I saw only part of the segment in which Dobbs interviewed Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney who is now being criticized for his seemingly overzealous prosecution of the two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
Dobbs is to be commended for his dogged devotion to the illegal immigration issue; no one else in the MSM pursues this subject as relentlessly as he does. In the part of the interview with Johnny Sutton which I saw, I was amazed at his toughness with Sutton. I thought he really had Sutton cornered, and he kept peppering him with questions. Bill O'Reilly over at Fox looks positively timid compared to Dobbs in this interview; talk about the 'no-spin zone.' Dobbs had Sutton on the ropes; Sutton did not acquit himself well at all. He had no convincing answers, and he was on the defensive, sputtering and stumbling at times when Dobbs had him pinned.
Dobbs kept asking him who instigated the prosecution.
DOBBS: ... did you get orders from Washington, D.C. to prosecute this case?
SUTTON: Absolutely not. This case...
DOBBS: Did you in point of fact ask for the FBI to investigate it?
SUTTON: No, I mean the FBI...
DOBBS: Why not?
SUTTON: These are standard procedures. The FBI was notified. OIG was notified...
DOBBS: They're notified.
SUTTON: They decided who -- who...
DOBBS: The inspector general is caught point blank lying to Congress about this case. Where did they get the idea that these agents were dirty?
SUTTON: Six months after the trial, there's a briefing in Washington that...
DOBBS: No, no, no.
SUTTON: Yes, yes, yes.
DOBBS: No, no.
SUTTON: Six months after the trial, there's a briefing. I can't tell what some bureaucrats say in Washington. That didn't affect the jury. The jury already...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: You're doing what they tell you to do because the OIG led the investigation instead of the FBI. And now you're calling them bureaucrats?
SUTTON: What these guys...
DOBBS: I agree with you, but...
SUTTON: They're talking about a case that they had nothing with. The jury had already convicted these guys before these congressmen got their hearing. But of course, out there in the world, that's a big -- that's a big conspiracy.
DOBBS: If you had it to do over tonight, would you still go after these two men?
SUTTON: Absolutely. In America, the cops are the good guys.
Transcript is here; read the rest; the segments with Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Ted Poe are also worth reading.
And here is more background on Sutton:
A respected U.S. prosecutor faces a conservative backlash over convictions that sent two Border Patrol agents to prison
WASHINGTON - Throughout his rise from a rookie prosecutor's job in Houston to a position as a U.S. attorney pursuing criminals across much of Texas, Johnny Sutton said, he was bound by an unwavering ethic: Do the right thing and follow the facts, even when they lead to "unhappy places" such as errant public servants.
Sutton's adherence to that credo has transformed him from a relatively low-profile federal prosecutor to a punching bag on conservative talk shows and Web sites, where he's been vilified for weeks for prosecuting two Border Patrol agents who now are imprisoned for shooting a Mexican drug courier.
Another prosecution, involving a Texas sheriff's deputy who fired at a vehicle loaded with illegal immigrants, has heightened the outcry. T.J. Bonner, the head of the national Border Patrol agents' union, calls Sutton "public enemy No. 1." Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a former Harris County judge who remembers Sutton as an able young prosecutor, now accuses him of choosing "the wrong side" in the border war.
Read the rest here.
And last, here is an interesting piece about Sutton's possible role in the DOJ firing scandal; see the e-mails in which Sutton is mentioned.
I don't know that we will ever know the whole story on this case.
Dobbs is to be commended for his dogged devotion to the illegal immigration issue; no one else in the MSM pursues this subject as relentlessly as he does. In the part of the interview with Johnny Sutton which I saw, I was amazed at his toughness with Sutton. I thought he really had Sutton cornered, and he kept peppering him with questions. Bill O'Reilly over at Fox looks positively timid compared to Dobbs in this interview; talk about the 'no-spin zone.' Dobbs had Sutton on the ropes; Sutton did not acquit himself well at all. He had no convincing answers, and he was on the defensive, sputtering and stumbling at times when Dobbs had him pinned.
Dobbs kept asking him who instigated the prosecution.
DOBBS: ... did you get orders from Washington, D.C. to prosecute this case?
SUTTON: Absolutely not. This case...
DOBBS: Did you in point of fact ask for the FBI to investigate it?
SUTTON: No, I mean the FBI...
DOBBS: Why not?
SUTTON: These are standard procedures. The FBI was notified. OIG was notified...
DOBBS: They're notified.
SUTTON: They decided who -- who...
DOBBS: The inspector general is caught point blank lying to Congress about this case. Where did they get the idea that these agents were dirty?
SUTTON: Six months after the trial, there's a briefing in Washington that...
DOBBS: No, no, no.
SUTTON: Yes, yes, yes.
DOBBS: No, no.
SUTTON: Six months after the trial, there's a briefing. I can't tell what some bureaucrats say in Washington. That didn't affect the jury. The jury already...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: You're doing what they tell you to do because the OIG led the investigation instead of the FBI. And now you're calling them bureaucrats?
SUTTON: What these guys...
DOBBS: I agree with you, but...
SUTTON: They're talking about a case that they had nothing with. The jury had already convicted these guys before these congressmen got their hearing. But of course, out there in the world, that's a big -- that's a big conspiracy.
DOBBS: If you had it to do over tonight, would you still go after these two men?
SUTTON: Absolutely. In America, the cops are the good guys.
Transcript is here; read the rest; the segments with Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Ted Poe are also worth reading.
And here is more background on Sutton:
A respected U.S. prosecutor faces a conservative backlash over convictions that sent two Border Patrol agents to prison
WASHINGTON - Throughout his rise from a rookie prosecutor's job in Houston to a position as a U.S. attorney pursuing criminals across much of Texas, Johnny Sutton said, he was bound by an unwavering ethic: Do the right thing and follow the facts, even when they lead to "unhappy places" such as errant public servants.
Sutton's adherence to that credo has transformed him from a relatively low-profile federal prosecutor to a punching bag on conservative talk shows and Web sites, where he's been vilified for weeks for prosecuting two Border Patrol agents who now are imprisoned for shooting a Mexican drug courier.
Another prosecution, involving a Texas sheriff's deputy who fired at a vehicle loaded with illegal immigrants, has heightened the outcry. T.J. Bonner, the head of the national Border Patrol agents' union, calls Sutton "public enemy No. 1." Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a former Harris County judge who remembers Sutton as an able young prosecutor, now accuses him of choosing "the wrong side" in the border war.
Read the rest here.
And last, here is an interesting piece about Sutton's possible role in the DOJ firing scandal; see the e-mails in which Sutton is mentioned.
I don't know that we will ever know the whole story on this case.
Labels: Border Patrol, Borders, Justice System
0 comment Sunday, August 24, 2014 | admin
Just a quick update on the Ramos-Compean story; we haven't forgotten about these men.
Velvethammer at the Ironic Surrealism blog informs us about the "Free Ramos and Compean" Campaign, which is apparently a nationwide effort:
You are invited to actively participate in our ''Free Ramos and Compean'' campaign.
We are all determined to continue the fight to free Nacho Ramos and Jose Compean and the American Freedom Riders feel strongly that our noise level should remain high and constant. It is important that we convince the Justice Department and George Bush that the opposition to the imprisonment of these agents will continue to increase in volume rather than subside
The implications of this fight go far beyond the treatment of agents Ramos and Compean. At stake here is the ability of all border Patrol agents to effectively enforce our immigration laws without fear of prosecution.
Please check out the details here.
And see this article:
Ballistics data don't support charge against border agents
by Jerome R. Corsi
Ballistics reports, used in the trial of Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos, one of two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting fleeing drug dealer Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, do not support the prosecution's claim the bullet was fired from Ramos' gun, according to documents provided to WND from Andy Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol.
The rest of the article can be read here.
There is a lot of spin out there, attempting to justify the case against Ramos and Compean, so we need to be aware of the facts so as to appropriately judge the spin that is presented.
Velvethammer at the Ironic Surrealism blog informs us about the "Free Ramos and Compean" Campaign, which is apparently a nationwide effort:
You are invited to actively participate in our ''Free Ramos and Compean'' campaign.
We are all determined to continue the fight to free Nacho Ramos and Jose Compean and the American Freedom Riders feel strongly that our noise level should remain high and constant. It is important that we convince the Justice Department and George Bush that the opposition to the imprisonment of these agents will continue to increase in volume rather than subside
The implications of this fight go far beyond the treatment of agents Ramos and Compean. At stake here is the ability of all border Patrol agents to effectively enforce our immigration laws without fear of prosecution.
Please check out the details here.
And see this article:
Ballistics data don't support charge against border agents
by Jerome R. Corsi
Ballistics reports, used in the trial of Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos, one of two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting fleeing drug dealer Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, do not support the prosecution's claim the bullet was fired from Ramos' gun, according to documents provided to WND from Andy Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol.
The rest of the article can be read here.
There is a lot of spin out there, attempting to justify the case against Ramos and Compean, so we need to be aware of the facts so as to appropriately judge the spin that is presented.
Labels: Border Patrol, Borders, Illegal Immigration
0 comment Tuesday, July 8, 2014 | admin
Homeland Security won't release papers on border agents' case
Sara A. Carter, of the Inland Daily Bulletin in California, deserves credit for doing yeoman's work on border issues and immigration. She does consistently good work on these issues; it's a shame that she doesn't receive wider attention. Truth and honesty on the borders/immigration issue are in short supply, as the media drones just crank out endless sob stories and template stories on the poor fearful immigrants.
I post the article linked above not just because I admire Sara Carter's writing, but because she is putting some facts out there which need to be read.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the Daily Bulletin on Wednesday that Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner has refused to deliver documents confirming his office's claims that Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean admitted they "were out to shoot Mexicans," and knowingly shot Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a drug smuggler, in a border incident nearly two years ago.
McCaul and three other House members met with Skinner on Sept. 26, 2006, to discuss the agents' case.
The Daily Bulletin obtained a confidential Office of Inspector General memo from an interview Compean gave to investigators on March 18, 2005.
The memo, dated April 4, 2005, supports the agent's claim that he believed his life was in danger when he tried to apprehend the Mexican drug smuggler on Feb. 17, 2005.'' [Emphasis mine]
The article notes that McCaul and his colleagues are demanding the documents supporting the Homeland Security department's version of events.
I want to weigh the facts and the evidence in this case," McCaul said. "Either it is total arrogance or gross incompetence on the part of the Inspector General's office. If what (the DHS) told us was a lie, or if they misrepresented the facts on this case to members of Congress, we are going to hold them accountable."
Full transcripts from Ramos and Compean's trial last spring still have not been made available to Congress or the public. According to McCaul, repeated requests for the transcripts since November have been answered with excuses.
[...]According to the memorandum, seven other agents were on the scene at the time of the shooting, including two supervisors whom Ramos and Compean both stated knew about the incident.
No other agents at the scene that day were prosecuted, and some were given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean.
Agents and supervisors are required to file a written report if they participate in or know of an incident, according to TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents nearly 11,000 Border Patrol agents.
"The steadfast refusal of the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to provide relevant information to Congress and the public about why Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos were prosecuted causes people to wonder what they are trying to hide," Bonner said. ''
If the official version of what happened is true, then why the stonewalling and the reluctance to cooperate with the House members who are investigating? These are questions I would like to see answered by the legions of GOP loyalists on the internet forums and blogs, who are trashing Ramos and Compean, and defending the administration's actions.
I've noticed that in discussing the Ramos-Compean story lately, many people are spreading the DOJ's version of events, which paints Ramos and Compean as rogue agents who broke rules and laws and then covered up their wrongdoing. I am dismayed that so many people, especially Republicans, are eager to buy into the spin. Of course, given that many Republicans are blind party loyalists who think that their leaders can absolutely do no wrong, and given that many of these faux conservatives are open-borders partisans, it isn't so surprising. For some people, their party loyalty and their loyalty to the administration is very much on the level of religious faith; it's an unquestioning, blind, passive faith, and they are angered by anyone who commits the heresy of criticizing anything 'their guy' does.
The blogosphere can play a part in getting both sides of the story out there, since the national media have not given this case the scrutiny it demands.
For a detailed account, here's a link to a letter by Joe Loya, father-in-law of Ignacio Ramos. He gives a detailed account of what happened, from Ramos' point of view. It's worth reading.
Let's not let the spinmeisters and party hacks dominate the discussion on this story.
Sara A. Carter, of the Inland Daily Bulletin in California, deserves credit for doing yeoman's work on border issues and immigration. She does consistently good work on these issues; it's a shame that she doesn't receive wider attention. Truth and honesty on the borders/immigration issue are in short supply, as the media drones just crank out endless sob stories and template stories on the poor fearful immigrants.
I post the article linked above not just because I admire Sara Carter's writing, but because she is putting some facts out there which need to be read.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the Daily Bulletin on Wednesday that Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner has refused to deliver documents confirming his office's claims that Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean admitted they "were out to shoot Mexicans," and knowingly shot Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a drug smuggler, in a border incident nearly two years ago.
McCaul and three other House members met with Skinner on Sept. 26, 2006, to discuss the agents' case.
The Daily Bulletin obtained a confidential Office of Inspector General memo from an interview Compean gave to investigators on March 18, 2005.
The memo, dated April 4, 2005, supports the agent's claim that he believed his life was in danger when he tried to apprehend the Mexican drug smuggler on Feb. 17, 2005.'' [Emphasis mine]
The article notes that McCaul and his colleagues are demanding the documents supporting the Homeland Security department's version of events.
I want to weigh the facts and the evidence in this case," McCaul said. "Either it is total arrogance or gross incompetence on the part of the Inspector General's office. If what (the DHS) told us was a lie, or if they misrepresented the facts on this case to members of Congress, we are going to hold them accountable."
Full transcripts from Ramos and Compean's trial last spring still have not been made available to Congress or the public. According to McCaul, repeated requests for the transcripts since November have been answered with excuses.
[...]According to the memorandum, seven other agents were on the scene at the time of the shooting, including two supervisors whom Ramos and Compean both stated knew about the incident.
No other agents at the scene that day were prosecuted, and some were given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean.
Agents and supervisors are required to file a written report if they participate in or know of an incident, according to TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents nearly 11,000 Border Patrol agents.
"The steadfast refusal of the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to provide relevant information to Congress and the public about why Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos were prosecuted causes people to wonder what they are trying to hide," Bonner said. ''
If the official version of what happened is true, then why the stonewalling and the reluctance to cooperate with the House members who are investigating? These are questions I would like to see answered by the legions of GOP loyalists on the internet forums and blogs, who are trashing Ramos and Compean, and defending the administration's actions.
I've noticed that in discussing the Ramos-Compean story lately, many people are spreading the DOJ's version of events, which paints Ramos and Compean as rogue agents who broke rules and laws and then covered up their wrongdoing. I am dismayed that so many people, especially Republicans, are eager to buy into the spin. Of course, given that many Republicans are blind party loyalists who think that their leaders can absolutely do no wrong, and given that many of these faux conservatives are open-borders partisans, it isn't so surprising. For some people, their party loyalty and their loyalty to the administration is very much on the level of religious faith; it's an unquestioning, blind, passive faith, and they are angered by anyone who commits the heresy of criticizing anything 'their guy' does.
The blogosphere can play a part in getting both sides of the story out there, since the national media have not given this case the scrutiny it demands.
For a detailed account, here's a link to a letter by Joe Loya, father-in-law of Ignacio Ramos. He gives a detailed account of what happened, from Ramos' point of view. It's worth reading.
Let's not let the spinmeisters and party hacks dominate the discussion on this story.
Labels: Border Patrol, Media
0 comment Monday, June 9, 2014 | admin
Deported Activist Who Sought Refuge In Church Asks For Diplomatic Visa
MEXICO CITY - The recently deported activist who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year has asked Mexico's president to appoint her "peace and justice" ambassador so she can return to the United States. State Department: Elvira Arellano, 32, who sought refuge to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born, 8-year-old son, was arrested and sent back to Mexico on Aug. 19 after traveling to Los Angeles to attend a rally for the overhaul of U.S. immigration laws. Her son stayed in the United States.
"What I'm asking for is a diplomatic visa so that I can be an ambassador for peace and justice because I'm not a terrorist and the United States can't continue treating undocumented migrants as terrorists," Arellano told reporters after meeting with President Felipe Calderon at the presidential residence, Los Pinos. ''
First, I have to take issue with the reporter -- and the media in general, really -- for their insistence on calling this deported alien felon an 'activist'. Doing so fosters the illusion that she was deported for her 'activism' and not for her open, flagrant, and repeated violations of the laws of a country where she had no right to be.
But of course the reporter and the media in general want to foster this illusion. And they don't even mind that we can see their deceptive intentions and call them on it; they are quite open about their propagandistic methods, as brazen as the illegals whom they champion.
Now I realize Elvira is just a pawn in a big propaganda campaign, but even with that in mind, I am staggered by her ignorance, if she thinks that she is entitled to a 'diplomatic visa' (or any other kind of visa, for that matter) and even more staggering is her fancy that she might be 'an ambassador for peace.' I am dumbfounded by that combination of pure ignorance and gall. What, pray tell us, has 'peace' got to do with the mass invasion of the United States by tens of millions of lawless Mexicans and assorted other breakers-and-enterers? There is absolutely nothing peaceful about such actions, any more than burglary and home invasion is peaceful.
Recently we got an insight into the thinking of our 'leaders' and their minions when Border Patrol Chief Carlos Carrillo
arrogantly announced that the BP's mission was not to stop illegal immigration, or even drug trafficking:
I've said it before and I'll say it again," Carlos X. Carrillo, Border Patrol chief of Laredo, Texas, told guests at a town-hall meeting Thursday. "The Border Patrol's job is not to stop illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop narcotics. ... The Border Patrol's mission is not to stop criminals.
"The Border Patrol's mission is to stop terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country."
I believe others in authority have made similar statements, indicating that the mission is not to stop 'nannies and landscapers and other hard-workers' from entering, but only to stop terrorists.
So by this reasoning, people like Elvira Arellano is not a problem; she just came here to clean airplanes for us, since it is a proven fact that no Americans are willing to clean airplanes. And by this reasoning, we are actually declaring a de facto amnesty for anybody who ostensibly is here to 'work hard' and not to commit acts of terror.
But how many terrorists wear a big identifying sign telling us they are terrorists? Do they advertise their intentions as they cross the border? I am sure that, if asked, they would freely admit they came here to participate in terror acts.
The Border Patrol, now so cavalier about letting 'hard workers' come and go at will across our 'borders', admitted a few years ago that Middle Easterners were known to enter via Mexico, passing themselves off as Latinos.
But even if terrorists were not crossing our Mexican border, there is ample reason to close the border and stop all those who are crossing illegally. There is more than one kind of 'terror', and not all invasions are armed. In fact, if the ongoing invasion was armed, we'd be in better shape; we might actually mount a defense. As it is, with the invaders being people of both sexes and all ages, many of them unarmed, too many people are inclined to shrug and say 'they just want to come here to work, and that's the American dream'. And as the invasion is gradual and surreptitious, most people are not aware of the scope of it; I am still amazed at the number of people who seem to think that the large number of Latinos in their county or region is a local anomaly, just a result of the need for 'willing workers' by the local meatpacking plant or the construction industry. So many people believe that this is just a local or regional thing. It's not; it affects every state, to some extent or another.
And I often encounter skepticism if I say that I believe there are more than '12 million' or even 20 million, which are the 'official' figures used by our duplicitous electeds and media. I don't think even 50 million is out of the question; think about it. We have 50 states, and if there were only a million in each state...But the fact is, many states have far more than a million illegals; Texas, California, Arizona, and some of the Southeast states
This article from 2003 says that of California's then-estimated 10 million Mexicans, 70 percent were illegals. Now imagine how many more have entered in the last four years. And suppose the figures estimated were lowball figures?
So the idea that there are only 12 million, or even 20 million illegals in all 50 states is absurd.
My point is, the invasion is far advanced, and the demographics are catching up to us. Surely Elvira Arellano and her fellow illegal insurrectionists know this, even though many of them are illiterate in their native language as well as English. Still, they know that numbers are on their side. And they mean to press their advantage.
Here is one of the serious drawbacks to 'democracy': when the country's demographics portend a balkanization into various ethnic and racial groups, the side with the most warm bodies wins. So a slow-motion invasion and conquest by seemingly innocuous 'willing workers' amounts to a coup.
When I saw Elvira attempting to read a statement -- in English -- for the media, it was painfully evident that she knows very little English; she was obviously given a script, and it seemed as though she had never seen it before, and probably comprehended little of what she was saying. It was obvious that the English language is alien to her; she seemed to have no clue about inflection or phrasing. So I don't doubt that she is merely a pawn, being manipulated by people and groups with more cunning and power than she herself possesses.
However, as I said, even the illiterates who are invading our country understand what they are doing; they know they stand to gain this whole country if things proceed according to plan. In that sense, even Miss Arellano might be smarter than many gullible and disengaged Americans who, despite their education, can't read the writing on the wall.
MEXICO CITY - The recently deported activist who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year has asked Mexico's president to appoint her "peace and justice" ambassador so she can return to the United States. State Department: Elvira Arellano, 32, who sought refuge to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born, 8-year-old son, was arrested and sent back to Mexico on Aug. 19 after traveling to Los Angeles to attend a rally for the overhaul of U.S. immigration laws. Her son stayed in the United States.
"What I'm asking for is a diplomatic visa so that I can be an ambassador for peace and justice because I'm not a terrorist and the United States can't continue treating undocumented migrants as terrorists," Arellano told reporters after meeting with President Felipe Calderon at the presidential residence, Los Pinos. ''
First, I have to take issue with the reporter -- and the media in general, really -- for their insistence on calling this deported alien felon an 'activist'. Doing so fosters the illusion that she was deported for her 'activism' and not for her open, flagrant, and repeated violations of the laws of a country where she had no right to be.
But of course the reporter and the media in general want to foster this illusion. And they don't even mind that we can see their deceptive intentions and call them on it; they are quite open about their propagandistic methods, as brazen as the illegals whom they champion.
Now I realize Elvira is just a pawn in a big propaganda campaign, but even with that in mind, I am staggered by her ignorance, if she thinks that she is entitled to a 'diplomatic visa' (or any other kind of visa, for that matter) and even more staggering is her fancy that she might be 'an ambassador for peace.' I am dumbfounded by that combination of pure ignorance and gall. What, pray tell us, has 'peace' got to do with the mass invasion of the United States by tens of millions of lawless Mexicans and assorted other breakers-and-enterers? There is absolutely nothing peaceful about such actions, any more than burglary and home invasion is peaceful.
Recently we got an insight into the thinking of our 'leaders' and their minions when Border Patrol Chief Carlos Carrillo
arrogantly announced that the BP's mission was not to stop illegal immigration, or even drug trafficking:
I've said it before and I'll say it again," Carlos X. Carrillo, Border Patrol chief of Laredo, Texas, told guests at a town-hall meeting Thursday. "The Border Patrol's job is not to stop illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop narcotics. ... The Border Patrol's mission is not to stop criminals.
"The Border Patrol's mission is to stop terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country."
I believe others in authority have made similar statements, indicating that the mission is not to stop 'nannies and landscapers and other hard-workers' from entering, but only to stop terrorists.
So by this reasoning, people like Elvira Arellano is not a problem; she just came here to clean airplanes for us, since it is a proven fact that no Americans are willing to clean airplanes. And by this reasoning, we are actually declaring a de facto amnesty for anybody who ostensibly is here to 'work hard' and not to commit acts of terror.
But how many terrorists wear a big identifying sign telling us they are terrorists? Do they advertise their intentions as they cross the border? I am sure that, if asked, they would freely admit they came here to participate in terror acts.
The Border Patrol, now so cavalier about letting 'hard workers' come and go at will across our 'borders', admitted a few years ago that Middle Easterners were known to enter via Mexico, passing themselves off as Latinos.
But even if terrorists were not crossing our Mexican border, there is ample reason to close the border and stop all those who are crossing illegally. There is more than one kind of 'terror', and not all invasions are armed. In fact, if the ongoing invasion was armed, we'd be in better shape; we might actually mount a defense. As it is, with the invaders being people of both sexes and all ages, many of them unarmed, too many people are inclined to shrug and say 'they just want to come here to work, and that's the American dream'. And as the invasion is gradual and surreptitious, most people are not aware of the scope of it; I am still amazed at the number of people who seem to think that the large number of Latinos in their county or region is a local anomaly, just a result of the need for 'willing workers' by the local meatpacking plant or the construction industry. So many people believe that this is just a local or regional thing. It's not; it affects every state, to some extent or another.
And I often encounter skepticism if I say that I believe there are more than '12 million' or even 20 million, which are the 'official' figures used by our duplicitous electeds and media. I don't think even 50 million is out of the question; think about it. We have 50 states, and if there were only a million in each state...But the fact is, many states have far more than a million illegals; Texas, California, Arizona, and some of the Southeast states
This article from 2003 says that of California's then-estimated 10 million Mexicans, 70 percent were illegals. Now imagine how many more have entered in the last four years. And suppose the figures estimated were lowball figures?
So the idea that there are only 12 million, or even 20 million illegals in all 50 states is absurd.
My point is, the invasion is far advanced, and the demographics are catching up to us. Surely Elvira Arellano and her fellow illegal insurrectionists know this, even though many of them are illiterate in their native language as well as English. Still, they know that numbers are on their side. And they mean to press their advantage.
Here is one of the serious drawbacks to 'democracy': when the country's demographics portend a balkanization into various ethnic and racial groups, the side with the most warm bodies wins. So a slow-motion invasion and conquest by seemingly innocuous 'willing workers' amounts to a coup.
When I saw Elvira attempting to read a statement -- in English -- for the media, it was painfully evident that she knows very little English; she was obviously given a script, and it seemed as though she had never seen it before, and probably comprehended little of what she was saying. It was obvious that the English language is alien to her; she seemed to have no clue about inflection or phrasing. So I don't doubt that she is merely a pawn, being manipulated by people and groups with more cunning and power than she herself possesses.
However, as I said, even the illiterates who are invading our country understand what they are doing; they know they stand to gain this whole country if things proceed according to plan. In that sense, even Miss Arellano might be smarter than many gullible and disengaged Americans who, despite their education, can't read the writing on the wall.
Labels: Border Patrol, Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Leftism, Mass Immigration
0 comment | admin
Sutton Withheld Exculpatory Evidence In Border Patrol Trial
By Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative
As far as major finds in how badly the case of former US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was not only messed up, but intentionally tipped towards their conviction, legal experts say this is the biggest! The defense says that a document from the Department of Homeland Security confirms that two supervisors were on the scene the day an illegal immigrant drug smuggler claims he was shot in the butt. The defense is just finding out about this document, that US Attorney Johnny Sutton�s office had and did not reveal to them during the trial. This was all reported on CNN show Lou Dobbs Tonight last night. I�ve YouTubed the video and you can watch it below.
Why did Sutton�s office withhold exculpatory information?
Ramos and Compean said they never filed a report because supervisors were there. Sutton claimed otherwise in court. Their version of the story has now been verified and once again we see another obvious lie from the mouth of Johnny Sutton.
Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst says this news is potentially major, as opposed to other news he does not feel is as impacting to changing the outcome of the case. Toobin says this moves things into a "new category" that may cause a new trial. Lou Dobbs says that Johnny Sutton "lied" when he said he had no choice but to offer immunity. And World Net Daily has found more information about illegal alien drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila still running dope into our country, after being given medical treatment at US taxpayer expense. This offense was gagged by the judge and the family of Ramos and Compean still refuse to even talk about it, for fear that Johnny Sutton will come after them.
We need and I mean NEED a full Congressional investigation of this entire case right now. We also need to know who in our government knew what, when and what orders they gave to Johnny Sutton and/or the judge. We need to know every single detail related to President George W. Bush involving this matter. It�s time to stop reading and start writing your congresspeople. We now have more than enough information to not simply be suspicious about this case, we know these men were setup!
By Darnell McGavock of Independent Conservative
As far as major finds in how badly the case of former US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was not only messed up, but intentionally tipped towards their conviction, legal experts say this is the biggest! The defense says that a document from the Department of Homeland Security confirms that two supervisors were on the scene the day an illegal immigrant drug smuggler claims he was shot in the butt. The defense is just finding out about this document, that US Attorney Johnny Sutton�s office had and did not reveal to them during the trial. This was all reported on CNN show Lou Dobbs Tonight last night. I�ve YouTubed the video and you can watch it below.
Why did Sutton�s office withhold exculpatory information?
Ramos and Compean said they never filed a report because supervisors were there. Sutton claimed otherwise in court. Their version of the story has now been verified and once again we see another obvious lie from the mouth of Johnny Sutton.
Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst says this news is potentially major, as opposed to other news he does not feel is as impacting to changing the outcome of the case. Toobin says this moves things into a "new category" that may cause a new trial. Lou Dobbs says that Johnny Sutton "lied" when he said he had no choice but to offer immunity. And World Net Daily has found more information about illegal alien drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila still running dope into our country, after being given medical treatment at US taxpayer expense. This offense was gagged by the judge and the family of Ramos and Compean still refuse to even talk about it, for fear that Johnny Sutton will come after them.
We need and I mean NEED a full Congressional investigation of this entire case right now. We also need to know who in our government knew what, when and what orders they gave to Johnny Sutton and/or the judge. We need to know every single detail related to President George W. Bush involving this matter. It�s time to stop reading and start writing your congresspeople. We now have more than enough information to not simply be suspicious about this case, we know these men were setup!
Labels: Border Patrol, Borders, Justice System
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
Some more (rare) good news: Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are now out of prison after having had their sentences commuted in January. They are back at home with their families, though still under 'home confinement', and barred from talking to the press until their sentence officially ends on March 20.
Ramos, Compean freed from prison
By Jerome R. Corsi
� 2009 WorldNetDaily
Convicted former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were released from federal prison this morning and are en route to join their families in El Paso, Texas.
Characterizing Ramos and Compean's incarceration as a "political prosecution," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, called for a congressional investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct by El Paso U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton under the direction of Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Poe also called for an investigation into the alleged role of the Mexican government in demanding that Ramos and Compean be prosecuted.
"As soon as President Bush commuted Ramos and Compean's sentences, the Mexican government registered a large protest," Poe noted.''
I am not hopeful that there will be any investigation into the Mexican government's role in this travesty, given the present political regime. I think these men should be completely exonerated. Ramos's lawyer said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Ramos was treated more harshly than the accused terrorists who are held at Guantanamo:
BOTSFORD: Well, Lou, Ignacio's situation was that he was assaulted when he was at the Mississippi unit, the first unit he went to. Because of that, he was put into protective custody, it was called a shoe unit. So he was locked down 23 hours a day. He's in solitary confinement.
The conditions that he suffered, suffered from during that period of time basically, you know, 22 1/2 months, are more onerous than those imposed on the detainees in Gitmo. That was instrumental, I believe, in getting the president to commute this sentence. DOBBS: David, what are the next legal steps here for Ignacio and for Jose Compean? Do they have recourse? Is there a way to set this obvious, obvious miscarriage of justice right?
BOTSFORD: Lou, I believe so. I'm not going to stop fighting until we get to the bitter end. Currently we have a petition before the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Supreme Court to review the remaining convictions that are still there after the Fifth Circuit vacated or threw out all the convictions on the obstruction of justice. I can't tell you what the Supreme Court's going to do obviously that's an uphill battle. But there are a number of legal issues that will remain after the Supreme Court has resolved the issues that are in front of that, and we will proceed back into federal district court to resolve those remaining issues, as is his right.
In another border-related story, the news is decidedly mixed. The good part is that Roger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who was being sued by a number of illegal aliens, was declared in the clear on some charges:
Jury rules rancher didn't violate migrants' rights
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages � $60,000 of which were punitive.''
I would be interested to know the composition of the jury. I think it's unjust in the extreme that he is declared liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on these brazen trespassers. I think he should countersue them; surely having hordes of criminal illegals traipsing across his property over a period of years, while the government refuses to enforce our laws, constitutes real 'emotional distress.'
Who is footing the bill for these subversive lawsuits? The legal ambulance-chasers who aggressively bring suits like this against American citizens who are exercising their right to bear arms and to defend their property and lives are enemies of the American people just as much as the illegal intruders. But the government at whatever level, federal or state, which refuses to protect citizens against these predators is just as much the enemy; they have abdicated their primary responsibility and have betrayed the people they purport to represent and serve.
Shame on all of them.
Ramos, Compean freed from prison
By Jerome R. Corsi
� 2009 WorldNetDaily
Convicted former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were released from federal prison this morning and are en route to join their families in El Paso, Texas.
Characterizing Ramos and Compean's incarceration as a "political prosecution," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, called for a congressional investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct by El Paso U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton under the direction of Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Poe also called for an investigation into the alleged role of the Mexican government in demanding that Ramos and Compean be prosecuted.
"As soon as President Bush commuted Ramos and Compean's sentences, the Mexican government registered a large protest," Poe noted.''
I am not hopeful that there will be any investigation into the Mexican government's role in this travesty, given the present political regime. I think these men should be completely exonerated. Ramos's lawyer said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Ramos was treated more harshly than the accused terrorists who are held at Guantanamo:
BOTSFORD: Well, Lou, Ignacio's situation was that he was assaulted when he was at the Mississippi unit, the first unit he went to. Because of that, he was put into protective custody, it was called a shoe unit. So he was locked down 23 hours a day. He's in solitary confinement.
The conditions that he suffered, suffered from during that period of time basically, you know, 22 1/2 months, are more onerous than those imposed on the detainees in Gitmo. That was instrumental, I believe, in getting the president to commute this sentence. DOBBS: David, what are the next legal steps here for Ignacio and for Jose Compean? Do they have recourse? Is there a way to set this obvious, obvious miscarriage of justice right?
BOTSFORD: Lou, I believe so. I'm not going to stop fighting until we get to the bitter end. Currently we have a petition before the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Supreme Court to review the remaining convictions that are still there after the Fifth Circuit vacated or threw out all the convictions on the obstruction of justice. I can't tell you what the Supreme Court's going to do obviously that's an uphill battle. But there are a number of legal issues that will remain after the Supreme Court has resolved the issues that are in front of that, and we will proceed back into federal district court to resolve those remaining issues, as is his right.
In another border-related story, the news is decidedly mixed. The good part is that Roger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who was being sued by a number of illegal aliens, was declared in the clear on some charges:
Jury rules rancher didn't violate migrants' rights
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages � $60,000 of which were punitive.''
I would be interested to know the composition of the jury. I think it's unjust in the extreme that he is declared liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on these brazen trespassers. I think he should countersue them; surely having hordes of criminal illegals traipsing across his property over a period of years, while the government refuses to enforce our laws, constitutes real 'emotional distress.'
Who is footing the bill for these subversive lawsuits? The legal ambulance-chasers who aggressively bring suits like this against American citizens who are exercising their right to bear arms and to defend their property and lives are enemies of the American people just as much as the illegal intruders. But the government at whatever level, federal or state, which refuses to protect citizens against these predators is just as much the enemy; they have abdicated their primary responsibility and have betrayed the people they purport to represent and serve.
Shame on all of them.
Labels: Anarcho-Tyranny, Border Patrol, Illegal Immigration, Judicial System, Legal System, Open Borders, Political Correctness
0 comment | admin
Today's immigration outrages come from the Lou Dobbs Tonight show on CNN. The first story has to do with pro-illegal agitators demanding that our government stop enforcing our immigration laws. If that demand did not show such incredible effrontery, it would be laughable, because ICE seems to enforce the laws only in the most desultory way possible. For the most part, they ignore the law and give illegals free rein in this country, with the blessing of those higher up. Still, the widespread freedom illegals are given in this country is not enough for the illegals and their American-born collaborators, as you will see in the transcript. They are asking for the whole enchilada: no more enforcement, no more deportations.
Notice that these spokesmen for the illegals are implying that only 'criminal' illegals, that is, those who have committed other crimes besides being here illegally, should be deported. As if being 'workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers' should have the run of this country, gives them license to break the country's laws with impunity. Actually they have that right in practice, because of the do-nothing approach of our government. But the illegals and their enablers want to rewrite the laws of this country over the heads of the American people. If that is not absolute proof of their hostility to democratic principles, I don't know what is. Maybe in benighted, corrupt Latin America, they do things that way, by agitation and rioting, but that is assuredly not the American way.
The second story is about the hearings involving the National Guard's rules of engagement on the border, and the recent troubling incidents there.
Excerpts from the transcripts are below. I have bolded certain phrases for emphasis.
PILGRIM: Pro-illegal alien groups today demanding federal agents stop enforcing our nation's immigration laws. Now, the groups say they want all deportations to stop until Congress passes an amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LUIS CARRILLO, ATTORNEY: Let's take a vote. Who says English first?
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A sign of the times, a news conference starting with a vote on whether to begin in English or Spanish.
CARRILLO: This young woman here was a victim of the recent ICE raids.
WIAN: Last week, ICE arrested more than 750 Los Angeles-area illegal aliens, one of the biggest sweeps of criminal foreign nationals in U.S. history. Now illegal alien advocacy groups claim ICE is using racial profiling to also target otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens, such as this 20-year-old mother of three.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ICE said that I was illegal. And the agent proceeded to arrest me.
CARRILLO: ICE has given the impression to the public that they're only going after persons with criminal backgrounds, when the truth is that they're picking up workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers. ICE has a historic custom and practice of engaging in racial profiling, stopping only Latinos.
WIAN: The facts prove otherwise. ICE deported illegal aliens from 189 nations last year, including 1,364 Jamaicans, 624 Canadians, 489 Chinese. 431 Filipinos, and 405 Indians.
The majority of deportations, both criminal and otherwise, do involve Latin American citizens. But ICE says that's only because those are the home countries of the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens. ICE says its recent raids only targeted illegal aliens already ordered deported by a judge. However, ICE says there were collateral arrests.
Now a growing number of illegal alien advocates are demanding the federal government stop enforcing immigration law.
JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, MARCH 25 COALITION: We demand, we demand a moratorium against deportations. On deportations and the raids.
WIAN: The same groups behind last year's pro-amnesty street demonstrations are threatening more protests and marches this spring.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: All this an effort to pressure Congress to grant amnesty to the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in the United States -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Casey, is there any reaction from federal authorities on this protest?
WIAN: These demands, federal authorities say, are absolutely ridiculous. I mean, could you just imagine what would happen at the border if ICE and the Border Patrol decided to stop deporting illegal aliens in anticipation of Congress passing some sort of a guest worker or amnesty bill? The borders would be absolutely flood. They would be overwhelmed, even more so than they are now -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
Casey Wian.
[...]Well, let's turn to our border security crisis. There are currently more than 6,000 National Guardsmen patrolling our border with Mexico. But just what are the guard's rules of engagement?
An Arizona National Guards spokesman said, "We don't apprehend. We don't detain. We don't transport." Arizona legislators also want to know just what the Guard's role is. And today they held a hearing on the National Guard's border role.
And joining me now is Warde Nichols, Arizona's homeland security chairman. And thanks for being with us.
WARDE NICHOLS, ARIZONA'S HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
PILGRIM: Part of the hearing today was to sort out exactly happened. What did we establish at today's hearing on what happened?
NICHOLS: Well, unfortunately, what we established today is that the National Guard are there on the border as basically window dressing. They can't do anything. They -- all they do is radio in positions of illegals when they're coming across the border. They can't engage. They can't, you know, apprehend, detain. I mean they're there basically to just radio in -- radio in positions.
PILGRIM: Now, you have said that the gunmen who cross over from the Mexico side of the border appear to be testing the resolve of the National Guard. Explain a little bit what you -- what you mean by that.
NICHOLS: Yes, based off the stories that we got from General Ratochek (ph) today an exact account of the story. I believe that these were paramilitary personnel in Kevlar, vests carrying automatic weapons coming in to test the resolve of what the National Guard are going to do in these situations. Test -- test to see what their response is when they come across the border in these type of situations.
And we found out today that with rules of engagement in the type of things they have to adhere to, that our National Guard men and women on the border are, in my opinion, terrible risk. Their rules of engagement are terrible. Their hands are tied.
PILGRIM: The rules of engagement are what? They must retreat, correct, and cannot engage?
NICHOLS: Basically, yes. They have to -- there's three or four different things that they have to do in process. And basically, in a nutshell, they cannot do anything until fired upon.
PILGRIM: Now this area, tell us a little bit about this area, and what kind of people might be coming across.
NICHOLS: Well, in this type of area, it's out near Sasabe and in this area there's a lot of coyote, human smuggling going on. There's drugs that are coming across the border and now in this particular situation, we believe it was some type of paramilitary personnel.
PILGRIM: And -- and there was no engagement whatsoever?
NICHOLS: Well, again from General Ratochek's report, one the armed gunman got within about 30 feet of one of our guardsman. And they were standing there, looking at each other, rifles in hand, and at that point that's what our National Guardsman went a different position in a defensive position.
PILGRIM: They withdrew and called in...
NICHOLS: Yes, they called in the border guard. And that's another thing that we learned in the hearing today, that our border guard, our Border Patrol, are there basically taking care of our National Guard. I think it's a little reversed. Our National Guard men and women are trained military personnel. Yet they have to call the border guard, the Border Patrol in order to be able to do anything.
PILGRIM: Now this National Guard operation is called "Operation Jump Start". It's $760 million so far. Do you think that that's a waste of money or do you think that's effectively spent?
NICHOLS: You know, I can't say it's a complete waste of money, because we have gotten reports that they have been able to help Border Patrol apprehend and detain these people.
But again I would venture to say that if we use that money more wisely and we are able to put them there in a primary role, able to do the duties of the Border Patrol, we would have much more success in securing our borders.
PILGRIM: Now this particular group of National Guard troops were commended for their action. Do you think that that's something that should have been done? They were commended not only by the National Guard but Arizona's governor's office for their actions.
NICHOLS: Yes, I wouldn't want to belittle what the soldiers did in any shape, way or form. They were following out their directives and their orders. But that's what we were looking at today. What are their directives and what are their orders and what are their rules of engagement? And I would venture to say that they -- that their rules of engagement and their directives must be changed.
PILGRIM: Now, this is a state hearing. But what would you like to see happen?
NICHOLS: I would like to see more awareness about this issue brought forward. That people understand that our men and women on the border are at risk every day because of the directives of the federal government and the directives of the governors that they have signed on to in order to have the National Guard at the border. And they're putting their lives on line, and we've got to untie their hands.
PILGRIM: This is not just a state issue, because this border stretches across many states. Is there any thinking that perhaps a few states could get together and start to reexamine the rules of engagement?
NICHOLS: I would love the four border states to get together and, you know, look at the rules of engagement and look at what Border Patrol's doing on the border.
We know the governor of Texas, just in last week, signed a decree basically putting another 600 plus Texas National Guard on the border to act more in a primary role there and to be able to ride along with Border Patrol and assist. And that may be partially the way to go, but I don't think it goes far enough yet.
PILGRIM: In this hearing today, any input from Washington? And you are happy with the support you're getting from Washington?
NICHOLS: No, we didn't get any input from Washington. And quite frankly, unfortunately, Washington in their federal policies, immigration policies, border security policies, have failed us miserably here in Arizona, and we've got to do something about it.
PILGRIM: Any next steps decided on today?
NICHOLS: You know, I did tell the general in the hearing today that we would like to have him back at some point. As we let some of the thoughts simmer and understand what was said. And we hope to get more answers as we continue to mow through this process and be able to, again, make good policy decisions that we can bring awareness of the issue to the forefront.
PILGRIM: In the interim, would more National Guard troops help the situation?
NICHOLS: You know, we asked the general that. And he didn't really quite have an answer for us that issue. He said that he's apolitical. He's not going to get into the policies and the politics of it and that he's just there carrying out orders.
PILGRIM: Well, sometimes politics has to be practical.
NICHOLS: Yes, yes.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much for joining us this evening and explaining it.
NICHOLS: Thank you, Kitty.''
Notice that these spokesmen for the illegals are implying that only 'criminal' illegals, that is, those who have committed other crimes besides being here illegally, should be deported. As if being 'workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers' should have the run of this country, gives them license to break the country's laws with impunity. Actually they have that right in practice, because of the do-nothing approach of our government. But the illegals and their enablers want to rewrite the laws of this country over the heads of the American people. If that is not absolute proof of their hostility to democratic principles, I don't know what is. Maybe in benighted, corrupt Latin America, they do things that way, by agitation and rioting, but that is assuredly not the American way.
The second story is about the hearings involving the National Guard's rules of engagement on the border, and the recent troubling incidents there.
Excerpts from the transcripts are below. I have bolded certain phrases for emphasis.
PILGRIM: Pro-illegal alien groups today demanding federal agents stop enforcing our nation's immigration laws. Now, the groups say they want all deportations to stop until Congress passes an amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LUIS CARRILLO, ATTORNEY: Let's take a vote. Who says English first?
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A sign of the times, a news conference starting with a vote on whether to begin in English or Spanish.
CARRILLO: This young woman here was a victim of the recent ICE raids.
WIAN: Last week, ICE arrested more than 750 Los Angeles-area illegal aliens, one of the biggest sweeps of criminal foreign nationals in U.S. history. Now illegal alien advocacy groups claim ICE is using racial profiling to also target otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens, such as this 20-year-old mother of three.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ICE said that I was illegal. And the agent proceeded to arrest me.
CARRILLO: ICE has given the impression to the public that they're only going after persons with criminal backgrounds, when the truth is that they're picking up workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers. ICE has a historic custom and practice of engaging in racial profiling, stopping only Latinos.
WIAN: The facts prove otherwise. ICE deported illegal aliens from 189 nations last year, including 1,364 Jamaicans, 624 Canadians, 489 Chinese. 431 Filipinos, and 405 Indians.
The majority of deportations, both criminal and otherwise, do involve Latin American citizens. But ICE says that's only because those are the home countries of the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens. ICE says its recent raids only targeted illegal aliens already ordered deported by a judge. However, ICE says there were collateral arrests.
Now a growing number of illegal alien advocates are demanding the federal government stop enforcing immigration law.
JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, MARCH 25 COALITION: We demand, we demand a moratorium against deportations. On deportations and the raids.
WIAN: The same groups behind last year's pro-amnesty street demonstrations are threatening more protests and marches this spring.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: All this an effort to pressure Congress to grant amnesty to the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in the United States -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Casey, is there any reaction from federal authorities on this protest?
WIAN: These demands, federal authorities say, are absolutely ridiculous. I mean, could you just imagine what would happen at the border if ICE and the Border Patrol decided to stop deporting illegal aliens in anticipation of Congress passing some sort of a guest worker or amnesty bill? The borders would be absolutely flood. They would be overwhelmed, even more so than they are now -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
Casey Wian.
[...]Well, let's turn to our border security crisis. There are currently more than 6,000 National Guardsmen patrolling our border with Mexico. But just what are the guard's rules of engagement?
An Arizona National Guards spokesman said, "We don't apprehend. We don't detain. We don't transport." Arizona legislators also want to know just what the Guard's role is. And today they held a hearing on the National Guard's border role.
And joining me now is Warde Nichols, Arizona's homeland security chairman. And thanks for being with us.
WARDE NICHOLS, ARIZONA'S HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
PILGRIM: Part of the hearing today was to sort out exactly happened. What did we establish at today's hearing on what happened?
NICHOLS: Well, unfortunately, what we established today is that the National Guard are there on the border as basically window dressing. They can't do anything. They -- all they do is radio in positions of illegals when they're coming across the border. They can't engage. They can't, you know, apprehend, detain. I mean they're there basically to just radio in -- radio in positions.
PILGRIM: Now, you have said that the gunmen who cross over from the Mexico side of the border appear to be testing the resolve of the National Guard. Explain a little bit what you -- what you mean by that.
NICHOLS: Yes, based off the stories that we got from General Ratochek (ph) today an exact account of the story. I believe that these were paramilitary personnel in Kevlar, vests carrying automatic weapons coming in to test the resolve of what the National Guard are going to do in these situations. Test -- test to see what their response is when they come across the border in these type of situations.
And we found out today that with rules of engagement in the type of things they have to adhere to, that our National Guard men and women on the border are, in my opinion, terrible risk. Their rules of engagement are terrible. Their hands are tied.
PILGRIM: The rules of engagement are what? They must retreat, correct, and cannot engage?
NICHOLS: Basically, yes. They have to -- there's three or four different things that they have to do in process. And basically, in a nutshell, they cannot do anything until fired upon.
PILGRIM: Now this area, tell us a little bit about this area, and what kind of people might be coming across.
NICHOLS: Well, in this type of area, it's out near Sasabe and in this area there's a lot of coyote, human smuggling going on. There's drugs that are coming across the border and now in this particular situation, we believe it was some type of paramilitary personnel.
PILGRIM: And -- and there was no engagement whatsoever?
NICHOLS: Well, again from General Ratochek's report, one the armed gunman got within about 30 feet of one of our guardsman. And they were standing there, looking at each other, rifles in hand, and at that point that's what our National Guardsman went a different position in a defensive position.
PILGRIM: They withdrew and called in...
NICHOLS: Yes, they called in the border guard. And that's another thing that we learned in the hearing today, that our border guard, our Border Patrol, are there basically taking care of our National Guard. I think it's a little reversed. Our National Guard men and women are trained military personnel. Yet they have to call the border guard, the Border Patrol in order to be able to do anything.
PILGRIM: Now this National Guard operation is called "Operation Jump Start". It's $760 million so far. Do you think that that's a waste of money or do you think that's effectively spent?
NICHOLS: You know, I can't say it's a complete waste of money, because we have gotten reports that they have been able to help Border Patrol apprehend and detain these people.
But again I would venture to say that if we use that money more wisely and we are able to put them there in a primary role, able to do the duties of the Border Patrol, we would have much more success in securing our borders.
PILGRIM: Now this particular group of National Guard troops were commended for their action. Do you think that that's something that should have been done? They were commended not only by the National Guard but Arizona's governor's office for their actions.
NICHOLS: Yes, I wouldn't want to belittle what the soldiers did in any shape, way or form. They were following out their directives and their orders. But that's what we were looking at today. What are their directives and what are their orders and what are their rules of engagement? And I would venture to say that they -- that their rules of engagement and their directives must be changed.
PILGRIM: Now, this is a state hearing. But what would you like to see happen?
NICHOLS: I would like to see more awareness about this issue brought forward. That people understand that our men and women on the border are at risk every day because of the directives of the federal government and the directives of the governors that they have signed on to in order to have the National Guard at the border. And they're putting their lives on line, and we've got to untie their hands.
PILGRIM: This is not just a state issue, because this border stretches across many states. Is there any thinking that perhaps a few states could get together and start to reexamine the rules of engagement?
NICHOLS: I would love the four border states to get together and, you know, look at the rules of engagement and look at what Border Patrol's doing on the border.
We know the governor of Texas, just in last week, signed a decree basically putting another 600 plus Texas National Guard on the border to act more in a primary role there and to be able to ride along with Border Patrol and assist. And that may be partially the way to go, but I don't think it goes far enough yet.
PILGRIM: In this hearing today, any input from Washington? And you are happy with the support you're getting from Washington?
NICHOLS: No, we didn't get any input from Washington. And quite frankly, unfortunately, Washington in their federal policies, immigration policies, border security policies, have failed us miserably here in Arizona, and we've got to do something about it.
PILGRIM: Any next steps decided on today?
NICHOLS: You know, I did tell the general in the hearing today that we would like to have him back at some point. As we let some of the thoughts simmer and understand what was said. And we hope to get more answers as we continue to mow through this process and be able to, again, make good policy decisions that we can bring awareness of the issue to the forefront.
PILGRIM: In the interim, would more National Guard troops help the situation?
NICHOLS: You know, we asked the general that. And he didn't really quite have an answer for us that issue. He said that he's apolitical. He's not going to get into the policies and the politics of it and that he's just there carrying out orders.
PILGRIM: Well, sometimes politics has to be practical.
NICHOLS: Yes, yes.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much for joining us this evening and explaining it.
NICHOLS: Thank you, Kitty.''
Labels: Amnesty, Border Patrol, Borders, Illegal Immigration