Andy McCarthy unloads on agents in border-patrol shooting
posted at 4:59 pm on January 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
A wise man. A man whose columns are often twice as long as they should be, ideally, but a wise man. And correct, as usual, in this case.
[U.S. Attorney Johnny] Sutton is the top federal law-enforcement officer in one of the nation’s most notorious border badlands. Day in and day out, while no one was paying much attention to the dusty Rio Grande towns outside El Paso, he has been the U.S. Border Patrol’s staunchest ally…
So why are some Border Patrol agents vilifying Sutton today? Why are they joined by a full-throated chorus of union reps, anti-immigration activists, media heavyweights, and a small but vocal cabal of mostly Republican congressmen? Because two rogues who had no business wearing badges and carrying guns have managed to entangle their gross malfeasance in the impassioned politics of immigration, that’s why…
Cops are peace officers; absent life-and-death exigencies, they are not judge, jury and executioner. Not in big cities like New York. Not in rural middle America. And not on the border. As Sutton put it when I spoke with him, a big part of what separates us from many countries in the world is that “in America, the cops are the good guys.”
Compean and Ramos are bad guys…
Instead of arresting the wounded smuggler, they put their guns away and left him behind. But not before trying to conceal the improper discharge of their firearms. Compean picked up and hid his shell-casings rather than leaving the scene intact for investigators. Both agents filed false reports, failing to record the firing of their weapons though they were well aware of regulations requiring that they do so. Because the “heroes” put covering their tracks ahead of doing their duty, Aldrete-Davila was eventually able to limp off to a waiting car and escape into Mexico.
Much, much, much more at the link, all of it a soothing salve to the demagoguery of certain dragon-slaying beastmasters whose names we shall not mention.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Assuming all pertinent evidence was presented. Assuming the jurors who signed the affidavit are properly considered by the appeals court. Assuming all of the facts line up the way Sutton said they did, without qualifiers, maybe’s, and beyond any reasonable doubt, then yes.
Sutton might get an apology if the facts shake out the way he has portrayed them, although I still would think he used the letter of the law to violate its spirit and undermined and caused a lot of damage to the cause of secure borders. Other agents could reasonably assume that it’s wise to look the other way and avoid such encounters instead of forcing a confrontation knowing what the consequences are if they screw up.
Bush doesn’t deserve any apology from anyone even if every one of Sutton’s facts are dead nuts on, since Bush has encouraged an environment that creates chaos on our southern border. He would have these agents prosecuted in the name of enforcing the law, while giving amnesty to millions who willfully and knowingly broke our laws.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Well, I’ll have to agree to disagree with you concerning Bush creating the chaos although he could certainly have done more to quell it. I put the chaos blame more on the Multi-Culturalists and the way they have perverted the American mindset and given us what we have today.
I subscribe more to the Teddy Roosevelt way of thinking….
You and I will have to agree to disagree on the BP case, but I certainly hope we can agree on this.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 4:50 PM
GT …
Would you close the border completely? Would you build a wall? Do you favor Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform?” Do you favor guest worker programs? Do you favor “increasing” legal immigration numbers? Do you favor taking away the free medical, education, and other benefits currently being provided to illegals?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM
“Shooting down my own point”? Good Lord, you’re an idiot.
The fact that the suspect may have been armed does not by itself give officers the right to employ lethal force.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM
It does when the testimony was that he was turning and pointing it toward the agents.
And again … the only actual witness who claims this DIDN’T happen is the drug smuggler himself.
So, are you saying that agents should not be allowed to fire upon a fleeing suspect who turns and points a firearm at them?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Gregor:
The “facts”? As recited by WorldNetDaily and a grandstanding Congressman? Here’s an interesting question for you to ponder: if the defendants could not properly be charged under 18 USC 924(c), and were subject only to administrative discipline for violation of the INS Firearms Policy, why didn’t the defense raise the issue at trial?
Here’s a fact: the grandstanding Congressman and the idiot WND columnist are wrong, and the charge against the defendants under 18 USC 924(c) was absolutely proper.
The agent testified this, you’re right. The jury didn’t believe him.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Would you close the border completely? Please define “close the border completely”.
Would you build a wall? Absolutely.
Do you favor Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform?” Depends on the details to which I don’t know enough about to have an informed opinion. If it were as he describes, probably. If it is as Michelle describes, no.
Do you favor guest worker programs? Yes.
Do you favor “increasing” legal immigration numbers? It would depend on the details as to who gets the increase.
Do you favor taking away the free medical, education, and other benefits currently being provided to illegals? Absolutely.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Were you at the trial? How do you know that issue was not raised?
Not according to several of the jurists who now say they thought he was innocent but were pressured into ruling guilty and were not instructed that a hung jury was a possible outcome.
So are you calling the actual jurists liars?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Uh, wrong. The self-serving testimony of the accused is not dispositive.
…who the jury evidently found to be more credible than the agent.
No. I’m saying that agents shouldn’t make up self-serving fables to justify their own lawlessness.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 5:15 PM
The irony is that if they would have shot and killed him, they would have received a reprimand and sent on their way. I still say that the real crime is Mexico dictating the punishment. They have not arrested the drug smuggler, and he is being touted on Mexican TV as a hero. Mexico is so negligent in its policing, that eventually something like this will happen. We have hundreds, maybe thousands of run-ins along the border, eventually an accident will happen. The officers knew the cards were stacked against them. Punish them for not following procedure, but do not use them as a scapegoat of failed U.S. and Mexican Policy. Don’t let Mexicon dictate our laws to us with negligent action.
right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I never wrote that he created it, I wrote that he encouraged an environment that leads to it:
It’s a different topic than the one we are debating here, but one would be hard pressed to demonstrate how Bush’s policies regarding our southern border do anyhing but encourage said environment that creates chaos.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Fair enough.
By “close the border completely”… I meant build a wall and do whatever it takes to completely stop illegals from crossing our border without following the proper steps.
By “Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform” I meant … allowing the 30 million illegals currently here to simply stay and be rewarded with a “path to citizenship”… otherwise known as “amnesty.”
What’s the difference between “guest worker programs” and the current “working visas” that we already have? In your opinion. And why is there a need to change the policy we already have which allows foreigners to immigrate and work legally on working visas?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Because it’s a threshold issue. If the charge is improper, then the judge dismisses it. And if he doesn’t dismiss it, then the defense makes an instant appeal.
“Juror”, you mean? I’m be more impressed with the jurors’ buyers-remorse claims of coersion if there was any actual evidence of it. So yes, I suppose I am calling them liars.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM
But the self-serving testimony of the drug running illegal immigrant suspect IS??????
Interesting concept.
Again, based on the self-serving testimony of only the drug running suspect himself.
Are you really serious about this? It’s almost comical.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
You’re right. I misread your comment.
Is it his policies which I don’t see as being much different from his predecessors or would it be more accurate to say that his lack of leadership? This may be arguing semantics to some but I do see a difference.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
You mean sorta like judges who give 60 day sentences to guys who molest little boys for 4 years?
Sorta like judges who refuse to send a pedophile to prison because they’re too short and might be beat up by mean convicts?
Sorta like those honorable judges who always do what they’re supposed to and we should never question and just accept that they MUST be doing the right thing?
So, you take the word of a life long drug smuggling illegal alien and say we must accept it, but then tell us the jurors are probably liars and can’t be trusted because they say the thing is rigged.
I have to give it to you. Out of all the comments on this blog … yours are the most entertaining, and the most telling. And you really feel good about those answers, don’t you?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I would say both.
His policies as expressed in his insistence on a comprehensive bill that includes mass amnesty (despite the fact that he refuses to call it amnesty) can only be seen as an enticement to those south of the border that have considered immigrating here illegally.
As far as the lack of current enforcement though, it isn’t that much different than his predecessors, other than the fact that it might be even less vigorous – and that cuts to a lack of leadership, because it shows he’s willing to excuse a certain class of law-breakers, while not excusing others. That kind of inconsistency is a death-knell to effective leadership.
thirteen28 on January 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Never said that. The drug dealer’s testimony isn’t dispositive, either. Who’s credible is a factual question that the jury decides. They did. And it wasn’t the agent.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I’ll agree to that within reason. Some, mostly Bucannanites, that I’ve had this discussion with used that same phrase concerning Free Trade. I’m a strong supporter of Free Trade.
The problem is that is how I’ve heard it characterized, but that isn’t what I’ve heard Bush say. If in the end we have the same kind of amnesty that Reagan signed on to, then no I do not support it.
However, if the illegals were to identify themselves and return voluntarily to their country of origin, submit themselves to the proper method of entry into this country via a Guest Worker Program, be subject to all taxes as proscribed by law, then I support that. And that is what I’ve heard Bush say in his speeches that he wants.
I also support the idea that after the deadline to voluntarily leave has passed, the Government – both local and federal – are duty bound to arrest, punish and deport the illegals and deny access to the Guest Worker program in any form.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I’ll just repeat what I just said to Gregor.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Yes, you did. There are only three actual witnesses to what happened. The two agents, and the drug smuggler. You’ve made clear your position that we can’t possibly accept the testimony of the two agents because it’s self serving, so you choose to accept the only remaining witness’ testimony … which is the drug smuggler.
That’s all there is! All you have left after that is the improper procedure charges, which I’m sure you’ll agree that all by themselves would – according to policy – only merit a 5 day suspension. Without ignoring the agent’s testimony and accepting the testimony of the drug smuggler … there’s no other charges possible.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
BTW, I would also add that I would like to have the Constitutional hole that allows Illegals’, Legals’ and Guests’ children born in the US to automatically become US citizens repealed. The “anchor babies” problem needs to be dealt with.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Right, because an adverse result clearly indicates that the judge was a craven nitwit who wouldn’t know the law from shinola.</sarcasm>
Here’s an idea: how about you cite some actual legal authority — as opposed to a column in a Buchananite e-rag by a crank with no legal training — in support of the claim that the charge under 18 USC 924(c) was improper?
No. I accept the jury’s verdict that the smuggler was more credible than the agent. And I don’t accept individual jurors’ after-the-fact claims of coersion without some substantiation.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Mostly agreed. But Bush has never suggested that illegals will be required to return to Mexico. He’s simply suggested they be given a place in line (path to citizenship). And I can guarantee that the 30 million illegals who are here will not return to Mexico. That is just not going to happen … UNLESS we put a stop to all benefits being given to them, including jobs. If that happens, they will voluntarily return, no deportation would be needed.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Gregor,
At the risk of being called names again, you can’t discount Agent Juarez’s testimony. He was accepted by the court as a credible witness to the events. Therefore, the say that the Jury only accepted the smuggler’s testimony would be incorrect. You make not like it, but it is what it is.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I’m able to read. Have you read the law in question? I have. It’s not too difficult to figure out how far Sutton had to stretch this to attach it to this case. Try reading the law. I don’t think you need to be an attorney or judge to figure it out.
So, you trust the jurors, but then call them liars.
Once again … entertainment at it’s highest level.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM
For a guy who bitched and moaned upthread about “dishonest mischaracterizations” of the agents’ testimony, you’re sure managing a lot of dishonest mischaracterization of what I’ve been saying.
I see no particular reason to continue this conversation.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM
No name calling.
I understand that. Yes, he was. But this is what the debate is about. I am suggesting that the trial was corrupt. This DOES happen, I’m sure you’ll agree. So simply saying the court accepted it, or the court said this or that is not exactly an overwhelmingly strong stance.
As I pointed out earlier …
OJ was found innocent.
Pedophiles have been set free.
Prosecutors attempted to ramrod Duke lacrosse players.
This stuff goes on every day. You know that.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I could be wrong, but that is what I thought I heard a while back. I just got through reading one of his speeches from 2004.
As he describes it, I don’t quite see it as “amnesty” as it has been characterized (i.e. – Reagan amnesty), but as amnesty against prosecution if you register, follow the rules and leave after 3 years. I don’t have a problem with that if it works in conjunction with the Constitutional question of anchor babies addressed as I suggested earlier. The problem I do have with Bush’s proposal is that I don’t trust the Government to enforce it particularly when its time for the “guest” to leave after 3 years. If they won’t do it now, what makes anyone think they are going to do it then?
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 6:02 PM
If it’s not too difficult to figure out how far Sutton had to stretch this to attach it to the case, then you should have absolutely no trouble citing some actual legal authority suggesting that the charge under 18 USC 924(c) was improper. The fact that you’ve read the law and that you think Sutton is wrong is no doubt interesting to some, but is of absolutely zero legal consequence.
Put up or shut up, sonny.
Nice mischaracterization, again.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Oh really? Well, let’s roll the tape. Here’s the EXACT conversation as it happened. Please tell me which part I misrepresented.
It does when the testimony was that he was turning and pointing it toward the agents.
And again … the only actual witness who claims this DIDN’T happen is the drug smuggler himself.
PLEASE tell me how you are not suggesting that the testimony of the agents is not to be trusted, but the testimony of the drug smuggler is.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM
That’s the kind of characterization that I have a problem with. To me, arguing that the trial was corrupt presumes that there was collusion to falsely imprison the Agents. I can’t support that.
If by “corrupt” you mean that the defense did a pretty crappy job letting the Prosecution wall all over them and that the Judge allowed evidence that should not have been admissible, then I could accept that characterization although I would still disagree with it.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM
So … do you need an attorney to tell you that a law which says “it is unlawful for a person to wear a ski mask while inside a bank” should not be used to prosecute a man who wears a cowboy hat while inside a bank?”
It’s really that simple.
Can a person who parks their car in front of the White House Steps to eat lunch be convicted using a law that reads “it is unlawful to threaten the life of the President?”
I guess if the prosecutor is Johnny Sutton.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Centerfire
I suspect that you are an attorney by the language and comments you have made in the forum. I find the conclusions that you have reached about our two heroes a disgrace.
How you can over look all the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during this case, is simply mind boggling.If you have ever praticed criminal law you know exactly what I am talking about.
It is people like you that hide behind the minutia of legal arguments that cause the average person to have such a low oppinion of the Judicial system.
Perhaps you should stop the debate because you have demostrated you have utter disdain for those that protect our borders and choose to believe known criminals that have been coached by the prosecution to lie in a court of law.
ScottyDog on January 30, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Were the Border Agents committing a crime which fits this criteria?
The answer is no, which means this law does not apply. It’s specifically written to apply to drug smugglers.
Is that really tough to understand?
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Why? Give me a reason why you “can’t support that. Do you believe there are cases that are corrupt? Do you believe there are prosecutors who are corrupt, such as in the Duke rape case? Do you believe there are people within our government who are corrupt?
I HOPE the answer is yes to all those questions, because it would be awfully naive to suggest there is no corruption within our government or within our justice system.
And if the answer is yes … you should not be simply accepting this trial at face value with so many questions needing to be answered. You should – at the very least – believe it’s possible.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Well for one, what’s the motive? Secondly, you’re asking me to believe that Sutton and his whole team of lawyers huddled with the Judge and conspired to imprison the two Agents. It would take to many people to plan and execute such a plan for it to work. It might make for a great tv episode, though.
Absolutely. The Duke case with Nifong is a prime example and we all see how that blew up in his face.
Of course. Abscam was fun to watch. But I’m not going to subscribe to some theory that the entire Justice department and Judicial system colluded to put these men in jail. What would be the motive? How would it benefit anyone?
You provide me a credible motive and explain to me in detail how prosecuting these two men benefit Sutton, his team and the Judge personally, then I’ll listen.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Now you’re compounding your dishonesty by moving the goalposts. Roll that tape back a little further…
The bolded portion in the last graf contains at least two mischaracterizations:
(1) I never “made clear my position” that we can’t possibly accept the testimony of the two agents because it’s self-serving. I simply pointed out the rather obvious fact that the testimony of the accused, necessarily self-serving in any criminal trial, is not the end-all and be-all. A jury can properly conclude that the accused is a lying sack of snake crap — or at least a bigger lying sack of snake crap than those offering contrary testimony.
(2) Nor do I “accept the only remaining witness’ testimony”. As I have repeatedly stated, I accept the jury verdict. This is more than a semantic distinction: I wasn’t present at trial, and I am thus in no position to assess the comparative credibility of the witnesses. The jury accepted the drug-dealer’s testimony over that of the agents, on a far more complete record than either you or I have access to; I simply see no reason to second guess them absent either (a) a showing that the verdict was clearly wrong such that no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion; or (b) some actual evidence of impropriety, coersion, or whatever.
These guys had their day in court. They lost. A jury of their peers said they were bad guys. Either demonstrate — not just insinuate, but actually show — that the trial was a miscarriage of justice, or shut the hell up, because by defending a couple of bad border cops you’re a political liability to respectable people who actually take border security seriously.
Translation: I can make no argument of any legal consequence that it was improper for the prosecutor to bring this charge or for the judge to allow it. Rather than allow my legal illiteracy to prevent me from making a complete ass of myself, however, I will continue to allege impropriety based on nothing more than innuendo and the unsubstantiated, after-the-fact claims of a minority of jurors.
I think we’re done, here.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I guess on Planet Gregor, selectively quoting the statute constitutes “actual legal authority”.
Here is 18 USC 924(c), in its entirity:
All emphasis mine, to disabuse the pinheads of the notion that only “drug trafficking crimes” qualify for the additional sentence.
Centerfire on January 30, 2007 at 7:19 PM
So, what were the agents offenses? Attempting to arrest a drug smuggler? Is that now a crime of violence?
CitizenJim on January 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Bush is extremely close with the Mexican Governors and officials who would have close personal ties with Davila.
They call Bush up personally and express their outrage over the shooting. Bush promises them that “justice” will be done. You see, he needs to maintain their friendship. Friendship with Mexico is what Bush is all about.
If Bush didn’t sacrifice the Border Agents, Mexico would have created a fuss all the way to the UN about this. It’s also the reason why he can’t issue a pardon.
Perchant on January 30, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Do you really want to us to believe that Bush pulled strings to get the agents convicted?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Oh boy.
.
GT on January 30, 2007 at 8:34 PM
I’m sure of it. I don’t think he’d even deny it if asked, but he won’t be asked.
Don’t you think the Mexican President has a direct line to Bush and don’t you think he phoned Bush to express his concerns over the incident? And don’t you think Bush assured him that justice would be done in this matter?
The Mexican government knows how important it is to Bush work towards friendly relations and a future partnership with Mexico. They know Bush will do anything they want so as not to jeopardize it.
I imagine the conversation starts something like this:
“George, we both want to work towards a mutually beneficial partnership between our two countries but how can we trust America if unarmed Mexicans are being shot and the assailants are not in jail?”
There is no way, no way in hell, that Bush starts arguing with the Mexican government about it. There will never be two sides to the story when it comes to relations with Mexico.
Perchant on January 30, 2007 at 9:10 PM
See below
I know you’re both just playing now. Unless, maybe you’ve been out of the country for the last several years, possibly hanging out in some cave somewhere with no communication to the outside world.
You act as though there’s absolutely no motive for Bush to please Mexico, no business transactions between the two, and absolutely no pressure from the Mexican government.
Here’s an example of what you’ve missed while you were away:
Geez! No motive at all. Absolutely none.
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Oh yes. I forgot to mention that the above post was referencing an illegal alien who had been shot by a Border Patrol Agent and was suspected of transporting illegals for profit.
Sound a little familiar?
I’d say the Mexican Government’s response to that case would be a pretty good example of a motive and incentive for the Bush administration to “satisfy them.”
Gregor on January 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I noticed this disgusting post originally but for some reason I did not respond to it at the time.
Soothsayer, you give all Christians a bad name by your F U attitude towards anyone who doesn’t share your version of the faith. Even though many of your arguments are Biblically correct, you are an embarrassment to the Christian community by your hateful judgementalism and mis-application of God’s Word, and I am ashamed to call myself a Christian alongside of you.
Allah, please accept my apology on behalf of all believers for this person’s hatred towards you.
infidel4life on January 31, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Centerfire isn’t wildly entertaining to you anymore?
MKR on January 31, 2007 at 7:07 AM
….ALERT….ALERT….BDS DETECTED…..ALERT…..ALERT…..
BDS DETECTED…..ALERT…..ALERT…..BDS DETECTED……
.
GT on January 31, 2007 at 7:20 AM
It would seem to me that Bush is simply being consistent. He refused to sign the hate crimes legislation back in 2000 in favor of letting the courts just do their job. Looks to me like he’s doing the same now.
BTW, you do realize that Bush did sign “The Wall” bill. If I’m not mistaken, construction has already begun.
Are you sure you boys don’t have those tinfoil hats on just a bit too tight? [/wink]
.
GT on January 31, 2007 at 7:24 AM
I guess you can respond with that to
criticism of Bush, no matter how well reasoned. I’m sure it’s a heckuva lot easier than dealing with the argument.
Perchant on January 31, 2007 at 8:48 AM
That should have been emphasis>any
Perchant on January 31, 2007 at 8:50 AM
No doubt about that. He’s been 100% consistent in supporting his open borders partnership with the Mexican government.
Yes, you ARE mistaken. The wall has yet to even be funded and my prediction is that it will never be built. And even if it IS built, it is nothing more than a symbolic fraud. The LOCATION of the fence will no doubt be some obscure location which will have absolutely no positive impact on illegal crossings. It’s a 700 mile fence to be located at a ‘yet to be determined’ position and to cover only about 1/3 of the actual border.
And in “staying consistent” … Bush will continue to bend over and grab his ankles to avoid angering his business partners:
Right. Nice try. You just called 85% of the population “tin foil hatters.”
Good job.
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Bush blind follower alert … ALERT .. ALERT … BBF DETECTED … ALERT .. BUSH BLIND FOLLOWER ALERT … ALERT … BBF …
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Including the host of this blog … Michelle Malkin. I wonder if you would be so bold as to email her the same arguments you throw at us.
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 12:05 PM
I wonder if GT and Centerfire will choose to ignore the Department of Homeland Security.
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Must hear audio
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Why are you ignoring Centerfire’s most recent comments?
You’ve responded to just about everything else on this page.
MKR on January 31, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Uh huh….I see.
Bush signs bill to build 700-mile fence on U.S.-Mexico border: USA Today
Feds Begin Construction of Vehicle Fence Along Southwest Border: FoxNews
Yep, no doubt about it. Your tinfoil hat is on too tight and I’ve wasted entirely too much time on your silliness.
.
GT on January 31, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Again with the belief that we’re all stupid on this blog. What’s up with you?
Yes, we’re all aware that Bush signed the Border Fence Bill. We’re also aware they signed it just before the mid-term elections in the belief that GOP voters would be stupid enough to not notice that it had no funding.
Wrong.
The fence will never be built.
As for your second link … it’s almost comical.
Yeah. That’s the same fence we’re talking about, right?
Are you the most gullible person in the world?
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 5:53 PM
His own words.
There’s nothing I can say to Centerfire regarding his posts that haven’t already been said many times, by many people on this same thread. The THREE of you can share your view and the other 99% of us will share our view.
How’s that?
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Yeah, just keep on calling Michelle Malkin a silly tinfoil hat wearer.
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:10 PM
You really are thick, aren’t you.
Arizona Daily Star
…..
Trust me. You don’t have a quarter of the intelligence she has. The fact that you have try to deflect my point by bringing her into it proves it.
You’re just a waste of bandwidth and my time at this point.
.
GT on January 31, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Deja Vu. Here we go again.
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Is there something NEW in the quote you posted? No. Reading comprehension classes. Community college courses are cheap.
Then why are you mocking her beliefs, dipshit?
So do us all a favor and cancel your internet subscription. There’s about 99% of Hot Air readers who are sick of you.
Gregor on January 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I just reviewed the report by Friends of the Border Patrol on Johnny Sutton’s maliscious prosecution of Compean and Ramos.
The information in his rebuttal to Suttons fact sheet is shocking and should be read by all interested forum members.
Here is just one example:
“The government filed a false report when they swore out the arrest warrant for Agents Compean & The warrant stated, Ballistic testing confirms a government issued weapon
belonging to U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Nacho Ramos, a 96D Beretta 40 caliber automatic pistol , serial number BER067069M, fired a bullet (a 40 caliber Smith & Wesson jacketed hollow-point) which hit the victim in the left buttocks as he attempted to flee to Mexico. Where the victim was shot on U.S. Government property between the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande River and the levy.
In fact, the bullet according to the ballistic report issued by the Department of Public Safety on March 18, 2006 Laboratory Case Number L4E- 46738, stated that The manufacturer of the firearm of the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown but could include encountered models of 40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.
When IG Special Agent Chris Sanchez ignored the fact as reported by DPS that the manufacturer of the bullet was unknown, he swore out a false warrant on Agents Ramos & Compean. (DPS Report prepared by Joseph J.J. Correa, Criminalist IV)”
The plot thickens, it now seems that the investigating officer, Chris Sanchez, not only took the evidence home with him at night, breaking the chain of custody, he swore to false information in the arrest warrant for Compean and Ramos.
ScottyDog on January 31, 2007 at 7:10 PM
In case some of you want to read it for yourself, here is the link.
And here is the link for the House Judiciary Committee Testimony by Andy Ramirez during the Congressional investigation.
ScottyDog on January 31, 2007 at 7:42 PM
What are the depths of your intellectual dishonesty?
You were just slammed by Centerfire for your intentionally narrow interpretation of 18 USC 924(c), as well as your blatant mischaractisation of his comments, and you have no response to this?
Translation: I was just backed into a corner and I’d better shut my mouth before I make a further fool of myself.
Your conduct? Pissweak, mate.
Pissweak.
MKR on January 31, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Birds chirping. You still have your two fans, so don’t be too depressed. Keep on fighting. Maybe you’ll manage to convince a third person.
How does it feel to be part of .05 percent on an opinion poll? Must be discouraging.
Gregor on February 1, 2007 at 2:23 AM
You’re not fooling anyone.
MKR on February 1, 2007 at 4:49 AM
You’re right. Everyone but you three had already figured it out on their own.
Only fooling going on is from the three of you.
Gregor on February 1, 2007 at 12:17 PM
You know, I bet that BushCo. is going to have these guys killed in prison. That’s what I’m predicting.
Bill C on February 5, 2007 at 11:56 PM
You know, I bet that BushCo. is going to have these guys killed in prison. That’s what I’m predicting.
Bill C on February 5, 2007 at 11:56 PM
William2006 on February 6, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3