If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

10/08/2006

The Seven-Hundred-Mile-Fence Hoax

~ or ~

'How I Stopped Caring About Liberty and Sovereignty and Learned to Love Being Invaded by Arrogant Parasites and Maniacal Terrorists'
__________________

'Cómo Paré al Tener interés en la Libertad y la Soberanía y Aprendí a Adorar Siendo Invadido por Parásitos Arrogantes y Terroristas Maníacos'
__________________



__________________


This is what we have (wouldn't want to risk any Mexican illegals/Islamic terrorists suffering anything more painful than a paper cut as they saunter across our 'well-fortified' border, don'tcha know?)



This is what we want (considering our government's allegiance to the lure of cheap labor, special interest votes, and a 'North American Union,' label it a naïve pipe dream ... at best)

A few comments have been made here today, on older threads, regarding our government's (in)action to close our southern border.

John Cooper commented (See July Archives here for the July 8th column entitled Rhetoric and Misplaced Trust):

'As if conservatives aren't demoralized enough, now we discover that in a midnight deal before adjourning, they made a 'deal' regarding the security fence legislation that will probably insure it never gets built (even if Bush actually signs the bill).'

… and then he cited excerpts from a powerlineblog.com post as follows:

...shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on on roads, technology and ‘tactical infrastructure’ to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a ‘virtual fence.’

… What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives ‘when fencing is ineffective or impractical.


Poster ‘Sandra’ alerted us to a telling article by Stephen Dinan in Saturday’s Washington Times, excerpts from which read:

… President Bush yesterday said immigration reform requires granting citizenship to current illegal aliens …

… But in the meantime, Mr. Bush will soon sign a bill authorizing 700 miles of fence to be built along the U.S.-Mexico border …

… Mexican officials sent a diplomatic protest to the Bush administration this week and have said they doubt the fence will ever be built. A report in The Washington Post yesterday seemed to concur, stating that the wording of the fence and spending measures gives the Bush administration so much leeway that it is unlikely the 700 miles will be completed …

… He [Bush] … urged that the immigration debate not turn nasty.
’We are a land of immigrants, and as we debate immigration policy, we must always keep that important fact in mind,’ Mr. Bush said.


Below are excerpts from an essay (Rhetoric and Misplaced Trust) posted here back in July that I believe are pertinent to the current debate, followed by a few additional observations:
______________________________

The illegal immigration crisis represents what I see as what may be the most pivotal watershed event in the history of our republic (the Civil War included).

While we are fighting the ‘war on terror,’ presumably in order to preserve the lives and liberties of the American people and the sovereignty of our republic, we are simultaneously condoning the existence of twelve million parasitic lawbreakers within our borders, and encouraging the continued influx of more criminals who refuse to respect (what’s left of) our rule of law, who are feeding ever more voraciously at the entitlement-oriented trough (to the point that law abiding, taxpaying Americans are often suffering from severe, permanent and undeserved hardship), many of whom actively and openly intend to affect social, political and economic upheaval that will render our Founders’ vision virtually unrecognizable, and who represent a metastatic cancer that threatens to bring to its knees the most moral, prosperous, liberty-oriented civilization in the history of mankind.

And, lest anyone believe that there will be time and opportunity to ‘try again,’ just take a look at the state of the world, where the genuine power and money reside … and consider the momentum that has accrued to wickedness and evil as a result of the misuse of modern technology and the consistent enabling, by leaders who claim to revere and defend liberty, of madmen bent on subjugation and the violent imposition of their beliefs on the rest of humanity.

The majority of our ‘leaders’ in Washington, especially within the administration and in the senate, are either turning a blind eye to, or condoning – even encouraging – the invasion. Our president busies himself with a myriad of other issues and ‘dangers’, and, when it appears that the citizenry is becoming restless as a result of either odious personal contact with the invaders, or rumors of such occurring to their fellow countrymen, he issues calculated, half-hearted statements of concern, accompanied by promises to take action to halt the invasion. Two months ago he issued a water-pistol-to-fight-a-forest-fire assurance that he would take steps to call up six thousand National Guard troops to the border.

In two months time, just over four hundred troops are in place. Either the president’s promise was political window-dressing, or his power to convince governors of the essential lethality of an open border ranks close to impotent. Neither option portends well for our republic’s future.

Our president confers with, and exhibits unfaltering respect for, the political and military leaders of Mexico – the same leaders who continue to encourage the mass illegal northern exodus from their country to ours, and whose actions encourage rampant lawlessness within our borders, while putting in mortal danger those whose calling it is to secure them.

Those of us who see the above actions as a segment of a larger picture that represents betrayal of the most ugly sort do not intend to remain silent. Our lives, liberties, and the sovereignty of our republic are at stake. Those who refuse to look beyond rhetoric, and who have no knowledge of the consequences of misplaced trust, might do well to take a few steps back, silence the ‘party unity at all costs’ mantra, and consider how the survival of the American republic will be affected by incessant compromise – granting credence and privilege to those who have no respect for our Founders or the original blueprint of this republic, and to whom the phrase ‘shining city on a hill’ represents a place whose prosperity was forged through two-plus centuries of other men’s blood and sweat … the benefits of which the arrogant and lawless invaders intend (they demand) to enjoy without virtue, respect, responsibility, or sacrifice.

______________________________

All of the major news outlets (‘fair and balanced’ FoxNews included) have been touting congress’ and the president's vision and bipartisan success in passing this fence bill ... but none of the major news outlets (‘fair and balanced’ FoxNews included) have been able to bring themselves to mention the you-could-drive-a-Mack-truck-through-‘em codicils that render the bill virtually toothless.

Think about the fact that our president made the following remarks in a campaign speech in Miami in August, 2000:

'We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.
'

Now reflect on the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (pardon my cough) is composed of bureaucrats all of whom were appointed by a president who believes that ‘the immigration debate must not turn nasty’ and that we must always ‘keep in mind that we are a land of immigrants.’

Now add to the mix the fact that Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, is granted incredible flexibility in this new bill as regards how the appropriated funds may be spent on non-fence initiatives.

Add to that the fact that those in decision-making positions in Homeland Security are on record as strongly favoring a ‘virtual fence’ as opposed to a physical one.

Now connect the related dots and ask yourself how likely it is that there will be a seven-hundred mile fence in existence on our southern border in the foreseeable future.

Our leadership in Washington, almost to a man, has betrayed its avowed allegiance and duty to this republic, and to our Constitution, which was once considered the most perfect, divinely-inspired blueprint in the history of mankind for the governance of a free society.

If you still believe in the sincerity of the congress and the president to seal off the border with Mexico, I’ll lay you 20:1 odds against it and look forward to retiring a wealthy woman.

Again (see ‘See You in November’ post below), I will not be posting much over the next few weeks. I hope that you all will continue to offer your valuable insights here in the interim.

For now …

~ joanie

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sickening!

danthemangotschall said...

The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and 'tactical infrastructure' to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a 'virtual fence.'

Starting in 2007 I'm going to be sending the IRS a "virtual check" for payment of my income taxes.

daveburkett said...

If there are still those of you out there believing that the fence is a genuine possibility, I'll lay you 20:1 odds in the negative, and retire a wealthy woman.

I won't bet against you but I'll join in your pool of "there will be no fence" betters.

Anonymous said...

Spot on.

ProudPodunknative said...

I have been listening to Fox News tonight since the announcement of the N. Korean nuclear test and they have mentioned the border fence bill three times, all three times happily and with no mention whatsoever of the codicils.

B*st*rds!

john galt said...

Excellent as always Joanie.

Minuteman23 said...

Good post. Love your alternate titles. :-)

Anonymous said...

I was born in this country. My parents were born in this country. The same goes for my wife. Our children were born in this counry. None of us are immigrants. What's with this "we are a land of immigrans" s**t?

sandra said...

In Border Fence's Path, Congressional Roadblocks
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
www.washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 6, 2006

Excerpt

No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.

GOP leaders have singled out the fence as one of the primary accomplishments of the recently completed session. Many lawmakers plan to highlight their $1.2 billion down payment on its construction as they campaign in the weeks before the midterm elections.

But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."

The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said.

"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The fine-print distinction between what Congress says it will do and what it actually pays for is a time-honored result of the checks and balances between lawmakers who oversee agencies and those who hold their purse strings.

etc.

sandra said...

HOW LONG BEFORE THIS ARRIVES IN THE US?

Riots over mosque on the Queen's doorstep

October 6, 2006 By David Pilditch - Daily Express

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=515

THE QUEEN’s home town was gripped by fear last night as war erupted between rival gangs of race-hate thugs.

Extra officers were called in and riot police placed on stand-by as mobs of Muslim and white youths prepared for a fourth consecutive night of violence in the royal town of Windsor in Berkshire. The Queen usually spends weekends at Windsor Castle and no decision has yet been made over whether she will change her plans. In unprecedented scenes of mayhem and disorder in the historic town, armed gangs of more than 100 youths have fought running battles in the streets.

A Muslim-run dairy which wants to build a mosque has been petrol-bombed and vehicles have been vandalised.

The outbreak of disorder began after a mother and her daughter were set upon by a gang of 20 Asian youths armed with baseball bats, iron bars and pitchforks. The shaven-headed thugs – all dressed in white robes – launched the attack after pouring out of a former office building which is being used as an unofficial mosque.

They attacked Karen Hayes, 46, and her 18-year-old daughter Emily before turning their weapons on the teenager’s car. The pair had gone to help after Karen’s 15-year-old son Sean and a friend were beaten up by the gang. Police have said it is unlikely the mob will be brought to justice.

As dusk fell last night, gangs of hooded white youths began to gather outside the dairy entrance.

With scarves wrapped around their mouths to hide their identity, the teenage boys insisted they were the victims of the unrest. One 17-year-old youth said: "The Asians have got no respect for us. What they normally do is start on the kids." Meanwhile, scores of Asian youths marched through the streets chanting "We are getting our mosque".

Three police riot vans swooped on the 40-strong mob of white youths. As a stand-off developed between the teenagers and Muslim workers at the gates of the Medina dairy, around 30 officers moved in. Police stopped and searched gang members, making them remove the scarves covering their faces and asked them to disperse, which the majority of them did.

Dairy manager Sikander Khan said it felt a little like being under siege. "We have all these lorries to load up and we feel intimidated with them here." Locals said tensions had been growing between residents and staff at the dairy for months. Three arrests have been made since this week’s violence began. Problems started after Sardar Hussain, who bought the dairy in 2002, applied for planning permission to turn a nearby office building into a mosque and Islamic education centre.

Official permission has not been given but workers have been using the building for prayers. And locals insist it is already attracting a hard-core element of fundamentalists. People opposing the conversion claim there are not enough Muslims in Windsor to warrant a mosque. There are said to be around 500 Muslims in a town with a population of more than 30,000.

Snip

Problems started after Sardar Hussain, who bought the dairy in 2002, applied for planning permission to turn a nearby office building into a mosque and Islamic education centre. Official permission has not been given but workers have been using the building for prayers. And locals insist it is already attracting a hard-core element of fundamentalists.

People opposing the conversion claim there are not enough Muslims in Windsor to warrant a mosque. There are said to be around 500 Muslims in a town with a population of more than 30,000.

Snip

Asian youths are travelling to Windsor from neighbouring towns and there are rumours that people as far away as Birmingham are planning riots. A petrol bomb made out of a beer bottle was found at the roadside in one of the flashpoint streets. One mother, who wished to be known only as Carol, said: "I have a 17-year-old boy and an eight-year-old girl and I’m putting a curfew on them because I’m petrified of what might happen.

"I have not slept for two nights. The whole community is frightened and these two groups continue to wind each other up. I fear it has gone too far to bring back. Somebody is going to get killed."

etc.

stonemason said...

"anonymous"---

We all know that he means that all of our ancestors were immigrants, but I'd like to ask him two questions.

What nation's ancestors WEREN'T immigrants?

Do you know the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?

If not, you have no business BEING PRESIDENT of a nation based on the rule of law!

lori_gmeiner said...

I almost wrote "nicely said" Joanie, but it was "brutally said."

Sometimes the truth hurts. {g}

Good work.

jim said...

Now reflect on the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (pardon my cough) is composed of bureaucrats all of whom were appointed by a president who believes that ‘the immigration debate must not turn nasty’ and that we must always ‘keep in mind that we are a land of immigrants.’

Now add to the mix the fact that Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, is granted incredible flexibility in this new bill as regards how the appropriated funds may be spent on non-fence initiatives.

Add to that the fact that those in decision-making positions in Homeland Security are on record as strongly favoring a ‘virtual fence’ as opposed to a physical one.

Now connect the related dots and ask yourself how likely it is that there will be a seven-hundred mile fence in existence on our southern border in the foreseeable future.


It's not gonna happen until we experience another 9/11 and then we might not be in a position to build one ever again.

CalBrindisi said...

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.


I don't want any part of Bush's "new America."

trustbutverify said...

You've got their number, Joanie. So does the media but they're not sharing it with the rest of us because they agree with the "virtual fence" proponents.

GretaHoffman said...

"Those who refuse to look beyond rhetoric, and who have no knowledge of the consequences of misplaced trust, might do well to take a few steps back, silence the ‘party unity at all costs’ mantra, and consider how the survival of the American republic will be affected by incessant compromise – granting credence and privilege to those who have no respect for our Founders or the original blueprint of this republic, and to whom the phrase ‘shining city on a hill’ represents a place whose prosperity was forged through two-plus centuries of other men’s blood and sweat … the benefits of which the arrogant and lawless invaders intend (they demand) to enjoy without virtue, respect, responsibility, or sacrifice."

You're so right. The reason Bush's numbers are so low and the Republicans are in trouble in the House and Senate is because they are lying to their base.

As a rule, it didn't used to be that way. We conservatives could usually count on our leaders to be straight shooters. Now the parties are getting harder to tell apart, at least as far as them saying one thing and doing another.

There is a big need for a third party now more than ever.

GaryBurgess said...

Dishonesty in politicians is there in both parties. The Dems have always lied because if they told the truth nobody would vote for them. The Reps are now doing the same thing. For probably the first time in our history the majority of our politicians want something totally different from the rest of us and the only way they can get it is to lie their way into power.

Buster said...

*** Quickly following congressional funding authorization to construct 700 miles of Mexican border fence, and just before recessing, Congress enacted additional legislation to enable the president to thwart the will of most Americans who want to protect our Mexican border against illegal immigration. This additional legislation gives the president the ability to allocate the $1.2 billion of the appropriation bill to various projects other than erection of a border fence; for example, in lieu of a fence the money may be spent on “tactical infrastructure”, that is, technology to support the Department of Homeland Security’s desire to develop a “virtual fence” instead of an actual physical barrier. ***

http://www.chronwatch.com/conte
ntcontentDisplay.asp?aid=24197&catcode=13

3timesalady said...

Between the flow of criminals across the Mexican border and what’s going on in N. Korea and Iran this world has become a powder keg. It’s getting harder and harder to sleep at night, especially when you have no confidence in your leaders.

d_o'connor said...

I don't give a damn about "fair and balanced." How about "complete"? I haven't once heard about the 'you-could-drive-a-Mack-truck-through-‘em codicils that render the bill virtually toothless' on any news show. Not once!

Anonymous said...

Real "leadership" in America is heading toward extinction, and so are we all.

alexib said...

The quote from Bush's 2000 speech explains a lot. It's heading towards hopeless when even our own party is lying to us. Where do we turn except maybe to some kind of revolution?

Anonymous said...

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=161496

Minuteman23 said...

I googled "seven hundred mile fence" to see if I could find anyone else who was talking about the you-could-drive-a-Mack-truck-through-‘em codicils and lookit the first article that came up :-)

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/10/09/72_25_59_173_53409.htm

Anonymous said...

Good analysis.

sandra said...

THIS IS DISGUSTING

Border agents denied delay
Sentencing for border shooting to take place before congressional hearings on case
Louie Gilot and Sara Carter Special to the Daily Bulletin
10/11/2006

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4473120



[photo]Fabens, Texas Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, is one of two agents convicted of shooting a drug smuggler in the buttocks before he escaped back into mexico in Feruary 2005. The van the smuggler abandoned contained 700 pounds of marijuana. (Therese Tran/Staff Photographer)

EL PASO, Texas -- The two former Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a drug smuggler in the buttocks last year were denied a postponement of their sentencing during a heated court hearing Tuesday.
Lawyers for the agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, hope that a congressional hearing to review the case, which has been promised for the week of Nov. 13, would reduce the sentencing guidelines that apply in the case. Mary Stillinger, Ramos' lawyer, said her idea was that the hearings, which have not been formally scheduled by the House Judiciary Committee, could lead to legislation to exclude law enforcement officers from mandatory weapons sentences meant for criminals.
"Obviously we're disappointed,"
Stillinger said. "We'll be ready to proceed at sentencing next week. I was just hoping that the case would be held until it was reviewed by Congress. The one-million-dollar question is `Would the congressional hearing have helped our clients?' We can't see into the future so that's why I wanted the sentencing postponed."
Stillinger submitted to the court several exhibits which included California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's letter to the Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a letter written by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., to President Bush asking him to review the case. Ramos and Compean face a minimum of 10 years in prison, consecutive to any other sentence, because they used a weapon in the commission of their crime. If the legislation was retroactive, it could apply to Ramos and Compean. Both side agreed Tuesday that the scheme was a longshot.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone said she didn't know what a continuance would achieve other than "postpone the inevitable."
"If their concern is that they have been unfairly judged, their only remedy is at the court of appeals," Judge Cardone said.
The sentencing will proceed on Oct. 19.
The hearing Tuesday grew heated when Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof accused the agents and their families of having orchestrated the public support that led to the promise by several House and Senate members to hold a hearing. "The defendants went to (the) press and got attention by not telling the whole truth," Kanof said. Some family members like Joe Loya, Ramos' father-in-law, were incensed.
"She's the one who fabricated lies," he said after the hearing. "This case is based on the allegations of a drug smuggler and she repeated his lies."
He called the judge's decision, "very disappointing to say the least."
Kanof also questioned the contention by the defense that her prosecution has affected the morale of Border Patrol agents.
"Misinformation, misstatements and lies," she said. Stillinger objected, and Judge Cardone had to intervene.
"I can't change the morale of the Border Patrol," Judge Cardone said. "For every person who agrees, there is a person who will disagree. We can spin off to all sorts of arguments."
Kanof, who is not allowed to comment on ongoing cases, said in court that she would welcome a congressional hearing so she could testify.
"I would be vindicated," she said.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing more than 11,000 Border Patrol agents, said he was upset with the decision and will attend the sentencing hearing to show continued support to Ramos and Compean.
"We're disappointed that the judge did not grant the motion for continuance," Bonner said. "All of the facts should be laid out on the table before a decision is made on sentencing."
Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said Kanof's comments reflect an overzealous prosecutor.
"It's clear the injustice will continue when you look at the statements made in the courtroom by ... Kanof. She is willing to do anything and say anything to make this unjust conviction stand," Ramirez said.

Sara Carter is a reporter with the Daily Bulletin. She can be reached at (909) 483-8552 or by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com. Louie Gilot, a reporter with the El Paso Times, can be reached by calling (915) 546-6131.

sandra said...

Bush says fence part of solution
By STEWART M. POWELL,
Hearst Newspapers 10/12/2006

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17317273&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6

WASHINGTON President Bush said Wednesday the U.S.-Mexico border fence approved by the election-year Congress won't stem illegal immigration until lawmakers also adopt the temporary foreign worker program that he has pushed since 2001. Bush's comments at a White House news conference came amid second guessing about whether 700 miles of fencing at five locations approved by the Republican-led Congress will be built along the 1,950-mile border.

. . .

"You cant fence the entire border," Bush told reporters ...

sandra said...

Clock ticking on agents

Justice Department asked to review border agents' case

By Sara A. Carter, 10/13/2006

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4484480

[phot]Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos gives a radio interview to the John and Ken talk radio show on KFI AM 640 in Ontario on Friday, September 1, 2006 about his court case. Ramos and fellow border patrol agent Jose Compean were convicted of shooting a drug smuggler in the buttocks and face more than ten years in prison. (Therese Tran/Staff Photographer)

In an eleventh-hour plea, a half-dozen congressmen are asking the Justice Department to review the federal law used to convict two Border Patrol agents of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.

Congressman Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., circulated a letter Thursday among his colleagues that slammed federal statute 924(c), which addresses discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Conviction under the statute carries a minimum 10-year sentence in federal prison.

Jones and five other members of the caucus - including California Reps. Gary Miller, R-Brea, Dana Rohrbacher, R-Huntington Beach, and Ed Royce, R-Fullerton, - contend in the letter that El Paso, Texas, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean should not have been charged under the statute because carrying a firearm was a necessary part of their jobs, and that they used the firearms while on duty.

"(Tuesday), a motion to delay sentencing for Ramos and Compean was denied. Sentencing is now scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 19," the letter reads. "We urge you to take any action you can to either delay this sentencing or have the ... charges dropped.

"This statute has historically been used in violent crime and drug trafficking cases. It has also been applied to law enforcement when necessary, however, based on past applications of 924(c) to law enforcement, it appears that its application in the present case is unwarranted."

The other two congressmen who signed the letter were Rep. Darryl Issa, R-Vista, and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado. It then was forwarded to President Bush and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled hearings on Ramos and Compean's case in late November.

Ramos and Compean fired their weapons while pursuing a Mexican national, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, while he was trying to smuggle nearly 800 pounds of marijuana into the United States on Feb. 17, 2005.
Aldrete-Davila sustained a bullet wound to the buttocks but was able to escape the agents. He later returned to testify against them at trial after being sought out in Mexico by the U.S. Attorney's Office and treated for his wound at a U.S. military hospital.

In March, a Texas jury convicted Ramos and Compean of assault with serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation.

They also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired. The jury acquitted both men of assault with intent to commit murder.

On Tuesday, Ramos and Compean were denied a sentencing postponement by El Paso Judge Kathleen Cardone. The agents' lawyers had hoped to delay their sentencing until January, following the congressional hearings and investigation.

Mary Stillinger, Ramos' lawyer, said that the hearings could lead to legislation excluding law enforcement officers from mandatory weapons sentences meant for criminals.

"They were convicted on a statute that was designed for criminal drug smugglers in the commission of a crime," she said.

Department of Justice officials could not be reached for comment Thursday.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing more than 11,000 Border Patrol agents, said his organization stands behind the agents and that he will attend their hearing next week.

"I think that's an important loophole that needs to be closed," Bonner said of the 924(c) law's application to law enforcement officers. "The larger question is why this administration refuses to intervene in the case. Why the rush to put these two men in prison? That's a question on the minds of a lot of Americans."

The conviction for discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence requires a minimum 10-year prison sentence. The sentences for the other convictions vary. On July 25, the El Paso U.S. Probation Office recommended to Cardone that each man get 20 years.

Since the Daily Bulletin first published Ramos' story in August, two jurors have said they regretted their decision and that jury misconduct might have played a role in the agents' convictions.

During the trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof spent three days arguing that Ramos and Compean's pursuit of Aldrete-Davila went against the Border Patrol's pursuit policy, which required them to get permission from supervisors before chasing Aldrete-Davila.

Kanof argued that at the time Ramos and Compean pursued Aldrete-Davila, they did not know he had nearly $1 million in marijuana in his vehicle, and thus should not have treated him as a smuggler.


Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-8552.

Anonymous said...

The lack of fence and absence of determination of US leaders to build one sounds incredible.

Illegal immigration is a global problem.

In the UK the main front is the Channel. Despite France being a relatively wealthy country, the preference of most is to come to the UK. As a result the Channel Tunnel entrance at Calais resembles a military camp with multiple layers of fence and razor wire. Trucks are examined with Carbon Dioxide detection devices to look for people. The reality is that many still get through.

However the draw from Mexico to the US is obviously so much greater than France to the UK so it is amazing there is no proper fence.

The other "front" at a European level is the Mediteranean Sea. See this story on waves of migrants arriving by boat in the Spanish Canary Islands. Once in the EU, there are in theory open borders so they can travel as far as the UK or even Sweden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5250912.stm

John Cooper said...

This guy has cohones. Joanie take note: Raj Peter Bhakta, a former star on the NBC show "The Apprentice," who also is a Republican candidate for the 13th District U.S. House of Representatives seat in Eastern Pennsylvania.

Republican uses animals, mariachi band to critique border security

"Bhakta decided to see if he could get an elephant accompanied by a six-piece mariachi band across the [Rio Grande] river.

According to his Web site, he is in favor of “sensible immigration reform” and supports a border fence, local law enforcement assistance with immigration laws and the use of the National Guard troops to help the U.S. Border Patrol.

“To my surprise, the band played on, the elephants splashed away, and nobody showed up,” Bhakta said of the stunt. “I’m astounded.”

The elephants came from Shrine Circuses, said James Plunkett, who produces the circus. They arrived in Brownsville on Monday and were scheduled to be on their way to Maybank on Tuesday afternoon. The elephants and the crew were at the Rio Grande for less than an hour, Plunkett said.

Plunkett said he and his crew were hired for a “photo shoot” and entered the Boca Chica beach area without any notice from the Border Patrol. However, when it became clear that the elephants were in a quarantined area, the Border Patrol alerted the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the elephants had to be detained.

The animals needed to be sprayed for ticks."

Rush read some of this on Open Line Friday today. I'd like to laugh, but...

2ndAmendmentDefender said...

JC, I heard this on Rush today. It made my day.

John Cooper said...

An outrageous travesty of justice by the Bush administration: No force border enforcement by Debra J. Saunders in the Washington Times:

"Someone ought to tell the Bush administration that prisons are for criminals, not law-enforcement personnel trying to do their jobs. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas sentenced two former Border Patrol agents to 11 and 12 years in prison because they shot at a drug smuggler who was evading arrest.

In February 2005, Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean got in a scuffle with smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was driving a van that carried 743 pounds of marijuana. Agent Compean and fellow Agent Ignacio Ramos shot at Mr. Aldrete-Davila -- they say they thought he had a gun, which Mr. Aldrete-Davila denies. Agent Ramos shot the smuggler in the butt, but because Mr. Aldrete-Davila kept running -- across the border -- they said they thought they did not hit him. The agents picked up their shells and failed to report the shooting. For that violation of agency policy, Agents Ramos and Compean deserved an administrative review and some sort of job-related punishment.

Instead, due to a case of blind and bloodthirsty federal prosecutorial overkill, Agents Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years, respectively. Oh, and the smuggler was granted immunity for the 743 pounds of pot and is suing the federal government for $5 million. Crime pays, while going after criminals can land you hard time in prison...

...I should note the feds had offered the agents one year in a plea bargain, the El Paso Times reported, but the agents preferred to go to trial. "They were innocent, why should they take it?" noted T.J. Bonner, president of the agents' union, the National Border Patrol Council. "They trust in the system of justice, and it let them down."

If these agents were gun-happy rogue enforcers, or if they were running a criminal operation, Mr. Sutton would be right to want to put them behind bars. But these are good guys with no other marks against them. Agent Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005 -- before the drug smuggler got his deal."