Are you even capable of posting anything except irrational, biased, unthinking, partisan rhetoric?

Compared with the irrational, biased, unthinking, partisan rhetoric of the right-extremist blogers from grassfire.org it's quite rational imho. If you think those people are anywhere in the vincinity of rationality you have to adjust your system fundamantally.

On the Glen Beck show the other night a lady that went to see one the Agents said he had been assaulted in Prison, the Warden said they did not have enough Guards to protect the Agents. The Agents were being moved to Solitary for their own protection.

They probably don't have enough guards to properly run the prison. Only now it's been made public, and the right-wingers don't like it, as some of there pets is on the recieving end, not only those, who in their twisted minds don't deserve better.
The much I don't like this in regard of these special persons (although there should be no difference between prisoner and prisoner in regard of treatment), the much I do like it that this truth comes to the conciesness of the right wing hate mongers.

Agreed, it is a shame that it takes something like this to bring it to light! Why hasn't that Warden been screaming to anyone that will listen that she doesn't have enough people before this? Maybe she has and the 'powers that be' have ignored her until know. If so I hope she has records!

---

Compared with the irrational, biased, unthinking, partisan rhetoric of the right-extremist blogers from grassfire.org it's quite rational imho. If you think those people are anywhere in the vincinity of rationality you have to adjust your system fundamantally.

Sheesh.

How about this: Compared with the irrational, biased, unthinking, partisan rhetoric of the left-extremist blogers [sic] from MoveOn.org it's quite rational imho. If you think those people are anywhere in the vincinity [sic] of rationality you have to adjust your system fundamantally.[sic]

For the most part, your posts are no different than those on Grassfire or Moveon. Left or right doesn't matter, any thinking person dismisses ideologues. Your posts suggest that you are incapable of posting anything beyond partisan screeds.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

For the most part, your posts are no different than those on Grassfire or Moveon. Left or right doesn't matter, any thinking person dismisses ideologues. Your posts suggest that you are incapable of posting anything beyond partisan screeds.

The problem with rightwing ideologists like you seem to be is their refusement to admit their being ideological and denounce every dissent from their pov as ideology.

I asked several times why the agents should go unpunished for their deeds. All answers were evasive, had nothimng to do with their deeds and only with other circumstances. They don't fit in the ideolocical scheme. Border police on duty on this border can't anything wrong, any accusation is blasphemious, it's either with us or against us.

The drug dealer is definitely no good person, and probably belongs in jail as well, I don't really understand why such a far reaching deal with him was made. But that's a completely different question from misconduct on duty, the crimes of the rough agents.

(And regarding my spelink erorrs: Write the next post in perfect german, and it's OK to critizise. Unless you can't do this, shut the f*** up in this regard.)

For the most part, your posts are no different than those on Grassfire or Moveon. Left or right doesn't matter, any thinking person dismisses ideologues. Your posts suggest that you are incapable of posting anything beyond partisan screeds.

The problem with rightwing ideologists like you seem to be is their refusement to admit their being ideological and denounce every dissent from their pov as ideology.

I asked several times why the agents should go unpunished for their deeds. All answers were evasive, had nothimng to do with their deeds and only with other circumstances. They don't fit in the ideolocical scheme. Border police on duty on this border can't anything wrong, any accusation is blasphemious, it's either with us or against us.

The drug dealer is definitely no good person, and probably belongs in jail as well, I don't really understand why such a far reaching deal with him was made. But that's a completely different question from misconduct on duty, the crimes of the rough agents.

Well, I tried to stay out of this topic because I have been accused to be extremely left-wing by others in this forum before.
But I also think the border patrols (and often the police, too) tend to over-react sometimes (especially in situations which can be seen as racist violence later) and should be punished in such cases. The law is valid for every-one, especially for those who are working to enforce it.

(And regarding my spelink erorrs: Write the next post in perfect german, and it's OK to critizise. Unless you can't do this, shut the f*** up in this regard.)

don't you react a little too angry? I think most of the writers in this forum know that not everyone here has English as native language. For me, English is a foreign language, too; and I try to take it easy when I am critizised, for it's an opportunity for me to learn :-)

---

Account frozen...

don't you react a little too angry? I think most of the writers in this forum know that not everyone here has English as native language. For me, English is a foreign language, too; and I try to take it easy when I am critizised, for it's an opportunity for me to learn :-)

Usually I don't react like this, but as it seemed to be used as a means to deflect from the content and ridicule my post, I reacted this way.

Soll er doch meinetwegen in seiner verqueren Rechtsaussenwelt leben, solange er aber behauptet, das wäre die Realität, und den Einbruch der echten Realität als Ideologie denunziert, und dabei noch formale Kinkerlitzchen zur Ablenkung mißbraucht, reagiere ich etwas allergisch ;)

Translation: As long as he likes to live in his weird far-right-world he should do so, but if he proclaims this as the reality, and denounces the intrusion of the real reality as ideology, and tries to deflect this by means of clerical gewgaw, I do react a bit alergical ;)

edit: (damn, wrong button, hit reply instead of edit)
MoveOn.org is from a european POV something a bit left of the middle, definitely not left-extreme. To call them left-extreme would imho be the same as calling John McCain right-extreme. John McCain is doubtless on the right of the political spectrum, but no way extreme. MoveOn.org vice versa on the left (probably a bit more from center, but not far). Left extremists are people like the maoists in Nepal, the former RAF (Look in the Brigitte Mohnhaupt thread), some of the remnants of the eastern block former government parties, socialist workers party and such.

The problem with rightwing ideologists like you seem to be is their refusement to admit their being ideological and denounce every dissent from their pov as ideology.

That's interesting, seeing as I didn't post in this thread, except to ask if you are capable of posting anything except irrational, biased, unthinking, partisan rhetoric.

But since you still haven't said anything of substance, I'll respond in kind: The problem with leftwing ideologists like you seem to be is their refusement [sic] to admit their being ideological and denounce every dissent from their pov [sic] as ideology.

Think that's effective?

I asked several times why the agents should go unpunished for their deeds. All answers were evasive, had nothimng to do with their deeds and only with other circumstances. They don't fit in the ideolocical scheme. Border police on duty on this border can't anything wrong, any accusation is blasphemious, it's either with us or against us.

Frankly? Plenty of cops suck. They tend to be ill-educated, maintain an us v. them attitude, and man the thin blue line at all costs. But that people disagree with you doesn't mean it's all-or-nothing. It's just a discussion.

The drug dealer is definitely no good person, and probably belongs in jail as well, I don't really understand why such a far reaching deal with him was made. But that's a completely different question from misconduct on duty, the crimes of the rough agents.

That's why I didn't comment. I don't know why it was done, but people tend to think that such deals are wrong. They probably are.

(And regarding my spelink erorrs: Write the next post in perfect german, and it's OK to critizise. Unless you can't do this, shut the f*** up in this regard.)

Can you even read? I didn't mention your spelling errors. And I would never post anything in German, I want the majority of people to understand what I write.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

As long as he likes to live in his weird far-right-world he should do so, but if he proclaims this as the reality, and denounces the intrusion of the real reality as ideology, and tries to deflect this by means of clerical gewgaw, I do react a bit alergical

I didn't proclaim anything as reality. I merely pointed out that you do exactly as those you decry do.

If you can understand why it's wrong when they do it, you can understand why it's wrong when you do it, regardless of the point of view being presented.

Empty rhetoric is just that, empty rhetoric. The side of the aisle is of no relevance.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Can you even read? I didn't mention your spelling errors. And I would never post anything in German, I want the majority of people to understand what I write.

So the demonstrative [sic]s were not meant to be ridicule, and a noiseless correction by a native speaker (I presume you are one) would have been out of question?

And I've said something of substance in this thread, look for example here and my questions regarding the demanded leniency for the rough agents regarding their misdeeds were never even adressed by the propagandists.

So the demonstrative [sic]s were not meant to be ridicule, and a noiseless correction by a native speaker (I presume you are one) would have been out of question?

"Sic" is just a Latin word that means "just as that," used to note, among other things, an incorrect or unusual spelling and that the material is verbatim and not a transcription error. Had I used the [qu*te] function, I wouldn't have put it in there.

And I've said something of substance in this thread, look for example here and my questions regarding the demanded leniency for the rough agents regarding their misdeeds were never even adressed by the propagandists.

But this just further illustrates my point. Both of parties are taking sides when most likely, neither has enough information to make an informed decision. That doesn't make them "propagandists," it means they disagree with you.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

There are probably about 24 people who could give an accurate assessment of the facts in this case. Twelve of them were on the jury, the judge, the attorneys, and some press. They were the ones who heard the complete truth of the matter before them, and not the distillation of the media which most of us here were exposed to in one form or another with regards to this case. Everyone else has some form of an agenda which colors their opinions.

---

Account frozen...

There are probably about 24 people who could give an accurate assessment of the facts in this case. Twelve of them were on the jury, the judge, the attorneys, and some press. They were the ones who heard the complete truth of the matter before them, and not the distillation of the media which most of us here were exposed to in one form or another with regards to this case. Everyone else has some form of an agenda which colors their opinions.

The transcript of the case was released the other day. It included pre-trial motions and sidebar discussions. LOTS of interesting things were left out of the jurys ears. Such as the fact that they had to beg the guy they eventually gave immunity too to testify. He did not want to come to the US and testify in any kind of Court, so the Attorney had to promise "blanket immunity" for any of his actions that day before he would testify. Otherwise there was no case. And the Jury did not hear that the Agents were almost daily shot at and targeted on a regular basis as impediments to the goings on of the illegal aliens. The Jury did not hear any testimony as to how dangerous being a Border Patrol agent was. And we all know that no jury is allowed to think about anything except the evidence they hear in Court. No preconceived notions. Plenty of other shennigans too, according to Lou Dobbs and CNN.

---

There are probably about 24 people who could give an accurate assessment of the facts in this case. Twelve of them were on the jury, the judge, the attorneys, and some press. They were the ones who heard the complete truth of the matter before them, and not the distillation of the media which most of us here were exposed to in one form or another with regards to this case. Everyone else has some form of an agenda which colors their opinions.

The transcript of the case was released the other day. It included pre-trial motions and sidebar discussions. LOTS of interesting things were left out of the jurys ears. Such as the fact that they had to beg the guy they eventually gave immunity too to testify. He did not want to come to the US and testify in any kind of Court, so the Attorney had to promise "blanket immunity" for any of his actions that day before he would testify. Otherwise there was no case. And the Jury did not hear that the Agents were almost daily shot at and targeted on a regular basis as impediments to the goings on of the illegal aliens. The Jury did not hear any testimony as to how dangerous being a Border Patrol agent was. And we all know that no jury is allowed to think about anything except the evidence they hear in Court. No preconceived notions. Plenty of other shennigans too, according to Lou Dobbs and CNN.

Good point as well. I've been on a jury as well for a murder trial. After all the procedings were said and done, we could talk to anyone we liked. It was amazing how much evidence was quashed before the trial on legal technicalities, but let's face it, most people don't read the entire transcript...just the news. That was my point.

---

Account frozen...

Border Patrol agents are the wrong targets

By Phyllis Schlafly; a lawyer, conservative political analyst, nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the newly revised and expanded “Supremacists.”

February 16, 2007

With mounting bipartisan criticism from Republican congressmen and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Department of Justice has stepped up an unprecedented public relations campaign to defend its prosecution of former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, now serving 11-and 12-year prison terms. But new facts keep emerging to prove that this prosecution was a gross injustice.

CNN judicial expert Jeffrey Toobin described it as “one of the most unusual prosecutions I've ever seen. . . . I am baffled why this case was brought.”

So am I.

The government prosecuted Ramos and Compean criminally for acts that called only for an administrative reprimand, based the case on the testimony of an admitted drug smuggler brought back from Mexico and induced to testify by a grant of immunity, withheld crucial evidence from the jury, used the wrong law (that carries a mandatory additional 10-year sentence) and now won't release the transcript of the trial without which the border guards cannot appeal.

The smuggler's reward for his testimony was immunity, U.S. medical treatment and a government-issued border pass.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security now admits its official lied to congressmen in claiming that Ramos and Compean had confessed, lied, destroyed evidence and said they did not believe the smuggler was a threat. No evidence ever existed for those damaging accusations.

The government denied their freedom pending appeal and put Ramos in a prison where five criminal illegal immigrants were alleged to have severely beat and kicked him with steel-toed work boots. Reportedly, no prison guards defended him from this attack.

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, claims Ramos shot an unarmed drug smuggler in the rear end as he was running away. But the ballistics report failed to prove the bullet came from Ramos' gun, and the medical report showed that the bullet entered the smuggler's buttock on his side at an angle consistent with Ramos' contention that the smuggler was turning around with what looked like a weapon in his hand.

Ramos and Compean didn't believe they wounded the smuggler because he kept running and escaped across the border into a waiting vehicle. The doctor's description of the trajectory of the bullet he removed from the smuggler's body casts doubt on the whole assumption that his wound came from shots fired by the border guards.

Sutton claims Ramos and Compean were prosecuted because they “lied” and covered up their actions. The alleged lie was that they gave an incomplete report of their confrontation with the smuggler on Feb. 17, 2005.

But a recently released Department of Homeland Security memo dated May 15, 2005, shows that the two border guards did give a prompt and complete oral report to supervisors, who actually were present at the Feb. 17, 2005, event. The supervisors decided not to make a written report. Failing to make a written report isn't a crime anyway. It is merely a violation of a departmental memo stating that the penalty is merely internal disciplinary action, which is not criminal prosecution.

The big question is why didn't the government prosecute the drug smuggler and give immunity to the border guards (who had good service records), instead of vice versa? The smuggler admitted his illegal drug project to an Immigration Control agent before Sutton gave him immunity, and the prosecutor did not bother to investigate this drug smuggling by checking the cell phone left in the smuggler's van, or by ordering a fingerprint search of the van until a month after it entered the United States, and even then didn't have it done by the FBI.

A few days before the Ramos-Compean trial began on Oct. 17, 2005, the same drug smuggler was caught bringing in a second van loaded with nearly 1,000 pounds of illegal drugs, but he was not arrested so as not to interfere with his role as star witness against the border guards. To preserve the smuggler's credibility, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone sealed the record about the second van so it could not be mentioned at the trial, and she put the families of the defendants under a gag order not to discuss it.

The judge also kept from the jury the smuggler's confession that he and his friends had considered a “hunting party” to go shoot some U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The failure to release a transcript of the trial one year after the trial took place is an outrage that prevents Ramos and Compean from starting their appeal. Nor has any hearing been scheduled on the assertion by three jurors that they were coerced by the jury foreman to vote for a guilty verdict.

The longer President George W. Bush waits to remedy this injustice perpetrated by his two appointees, Sutton and Cardone, the more he convinces the public that the answer to our bafflement about this prosecution is that the Bush administration policy is to intimidate the Border Patrol from stopping the entry of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs.

---

me@rescam.org

Supporters seek pardons for convicted border agents

By Darryl Fears
THE WASHINGTON POST

February 18, 2007

WASHINGTON – Early last week, the Bush administration urged angry conservatives to remain calm over the convictions of two former Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler, but petitions for their release continued to flood the White House.

It did not help that one of the agents, Ignacio Ramos, was beaten by Latino gang members in his cell at the Yazoo City Federal Correctional Complex in Mississippi. Days after prison officials confirmed the attack on Feb. 8, Department of Homeland Security officials admitted that an inspector general's report erroneously quoted Border Patrol agents as saying Ramos and his partner, Jose Compean, intended to kill Mexicans.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., founder of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and a presidential candidate, visited Ramos in prison and told him of the movement against his incarceration, including candlelight vigils, rallies and a storm of criticism on conservative talk radio and television.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, threatened to call for impeachment proceedings against President Bush if the agents were harmed in prison, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., promised to look into the matter.

John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the 700 people who will attend the organization's annual convention in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 25 will “speak with one voice” against the prosecution and conviction of the agents. The union, which represents Border Patrol agents and other federal workers, implored Bush in a letter this month to pardon Ramos and Compean.

“We think this thing has been mishandled from the start,” Gage said. “We're meeting . . . with the head of the Bureau of Prisons. I'm going to raise some hell there to find out why these guys are in that particular institution.”

According to a report by the DHS inspector general's office, the incident that landed the agents in trouble started on Feb. 17, 2005, when Asvaldo Aldrete-Davila, an admitted Mexican drug smuggler, drove across the border into Texas with 740 pounds of marijuana. He saw Border Patrol agents trailing him. He panicked and drove into a ditch.

During a chase that followed, Aldrete-Davila scuffled with Compean after the agent tried to smack him with the butt of a shotgun. The agents said they saw something in the suspect's hand and feared for their lives, according to the report and court testimony.

A fusillade of bullets from Compean and Ramos missed. Finally, Ramos took careful aim as Aldrete-Davila neared the border and shot him in the buttocks.

After the shooting, the agents collected all shell casings at the scene, threw them away and did not mention the shooting to superiors, a violation of Border Patrol procedures that call for an oral report after a weapon is discharged, according to the report and court records.

Investigators granted immunity to Aldrete-Davila to lure him back across the border. The story he told was corroborated by other officers at the scene, the report said.

In March last year, Ramos and Compean were found guilty of multiple charges, including assault with a dangerous weapon, discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime and tampering with a crime scene. In October, Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an 11-year prison sentence to Ramos and a 12-year sentence to Compean. The agents appealed to a higher court, and their conservative supporters started to pressure Bush to release them.

Since the convictions, a group called Grassfire.org has collected 40,000 signatures on a “Pardon the Agents” petition. Angry congressional Republicans – including Reps. Ted Poe of Texas, Phil Gingrey of Georgia and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina – also wrote to Bush to say they are flummoxed over why the government accepted the word of an illegal-immigrant drug dealer over that of government agents.

“There's clearly a lot of interest in this issue,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She said the Bush administration has a policy against revealing the number of letters, petitions and requests it receives on any given matter.

“The president has urged everyone to look at the facts of the case, as they were convicted by a jury of their peers,” Perino said. “There is a legal process that every defendant is entitled to, and we should let that play out.”

---

me@rescam.org

After the shooting, the agents collected all shell casings at the scene, threw them away and did not mention the shooting to superiors, a violation of Border Patrol procedures that call for an oral report after a weapon is discharged, according to the report and court records.

What the article doesn't say is that the trial testimony stated that the agents did talk to their superiors and, because they did not know that the drug smuggler criminal had been hit, the superior told them to collect the brass and toss it to avoid tedious paperwork.

“The president has urged everyone to look at the facts of the case, as they were convicted by a jury of their peers,” Perino said. “There is a legal process that every defendant is entitled to, and we should let that play out.”

Not so oddly, the jury of their peers, when given access to information supressed by the bench (such as the knowledge that the Federal Prosecutor perjured himself, etc.) stated that they would have voted for acquittal.

After the shooting, the agents collected all shell casings at the scene, threw them away and did not mention the shooting to superiors, a violation of Border Patrol procedures that call for an oral report after a weapon is discharged, according to the report and court records.

What the article doesn't say is that the trial testimony stated that the agents did talk to their superiors and, because they did not know that the drug smuggler criminal had been hit, the superior told them to collect the brass and toss it to avoid tedious paperwork.

So you are saying the super has to go to jail as well because of this?
I would surely say so as well. "Avoiding paperwork" is hardly an excuse but should rather be used for sharpening the sentence because it was deliberate and despite better knowledge.

“The president has urged everyone to look at the facts of the case, as they were convicted by a jury of their peers,” Perino said. “There is a legal process that every defendant is entitled to, and we should let that play out.”

Not so oddly, the jury of their peers, when given access to information supressed by the bench (such as the knowledge that the Federal Prosecutor perjured himself, etc.) stated that they would have voted for acquittal.

The jury when confronted by the orchestrated uproar of right-wing bloggers and the usual right-wing media bias, after being spared of this campaign in the trial itself, acted just in the expected way. Afaik that is the main reason for the reclusion of juries in certain cases, they shoud not be influenced by the activist campaign outside but by the facts presented in the trial.

It was one the news yesterday that the prosecution in this case withheld evidence from the defense in discovery. That is a big no-no legally, and if substantiated, will mean an automatic retrial.

To be continued...

---

Account frozen...

It was one the news yesterday that the prosecution in this case withheld evidence from the defense in discovery. That is a big no-no legally, and if substantiated, will mean an automatic retrial.

To be continued...

Now that's something completely different.
If that's so a new trial is of course necessary.

It's just hard to distinguish facts from deliberate misinformation in the utterings of the rightist activist.