Posted on 11/24/2007 5:16:09 AM PST by Salena Zito
... & pardon these 2 Saturday, November 24, 2007
The degrading, draconian and disgraceful incarceration of former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean indicates President George W. Bush, the self-anointed compassionate conservative, is capable of stone-cold stupidity. By doing their duty along the near-lawless border with Mexico, Messrs. Ramos and Compean have become tragic symbols of this nation's gross incompetence regarding enforcement of immigration law.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
So you are calling the doctors who treated him liars? What was that you complained about, that I accused C/R folks of being willing to attack anybody who was against C/R? Do you see why I made that claim now?
Why would you say with sarcasm something that was testified to under oath by a respected medical professional?
I’ll try not to include you in the adult conversation next time.
Not that you are attacking anybody who opposed the golden boys.......
Your statement is incorrect. The BP agents acknowledged this in cross testimony at trial, that they did not follow proper procedure.
And no, I’m not going to look up and quote their testimony, someone will just say that quoting testimony is misleading.
By thread, I meant the specific list of comments to which you were responding, I should have said “post”. I apologize.
I’ve never been to Mexico, and have no desire to go there.
The thread is about someone asking to pardon C/R. In post 7 someone claimed without any evidence that Davila was paid for his testimony. That is what this string of posts was about. I asked for a link, and asked if he could be refering to the medical treatment.
And for some weird reason, someone responded that he wasn’t really injured. I don’t know why someone wanted to argue that Davila didn’t receive expensive medical treatment, I thought everybody knew that was the case. As I said, it wasn’t opinion, it was simple fact, something that the pro-C/R folks have pointed out repeatedly, but some now want to argue simply because I said it.
Facts don’t really seem to matter here.
Your exact words were: "It also needs to be noted that it has never been shown that he was shot by Campean and Ramos "
The trial testimony clearly "shows" that he was shot by Ramos. It doesn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but with no evidence presented at trial to counter the stipulation, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But your distinction is noted. I'm not sure it's a useful distinction, because most things are never "proven" under that definition, and that's not what is usually meant by "shown".
Your argument that the detailed ballistics test may have been faulty is an interesting one. I haven't seen anybody say it's part of the appeal. Given that Compean was convicted even though he didn't hit the guy, and received a longer sentence, it does not seem that actual injury was a deciding factor. I also don't know (having not seen the ballistics test, just as you said you hadn't seen it) that the test was of the variety that have been called into question.
I apologize for saying "no evidence", as that was clearly a stronger statement than your "never been shown".
You know, in all of the R&C threads AND the championing from Hunter, Billbray, and other politicians (plus Laura Ingraham), you are the Lone Ranger on this issue. You have placed yourself on the side of Johnny Sutton. Says a lot!
It’s certainly a lot easier to go along with the crowd. And while I don’t fault Bush for not pardoning the agents, I wouldn’t have been upset with him had he done so, simply because the punishment didn’t seem to fit the crime even if you believed the crime was real.
I don’t believe Hunter has gotten into the Sutton-bashing that is popular here, I could be wrong but it seems he focuses on his belief that the BP agents did not do anything wrong and should not be in jail, rather than attacking the process that put them in jail.
I’m not alone though. I would be remiss in not giving some credit to BobJ, and there are a few others.
I’m not really on “sutton’s” side, except that I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to show he has acted illegally or that his prosecution was baseless. If evidence came forth it wouldn’t bother me, but it would surprise me. Some are quick to attribute evil to those who make decisions they don’t agree with. I find it reprehensible, and I bet that in the REAL world most of these people don’t act that way.
I’m on the side of the evidence, and in opposition to conspiracy theories which don’t have enough evidence to overcome their logical faults.
I could always be “wrong” in that sense, as I was “wrong” about the arrest for the 2nd drug load, having not been convinced earlier that there was enough evidence to state as fact that there was such a load.
Now that he has been arrested, I am of the belief that there was such a load, even though technically he is innocent until proven guilty.
Plus, I am happy that Davila will go to prison. He should have gone to prison for the first drug load (should meaning that it was what we wish would happen, not that given the exact circumstances he COULD have been put in prison for it).
No, I did not, nor am I, calling anyone a liar. I am again saying that you are (again) misrepresenting things, in this case testimony. What you presented in post #63 is not testimony at all--it is your summary and rephrasing of testimony. The doctor did not say that OADs condition was life threatening. He was saying ,without any treatment whatsoever, it is possible that an injury like OADs could cause renal failure which, in turn, could cause back pain and be life threatening. Since OAD had a doctor in Mexico attach a catheter and urine bag, that risk was no longer present. Was the gunshot injury serious? Certainly. I never said otherwise. Was it life threatening after his initial visit to the Mexican clinic? No.
What was that you complained about, that I accused C/R folks of being willing to attack anybody who was against C/R? Do you see why I made that claim now?
No, I didn't. And I don't.
Why would you say with sarcasm something that was testified to under oath by a respected medical professional?
Because it wasn't testimony at all but testimony misrepresented by you and repeated several times on this thread.
I read the whole thread. As to "condescending tone"... Ahhhh... the irony.
I'll stick with my comment of "Shameless" and that you have misrepresented information.
It's a shame that quoting testimony is considered misleading...
Paraphrasing and revising testimony, then presenting it as "quoting testimony" is more than misleading. It is dishonest.
uummm no...I heard the agents own union rep. say on the John and Ken show that they did not report the shooting as they were supposed to. And the supposed gun that Davila had was never mentioned by the agents until a month after their arrest...did you know that? They clearly covered up the shooting. I’m not saying that they should have been prosecuted, but you guys are in looneyland totally supporting their actions even in the face of the evidence. There are cops that go too far in the stress of the job. Your anger towards the lack of border enforcement is warping your commonsense.
Whew! Boy did you misinterpret my post!
BTW, you have that saying backwards, it’s Bears DO crap in the woods. The evidence is those little piles laying around, and the observation that bears must defecate.
And no, I don't have anything backwards. It apparently went right over your head.
You sure are throwing that word "lie" around loosely this morning. You've called me lazy, said I lied, and attacked my honor. What a class act! (/s) Just more "hyperbole", I assume?
Guilty? I don't know about guilty, but they are certainly subject to valid criticism, IMO. Sutton has appeared on television misrepresenting the case. I can count multiple mistruths that he uttered, under oath, in front of the Senate. The agents? Nah... not all of them... but those that changed their story multiple times are certainly subject to question. The prosecutors? Most definitely! I expect prosecutors to deal with facts, not twist evidence to fabricate a story inconsistent with the real facts of the case. Kanof is the one that painted OAD as a poor little drug mule. Kanof precluded the jury from getting a true picture of the events that day and allowed testimony that she knew was false. She deserves more than criticism--I'd settle for her being disbarred. The judge? Yep--some of her rulings made absolutely no sense. DHS? Oh, yes! Definitely Skinner and his bunch for fabricating the "Out to Shoot Mexicans" story. The President? I can see how some would be so frustrated over this case, and when combined with the complete lack of control of the border, put some blame on the administration and its leader. It's that "buck stops here" thing. The "investigator's family"? Not sure what you mean by that one.
I understand logic. Your presentation of the "evidence" was lacking in that category. IMHO.
Still presenting your paraphrased version as "direct testimony," huh?
Don't you agree this is misrepresentation?
Please show me what I wrote that you consider as "attacking."
You sure are big on hyperbole today.
No, he didn't.
They stipulated that the bullet taken from OADs leg came from a gun issued to Ramos. Big difference.
Au contraire. Hunter was highly critical of the process and "the Government" and "the United States Attorney" during his testimony before the Senate. He criticized the presentation of OAD as being trustworthy and limiting introduction of evidence to contradict that. He criticized the lack of prosecution of OAD for the second drug incidents. He has also shown outrage at Sutton's consistent representation that OAD was unarmed, despite the lack of proof for those contentions.
These are many of the things folks here have criticized. You seem to prefer to call it "bashing."
The gun was mentioned the first time Compean and Ramos ever told their side of the story. Their story was consistent from the first time they talked to investigators until the end of the trial.
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.