Posted on 07/05/2007 12:56:42 PM PDT by pissant
I have always loved both Rohrabacher and Hunter. The fact that they HAVE to petition the “President” is telling; it SHOULDN’T BE NECESSARY, and even if Bush pardons the agents it NOW looks like it will be from “pressure” and not his own initiative. This is a “leader” who leaves a lot to be desired, to put it mildly.
And that “reporter” was Chipmunk Cheeks Russert.
Why the jury believed him over Libby is probably a case of name recognition.
Worked so hard? They picked up some shell casings and didn't file a report. I'm sure that is SOP unless there is a body they have to carry to the morgue. In this case they had no idea they had hit the serial drug smuggler and given him an extra asshole until they were questioned by people who, IMO, had an agenda of their own.
At a border crossing, for example - where carrying an unlicensed firearm would be an obvious tipoff.
An unlicensed firearm? Does a firearm have to be "unlicensed" before it can be used to gun down a border patrol agent? And who "licenses" firearms?
You seem to have your own agenda in this matter. You don't seem to be able to understand that the only crime committed in this matter was felony drug smuggling, and our government traded a get out of jail free card to the smuggler in exchange for his perjured testimony against two highly decorated and honorable government servants.
Duncan Hunter Bump!
I’ve wondered that too.
Bump
Perhaps you can show me in the manual where this is SOP.
An unlicensed firearm? Does a firearm have to be "unlicensed" before it can be used to gun down a border patrol agent?
No, my point is that a Mexican national would not have a license to carry any firearm into the United States unless he had some fairly sophisticated diplomatic credentials - tehrefore a Mexican national with a firearm would be carrying an unlicensed firearm - which is immediate probable cause and a prosecutable offense in its own right, even if there had been no drugs.
I have seen the court docs. I’m not a lawyer nor do I stay at Holiday Inns.
I don’t agree with their sentence. Have you seen an official statement from the White House?
That is the point.
Ignoring the "manual" is by and large SOP. You don't normally go strictly by the "manual" unless you have reason to think that someone is going to see if you went by the manual.
In this case they shot at Davila, but they saw him jump into a truck and drive away. They had no reason to suspect that they had hit him, so it was just a routine screw-up. A typical SNAFU (situation normal - all screwed up). SNAFU's like that usually get swept under the rug. Technically (according to the "manual" SNAFU's are to be placed into a report, but who in their right mind is going to write a report saying that you screwed up unless you have reason to suspect that someone is going to be asking you about it later?
The fact is that it is SOP to ignore the "manual". Anyone who has ever been in the service can tell you that the "manual" is something they only consult when they think someone might ask them why they didn't follow it.
That, my friend, is SOP.
Sutton actively suppressed evidence, and then lied about it during his media damage control offensive. He told Glenn Beck "The judge suppressed the evidence about the drug smuggler...I had nothing to do with it". What the little prick didn't reveal is that HE filed the motions to suppress that evidence to protect his criminal witness. At least 4 jurors said they would have voted to acquit Ramos and Campeos had they seen this evidence.
Last I heard he was going to look at it carefully. I do not know where that “look” stands right now.
Glad to hear that. Thank you.
Yeah...how presumptuous of them.
Well put!
“The two border patrol agents committed the cardinal offense of doing their jobs in repelling illegal aliens.”
Anathema to the Bush administration!
bttt!
Dang it!
I missed it. :o(
To President Bush I say, taking my cue from Nike...
Just Do It!
Excellent, Phil!
Great call!
Sutton is a miserable little man.
I hope one day he finds himself in Ramos’ and Compean’s position.
You are using 20/20 hindsight to convict them. The agents don't know whether the criminal has a gun or not. Sometimes, criminals may pretend that they do. That's why the criminal should have stopped when the agents said halt.
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.