Posted on 01/26/2007 10:08:51 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
- The Mexican suspected drug smuggler granted immunity in the controversial - and politically explosive - prosecution of two U.S. Border Patrol agents is not entirely off the hook.
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the man at the center of the row over the prosecution and jailing of the two agents who shot the illegal immigrant, confirmed to Cybercast News Service Thursday that there is an ongoing investigation into Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila and others.
Aldrete-Davila had been driving a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana on Feb. 17, 2005, the day border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean shot and wounded him as he fled on foot toward the Mexican border.
Sutton gave Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution in that drug-smuggling case in return for his testimony against the pair.
But amid the political row over the case, one allegation has been widely reported but never established: that Aldrete-Davila had subsequently - in October of that same year - tried to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States.
Critics have accused Sutton of being so zealous in the prosecution that he offered the Mexican further immunity for this second alleged offense. Sutton has denied this.
Pressed on the matter Thursday, the U.S. attorney worded his response carefully.
"If an allegation of drug smuggling is made, we're investigating it, and that includes the allegation made in this case," he told Cybercast News Service.
"If we have sufficient evidence to prove a case against a drug smuggler - including Aldrete - we will bring it," Sutton added.
"If there is a provable case against Aldrete, we will bring it as we would any other drug dealer," Sutton added. "He does not have immunity for anything other than his truthful testimony."
However, Sutton insisted Aldrete-Davila was neither arrested nor indicted prior to or after the shooting incident, a statement the Border Patrol agents' union contends is false.
"There was no secondary arrest. There was no secondary indictment," Sutton said of the allegation reported numerous times in the media.
This possible second charge did not pertain directly to the case in which Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively for shooting at the illegal immigrant.
But the claim inflamed an already outraged public who questioned why a drug dealer would be set free for even one offense while border agents are jailed.
'Sealed indictment'
Members of Congress have called for hearings on Capitol Hill to investigate the case, while the agents' union, the National Border Patrol Council, is calling for a special counsel independent from the Justice Department to investigate Sutton.
Two resolutions were introduced in the House this month - one to vacate the conviction and sentencing of the agents and another calling on President Bush to pardon them.
The National Border Patrol Council insists there was a sealed indictment against Aldrete-Davila for smuggling the 1,000 pounds of marijuana.
Another individual indicted in that drug seizure was called as a witness for the agents' defense but was not allowed to testify because of a sealed indictment and an ongoing investigation, the union says.
The union further contends that U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency officials involved in the seizure of the 1,000 pounds of marijuana were not allowed to testify in this Ramos-Compean case because of an ongoing investigation that could have been compromised.
Given the secrecy and gag orders on the case, Cybercast News Service asked the union about its source for the claims about a second drug offense.
"The agents, before they went to prison," said union President T.J. Bonner. "They felt free to talk without being held in contempt of court, because they were going to jail anyway."
Bonner believes the prosecutor is being disingenuous to claim there was no arrest.
"He's just being very cute," Bonner said. "Because the indictment was expunged, he's pretending it was never there."
Sutton stressed that he was limited as to what he could say regarding any ongoing probe.
"There's an allegation that were discussed at the [Ramos-Compean] trial among lawyers that I can't go into beyond that," Sutton said.
"Lawyers for both the defendant and the prosecution who tried the case and the judge had hearings on those cases and rulings were made," he said.
"All decisions about what evidence comes into court was discussed among the lawyers and the judge, and the judge made the rulings about what evidence comes into court in the trial," Sutton said.
He said the character of the smuggler did not alter the fact that the agents had committed a violent crime.
"All of the discussion of bad acts of the smuggler were litigated at trial to determine what was admissible and what was not," Sutton said.
"He was cross-examined for many hours by defense attorneys. The jury was very clearly aware he was a dope smuggler, an illegal alien and a bad guy that runs from the police. That was all clear at the trial," he said.
The law enforcement dampening and other effects that will result from this case will ripple throughout the entire country.
"Sutton gave Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution in that drug-smuggling case in return for his testimony against the pair."
All I can do is shake my head, this makes no sense at all. Why in on earth would he do that?
There were a LOT of people hanging their hats on this "second arrest" canard. This article might not completely sink the argument, but it's fair to say it has lost steering and is taking on water.
Because he thought the evidence pointed to the BP agents committing a serious crime, and the agents' own actions made prosecution of the smuggler impossible.
Excuse me. Not impossible, but fruitless.
I've gotten so tired of the proponents not using their brains.
I just posted on another thread a description based solely on the statements made by the two BP agents, noting that if you made a movie of it the audience would complain that it wasn't realistic.
The gist of it: A hardened drug-smuggler, armed and dangerous, is running from the police who is NOT shooting at him. But rather than continuing to run, he TURNS TOWARD THE OFFICER, brandishing a loaded weapon. But when the officer shoots at him 14 times, the smuggler does NOT SHOOT BACK, and instead turns after the shots and starts running again.
But then he stops, and turns back just as the OTHER officer shows up. Again, he brandishes a loaded gun, but when the officer shoots one time at him, the evil drug smuggler turns away, again without firing a shot, and runs.
They insist a drug smuggler would carry a gun to protect himself, but then want us to believe that he would point the weapon at officers who were not shooting at him (which he would KNOW would cause them to shoot at him) and then NOT shoot back at them.
In other words, the evil Drug Smuggler shows more restraint in the use of deadly force than the two BP agents.
Nothing that happens, period, surprises me much anymore either!
Don't forget that the two agents did not warn the other responding officers that the subject was armed.
Drug smugglers don't shoot at law enforcement officers because they have guns? Is that what you are saying?
No.
I'm saying that the defense claim is that a drug smuggler POINTED A GUN at two BP agents who were NOT shooting at the drug smuggler, but then when the BP agents shot at him the drug smuggler did NOT fire back at them, but rather ran again.
IN other words, he's running and NOT being shot at, so he stops, pulls out a weapon, and POINTS IT AT THE AGENTS, so the agents shoot at him, and then he puts his gun away and starts running again.
Which, I am saying, is absurd. If the guy had a gun, AND he pointed the gun at the agents, he would have also SHOT at them. The supporters want you to believe a smuggler who was getting away from the agents turned and pointed a gun at them but had no intention of shooting it, and didn't shoot it when they shot at him.
To which I note that, if the story is true, the drug smuggler was more restrained in the use of deadly force than the two BP agents were.
There are a multitude of reasons why Alddrete may have decided not to shoot back. I would say getting shot by the agent was probably at the top of the list.
Anyway, go read it. I won't rebut the entire thing, any thinking person can do that for themselves by reading it. I'll just reference the FIRST thing mentioned, to show how it is done:
According to the affidavit of the Office of Inspector General Investigator who accompanied the drug smuggler to William Beaumont Army Medical Center for treatment, the Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler "advised that the bullet entered the lower left buttocks of the victim and passed through his pelvic triangle and lodged in his right thigh"
OK, note first that we don't have evidence from the doctor, but from someone reporting what the doctor said. We have an "affidavit", but given that this person would never have testified in court, an "affidavit" has no real meaning, it's not like he'd go to jail for lying. But he might not even be lying, he might have simply misunderstood what was said. But in any case, this was offered to claim the drug smuggler had turned around, but if he was facing the agents the bullet would not have lodged in his right thigh after going through his left butt -- he would have to have been sideways with his back toward them.
Which is the testimony at trial, somehow presented by the pro-BP people as if it helps them:
At the trial, the Army doctor testified that the drug smuggler's body was "bladed" away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left-handed person running away while pointing backward, causing the body to twist.
Which I guess would be helpful to the agents, if their story was that the guy pointed a gun at them while running away. But the story they told was that he turned toward them, and had something shiny in his hand.
Bump for later read...
The fact that the U.S. Attorney's Office and Office of Inspector General were able to track down the drug smuggler in Mexico proves that the government had sifficient evidence to tie him to the drug load, but nonetheless chose not to prosecute him
I don't believe the NBPC are stupid, therefore they must be deliberately trying to mislead people -- hardly a way to convince us they are trying to get to the truth.
See, the reason our agents could FIND the dealer is that the dealer TOLD US WHERE HE WAS, as part of the PLEA DEAL. Get it? He contacts through an intermediary, makes arrangements for use immunity, then he TELLS US WHERE HE IS, and we send people to drive him up to the U.S. to remove the bullet.
To suggest that this "proves" anything is so absurd that it taints everything these people tell us. That they would lie so blatantly about something so trivial shows that you can't trust anything they say.
This has turned out to be quite a "he said", "she said" controversy. Most of the weight of course is with the US Attorney. Hopefully a proper investigation will ensue and we will finally have answers as to what really happen.
That statement is extremely insulting. Typical elitist nonsense.
I suggest you read this http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf and then return and make your insulting charges.
none of the agents on the north side of the irrigation canal could have possibly seen what transpired on the other side of the levee access road,
They also say: only three individuals were eyewitnesses to the crucial events of that day: the two accused Border Patrol agents and the drug smuggler. The other Border Patrol agents who responded to the scene remained on the north side of a steep and wide drainage canal, and their view of the levee channel south of them was completely obscured by the levy access road,
OK, their claim is that nobody else saw the shootings. Let's accept this claim as true for the sake of discussion. Later, trying to excuse the BP agents for not reporting the shooting to supervisors, they argue this:
In accordance with the agency's firearms policy, employees who participate in or observe a reportable shooting incidend are required to "orally report the incident to a supervisor".
Well, how would this excuse the two agents, since according to the NPBC the two agents were the ONLY TWO AGENTS to "participate or observe" the shootings. If the other agents did not observe the shootings, why would they be in trouble for not reporting it, and why would the two agents who DID participate and observe the shooting think they didn't have to report it?
Remember, this is the best they could do when they had MONTHS to comb through all the statements and present an argument in the best light possible. And they can't even be consistent within their own 9-page "rebuttal".
Go read posts 34, 36, and 39. I read that so-called "rebuttal", and it is easily debunked. I would be embarrased to have to count on that document for anything.
I notice that you didn't say one word about the subtance of my post. Do you find it credible that a fleeing drug smuggler who was NOT being shot at, and had clearly gotten away from the agents, would turn around and point a gun at them, and then NOT SHOOT, even when they shoot at him?
Do you find it at all credible that he would do this not ONCE, but TWICE, both times turning with the gun when there was no evidence that agents were anywhere close to catching him?
If you find that credible, I would like to hear you say it. Note that in addition, we have the testimony of both men that at one point the defendant had both of his hands in the air -- they claim it was to "balance himself" and later to "attack the agent". Why would a man with a gun use his hands in the air to attack an agent? Where was the gun when the hands were in the air, such that he could later pull it out while he was running, but such that neither agent could see the gun when they were in close proximity with the man?
So he gets out of his van, grabs his gun, shoves it in a pocket or in his pants, runs away, runs INTO campeon (who is waiting in ambush for him). He raises his hands with no weapon, Campeon gets into a struggle (according to the BP agent, the other testimony is that the guy was surrendering but Campeon fell over), still no weapon, then the guy gets up but instead of pulling his weapon and shooting or disarming the agent laying on the ground, the drug smuggler RUNS AWAY.
But after running for a while and putting distance between him and the agent, THEN the drug smuggler retrieves the weapon from some hidden place WHILE RUNNING, and then turns around and POINTS THE WEAPON at the BP agent, but he's so far away the agent isn't sure it's a weapon, he just sees a little glint of metal, but the BP agent shoots anyway, and the smuggler doesn't fire back.
They say don't pull your weapon unless you intend to use it. Yet I'm supposed to believe that an armed drug smuggler pulled his weapon, but didn't use it.
As I said -- the drug smuggler, if you are to believe the BP agents, had more restraint in the use of deadly force than the BP agents. The BP agents (by their testimony) thought they MIGHT have seen a weapon in the hands of a fleeing man, and they fear for their lives and SHOOT AT HIM. But the drug-smuggling criminal, who supposedly is Brandishing a weapon, having been actually SHOT AT 15 TIMES by border agents, refuses to defend himself by firing back.
If there were no other agents around, I'm certain the two BP agent's story would have the guy actually FIRING THE WEAPON at them, because at least then it would make sense. Unfortunately, there were too many witnesses for them to add shots fired by the smuggler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.