Forum: pol
Page 2887
Subject: Ramos - Compean

  Posted by: Baldwin - [14358177] Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:42
It is outrageous that the saga of agents Ramos and Compean hasn't been covered in this forum AFAIK...

Border agents sure understand...
Citing the case of imprisoned former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean among other complaints, all 100 top leaders of the National Border Patrol Council have endorsed a no-confidence resolution against Chief David V. Aguilar.

The union, which represents 11,000 of the U.S. Border Patrol's nonsupervisory field agents, pointed to Aguilar's willingness to believe the "perjured allegations" of criminal aliens over his own agents, in a statement issued today, first reported by the Washington Times.

Ramos and Compean are among a number of agents who recently have been prosecuted on civil rights grounds for their actions in the arrests of illegal aliens and drug-smuggling suspects.

"Front-line Border Patrol agents who risk their lives protecting our borders have every reason to expect that the leadership of their own agency will support them," NBPC President T.J. Bonner said in the statement. "When this does not occur, and instead they are undermined by their so-called leaders, no one should be surprised when they express a loss of confidence in those managers."

The NBPC leadership, mostly active senior agents, cast the no-confidence vote at a recent meeting in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The group, saying the resolution reflects growing dissatisfaction with top managers over "misguided policies and politics," listed some of the "more troubling reasons" for the no-confidence vote:


Shamelessly promoting amnesty and a greatly expanded guest worker program despite intense opposition to those concepts from the front-line Border Patrol agents who risk their lives enforcing our nation's immigration laws.

Declaring our borders to be secure while millions of people illegally slip across them every year.

Perpetuating the "strategy of deterrence" despite clear and convincing evidence that it does not deter anyone from illegally crossing the border. (This strategy requires Border Patrol agents to remain in fixed positions along the border, and in many cases prevents them from leaving those positions to pursue people who are spotted crossing illegally.)

Prohibiting Border Patrol agents from enforcing immigration laws in "interior" towns and cities, including many that are only a short distance away from the border.

Preventing Border Patrol agents from pursuing vehicles that flee from them, even those that are carrying tons of narcotics or other dangerous contraband.

Believing the perjured allegations of criminals over the sworn testimony of innocent Border Patrol agents.

Forbidding front-line Border Patrol agents from working congressionally-funded overtime – at the same time the administration is trying to double the size of the workforce.

Forcing all Border Patrol stations across the country to adopt uniform shift hours, making it easier for smugglers to evade apprehension during shift changes.

Drastically shortchanging the funding for transfers of front-line Border Patrol agents in order to fund unnecessary transfers of management cronies.

Cutting corners in the hiring and training processes in order to meet recruitment goals, including the elimination of two weeks of instruction at the Border Patrol Academy.
Amid public outrage over the prosecution of Ramos and Compean, Aguilar has remained silent, the border agents complain. Ramos and Compean were sentenced earlier this year to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively, for their actions in the shooting of a drug smuggler given immunity to testify against them. The agents contend they fired at the smuggler after he appeared to point a gun.

Meanwhile, 90 members of Congress have co-sponsored a bill calling for Ramos and Compean to be pardoned.


 
1Tree
      ID: 28329244
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 06:46 		Baldwin -

this story is almost a picture-perfect example of why it is so easy to dismiss WND as a source.

i don't necessarily disagree with the contention WND is making regarding the situation involving these agents.

but the problem is, while the details are murky and uncertain, WND leaves many of them out, and doesn't allow the reader to make up their minds for themselves.

for example, it doesn't mention that Ramos and Compean failed to report the shooting, nor the fact they picked up the spent bullet casings around the body of the drug smuggler they shot.

it also doesn't mention he was shot in the back (or, buttocks, to be detailed).

instead, WND leaves out these important issues, and instead seems to push its anti-immigration issue, using these two men for their cause celebre.
 
2Mötley Crüe
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 07:51 		Tree, what you're missing from the equation is that some people in this world aren't interested in anything but right and wrong. So those border agents didn't follow procedure; so what? Justice was done, and in God's eyes, that's all that's important.

It's a black and white world out there, son, and the most important thing is that the immigration laws were applied here to the fullest extent to keep these scumbucket illegal immigrants out of our country. Law says you can't come in--we're gonna stop you.

Remember, there are two kinds of people in the world: people who think anything goes, and people who believe there is good and evil in the world. Clearly these agents are the latter, and thus, they deserve nothing less than to be exonerated and admired.
 
3Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 07:54 		If you're willing to accept WND for the propaganda report that it is as opposed to a responsible source for news coverege, I see no issue with frequenting that site for information. That Baldwin continues to apparently rely on it for his primary source for current events, the site that he has linked in this forum more than any other, speaks volumes to the reliability of his opinion on what is objective or balanced coverege and what is not.

Whether its that he denies WND's bias or simply doesn't care, its telling enough.

And he should know by now that whenever WND is the vehicle he chooses to present current events here, his posts will be cluttered with scrutiny of that source that takes away from the discussion of the topic itself.

Its inevitable. And not unfair. Want a reasonable discussion? Present the topic from a reasonable source.
 
5Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 08:08 		Law says you can't come in--we're gonna stop you.

Law also dictates that there's a certain way to go about it. A jury found that these guys broke those laws.

According to the law, Justice was done.

According to Motley, in God's eyes, that's all that's important.

Its about the letter of the law or its not. The law only works if it applies to everyone.

...........................

those border agents didn't follow procedure; so what?

scumbucket illegal immigrants...

It's a black and white world out there, son

Only to those who choose to see it that way, son.
 
6Perm Dude
      ID: 313532323
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 01:56 		there are two kinds of people in the world: people who think anything goes, and people who believe there is good and evil in the world.

Well, there do, indeed, appear to be two types of people here. Those that believe the law applies to all, and those who believe the law is applied by them.
 
7Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:09 		MC - i'm kind of hoping your post was sarcasm. am in incorrect in thinking that?
 
8Perm Dude
      ID: 313532323
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:15 		Sounded pretty sarcastic to me--he's got the Baldwin schtick down, that's for sure.
 
9Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 03:06 		This was an open and shut case of the higher-ups toeing the line and facilitating the drug trade and illegal immigration against every law and principle they are sworn to uphold. The fact that the border guard association was unanimous just doesn't register with you guys, does it?



 
10Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 03:17 		A good starting point to get up to speed on this usually ignored story. [tho I give points to the 90 congressmen, here's hoping that help isn't left-handed posterior protection from an enraged public and is genuine]
 
11Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 11:38 		MC

The guy that was shot and then given immunity to testify against the border agents, was a drug dealer caught red-handed with 473 pounds of marijuana, not just an illegal.

The drug dealer was located again because his boyhood friend [and obviously corrupt border agent in my estimation] Rene Sanchez located him when the higher-ups wanted to prosecute the border agents. Of course he didn't bother to report the identity of the drug dealer when the focus was to prosecute the drug dealer.
 
12Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:12 		Baldwin - what's your take on the dead man being shot in the back, and with the border agents not reporting the incident and picking up their own bullet casings?
 
13Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:21 		Maybe that story about the bullets is as bogus as many other parts of the official line. The government has been lying up and down this case. They lied about how they found the drug-dealer to give him immunity. They invented words to put in Ramos and Compean's mouth.

Then again maybe the bullet story is true.

Maybe they were aware they work for higher-ups who aren't on their side, higer-ups who would stick them in a prison full of Mexican gang members if they did their job.
 
14Perm Dude
      ID: 313532323
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:25 		Maybe, maybe.
 
15katietx
      ID: 323472012
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:31 		he was shot in the butt, not the "back"
 
16Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:37 		And if the bullet story and others are as compelling as you all are assuming, then you will have to explain why Sutton and his corrupt crew of higher-ups refuse to release the transcript of the trial to Texas congressmen or any of the evidence against Ramos and Compean. They also refuse all FOIA's on the trial documents.
 
17Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:47 		as compelling as you all are assuming

The only assumptions I see made in this thread are by Baldwin, Motley (unless that really was tongue in cheek) and WND.


border guard association was unanimous

Sutton and his corrupt crew of higher-ups

I'm not making any claims about either group but it's never difficult to determine who Baldwin will decide is corrupt and who isn't, even with very few facts to go on.

I've seen a consensus or two from 100 Blacks In Law Enforcement that for some reason or another B would never offer such emphatic fath. Why is this border guard association so much more reliable?
 
18Perm Dude
      ID: 313532323
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 12:57 		Particularly one so biased against anyone coming across.

#16: You mean these transcripts?
 
19Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 13:31 		Baldwin -

how would you feel about this story if it was two Mexican police officers shooting one of the Arizona "Minutemen" in the back as he fled back toward the border into the U.S.?
 
20Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 15:04 		Well they don't go into Mexico with 743 pounds of MJ and if they did I wouldn't feel much sympathy.
 
21Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 15:13 		fair enough. at least your consistent here. still, i'm finding it difficult to believe that you'd find it acceptable for two mexicans to shoot an american and not have to deal with any reprecussions.
 
22Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 15:13 		PD

From the same site you linked to in #18, in fact the exact one that I got my info for #16
The prosecutors lied to the jury and he twisted evidence to make it fit his case. And when he couldn't twist the evidence, the government demanded that the court seal evidence which would have been exculpatory to the defense.

Nearly two years after the conclusion of the trial, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has yet to release a transcript of the trial.

"Back on Sept. 26, 2006, officials from the DHS Office of Inspector General made serious allegations against both agents Ramos and Compean to four members of Congress from the Texas delegation," Ramirez said.

"The Inspector General has subsequently refused to provide their evidence to substantiate their claims to Congress.

Ramirez consinues, "So I am also accusing the DHS Office of Inspector General of making false statements to Congress in order to prevent a congressional inquiry. I am asking the U.S. Congress to subpoena all documents pertaining to this case including the full transcripts, sealed testimony, and the sealed indictment against Aldrete- Davila in order to get to the truth of this case once and for all."

World net daily reports that Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, has filed a Freedom of
Information Act request against the DHS Inspector General's office to obtain those investigative reports. Poe took this action after DHS informed the Texas Republican delegation the documents would not be turned over to them because the Democrats were now in control of Congress and Rep. McCaul was no longer chairman of the Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
 
23Perm Dude
      ID: 313532323
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 15:26 		The bolded quote makes no sense.
 
24Mötley Crüe
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 17:43 		I guess I don't post in here often enough to be able to utilize sardonic language in that way.

I think the subsequent posts (after my #2) enumerating the way the policies of the Border Patrol were circumvented speak to what I was getting at.

'Scumbucket' is so not one of my standard lexical euphemisms.

 
25Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 18:01 		I thought it was obvious, Señor Crüe.
 
26Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 20:34 		It was very obvious.
 
27Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 21:10 		My apologies then.
 
28Mötley Crüe
      Dude
      ID: 439372011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 22:01 		That isn't necessary, MITH. I wasn't bothered at all.

And while we're doing the touchy feely thing, I thought Tree's post [1] was his best one in a while. Made me wonder if there could be more up his sleeve.
 
29Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 22:45 		I thought Tree's post [1] was his best one in a while.

Agreed.
 
30Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 23:48 		for example, it doesn't mention that Ramos and Compean failed to report the shooting, nor the fact they picked up the spent bullet casings around the body of the drug smuggler they shot.

it also doesn't mention he was shot in the back (or, buttocks, to be detailed). - Tree

Greatest post ever - poliboard zeitgeist

Except for the parts where there was no body surrounded by bullet casings. The drug smuggler went home [mighty nimble for a dead guy] and it seems complained to his corrupt buddies in the border patrol about the fix not being in.

He was actually shot in the front...in his groin.

Facts all easily found in the WND articles archived at the end of the story I linked to.

But other than being wrong at least Tree resisted the urge to draw in crayon, be vulgar or post nasty cartoons in lue of logical debate so big props to Tree. He's growing as a poster for one post anyway.
 
31Tree
      ID: 8343254
      Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 06:57 		thanks MITH, thanks MC. and thanks Baldwin for furthering my various points about your cheap shots, etc etc...

i stand corrected regarding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. he was not killed, and thusly, there would not have had a body.

that being said, it still doesn't explain why WND chose to leave important facts out of its main story. those are KEY points regarding the situation, and to force a reader to search for those details in past stories is bad journalism at best, and trying to hide the facts at worst.

for WND, it's probably a mixture of the two.

speaking of being nimble, as you mentioned Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila to be, it's might nimble for you to dance around other points, such as:

why did Ramos and Compean file a report on the 700+ pounds of weed they found in his van, but not mention the gunfire?

why did they pick up the spent shell casings (regardless of whether there was a body)?

it's questionable as to whether the punishment fits the crime regarding 10 to 20 years these guys might spend in jail, but it certainly appears they shot at an unarmed, fleeing man, and he's quite lucky he didnt end up like Sean Bell or Amadou Diallo, similarly unarmed men shot by overzealous cops.

but, very clearly, they were trying to hide something regarding the discharge of their weapons, and as they were/are law officers, i'm suspecting that in itself is a crime (although i'm no expert on the law)...
 
32Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 11:28 		Well considering that the government decided to stick them in a prison full of Mexican gang members, the sentence was death. Certainly not warranted.

I don't personally have a problem with border agents shooting carreer drug dealers so go ask someone who cares.
 
33Tree
      ID: 29082512
      Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 11:50 		go ask someone who cares.

i guess that's the bottom line Baldwin. you DON'T care.

you don't care about truth, you don't care about honesty, you don't care about fairness, you don't care about the opinions of others, and you don't care to imagine what might happen if were to open your mind at least listen to a different side of the issue.

and you don't care that an unarmed man got shot in the back while fleeing.

 
34Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 11:59 		May I infer from that question that you believe your groin to be your backside?
 
35bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 12:13 		I don't personally have a problem with border agents shooting carreer drug dealers

Would it be fair to believe that you don't have a problem with borger agents shooting anyone who they feel MIGHT be career drug dealers?
 
36Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 19:27 		Now see, that's a nice post.

It's time we read the transcripts before debating this further.
 
37 Simon Pang
      ID: 506121523
      Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 00:18 		Misuse of the Law by US Attorney Johnny Sutton

The United States of America is a country governed by law. We expect everybody, from the President to the paupers, to obey the laws that have been laboriously enacted by the forefathers of America and the lawmakers of today. Without the vital regulatory function of the law, our country will be succumbed to crimes, anarchy and even invasion by another country.

However, just like the fact that not all illnesses are caused by germs and viral infections from outside the body and that a pernicious illness can be caused by malfunction of certain organ inside the body, sometimes the threat of breaking down law and order comes not only from criminals but also from people who are supposed to administer the law.

Case in point is the conviction of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. The two border agents were charged by the US Attorney Johnny Sutton for “committing a crime of violence” and for discharging a firearm “in furtherance of such crime”.

What violent crime did they commit? Did they use their guns to rob a bank? No. Did they use their guns to shoot at each other during a fight? No. They were charged for committing a violent crime against the drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete- Davila after wounding him at the border while he was smuggling drugs into the United States.

Even though there were controversies over the circumstances under which the shots were fired, the facts below are incontrovertible:
1/ The two border agents foiled the attempt of a drug smuggler to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana into the United States of America at the border.
2/ It has not been denied by the drug smuggler that a scuffle had occurred before his escape on foot.
3/ It has not been proven in the court of law that the drug smuggler was armed or unarmed but US Attorney Johnny Sutton stated it as a fact that the smuggler was unarmed.
4/ It has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the two agents fired the shots with intend to commit murder rather than due to possibly bad judgment in an attempt to stop the drug smuggler from escaping.
5/There were border supervisors at the scene after the shooting to whom the two agents reported the shootings verbally.
6/ Three of the jurors submitted sworn affidavits saying that they thought the agents were not guilty but that they were misled by information given to them by the prosecution.
7/The drug smuggler is suing the U.S. government for $5 million.

The two border agents were charged under United States Code Title 18 Section 924 (c) (1) (a) (iii).
(c)
(1)
(a) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.

The U S Attorney Johnny Sutton has made a very absurd mistake in applying this law in the prosecution of the two agents.
We all know that border agents have to carry guns on their job because drug smugglers at the border often if not always carry guns. While border agents are chasing after suspected drug smugglers at the border, they need to have their gun drawn so that they can fire back for self-defense without delay when necessary.

It is obvious from the context of Section 924 (c)(1)(a) that the mandatory sentence of not less than 10 years in prison for discharging a firearm in (iii) was enacted with the intent of applying it to the situation that the firearm was discharged “in furtherance of” the crime of violence stated in (a).

However, that was not the circumstance in the Compean and Ramos case.
The acts of firing the shots from Compean and Ramos in this case, irrespective of whether they were justified or not, were NOT in furtherance of any crime of violence because up to the point before any shots were fired, all the things that they did were incontrovertibly legal acts of carrying out their duty of protecting the border, which included the arrest of illegal aliens and drug smugglers at the border.

If Mr. Sutton insists that Section 924 (c) (1) (a) (iii) applies to the Compean and Ramos case, which implies that the act of protecting the US border is a crime of violence, so why not arrest all border agents for possessing a firearm and sentence them to not less than 5 years in prison for violating Section 924 (c) (1) (a) ( i )? And why not arrest all border agents who have drawn their guns at the border in preparing for dangerous confrontation with drug smugglers without firing them and sentence them to not less than 7 years in prison for violating Section 924 (c) (1) (a) ( ii) ?
The reason why no body does that is because the act of protecting the border is NOT a crime of violence.

So even if Compean and Ramos were proved to have no justification in firing those shots which had wounded the drug smuggler, their wrongful acts still could NOT be considered as committed in furtherance to a crime of violence and hence their acts of firing the shots can not be considered as felonies under Section 924 (c) (1) (a) (iii) and under any laws in the US but could only be regarded as violations of Border Patrol protocol.


If two border agents had conspired to rob a bank by threatening the bank staff with violence and they fired shots with their official firearms during the robbery, then United States Code Title 18 Section 924 (c) (1) (a) (iii) certainly applies to them and they can be sentenced to no less than 10 years in prison because the discharge of firearms in this case is definitely in furtherance to a crime of violence.

How come the U S Attorney Johnny Sutton can not see the obvious differences between the two situations?

Of courser, we should not tolerate improper and abusive use of violence of any law enforcement officers towards illegal aliens who just want to cross the border to work instead of committing crimes. Any border agent who fired at and wounded an unarmed illegal alien who offered no resistance to arrest or who just tried to run away without any sign of using violence, should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. But the drug smuggling illegal alien in the Compean and Ramos case could hardly be a non-violent individual as he testified himself to be against the testimony of the two border agents who had good reasons to believe that the drug smuggler could threaten their lives.

I have just proved that The US Attorney Johnny Sutton has made a mind boggling mistake to charge Compean and Ramos with felonies due to his misunderstanding of the United States Code Title 18 Section 924 (c) (1) (a) (iii). I wonder if he had made other mistakes in relating to the Compean and Ramos case.

I know that in order to protect the right of a suspect of a crime who might be coerced or tricked by law enforcement officers into saying something that may be self-condemning when the suspect is actually innocent, the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the Miranda Warning must be given to the suspect by a law enforcement officer or a magistrate before they are asked questions and/or before they make written statements relating to the crime. In Texas the Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter15 Article 15.17 mandates that Miranda Warning be given to the accused by a magistrate after the arrest. The Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 38 Article 38.22 also mandates that proof of Mirada Warning having been given be shown on the face of a written statement written by or signed by the accused, otherwise the statement is not admissible as evidence against the accuse in any criminal proceeding.

The attorneys for Compean and Ramos should check the records see if the Miranda Rights of their clients have been violated in addition to their being wrongfully charged by Mr. Sutton for a felony they did not commit. If that is the case, the verdicts of the trial were wrongful verdicts due to both reasons. Even if their Miranda Rights have not been violated, their guilty verdict is still a wrongful one due to wrongful prosecution under a law which does not apply to this case.

Since it is evident that Compean and Ramos have been wrongfully convicted as felons and they have already paid for whatever administrative violations they may have committed with the jail time they had spent, it is only reasonable that their wrongful convictions be overturned and be released as soon as possible.

The United States of America is now facing a crisis of being invaded by a huge influx of illegal immigrants some of whom have been committing crimes that ruin the lives of law-abiding Americans. We cannot allow this gross miscarriage of justice to destroy the morale of the Border Patrol officers who risk their lives day after day to protect our border and stop the situation from getting worse.

Released border agents Compean and Ramos .
Prosecute drug smuggler Aldrete for his new drug smuggling offence during immunity


Simon

About me:
I am not related to any law enforcement departments nor am I the relative of any law enforcement officers. In fact I have been a victim of police brutality. When I was in the US as a tourist many years ago I was mistaken by a police officer as a cruiser. He pointed his gun at my head and threatened to kill me if I didn’t go away immediately even though it was very obvious that I posted no danger to him as I was frozen up from fear with both hands on the steering wheels. I went to the police station to file a complaint but was refused and ignored. Do we still have a police brutality problem? Definitely. Do we have problems with border agents abusing their powers? I believe so. But I also believe that many police officers and border agents are doing their job without abusing their power and they have to face criminals and violent illegal immigrants who would not hesitate to harm or even kill them. Sometimes the officers may make wrong judgment due to the immense stress of their work, but we should try to correct the problem reasonably. Giving a drug smuggler immunity for smuggling drugs into the US while wrongfully convicted two border agents as felons for making pardonable mistakes in trying to arrest the drug smuggler is definitely going to make things worse for the safety of America instead of improving it.


 
38 Cactus Wren
      ID: 6611919
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 20:34 		I found this site today.
After reading the blatant mis-information put out by Tree I felt compelled to respond.

Then I read the rest of the thread.
Bravo, Simon Pang!

I have followed this case for a long time. Something stinks - and the smell is coming from Johnny Sutton's direction.

Sutton has lied, mislead, and withheld information. This isn't the first time. He has made his career bu prosecuting BP agents and LEOs - while giving smugglers free passes. The list is long and something is terribly wrong.

His history is so questionable that I can only believe that he's getting something under the table. Who pulls his strings?

Keep calling and writing your representatives. Ramos and Compean should NOT be in prison! I hope one day to see Sutton there, instead.
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 25658198
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:04 		Sutton statement (pdf)

Some quotes:

As will be demonstrated by the summary below, the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean�s shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next. Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once.

The evidence was un-controverted that, at the time the victim was shot, neither agent knew whether the driver was illegally in the United States or whether a crime had been committed. The only information they had was that the driver had failed to pull over to be identified.

"Simon Pang" and others like to gloss over this fact. The only thing the agents had was a driver they pulled over, who ran after one of them tried to hit him with a shotgun butt. Both agents lied during the investigation as well.

In the end, the jury convicted both, and unfounded "jury irregularities" aside, their lawyers have declined to appeal the sentences it appears.
 
40 Cactus Wren
      ID: 6611919
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:28 		PD, thatnks for posting that...
Both paragraphs you quoted are great examples of the lies told by Sutton. Lies that were later retracted at a Congressional hearing last fall.

Your own additions show you haven't read the actual testimony either.

And yes, the case is being appealled. Watch C-Span tonight, there will probably be a replay of the latest hearing, in which an appeals court attorney testifies.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about Johnny Sutton.

 
41Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:31 		Welcome to the forum, Simon Pang & Cactus Wren. Hope you guys stick around.
 
42Perm Dude
      ID: 25658198
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 21:43 		House testimony is not an "appeal" Cactus.

Are you saying that the agents knew the driver was illegally in the country when they shot him? Or that he had drugs? I have not found that anywhere in the transcript (available here, in pdf form.

The agents lost their cool, shot the guy, and when it was found out later he was an illegal and a drug dealer then suddenly it was all right. Well, it isn't all right to shoot down unarmed people (including reloading). And it isn't all right to do so and then fail to report it, which makes it seem like some big coverup because the guy had drugs in his van.
 
43Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 22:16 		Hey, PD, when was the last time you agreed with
Bush?

At a town-hall style meeting, Bush also rebuffed a question about whether he would consider pardoning two Border Patrol agents in prison for the cover-up of the shooting of a drug trafficker in Texas.

"No, I won't make you that promise," Bush told a woman who asked about a possible pardon. Many Republicans in Congress have said the men should not have been convicted and have criticized the federal U.S. attorney for even prosecuting the agents.

"I know it's an emotional issue but people need to look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts" as presented by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, said Bush. Bush called Sutton a friend.

 
44Tree
      ID: 18661918
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 22:19 		"No, I won't make you that promise," Bush told a woman who asked about a possible pardon. "

These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts" as presented by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, said Bush. Bush called Sutton a friend.

um, yea, mr. president, so was scooter libby. but you pardoned him....

more beauty from the man this nation elected...twice...
 
45Perm Dude
      ID: 25658198
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 22:50 		Heh PV. I agree with Bush when he pledged to reduce carbon emissions when he ran in 2000. Of course, he flip flopped on it...
 
46 Cactus Wren
      ID: 6611919
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 23:02 		1st - Matt, thanks for the welcome. I was surfing and ended up here.

2nd - PD, I'll respond to your last post, but first, would you answer a question for me, please?
How close to you live to our southern border?
 
47Perm Dude
      ID: 25658198
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 23:09 		Cactus: Not close at all. Though I did live for a time in NYC, which has more immigrants (illegal and legal) than any area on the Mexican border.

And (of course) that makes no difference in the guilt or innocence of the agents.
 
48 Cactus Wren
      ID: 6611919
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 23:21 		PD, Thanks for answering.

I just wondered if you understood the context. Your experience in NYC is not applicable to the situation here. You really have to live on the border to understand the situation. I do, and have for years. Close enough to see Mexico out my window. I really wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but that's for another thread.

OK... let me go back to working on my response. I tend to be slow - please forgive me.
 
49Perm Dude
      ID: 25658198
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 23:36 		Well, there are a lot of things not applicable, Cactus. Including some general "lawlessness" of the border.

The agents had a high speed chase of a suspect in a van, then started shooting at the guy. Afterward they find marijuana (I believe about 700 pounds. Or enough to last Seattle Zen a good long weekend).

The later facts don't retroactively make the Agents' actions OK. It doesn't make their lack of a report OK. And it doesn't mean that these guys are "heroes" or "should be pardoned" (not your words, but the words of their supporters) simply because the guy they shot in the back had bales of ganja in his van and was illegally in the country.

The problem, of course, is that many Americans simply won't take on the tough jobs of housing construction laborer, fruit & vegetable picker, border drug dealer, or underpaid nanny.

:)
 
50Seattle Zen
      ID: 86541617
      Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 23:47 		Did someone mention marijuana? Well, that's my cue to post.

Oh, Mexican schwag, no thanks.
 
51Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 00:02 		The problem, of course, is that many Americans simply won't take on the tough jobs of housing construction laborer, fruit & vegetable picker, border drug dealer, or underpaid nanny.

They would if welfare was eliminated.
 
52 Cactus Wren
      ID: 6611919
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 02:13 		"House testimony is not an "appeal" Cactus."
I'm sure most people are aware of that.

The testimony I was referring to was a Senate hearing conducted 2 days ago, chaired by Senator Feinstein.
She was very sympathtic to the plight of Ramos and Compean. She can smell a rat, too.

The Appeals Court has yet to hear their case.
----------------------

I commend you for being able to search and read over 2500 pages of testimony in 20 minutes.
You must have missed a few things, though, because you are still making inaccurate statements.

As per testimony, a border sensor was tripped by a speeding van heading into the US in an area known for smuggling.
43,000 lbs of contraband had been interdicted there in the prior 15 months.
The driver refused to stop for Agent Compean, who pursued him.
What would a reasonable law enforcement officer surmise?

BTW, the area where this happened is less than scenic. The odds of a van of midwestern tourists getting lost at the border, crossing into Mexico and then speeding back is probably equivalent to the odds of OJs blood matching someone else's. Even so, I suspect tourists would stop when pursued by a law enforcement officer. Wouldn't you agree?

When Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila spotted another BP vehicle heading in his direction, he turned around and sped back towards Mexico. He ditched the van and became involved in a physical fight with agent Compean, which Aldrete-Davila (a six-footer compared to Compean - who I would guess to be about 5'6") won. Compean ended up on the ground with dirt in his eyes and face. Aldrete-Davila then ran back towards Mexico and jumped into a waiting vehicle - waiting on the Mexican side - to make his escape.

Agent Compean testified that while Aldrete-Davila ran from him, Aldrete-Davila turned and pointed something shiny at him. Compean let loose with all his bullets - reloaded and tried again. Did he panic? I think so, but I don't blame him. He couldn't see well, and I'd probably let loose with everything I had, too, if I thought someone was going to shoot me. Ramos, coming from a different angle, was also in pursuit. He testified that Aldrete-Davila also turned at him and pointed what he thought was a gun at him. Ramos fired once. Since Aldrete-Davila didn't stop, and ran on and jumped into the waiting vehicle, Ramos did not think his shot was a hit.

Aldrete-Davila was wounded in the side of the left buttocks, with the bullet passing through his body into the right thigh, consistent with someone turning around. BTW, Sutton was never able to match the bullet to Ramos' gun. Matter of fact, Sutton couldn't even narrow it to the same make and model.

That also raises interesting questions, since Aldrete-Davila didn't show up back in the US for some time, a month or so later. That's a long time to walk around with wounds like that and a bullet in you. One wonders how he was able to keep running with injuries which required surgery and jump into a waiting vehicle without skipping a beat.

I don't know if you missed the part about Aldrete-Davila's wounds while reading the transcript, or not. But now you do know, so now you no longer need to repeat inaccurate information.

Here's part of the "in context" part. A BP agent discharging a weapon is not that unusal. Calling the border a battleground is more accurate than most people know. Is neglecting to fill out proper paper work wrong? Yes. However, that happening was not unique, and there is plenty of evidence supporting that.

As a reasonable person, I don't find that hard to believe, based on my own life's experiences. I can personally recall 2 instances where I was slightly injured on the job, (nothing big) and had supervisors ask me "Are you really hurt?...Because taking the time to fill out the paperwork is going to mess up your schedule." Unless there was actual blood, or a bone protruding most people didn't bother. SOP.

Anyway, much of the time up to this incident, scant attention was paid to lack of paperwork in cases like this - and those cases where someone did decide to push it and punish agents for lack of proper paperwork ended up being handled within the Border Patrol, suspension without pay, poor personnel review - stuff like that.

Why were these agents handled differently? There has to be a reason. Maybe not a pretty one, but it's hiding there somewhere.

Another thing I find interesting - and highly disturbing - is that other agents on the scene who would have testified for the defense were put "under investigation" by Johnny Sutton. I think they still are - though they've never been actually prosecuted for anything. That kind of puts a damper on someone's willingness to testify for the defense.

A couple of others agreed to testify for the prosecution, and *surprise, surprise!!* - none of them are "under investigation". Amazing how that worked out, isn't it?

Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was given a free pass. He was again caught drug smuggling. Johnny Sutton has again declined to prosecute him.

Why has Aldrete-Davila been given special treatment? ...(BTW, the details of Aldrete-Davila's reappearance in the US to pursue this case also raises disturbing questions.)

What most people familiar with the area know - is that that area is OWNED by the drug cartels. Both sides of the border. Johnny Sutton's area. American citizens on this side of the border have been kidnapped. Murdered.

The MSM reports very little of what's actually happening along the border. And if you do some searching on Johnny Sutton you'll find he has a nasty connection to one of these cases.

You may not think this is pertinent - but I do. Both judge Cardone and Johnny Sutton were appointed by GWB and have been his long time friends and allies.

Ramos and Compean are not Sutton's only law enforcement victims (and yes, I consider them victims).

There's more information about the "lack of a report" and some of the evidence. Do some searching and read up on it. Hint: You won't find anything on the DOJ website, but FOIA requests have exposed interesting facts.

Do I consider Ramos and Compean heroes?
Living where I do, along the border and in the thick of some ugly things, I consider almost all BP agents heroes.

Mainly I consider Nacho Ramos and Jose Compean (along with several others) victims of Johnny Sutton and parties unknown.

The effect has been to put a real chill on the effectiveness of the rank and file BP agents. Their morale is low. Perhaps that has been Johnny Sutton's intent all along.

Anyway, I don't have any more time this evening. Maybe some other time.

You may be GWB's biggest fan.

I don't know, but from your responses, it's hard to imagine otherwise.

Even so, you really should keep an open mind - something very ugly has been going on.




 
53Tree
      ID: 57617205
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 06:34 		I just wondered if you understood the context.

to me, the context is simple, and it's the attitude toward Mexicans that is pervasive throughout Texas.

i grew up in Texas. fortunately, when i was 19, the University of Texas did me a favor by booting me out, and i was able to flee the state without ever looking back.

unfortunately, my mom didn't escape, and 30+ years after my family moved there, she's still stuck. and the woman who raised me to believe everyone is equal has become a very different person.

in recent years, comments like "i wish those damned mexicans who were laying my carpet and hanging my sheet rock spoke English" are fairly common place from her, and nearly everyone i run into when i (reluctantly) go back to visit.

there really is no excuse for a law officer to draw his or weapon on someone who isn't attempting to kill them. even worse, lying or ignoring important aspects of an incident on your report. when you do something like that and get caught, i don't believe it's blind luck that the first time you did that, you got busted. i think it's something you've done before.

the cops broke the law. just because they have a badge doesn't give them carte blanche. Texas may still think it's the 1880s and the Wild West, but it's not, and even The Law has to follow the laws...

 
54Perm Dude
      ID: 54650208
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 10:05 		What would a reasonable law enforcement officer surmise

A reasonable law enforcement officer will remember what their job is at all times. They don't panic. I agree with you that I think he did. He overreacted (probably in the heat of a high pursuit chase, which is questionable as to whether he should be doing anyway. Border Agents do not have drug enforcement as either their primary or even secondary pursuit, and only file drug charges if thay happen to come across them in the pursuit of their normal duties, including, of course, immigration stops).

Do I blame the Agents for being human and overreacting in an area in which even the locals contribute to the Agents' anxiety levels? Not really, I don't. But at some point we need to stop making excuses why the Agents chased down and shot a guy who didn't actually have a gun. We also need to stop blaming Sutton in some weirdly conspiracy-theory way that we somehow don't have all the facts to see that the Agents in question did what they did. [You seem to have enough of the facts on hand to excuse the Agents' actions as being "human" but not enough to draw any other conclusions. You can't have it both ways.]

Saying that a police officer not filing paperwork is the same as a worker not filing injury paperwork makes me think you don't really understand the role of peace officers at any level. An officer almost can't take a dump without making a report on it (let alone a shooting involving reloading). And they we're convicted of not filing "paperwork"--they were required to give an oral report and if you'd read the transcripts you'd realize that they could not have filed paper at the time because the regulations required them to hold off on a paper report but required an oral report of the incident.

I won't bother to respond to your silly allegation that I never read any of the transcript previously.
 
55Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 13:26 		I love the "moral is low" argument. I imagine conversations at the BP offices.

"So, we can't just shoot the a$$holes anymore?"
"Yeah"
"What the hell am I getting out of bed in the morning for? Damn liberals!"
 
56Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 19:40 		The reason no paperwork was filed was because there were a number of BP agents including their supervisor on the scene.

You don't give ten year sentences for that.

The reason SZ is so flippant about the chilling effect that was deliberately sent by this outrageous miscarriage of justice purpetrated by Bush's handpicked judge and handpicked AG is because SZ wants the border patrol to not do their job and in fact he doesn't believe in borders.
 
57Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 19:50 		BTW the mother of the drug dealer stated that he never crossed the border without a firearm. Just one more thing the jury was not allowed to hear.

The reason he was hit IN THE GROIN is because he was not shot in the back. He was shot turning around which logically led the agents to believe he was turning around to shoot them. An assumption the mother would understand.

Withold enuff favorable evidence and...

a handpicked judge and friend of George

a power elite corrupted AG 'demoted' from Washington for this special purpose

or a globalist President in bed with the president of Mexico promising to facilitate illegal immigration

...can convict a ham sandwich.
 
58Perm Dude
      ID: 54650208
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 19:57 		The reason no paperwork was filed was because there were a number of BP agents including their supervisor on the scene.

No, the reason no paperwork was filed is because the agents were not supposed to file paperwork. They were required to provide an oral report. And neither one did. Cops don't refuse to give a report (oral or not) because their supervisor was on the scene. Cops are taught to make the report no matter what. At the very least, to cover their asses.

What, exactly, is their job that they were prevented from doing, Baldwin?
 
59Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 20:01 		No, the reason no paperwork was filed is because the agents were not supposed to file paperwork. They were required to provide an oral report. - PD

What do you think they did? Give their supervisor who was on the scene the cold shoulder and the silent treatment?

And you are wrong. They were technically supposed to file written reports anytime a firearm is discharged. Sutton tried to make a big deal in the court of the fact no paperwoprk was filed.
 
60Building7
      ID: 571192610
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 20:49 		i grew up in Texas. fortunately, when i was 19, the University of Texas did me a favor by booting me out, and i was able to flee the state without ever looking back.

The entire state of Texas is saddened by your departure. I'm not sure how they've managed to get along all these years without you.

unfortunately, my mom didn't escape, and 30+ years after my family moved there, she's still stuck.

What is she in prison or something?


 
61Perm Dude
      ID: 54650208
      Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 21:27 		Baldwin, the agency's own firearms policy dictates what needed to be done.

The headline is wrong, of course. The agents were required to give an oral report and did not do so. They weren't convicted for not making a written report. They were convicted for making no report at all.
 
62 Cactus Wren
      ID: 6611919
      Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 19:46 		Baldwin - if you read this, please email me...

My position is:
Did they do anything wrong? I really don't know, because agents who would have testified in their behalf were put in a position of jeopardy by Sutton and crew and did not testify.

Combined with other information the jury was not allowed to hear, I can't honestly say they got a fair trial.

EVEN SO... 10 and 11 year sentences?

Those sentences were determined by the charges Sutton chose to file - and he piled more and more on, knowing the potential consequences.

So far both have had to spend their time in solitary confinement for their safety.

Early on, Ramos was set loose in the general population with convicted drug dealers and was almost immediately brutally beaten.

The AP photographer who visited him a couple of days after it happened was not allowed to take pictures showing his injuries. Nacho is now back in solitary confinement.

Child molesters and murderers have received shorter sentences - Ramos and Compean should, at the MINIMUM, be released ASAP.

----------
PS: I read the "Baseball" thread because that's something that interests me (for reasons I don't care to disclose) and got a feeling for what some of the personalities on this board are like. Doesn't seem to be a very happy place.
 
63Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 12:55 		PS: I read the "Baseball" thread because that's something that interests me (for reasons I don't care to disclose) and got a feeling for what some of the personalities on this board are like. Doesn't seem to be a very happy place.

That's a lot like listening to a bunch of guys playing basketball. It's a competition, there is some pushing and shoving, yelling, and bitching. To conclude that no one is having fun is rather dim.

Hey, I agree that 10 and 11 year sentences are ridiculous. You seem shocked, but anyone who is familiar with federal criminal statutes certainly isn't. You can't do much of anything without getting a decade or more when you are brought up on charges in federal court. Make sure to thank your Congressman for voting again and again, year after year, for preposterous mandatory minimum sentences.
 
64Perm Dude
      ID: 37623238
      Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 13:05 		Yeah, those minimum sentences (hell, non-optional sentencing "guidelines") are a joke. By taking out of the hands of the judges any context, they take away any real justice in sentencing.
 
65 Simon Pang
      ID: 536182619
      Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 20:19 		Perm Dude,
My main argument is that The US Attorney Johnny Sutton used the wrong law to prosecute the two agents regardless of whose side of the story was the truth. The acts of the two border agents firing their guns were not in futherance to any crime as specific in that law even if their acts of firing their guns were proved to be criminal acts of using excessive force. That's the reason why the punishment becomes way too excessive.

This is against the 8th Amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

Furthermore, the initial shots were fired by agent Compean who did not hit the escaping drug smuggler at all after the scuffle. So it was not like the case of a group of brutal police officers who killed a suspect with tens of rounds of bullets on the body and turned out that the suspect was unarmed. How come those obvious use of excessive force were not even prosecuted but Compean did not even hit the drug smuggler and got 12 years in prison? That's preposterous. I think the only explanation is that some people may have put politics over justice.

As for agent Ramos who arrived later and fired the only shot that injured the drug smuggler, it is very obvious that he did it in good faith of helping a fellow officer whom he thought had been attacked by the escaping smuggler. He did not fire multiple shots. He fired only once. So he did not use excessive force at all by taking the sequence of events in perspective. His act of firing that shot therefore should be in no way be viewed as a crime.

When we see perversion of justice, it does not necessarily mean there must be something wrong with the law. Very often it could also mean the law has been misused or distorted by people to suit their own agenda.
 
66 Simon Pang
      ID: 586532818
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 19:54 		Today the appeal court releases its decision on the Compean and Ramos case.

Instead of giving the agents a retrial by jury or acquitting them, the judges uphold the sentences of mandatory 10 years in prison under the wrongful application of the United States Code Title 18 Section 924(c)(1)(a)(iii). The three judges err in the following respects:

1/They wrongly rely their judgment on the questionable finding of the jury in the first trial that the shooting was unjustified, a finding which has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as there was no way to confirm whether the drug smuggler really had a gun.

2/Three members of the jury have signed an affidavit stating that they have changed their minds about the guilty verdict in view of new information which were suppressed. However, in the appeal report, the judges totally ignore this important change and based their appeal judgment erroneously on the fact "the jury chose not to believe the defendant", a fact which has been rendered obsolete and not applicable to the appeal case because of the change of mind of three members of the jury.

3/ The judges fail to recognize the significance of motives for the shootings. While it is possible the shootings not be justified if the drug smuggler really had no gun, however, the shootings would not constitute criminal offences had the agents really mistaken the drug smuggler pointed a gun at them during escape.
(Compare to the recent shooting to death of an unarmed man Sean Bell by the NYPD. The officers were found not guilty of any criminal offence based on the defense that they had mistaken the men in the car to have a gun.)

The three appeal judges' intentionally using of the obsolete decision of the jury in a previous trial as the basis for their decision in the appeal trial is a sign of their incompetence if not a sign of perversion of justice due to politics as many people suspect it could be.
 
67Perm Dude
      ID: 53657288
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 20:07 		Appeals courts aren't permitted to take into account that jurors changed their mind. Their job is to ensure that the rules of the court were followed at the trial level, not to re-try the case.
 
68 Simon Pang
      ID: 166392819
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 20:39 		Perm Dude,
If it is true that "appeals courts aren't permitted to take into account that jurors changed their mind.", then a retrial by jury should be the right decision of the judges instead of using a fact that no longer valid to support their decision.

Motive of the shooting is the most important issue in this case. If the agents had really said that they were going to "shoot some Mexicans", then I would agree that the shootings were criminal offences. However, that was just a lie by the DHS, so their probable motive would likely be related to doing their duty. Therefore, even if it had turned out they had mistaken the drug smuggler had a gun, the shootings should not be considered criminal offences.

Of course only the drug smuggler knows for sure if he had a gun or not in this case and only the agents know for sure about their motives.
As there is no way to incriminate the agents beyond reasonable doubt, the verdict arrived by assuming the agents had criminal motive in shooting the drug smuggler is wrong.
 
69Perm Dude
      ID: 53657288
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 20:53 		The trial judges aren't permitted to retry the case except for errors in procedure or misapplication of the law.Jurors can change theor mind for a lot of reasons outside the courtroom.
 
70 Simon Pang
      ID: 166392819
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 21:51 		I didn't say the judges should retry the case but they should authorize retrial of the case.
 
71Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 22:32 		Supressed evidence is one of the biggest perversions of justice in this country.
 
72Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Jul 28, 2008, 22:34 		And the fact that the jury reverses their call when presented all the facts is good reason to throw the prosecutors and judges and AG and Governnors out of office as these guys were railroaded as surely as any lynching in America ever was.
 
73 Simon Pang
      ID: 166392819
      Tue, Jul 29, 2008, 18:26 		President Bush thinks that he has done nothing wrong even though more than a million Iraqis including women and children were killed due to his incursion into Iraq after his mistake that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
But then why he cannot forgive the two border agents who might have mistaken the drug smuggler to have a gun or really saw the drug smuggler holding something like a gun and only wounded him within the US border?

Why Mr. Bush thinks it's OK for him to assume that the border agents had criminal motives in the shooting while he criticizes people for assuming that he had unjustified motives in the Iraq war?

Mr. Bush should pardon the two border agents to stop this travesty of justice.

As long as the border agents are in jail, they are proof of Mr. Bush's hypocrisy and bureaucracy.
 
74Perm Dude
      ID: 516432917
      Tue, Jul 29, 2008, 18:43 		Are they charged with a federal crime? If not, it isn't Bush's place to do anything. The President cannot pardon people convicted of state laws.
 
75 Simon Pang
      ID: 166392819
      Wed, Jul 30, 2008, 19:44 		The law that the agents were charged with, United States Code Title 18 Section 924(c)(1)(a)(iii), was enacted by Congress. The agents were convicted under federal law, not state law.

While I wish President Bush would pardon the two agents, I don't think the convictions of the two agents under that statute was fair and appropriate.
 
76Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 10:26
Last month, Contreras announced Obama's transition team told him he was a candidate for assistant secretary of ICE.

It was then that he decided to write a letter on behalf of the imprisoned agents, the El Paso Times reported. He asked the president to pardon them or reduce their sentences.

"I reviewed everything I could find related to their cases, and based on my extensive experience, Compean and Ramos should be released and reinstated to their former jobs," he told the Times. "I have not received a response."
---------------------------------------------
While in office, the president has pardoned or commuted sentences for at least 36 drug dealers, 12 thieves, seven embezzlers, an arsonist, an armed bank robber and an illegal-alien smuggler – but there has been no word on Ramos and Compean

 
77Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 10:28 		Patty Compean (left), Monica Ramos (right). Boys on wives' laps are Compean's sons Eric Alonso and David Antonio. Boys in back are Ramos' sons, Aaron and Ryan. Ramos' son, Jacob, and Compean's daughter, Anna Belle, are in front. (photo: Ramos, Compean families)
 
78Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 11:01 		While in office, the president has pardoned or commuted sentences for at least 36 drug dealers, 12 thieves, seven embezzlers, an arsonist, an armed bank robber and an illegal-alien smuggler – but there has been no word on Ramos and Compean, two men who attempted to kill another, and then tried to cover it up.

fixed that for ya.
 
79Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 12:02 		Would it be the height of irony if Obama commuted these prison terms? How will those with ODS live with that decision?
 
80Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 15:27 		Gratitude
 
81Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 16:49 		If The Bamer wanted to win some serious points with the other side of the aisle (like he always claims he wants to do), he would commute those sentences.
 
82Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:14 		At no cost.
 
83Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 17:18 		Agreed.

It would fly 99.9% entirely under the radar if he did it. People are so focused on the economy that any time spent complaining over the commutation would be minimal as opposed to when the economy is going well.
 
84Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 19:05 		If The Bamer wanted to win some serious points with the other side of the aisle (like he always claims he wants to do), he would commute those sentences.

because, of course, playing politics is a GREAT reason to release these two guys...

perhaps the other side of the aisle should attempt to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, as he as yet to even take office.
 
85Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 20:25 		perhaps the other side of the aisle should attempt to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, as he as yet to even take office.

What does that even mean?

Do you think that he wouldn't please conservatives by commutation?
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 15032818
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 20:26 		Some of the noisy ones, perhaps.

Those who believe in the rule of law...not so much.
 
87Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 21:48 		Those who believe in the rule of law...not so much.

Ramos and Compean have spent plenty of time behind bars. It's not like they did what
this cop did.
 
88Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 21:51 		yea, that cop should go away for a VERY long time. if not, i'd be worried about what happens in that community if he doesnt...
 
89Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 11:20 		'Our' drug trafficing government, keeping the lid on Mexican journalist under death threat from corrupt Mexican military.
 
90Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 12:12 		it's rich, you of all people, posting that link and having a problem with what's being done.

you, who supports the shooting of fleeing Mexicans. you, who supports the imprisonment - secret or otherwise - of Muslims guilty of only being Muslim.

yet this guy, who is not a US Citizen, you somehow wanna take up his cause???

your logic - and lack of consistency - is baffling.
 
91Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:45 		You are consigned to a permanent state of bafflement. Don't blame me.
 
92Boldwin
      ID: 5704850
      Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 18:49 		For the record, anyone who attaches the term racist so cheaply, cannot genuinely care about racism.
 
93Mith
      ID: 148402816
      Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:04 		anyone who attaches the term racist so cheaply, cannot genuinely care about racism.

That's silly. He's just ajectly ignorant. He uses antisemite just as loosely and I wouldn't say he doesn't care about antisemitism.
 
94Boldwin
      ID: 34044918
      Fri, Jan 09, 2009, 19:51 		Being angry when your own people get attacked is not the same as being angry when anyone, no matter who, is attacked for their race.
 
95Baldwin
      ID: 410521218
      Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 20:52 		The final nail in Bush's reputation.

He gives Border Patrol chief who is loathed by everyone in the Border Patrol, a 60K bonus while explicitly denying Ramos and Compean justice.
 
96Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 21:35 		Ramos and Compean justice.

they got justice. they had a trial, and were convicted.

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
97Baldwin
      ID: 410521218
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 04:54 		If you take your oath seriously on the Border Patrol your gonna do time. That is the message.
 
98Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 07:51 		If you take your oath seriously on the Border Patrol your gonna do time.

show me the part in the oath where it says "shoot someone running away from you, then attempt to conceal the evidence and cover up the whole situation..."

had these two guys not attempted to cover it up, i think they'd be getting a lot more sympathy - but shooting someone running away from you + picking up the bullet casings + failing to report what happened AS PER THEIR OWN PROTOCOL = something fishy.
 
99Baldwin
      ID: 410521218
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 10:03 		What's fishy is that the higher-ups are more eager to prosecute border agents than drug smugglers and illegals.
 
100Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 10:10 		What's fishy is that the higher-ups are more eager to prosecute border agents than drug smugglers and illegals.

Is this a researched position? If so, please provide the data on the number of border agent prosecutions versus the number of drug smugglers and illegals being prosecuted.
 
101Baldwin
      ID: 410521218
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 11:40 		The burden of proof is on anyone who believes there is a border to patrol or a serious effort to enforce it. I've posted plenty of unfair prosecutions of border agents as well as home owners on the border who have been unfairly attacked by the higher-ups for defending themselves. In one home the home invaders ended up owning the home they invaded because the defenders ended up losing their shirts in court. They just will not allow a defense of the border.
 
102Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 12:36 		the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is an eagerness to prosecute border agents over drug smugglers and illegals.

i would be willing to wager anything you want to put up that more drug smugglers and illegals have been prosecuted than border agents. period.
 
103Baldwin
      ID: 410521218
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 17:23 		I would make the case that there are a few more illegals than border agents and why am I bothering to talk to Tree?
 
104Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 18:24 		so, you're back peddling now from your argument that there is an eagerness to prosecute border agents over smugglers and illegals?

there's nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong, you just do it so rarely, it's refreshing to see.
 
105Baldwin
      ID: 00321417
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 19:15 		I have consistantly over the years pointed out that the Bush dynasty [as well as other Skull and Bones families] has been involved in facilitating the drug trade since the Opium Wars days, have been set up as governors in key drug entry points as Forida and Texas to facilitate the drug trade.

I further have consistantly pointed out that as leading globalists the Bush family has deliberately facilitated illegal immigration and the coming North American Union.

They have as much interest in stopping illegal immigration and the drug trade as I have in acquiring aids.

Prosecuting border guards, and intimidating them from doing their job, and corrupting the system is what they do. It is part of the family business.

 
106Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 20:00 		you have also, consistently, over the years, changed your argument the minute a flaw was pointed out, and have been unable to admit you erred.

you said something very clearly: What's fishy is that the higher-ups are more eager to prosecute border agents than drug smugglers and illegals.

and, instead of providing proof or backing it up in anyway, you point, again, to your Bush drug operations mantra, which, true or not, does not provide support nor unmitigated proof in regards to position that there is more eagerness to prosecute border agents than drug smugglers and illegals.

proof, not anecdotes, is what was requested.


 
107Baldwin
      ID: 00321417
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 20:28 		If there is a groundswell of poliboarders truly interested and concerned about catelogueing[sp?] every last border guard prosecuted I might consider putting that much time into it, but I am not going to let some troll run me ragged documenting every self-evident thing. I am also very very tired of people all the way from you, to Nerve asking me to look up and document things I already linked to.

There are more than enuff outrageous examples of border agent vindictive overboard prosecutions for doing their job, already documented in this board to demonstrate a mindset, particularly in the machinery Bush left Texas, most notably Sutton.
 
108Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 14, 2009, 22:26 		sorry Baldwin, you lose this time.

you made a claim. myself, and others, asked you to back it up.

when you can't, you resort to the old "troll" argument. once again, YOU are the one who starts, and resorts, to name-calling. granted, over the years, i've put myself in a position to give you this little escape pod, but the fact of the matter is that you rely on it WAY too often, usually when your own argument backs you into a corner.

if you are not going to back up outrageous claims with substantiated, documented, and unassailable proof, then don't make the claims.
 
109Baldwin
      ID: 00321417
      Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 04:07 		I see you are still under the delusion anyone respects you enuff to serve as referee in a debate. Stick to fantasy sports.
 
110Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 07:56 		you're the one who is turning tail and running, or rather, instead of offering support for your claims, turning around and attacking my character, which is typical for you. when you're in the wrong, you turn around and attack others.

i'm not trying to beat you into submission, just trying to hold you accountable for your words and claims.

if you can't back up your claims, it doesn't matter what *I* say - your inaction and inability can be judged by others. i'm not needed as a referee.
 
111Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 09:27 		I have consistantly over the years pointed out that the Bush dynasty [as well as other Skull and Bones families] has been involved in facilitating the drug trade since the Opium Wars days, have been set up as governors in key drug entry points as Forida and Texas to facilitate the drug trade

Not just the Bush dynasty and Skull and Bones families.

Also well documented is Ronald Reagan's point man, Oliver North, in concert with the CIA as head of Reagan's NSC, up to his neck in drug smuggling and using the proceeds to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

link
 
112Perm Dude
      ID: 53045150
      Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 09:35 		C'mon PV: You know the Right prefers their criminals to be martyrs in order to honor and praise their "sacrifice."
 
113Baldwin
      ID: 00321417
      Thu, Jan 15, 2009, 10:12 		Satan and his secret societies coopt even the best, when they can manage to fool them. I too hold that against him.

How they do it...my best guess is they tell them that it's either us or the enemy profiting from the trade. Which doesn't excuse it. Or him.
 
115Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 13:23 		Bush commutes sentences
 
116Perm Dude
      ID: 39031910
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 13:37 		Another link
 
117Boldwin
      ID: 52044193
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 14:45 		It's a start to winning back the right, for the purposes of dusting his reputation off.
 
118Boldwin
      ID: 52044193
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 14:54 		Now there is a celebration I would like to attend, March 20.
 
119Perm Dude
      ID: 39031910
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 14:57 		Guns will be going off into the backs of illegals all day long...
 
120Jag
      ID: 460211812
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 17:59 		This is a great day for 2 heroes. It is funny how some rejoice in the conviction of 2 law enforcement officers and applaud an illegal immigrant drug dealer. Some people need to get their priorities straight.
 
121dwetzel on BB
      ID: 559392915
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 19:11 		Shooting someone in the back is now "heroic"? Puh-leeze. Running into a minefield to rescue a fallen comrade is heroic. Running into a burning building is heroic. Do not diminish the work of real heroes by abusing the word.

These ARE still convicted felons you are talking about, you know.
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 320341918
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 19:34 		We applaud the conviction of those who swear to uphold the law when they lie to cover up their crimes.
 
123Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 19:51 		It is funny how some rejoice in the conviction of 2 law enforcement officers and applaud an illegal immigrant drug dealer.

if a law enforcement officer breaks the law, then hell yea they should be convicted of a crime.

as for your claims of applause for the "illegal immigrant drug dealer", please, show me where anyone here praised the man shot by Ramos and Campeon, two STILL CONVICTED criminals.
 
124Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 21:32 		Convicted in a very very flawed process, including malicious prosecution, innapplicable charges, jurors feeling intimidated into voting to convict, key facts denied the jury, etc, etc.
 
125Perm Dude
      ID: 320341918
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 21:44 		And it is worth noting that, even all those "facts" weren't enough for Bush to pardon them.
 
126Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 22:03 		Bush's man Sutton was the man who rigged the process. You expect me to be surprised that getting Bush to do the right thing was like pulling teeth?
 
127Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 00:20 		if those things were true Baldwin, the convictions would have been overturned.
 
128Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 04:04 		...If wishful thinking were reality.
 
129Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:02 		no one here is more guilty of wishful thinking than you, Baldwin.

although, that being said, *my* wishful thinking did become a reality, and in a couple of hours, it will be official.
 
130CanadianHack
      ID: 747218
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:15 		Baldwin's wishful thinking is that the world comes to an end (rapture etc.). The fact that is something he hopes for is a betrayal to humanity.

According to back issues of The Watchtower, the world will come to an end in 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975 and 1989. Maybe they got it wrong I don't recall any raptures in the 20th century.
 
131Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:35 		CH

We don't actually believe in any rapture doctrine you'd recognize, Hack, nor do I expect to go to heaven, nor have we ever contradicted the Bible which says that no one knows the day or the hour.

Stick to something you actually know about, whatever that might be.
 
132CanadianHack
      ID: 747218
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:47 		Baldwin does the 'we' you refer to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses? There have in fact been several failed end of the world predictions published in The Watchtower. Or do you argue that the writers of The Watchtower are not actually Jehovah's Witnesses?
 
133Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 11:13 		::goes and gets some popcorn::
::plops down on the couch to watch this one::
 
134Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 11:13 		We pointed out that the 'appointed times of the nations' ran out in 1914 and that the last days had begun. Upon which world wars and every other sign of the end times began deluging the earth.

Newspapers even pointed out after WWI began, that we had been right.

I was giving public talks during 1975 and I can tell you exactly what we were telling people, and it included that fact that we did not know the day or the hour, that we weren't serving God for a date. It did include the fact that there was a nice round 6,000 number regarding bible chronology and Adam and the fact that that was knowable may or may not be significant. Some did more reading between the lines than they should have. We were saying exactly what we meant and pointed out our limitations. The one guy on the governing body trying to make more of that number than he should have ended up moving on. The organization went from 1 million members then to 7+ million since then. We like our new brothers and sisters and are quite pleased things worked out the way they did.
 
135CanadianHack
      ID: 31645103
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 11:27 		Here is what the Watchtower said about 1975 a few more quotes here some of which come from Awake and Kingdom Ministry as well.

Some of the best ones:

WATCHTOWER, Aug/15/1968, P 499:

"ADAM CREATED AT CLOSE OF "SIXTH DAY"

Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then ?Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man's existence coincides with the sabbath like thousand-year reign of Christ....It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years."

KINGDOM MINISTRY, May/1974, p 3:

"Yes, the end of this system is so very near! Is that no reason to increase our activity?....Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system of things in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end."

WATCHTOWER Oct/15/1966, p 629:

"Discussion of 1975 overshadowed about everything else. 'The new book compels us to realise that Armageddon is, in fact, very close indeed,' said a conventioner."

These clearly refer to 1975 as the end times. Or will you play Watchtower apologist?
 
136Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 13:02 		My comments in #134 fully answer your contentions. Christians were always supposed to keep the day close in mind lest that day come upon them as a thief in the night. Nothing quoted in #135 contradicts that spirit nor promises to know the exact day or hour.
 
137CanadianHack
      ID: 911251015
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 13:12 		The quotes do clearly show that 1975 was predicted as the end times - even if nobody gave an exact day or hour.
 
138Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 13:15 		The whole of 1914 onward is the endtimes.
 
139CanadianHack
      ID: 911251015
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 13:18 		It is clearly a distinction without any meaningful difference that you are holding onto.

You would like to see the world come to an end. That sells out humanity. Selling out humanity is evil.

The wacky cult you belong to would be so happy to see the end times that they unsuccessfully predicted them in their own literature five times last century. That should be enough to discredit them in any rational mind. Too bad yours isn't rational.

One of the most interesting things I have witnessed on this message board is your decent from often well thought out conservatism into nutcase crazytalk as the Bush administration fell apart and Obama became president. I think that the decent into craziness has been made much easier because you already have part of your mind believing JW insanity. Its easier to go crazy when part of your mind is already there.
 
140Jag
      ID: 460211812
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 15:26 		Nothing Baldwin has ever said can compete with the "nutcase crazytalk" of the far left. Liberalism is just another religion and much more dangerous than anything Baldwin believes.
 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 12021208
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 15:35 		Nothing Baldwin has ever said can compete with the "nutcase crazytalk" of the far left.

How about saying that Ann Coulter would be a better SCOTUS justice than Scalia? Do you believe this, too?
 
142Jag
      ID: 460211812
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 15:53 		Scalia is my favorite SCOTUS justice, not that I agree with everything he says, but his quotes are memorable.

I have not seen Baldwin make this comment, if he did, it was probably all in jest.
 
143Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:34 		Jag

Not to worry, Jag. I'm a big fan of Scalia and Thomas.

Hack

Being for the meek and spiritually mindful, inheriting the earth has rarely been slandered and mischaracterized in quite the way you have today.

Suffice it to say that Jesus who repeated that line about the meek inheriting the earth and who predicted the last days of satan's failed system of things, would not have agreed.
 
144tree on the treo
      ID: 521142259
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:38 		still waiting for your response here jag...

as for your claims of applause for the "illegal immigrant drug dealer", please, show me where anyone here praised the man shot by Ramos and Campeon...
 
145Jag
      ID: 460211812
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:47 		No one has praised him by name, but some do champion the cause of illegal immigrants and sing the praises of pot. I wouldn't be surprised if Zen had a Fathead of the guy hanging over his bed.
 
146Perm Dude
      ID: 12021208
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:56 		#142: It wasn't in jest. It was a mistake, of course, and (like pretty much anything in his proto-religion/politics) once uttered it cannot be retracted, amended, or edited by him. It is here, post #121 Then again #128.
 
147bibA
      ID: 360521914
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:56 		120 Jag - This is a great day for 2 heroes.

Reminds me of the same sentiments several decades ago when one Lt. Calley was hailed as a hero, made grand marshal of parades, etc.
 
148tree on the treo
      ID: 521142259
      Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 16:58 		thanks for the clarification that you stretched the truth jag...
 
149CanadianHack
      ID: 911251015
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 01:50 		Being for the meek and spiritually mindful, inheriting the earth has rarely been slandered and mischaracterized in quite the way you have today.

Baldwin, your end times vision that you desperately want is something you are mischaracterizing when you describe it merely as the meek inherting the earth. It includes the destruction of humanity and the earth as we know it. That is what makes your belief system so evil. You actually support the destruction of humanity.

Notice also how you cherrypick which comments to respond to. Your wacky cult falsely predicted the end times 5 times last century. And that is a point you accept without debate. It is a point that shows the JWs are wrong. They have often been wrong. That doesn't matter to you - just as long as the slaughter of most of the people on earth occurs as you dream.
 
150Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 07:06 		A. God haters would like to have it both ways. They want to both criticize God for allowing evil and suffering and then they want to criticizing him for taking decisive action when his appointed time for doing so comes around.

The subject comes up in Habakuk when the writer asks God why it seems he keeps silent in the face of evil (*1). God asks Habakuk, "...and does he have to kill nations constantly, while he shows no compassion?" (*2)

So no, he is not like the God of 'Monty Python' satire constantly stomping out the wicked.

But by the same token it would not be acceptable for him to allow evil and suffering without eventually taking action.

Thus Habakuk shows the situation as figuratively God surrounding the wicked with a dragnet (*3), mercifully allowing them time to repent and turn around their conduct (*4) but at his appointed time he will draw up that net and tear the wicked away from the earth (*5) and leave just the meek and teachable (*5)(*6), those truly appreciating righteous principles such as mercy.

You claim it would be merciful and righteous on his part to never stop the wicked from ruining the earth and causing endless suffering. That is not a merciful position after all. You fault God for setting things straight once, but you'd rather doom the earth to an endless series of holocausts and suffering than submit to his discipline.

The time has passed sufficient to prove that anarchy from God doesn't work, this allowance of juvenal delinquency is about to come to a close. The ultimate 'wait till your father comes home' is upon us.

Here's the kicker. Even if he were to allow the wicked into his promised restored eden and there was no armageddon, the paradise would be lost on them. They would not appreciate it. They would not learn from it and change. (*7) I'm guessing you expect to die in a few short years anyway. He will not inflict paradise on you if you wouldn't want to live forever peacefully coexisting among the righteous.

B. I've been around the organization 55 years and I've discussed with you the only two cases that could even remotely be mischaracterized as predicting the day and the hour and neither were in fact that. Where you get 5 cases is beyond me.

*1 - Hab 1:13-14
13 You are too pure in eyes to see what is bad; and to look on trouble you are not able. Why is it that you look on those dealing treacherously, that you keep silent when someone wicked swallows up someone more righteous than he is? 14 And [why] do you make earthling man like the fishes of the sea, like creeping things over whom no one is ruling?

*2 - Hab 1:17
...and does he have to kill nations constantly, while he shows no compassion?

*3 - Hab 1:15, 17
15 All these he has brought up with a mere fishhook; he drags them away in his dragnet, and he gathers them in his fishing net.
17 Is that why he will empty out his dragnet, and does he have to kill nations constantly, while he shows no compassion?

*4 - 2Pet 3:9
9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.

*5 - Proverbs 2:21-22
21 For the upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. 22 As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it.

*6 - Ps 37:10-11
10 And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more;
And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be.
11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,
And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

*7 - Isaiah 26: 9-10
...with my spirit within me I keep looking for you; because, when there are judgments from you for the earth, righteousness is what the inhabitants of the productive land will certainly learn. 10 Though the wicked one should be shown favor, he simply will not learn righteousness. In the land of straightforwardness he will act unjustly and will not see the eminence of Jehovah.
_____________________________________

Just so you know, I will not endlessly endulge you if you refuse to be teachable and in fact I am commanded by Jesus not to. Matt 7:6
 
151CanadianHack
      ID: 747218
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 08:22 		And here is why you have sold out humanity Baldwin. You clearly have written mankind off as evil, wicked etc. (except for the "righteous" who presumably are the Jehovah's Witnesses). You are cheering for the destruction of humanity. All those evil people like the Dalai Lama, the pope and countless good people who don't believe your mythology should be killed. That is your evil dream.

Fortunately, this (like most of your attacks on Barack Obama) are things that do not exist in reality. They only exist in the sadistic reaches of your deranged mind.

 
152CanadianHack
      ID: 747218
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 08:43 		The thread underneah this one is entitled "What an amazing day - the Obama inauguration". It was anamazing day. A thrilling even that inspired joy and hope in much of the world. Many people believe the US is fianlly back on track and with hard work some of its problems can be fixed.

This is not how the evil Baldwin sees things. The world is broken. Hopelessly. The only hope is for his imaginary god to come down and destroy eveything killing most of humanity. There is no chance that the US or the world can succeed at any meaningful change by getting behind Obama's spirit and his uplifting message. In Baldwin's world humanity is doomed. Almost all members of humanity are doomed. 144000 will be saved on Judgment Day. That is all. In a world of over 6 billion people, that amounts to about 1 in 50 thousand people being saved. 49,999 in 50,000 perish. That is an evil thing to hold as your dream. But it gets worse. That 144000 includes people who are reincarnated to get to heaven.

The Watchtower Society teaches that only they have God's backing and only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon.
"Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Watchtower 1989 Sep. 1 p.19

"Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb. 15 p.12

"Is it presumptuous of Jehovah's Witnesses to point out that they alone have God's backing? Actually, no more so than when the Israelites in Egypt claimed to have God's backing in spite of the Egyptians' belief, or when the first-century Christians claimed to have God's backing to the exclusion of Jewish religionists." Watchtower 2001 June 1 p.16


The Watchtower 1993 October 1 p.19 went as far as to state that there are billions in line for destruction.
"There are billions of people who do not know Jehovah. Many of them in ignorance practice things that God's Word shows to be wicked. If they persist in this course, they will be among those who perish during the great tribulation."
The billions slaughtered at Armageddon loose any hope of a resurrection, theirs is said to be an everlasting destruction.
“Yes, the destruction of the gross sinners in those cities was eternal, as will be the destruction of the wicked at the end of the present system of things.” Watchtower 1990 April 15 p.20


You would have to be deranged to think this happening would be a good thing.
 
153Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 16:50 		I'm sure you weren't a big fan of the flood, or the destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah either. The christians being thrown to the lions perhaps.
 
154Baldwin
      ID: 360281920
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 16:59 		Besides the 150 congressmen from both sides of the aisle who have been lobbying Bush for some time, here is the background on the last days of lobbying, and the argument that seems to have won Bush over in the end.
 
155Tree
      ID: 1311551521
      Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 19:26 		14,000 biblical quotes later, and Campean and Ramos are still guilty.