Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Latino’ Category

https://i1.wp.com/hotelandhome.com/images/gonzalesfence.jpg

Thanks to the detestable efforts of George Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Kathleen Cardone, Johnny Sutton, Debra Kanof, and other excrement far too many to list here, Ignacio “Nacho” Ramos was severely beaten by several inmates at the Mississippi federal prison where he is currently interred.

How the above people can sleep soundly defies my reasoning. Perhaps they don’t. Perhaps they fitfully dream in nightmares, their subconscious and their conscience sullied with the crimes they’ve willfully, aggressively, and callously committed against the two men, former border patrol agents Ramos and Jose Compean, for simply doing what the federal government tasked them with when they made them watchmen along our southern border–doing their jobs.

Now Ignacio has taken a beating in prison, likely from illegals, bent on revenge against any official who might have been responsible directly or indirectly for their current predicament, after the inmates had witnessed a television program about the plight of the former agents. Of course, assuming the assailants were illegal aliens is pure speculation on my part, but this is a blog with my thoughts and ideas. No court of law here to contest what I say and write.

As Jose and Ignacio were condemned unjustly, I condemn justly the aforementioned criminals–not just the illegal aliens, but Bush, Cardone, Sutton, et. al. This is blood on their hands. If anything untoward happens to these men, they will have more than blood–shame, guilt, regret.

If only it was so, then perhaps Ignacio and Jose would have already been released. But no conscience exists within the Bush administration. I am disgusted with our government.

The image “https://i2.wp.com/www.cairco.org/pics/pic_illegal_alien_rally_la_2006mar25_5001_t.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Border Patrol agent
beaten up in prison

Ramos’ family confirms: ‘They kicked me
in the head, they kicked me all over the body’


Posted: February 5, 2007
10:27 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio “Nacho” Ramos was severely beaten in prison, Ramos’ family members have confirmed to WND.


Monica Ramos embraces her husband, former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times)

In interviews with WND tonight, both Ramos’s wife Monica and father-in-law Joe Loya confirmed that Ramos says he was assaulted in prison on Saturday night by a group of five Hispanic inmates who Ramos took to be illegal immigrants.

In a phone call from prison, Ramos told his wife earlier today that the assailants allegedly threatened him in Spanish, taunting him with, “**** la migra,” insulting him – “migra” roughly translating as “immigration,” slang for Border Patrol agent.

The assault occurred at Yazoo City Federal Correctional Complex, a medium facility federal prison in Mississippi, where Ramos had been moved about 10 days ago.

Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences last month, 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. The case has caused national outrage, and dozens of congressmen are publicly insisting President Bush grant an immediate pardon of the two law enforcement officers.

Ramos’s family feels that the decision to place him in a medium security prison violates a promise from federal authorities Ramos would be kept in isolation at a minimal security prison.

At Yazoo, Ramos was housed with the general prison population. A medium security prison such as Yazoo would be expected to house illegal immigrants, including those incarcerated on drug offenses.

The prison attack came immediately after the airing Saturday night of a segment on Ramos and Compean by the “America’s Most Wanted” television show.

“On Saturday night my husband said he went to bed,” Monica Ramos told WND late today.

She recounted the telephone call from her husband in prison earlier in the day: “He just told me that he dropped his guard. ‘They got me,’ Nacio told me, ‘they got me pretty good.'”

“‘What happened?'” Monica Ramos said she asked her husband. “He told me they were in the television room watching ‘America’s Most Wanted.’ After that, some time after 10 p.m., he went back to his cubicle and was almost falling asleep. He awoke to the sound of shoes stomping. It startled him because at night the prisoners are supposed to take their shoes off and put flip-flops on.”

She continued: “He said he didn’t have a chance to turn around and look at any of the guys attacking him at that time. He just felt a blow to the back of his head. The prisoners were kicking him with steel-toe shoes, the work boots they are issued in prison. They kept kicking and kicking. And they kept calling him in Spanish a **** immigration officer, saying ‘darle, darle,’ which means, ‘give it to him.’ They were cussing him out in Spanish. He couldn’t fight back he was outnumbered.”

According to Loya, Ramos also said of the attack: “They kicked me in the head, they kicked me all over the body. I’m all bruised and very sore.”

How did the attack stop?

“No security came to his rescue,” the jailed Border Patrol agent’s wife told WND. “Another inmate came and got Ramos and said ‘Hey, dude, let me help you up.’ The other inmate walked my husband over to security.”

Did the prison give him any medical treatment?

“As of the time we talked this afternoon, the prison still hadn’t given him any medical treatment,” she said, adding that he told her, “‘I asked all day yesterday.’ I’m in a lot of pain and I have blood coming out of my left ear.’

“His head and his back are hurting him badly. He said it was almost time for the prison doctor to go for the day and he wasn’t sure when any doctor would be able to see him.”

Ramos told his wife he was able to identify only one of the five assailants: “They all cursed me in Spanish,” he said, according to Loya. “As they were beating me up and kicking me, they kept calling me ‘migra,’ ‘migra.’ I’m pretty sure they were all illegal immigrants.”

Ramos told his wife that he was badly bruised and bleeding from the ears. He said that immediately after the attack, he was placed back into solitary confinement, where he has been for the last two days.

“He told me that he asked to call me Sunday, after the attack,” Monica Ramos continued, “but the prison wouldn’t let him call me and they wouldn’t let him call his attorney. He said the only reason the prison was letting him call now, on Monday, was because the Congress intervened, otherwise he wouldn’t have been permitted any calls at all.”

Patti Compean, wife of imprisoned agent Jose Compean, told WND her husband was in a different prison, still in solitary confinement.

Today is Ramos’ 38th birthday. According to Loya, Ramos’s three sons, aged 7, 9 and 13, woke up crying, not wanting to go to school. The children wanted to buy a cake and wait for their father to call so they could sing “Happy Birthday” to him on the phone and blow out the candles.

Early this morning, Loya began working with the office of U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R.-Calif., to see if the warden would give Ramos special permission to call home on his birthday, after his children got home from school.

However, the birthday call didn’t happen, Monica Ramos told WND.

“We went out and bought a cake,” she said. “The kids came home expecting their dad to call from prison so they could wish him a happy birthday. But there isn’t going to be any call. My 7-year-old, when he woke up this morning, the first thing he asked was if we could still celebrate today. I told him, ‘Sure we can, baby,’ and he’s been looking forward to it all day.”

However, Monica added, in tears: “He told me, ‘They’re not going to let me call later today.’ He said the call in the afternoon only happened because Congress allowed it to happen. He said he doesn’t have any privileges in prison. He hasn’t even gotten the mail that everybody has been sending him. He told me, ‘You really need to get me out of here.’ That’s what he told me last.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

https://i2.wp.com/www.chrysalis.com.au/prints/27/BadLawyer.jpg

Last week, I went back and forth several times with a commenter who offered the below statements (and my responses) to this piece I posted back on October 24, 2006. It is indicative of and mirrors the argument that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton used as one of the central assertions to convict former border patrol agents, and currently interred federal inmates, Ignacio “Nacho” Ramos and Jose Compean.

First reader comment:

The officers shot at a man they knew was unarmed and had committed no wrong doing that they knew about at that point other than refusing to stop his van and then fleeing back toward the Mexican border. The officers knew he was without a weapon and that there was absolutely no threat to their lives. The man held up his hands in surrender yet he was fired at. Not only that but they attempted to cover up their mistakes and failed to report the incident; a clear case of obstruction of justice. How could anyone reasonably call these men heroes?

My response:

The central issue I have with your comment is your statement that Ramos and Compean knew the illegal alien didn’t have a weapon. How do you know that? They claim they thought he had a gun in their testimony.

The lawyers for the illegal would like you to believe that the officers shot wily-nily knowing he didn’t have a gun, but they can’t prove what someone believes, in this case, whether the officer in question believed the alien had a weapon and was going to use it against him. Testimony during the trial stated the officers believed the alien might have had a weapon in his hand, and that he was turning to use it. What would you do in that situation? Wait to see if what he had expelled a bullet in your direction? I would not.

His response to my response:

They said that they believed he had a gun but other than their testimony that he appeared to be reaching back for a weapon, absolutely nothing indicated that he was armed. The evidence suggests that the officers knew there was no gun: [U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton] …questioned the agents’ claim that they thought the smuggler had a gun. “The evidence reflects something completely different,” he said. “The agents did not take cover and did not tell other agents to Get down. Someone has a gun.’” If they truly thought he had a gun they would have properly responded by hitting the ground or taking cover.

The fact that agents attempted to collect all of the shells fired and did not report the incident gives further creedence to the idea that they knew they had acted rashly because the man was unarmed.

I’m just shocked that so many people are defending these guys. Not only did these men make a mistake but they attempted to cover it up as well and filed a false report.

Their sentence, by federal law, must be 10 years at least. I would hope that they could at least be kept in partial isolation away from other prisoners to avoid harm coming to them in that manner, but frankly, they don’t deserve a full pardon. Their actions were beyond incompetent; they were deliberately deceitful.

And my final response to his response to my response to his comment:

Your statement is an almost identical quote of Sutton’s interview last week on a San Diego radio station. Of course, the concept that ‘absolutely nothing indicated that he [Davila] was armed’ is what the prosecution wanted everyone to believe as part of their case, but you simply cannot tell the border agent that the alien did not have a gun if he, the agent, felt otherwise. Period.

I do not discount the fact that the agents acted improperly by collecting shells and filing false paperwork, but any amount of jail time for a paperwork violation is preposterous. At the most, these men should simply have lost their jobs for their dishonesty (sort of like what should have happened to President Bush for lying to the American people in order to get us into Iraq–unfortunately, Bush is still our President.) The fact of the matter remains that Davila did not ship that particular van-load of drugs because of the efforts of Ramos and Compean. Thank god for their diligence.

The only part of my last response I would change is the statement that Ramos and Compean at most should have lost their jobs due to their perceived cover-up by collecting shells and not filling a proper report. I now believe they should only have been given possible suspensions. Even losing their jobs is too harsh a punishment for the supposed crime they committed, as will be discussed by Jerome Corsi more eloquently and in more detail via the World Net Daily story below.

Stampeding forward on “conspiracy” violations, as Sutton has explained ad nauseum in dozens of interviews–at the root, the agents picking up shells, and not filing proper paperwork–has been discovered, in actuality, a falsehood. Ramos and Compean did in fact provide an oral report to their commanding officer. The border patrol manual states agents are not required to de facto file physical paperwork as long as they provide an accurate oral report of the incident in question, which is what Ramos and Compean did, even disclosing the shooting of Davila. Unfortunately, their supervising officer did not submit a written report based upon the statements provided to him by the two border agents. Too bad for them.

So all those who view Johnny Sutton as the beacon of truth and justice in the case against Ramos and Compean should here realize that Sutton himself is the one who is lying, at least concerning the accusations of false reporting and false paperwork. The agents conducted themselves properly in this matter according to border patrol policies. Sutton, on the other hand, seems to have conducted himself rather inappropriately. The fact that Sutton in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security are stonewalling the release of investigative documents that could markedly assist Ramos and Compean in their case is quite telling–they are hiding something

But what about the shooting of illegal alien drug-smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila? Isn’t that the axial reason for putting Ramos and Compean behind bars? Yes. Didn’t they act malapropos by firing their gun and shooting Davila? No.

The former agents did not act unreasonably nor did they mishandle the confrontation with the illegal alien drug-smuggler by discharging their weapons at him and subsquently striking him in the ass. The law used to try Ramos and Compean was apparently either misconstrued by Sutton and his team, or it was intentionally perverted in order to ensure two men and their families would be destroyed–guaranteed maximum jail time for the former agents. The border agents were charged with 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) which states the following:

Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years. In the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to life imprisonment without release. (FOOTNOTE 1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the firearm was used or carried.

This statute was erroneously used to convict Ramos and Compean for discharging their weapons against the illegal alien drug-smuggler, Davila. While this statute applies to criminals who use weapons whilst committing a crime, it only applies to officers of the law if they use their service weapons in the process of committing a crime (robbery, rape, murder, etc.) Since Ramos and Compean were simply performing their job with no extraneous outrageous actions on their part, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) cannot be applied to their particular case, and Sutton’s continued, parrot-like ramblings that the law applies equally all the time is false.

Regardless, we are at day nine of the Ramos/Compean political imprisonment. Their straight-to-jail railroading to me, is a clear message from Bush and his administration (of whom Sutton was a member, including the White House transitional team, when Bush was governor of Texas, even though Bush has claimed he doesn’t know Sutton.) The President wants to eradicate any willingness on border agents to do their job. He has ensured that Ramos and Compean would be the poster-boys for the border patrol–do your job and you will see serious jail time, but let the illegals flow over the border unfettered, and you will be fine.

If this comes back on Sutton though, which could happen, he could see some serious charges brought against him.

https://i2.wp.com/www.truthinjustice.org/yant/presumed.jpg

 


WND Exclusive Commentary


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.

US Attorney Johnny Sutton

Johnny Sutton

 

https://i0.wp.com/dsmedia.ign.com/ds/image/article/614/614464/phoenix-wright-ace-attorney-20050516010031940.jpg

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

 

Read Full Post »

The image “https://i0.wp.com/radio.weblogs.com/0123486/myImages/newpix/jul23.04/9.19.04/12.19.04/2.24.05/impeach-bush.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

In response to glory-hole Tony Snow‘s comment concerning former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, “Border Guards must obey laws, too,” World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah hits the nail on the head with his response: Presidents must obey laws as much as the rest of us. Even more so, it is incumbent upon them to strictly uphold those laws as leaders of a nation, particularly the United States of America, are held to a much higher standard than practically anyone else on the face of the planet.

With millions of illegals entering our country yearly, Bush and his regime are guilty of federal crimes because they not only allow illegal immigrants to flow over our borders nearly unfettered, but our incompetent administration practically invites them with open arms by gifting illegal aliens with more protections under the law and greater benefits than the average American citizen receives. Is it any wonder why true conservatives (no, neo-cons are not true conservatives) are turning their back on this American President? Though one wonders why it took them so long.

I know people who don’t believe illegal immigration harms us. In fact, those same people believe they are a benefit. Hardly. Siphoning welfare, healthcare, and education, costing taxpayers billions in insurance fraud and identity theft, closing down emergency rooms because of detrimental laws and regulations, reducing fair wages and demoralizing American workers–these are only some of the results of the Bush administration not doing the job it should. These are only some the fruits born of the villainous actions committed by our government.

This is what happens when President Bush does not obey American laws.

The image “https://i2.wp.com/cometbus.com/pics/TN_bush_impeach.JPG” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

 

between the lines Joseph Farah


WND Exclusive Commentary


Presidents must obey law, too


Posted: January 17, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Asked again at a recent White House press conference whether President Bush would consider a pardon for two Border Patrol agents facing long prison sentences for shooting in the rump a drug dealer they were pursuing, Tony Snow said: “Border guards must obey the law, too.”

Apparently, Snow and the president are appalled about the fact that the agents retrieved spent shells at the scene – a violation of procedure in what was perceived as a cover-up of the incident.

Snow’s reaction in speaking for the president raises some questions in my mind.

Hasn’t the problem with the border and immigration policy in this country been a result of non-enforcement of existing laws, largely by the executive branch of government?

Is the president obeying the laws of the land when he chooses not to enforce them?

How have 20 million aliens entered our country illegally if the president and his predecessor were enforcing border and immigration laws?

Our very national security is threatened by the abject refusal of the White House over a span of six years to obey the law, to enforce the law, to carry out his constitutional duty to protect the citizens of the U.S.

It seems odd – bizarre really – that the White House would focus on a mere technicality in the case of the Border Patrol agents bravely and heroically doing their jobs, while conveniently overlooking the president’s criminal neglect of the duly enacted laws of the land.

The president has been reminding the American people of late that we are at war. Yet, with our own national security concerns at home, Bush hasn’t at all acted like a wartime president.

Indeed, we are at war with people on foreign soil who want to destroy America. And we are at war with people invading this country – some of whom certainly want to destroy this country.

I am sickened by the case against the two Border Patrol agents – Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. On Feb. 17, Alonso, 37, an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year, responded to a request for backup from Compean, 28, who had seen a suspicious van near the border town of Fabens, Texas.

Both pursued a suspect, a drug smuggler by the name of Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who fled across the border to Mexico, but not before the agents saw what they believed to be a gun in his hands and heard shots fired. Both fired in return in an effort to stop his escape.

Instead of being given medals for heroism, the two agents were hit with charges of violating the illegal alien’s civil rights. The illegal alien, with 800 pounds of marijuana in his van, was given full immunity from prosecution to testify against the agents. You the taxpayer even paid his medical expenses for getting shot in the buttocks.

It turns out Border Patrol agents are forbidden from pursuing fleeing suspects.

How about that? How much sense does that make?

Oh, and by the way, the illegal alien drug dealer promptly returned to his drug-running business after the incident and the granting of immunity – this time bringing in an even bigger load of marijuana, for which he was also given immunity for his testimony in the case against the law enforcement agents.

Well, I guess it makes lots of sense if our goal is not really to stop, or even slow down, illegal infiltration of this country.

Won’t you sleep better at night knowing that Border Patrol agents are forbidden from pursuing fleeing suspects?

Won’t al-Qaida and MS-13 be glad to hear about this policy – if they haven’t already?

Why wouldn’t drug smugglers and coyotes continue to take chances with the knowledge that they can simply outrun those charged with protecting our border?

Both Compean and Ramos were found guilty and could each face 10 years in prison.

Are you outraged?

I am.

As Ramos explains: “How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people? Everybody who’s breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?”

I guess not.

Which act of alleged lawbreaking concerns you more – the one by the Border Patrol agents or the one that continues by the president of the United States as he turns his back on the biggest security threat to this nation at the border?

Read Full Post »

Who knows whether this will help or not, but it can’t hurt. Go here and sign the petition that will likely do nothing to help pardon former border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. But as I said, it doesn’t hurt.

I’ve already covered in-depth the unfortunate plight of Ramos and Compean. Needless to say the ineptitude of our government goes beyond the Iraq fiasco. It often hits home. In this case, it struck wildly and with extreme malice at Compean and Ramos and their families.

Keep these men and their wives and their fathers and mothers and children in your thoughts this holiday season. If we move beyond the holiday season and a pardon has not been granted, continue to keep them in your thoughts. This indisputable travesty of the United States judicial system should not be allowed to meet the conclusion George Bush, Michael Chertoff, Katheel Cardone, and et. al. obviously wish it to meet.

Ignacio “Nacho” Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean should not go to jail.

Border agents plead for ‘Christmas pardon’
Congressman hosts rally asking Bush to stop ‘miscarriage of justice’


Posted: December 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos embraced his wife, Monica Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times)

A Border Patrol agent sentenced to prison along with his partner for shooting and wounding a man smuggling drugs into the U.S. will appear with a congressman tomorrow at a rally asking President Bush to offer a pardon.

Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas. The drug smuggler was granted immunity for his testimony.

Compean will be joined by family; Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R, Calif.; Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist; and members of other border-security groups such as Friends of the Border Patrol at the courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif., at 1:30 p.m. Pacific time tomorrow.

Rohrabacher, noting the president already has received a letter about the case from more than 50 Congress members, is asking Americans to sign petitions and send e-mails and letters to the White House requesting a “Christmas pardon.”

Grassfire.org has an online petition calling on Bush to pardon the agents, with more than 130,000 signatures.

“This is the greatest miscarriage of justice that I’ve seen in my career,” Rohrabacher told WND. “Two brave Border Patrol agents trying to enforce the president’s nonsensical border policy ending up being sent to prison, while an illegal alien drug smuggler is given immunity and walks free.”

Compean’s sister, of Huntington Beach, lives in Rohrabacher’s Southern California district.

The White House has not responded to the letter, according to Rohrabacher, and did not follow up a request from WND for comment. Press secretary Tony Snow has said he cannot comment on presidential pardons.

Gilchrist said what has happened to the two agents is “atrocious,” with “their lifes being ruined, their families being put in turmoil.”

“We would expect the president to give a full and unconditional pardon to these two wrongly arrested, wrongly accused, wrongly convicted members of law enforcement,” he told WND, “and retroactive pay and benefits they’ve lost over the past two years since they were originally arrested.”

As WND has reported, a federal jury convicted Compean, 28, and Ramos, 37, in March after a two-week trial on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation.


Agent Jose Alonso Compean. Courtesy of KFOX-TV

Ramos is an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Ramos responded to a request for back-up from Compean, who noticed a suspicious van near the levee road along the Rio Grande River near the Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles east of El Paso. A third agent also joined the pursuit.

Fleeing was an illegal alien, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila of Mexico. Unknown to the growing number of Border Patrol agents converging on Fabens, Aldrete-Davila’s van was carrying 800 pounds of marijuana.

Aldrete-Davila stopped the van on a levee, jumped out and started running toward the river. When he reached the other side of the levee, he was met by Compean who had anticipated the smuggler’s attempt to get back to Mexico.

“We both yelled out for him to stop, but he wouldn’t stop, and he just kept running,” Ramos told California’s Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

“At some point during the time where I’m crossing the canal, I hear shots being fired,” Ramos said. “Later, I see Compean on the ground, but I keep running after the smuggler.”

At that point, Ramos said, Aldrete-Davila turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.

“I shot,” Ramos said. “But I didn’t think he was hit, because he kept running into the brush and then disappeared into it. Later, we all watched as he jumped into a van waiting for him. He seemed fine. It didn’t look like he had been hit at all.”

The U.S. government filed charges against Ramos and Compean after giving full immunity to Aldrete-Davila and paying for his medical treatment at an El Paso hospital.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas issued a statement in September arguing “the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean’s shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next.”

The statement said, “Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once.”

Andy Ramirez of Friends of the Border Patrol said the drug smuggler has “fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you.”

The letter to Bush included the signatures of Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

“We ask that a full investigation of this case be ordered immediately,” the letter said. “We are confident that during such an investigation you will find that these Border Patrol agents were acting within the scope of their duty and were unjustly prosecuted. Also, we ask that you use your power of presidential pardon, as granted by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, to pardon these two Border Patrol agents. We understand these requests usually are for those that have already completed their sentences; however, we feel in this case it would be a miscarriage of justice to send these two Border Patrol agents to prison for protecting our nation’s borders from an illegal drug smuggler.”

Read Full Post »

El Presidente Jorge W. Bush
Presidente Bush continues to do his best in order to placate the GOP and Republican voters by finally signing the U.S.-Mexican border fence bill that rubber-stamps the building of 700 miles of fencing somewhere along the southern American border. The signing ceremony was slightly meager, but ample enough to garner media, and consequently public attention in a time when the Republican leadership needs exposure the most–elections are but a scant two weeks distant.

During the signing, Bush spewed forth some drivel about how the United States has lost control of its borders. Here’s a quote from the succeeding linked story.

“Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise,” Bush said at a signing ceremony.

“We have a responsibility to enforce our laws,” he said. “We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious.”

He called the fence bill “an important step in our nation’s efforts to secure our borders.”

Of course, we all know Bush is talking out of his ass.  He doesn’t mean a single word of what he belched forth during todays signing ceremony, most evidenced by his following comments propagandizing his preposterous guest worker program that will in essence legalize at minimum 12 million illegal aliens.

For now though, Bush simply wants to avoid a crushing defeat of the GOP at the polls in a couple of weeks, which is why he also issued his timely atonement for the loss of lives in Iraq coinciding so near to the November elections.

Don’t fall prey to these obvious attempts at misdirection.  Bush does not want this fence, just as he does not want to leave Iraq.  What surprises me though is this concept of capitulation that Bush is adhering to concerning illegal aliens and the border fence.  The Republican Party has, at least in the past 60 years or so, consistently been tough on illegal immigration.  Even in the last couple of decades, whenever a candidate, Republican or not, takes a hard stand against illegal immigration, that candidate usually wins whatever post he was campaigning for.  Why then would Bush simply not follow this tried and true edict?  Why would he choose to legalize up to 20 million illegal aliens?  Why would he not want to secure our border?  Why is he so sympathetic to Mexican and Latin American people when many American citizens are in desperate need of help themselves?

My only answer to these questions–pessimism for the future of the United States.  Bush believes that protecting our borders is moot at this point to such a degree that the tide cannot be kept at bay.  Better to let it wash over us, drown us, turn us into a third world nation in order to ensure that those waves of illegals will remember that it was the GOP who allowed them to come into the country and exist legally, maintaining a hope that when future elections come, the Latino community will recognize who it was that granted them this great gift and vote Republican.

The image “https://i0.wp.com/www.worldnewsstand.net/2002/article/aztlan2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Bush Signs U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Bill

Oct 26, 9:52 AM (ET)
By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they’re tough on illegal immigration.

“Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise,” Bush said at a signing ceremony.

“We have a responsibility to enforce our laws,” he said. “We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious.”

He called the fence bill “an important step in our nation’s efforts to secure our borders.”

The centerpiece of Bush’s immigration policy, a guest worker program, remains stalled in Congress.

And a handful of House Republican are at the brakes, blocking negotiations with the Senate for a bill that includes the president’s proposal.

Still, Bush argues that it would be easier to get his guest worker program passed if Republicans keep their majorities in the House and Senate after the Nov. 7 elections. His proposal would allow legal employment for foreigners and give some of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States a shot at becoming American citizens.

The measure Bush put into law Thursday before heading for campaign stops in Iowa and Michigan offers no money for the fence project covering one-third of the 2,100-mile border.

Its cost is not known, although a homeland security spending measure the president signed earlier this month makes a $1.2 billion down payment on the project. The money also can be used for access roads, vehicle barriers, lighting, high-tech equipment and other tools to secure the border.

Mexican officials have criticized the fence. Outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox, who has spent much of his six years in office lobbying for a new guest worker program and a chance at citizenship for the millions of Mexicans working illegally in the U.S., calls the fence “shameful” and compares it to the Berlin Wall. (Hecubus note – Vicente, you ignorant person, you.  The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, not keep people out.  We want to keep people out.)

Others have doubts about its effectiveness.

“A fence will slow people down by a minute or two, but if you don’t have the agents to stop them it does no good. We’re not talking about some impenetrable barrier,” T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing Border Patrol agents, said Wednesday.

Customs and Border Protection statistics show that apprehensions at border crossings are down 8 percent nationally for the budget year that just ended, Bonner said. Apprehensions were up in the San Diego sector, he said, an area of the nearly 2,000-mile border that has the most fencing.

A spokesman for Customs and Border Protection would not confirm the statistics or discuss reasons for the increase in the San Diego sector.

Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Texas Republicans, had wanted to amend the fence bill to give local governments more say about where fencing is erected. They lost that battle, but Republican leaders assured them the Homeland Security Department would have flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed.

Cornyn said he voted for the fence because he wanted to help demonstrate that Congress was serious about border security.

“The choice we were presented was: Are we going to vote to enhance border security, or against it?” Cornyn said. “I think that’s how the vote was viewed.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts