BUSH COMMUTES SENTENCE OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS!

[sarotara]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Fmr12B

Originally posted by: ironwing
How many folks cheering this decision are affected by it? How many live here near the border?

Illegal immigration & illegal drugs effect every community!

This a national issue

When you consider the cost of healthcare, education, welfare and lost jobs - you soon realize illegals and drug addicts who have access to cheap drugs are a drain on society.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with commuting the sentences of murderers; murderers who used their official positions to attempt to cover their crimes. Bush just sent a strong message to BP and federal agents everywhere: "If you murder people, don't worry, your ass is covered."

Good... now our border patrol agents are afforded the same protections as illegal aliens.

Elaborate please.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I remember all of the right wing noise about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Text
The leniency was granted to the former agents even though the Justice Department had not completed its review of the case, according to officials at the agency. A president?s constitutional power to grant pardons or commutations is unfettered, but Justice Department officials sometimes feel resentful if leniency without their full review.

In an interview with an El Paso television station two years ago, President Bush signaled that he would at least look at the case of the former border agents. ?There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement, and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards,? Mr. Bush said.

But he went on to say that ?people need to take a hard look at the facts? of the case and added, ?I will do the same thing.?


?Nothing could be further from the truth,? the lead prosecutor in the case said in 2007, scoffing at the idea that the defendants were defending themselves. The agents said at trial that they had scuffled with the dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

?These agents shot someone whom they knew to be unarmed and running away,? said the prosecutor, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. ?They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.?

Wait, are you comparing pardoning your bank buddy and his brother to giving clemency to 2 honorable men who served this nation?

Bush has pardoned many fewer people than Clinton.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I haven't the foggiest notion why anyone would celebrate the release of two convicted felons, but leave it to the usual yahoos @ P&N.

Instead you celebrate the release of terrorists from guantanemo.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: marincounty
I remember all of the right wing noise about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Text
The leniency was granted to the former agents even though the Justice Department had not completed its review of the case, according to officials at the agency. A president?s constitutional power to grant pardons or commutations is unfettered, but Justice Department officials sometimes feel resentful if leniency without their full review.

In an interview with an El Paso television station two years ago, President Bush signaled that he would at least look at the case of the former border agents. ?There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement, and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards,? Mr. Bush said.

But he went on to say that ?people need to take a hard look at the facts? of the case and added, ?I will do the same thing.?


?Nothing could be further from the truth,? the lead prosecutor in the case said in 2007, scoffing at the idea that the defendants were defending themselves. The agents said at trial that they had scuffled with the dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

?These agents shot someone whom they knew to be unarmed and running away,? said the prosecutor, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. ?They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.?

Wait, are you comparing pardoning your bank buddy and his brother to giving clemency to 2 honorable men who served this nation?

Bush has pardoned many fewer people than Clinton.

What honorable men? They were convicted criminals, just like the guy clinton pardoned.
AFAIK Marc Rich never shot anyone. And the crime he was convicted of is not even prosecuted criminally anymore. Text

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: marincounty
I remember all of the right wing noise about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Text
The leniency was granted to the former agents even though the Justice Department had not completed its review of the case, according to officials at the agency. A president?s constitutional power to grant pardons or commutations is unfettered, but Justice Department officials sometimes feel resentful if leniency without their full review.

In an interview with an El Paso television station two years ago, President Bush signaled that he would at least look at the case of the former border agents. ?There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement, and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards,? Mr. Bush said.

But he went on to say that ?people need to take a hard look at the facts? of the case and added, ?I will do the same thing.?


?Nothing could be further from the truth,? the lead prosecutor in the case said in 2007, scoffing at the idea that the defendants were defending themselves. The agents said at trial that they had scuffled with the dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

?These agents shot someone whom they knew to be unarmed and running away,? said the prosecutor, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. ?They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.?

Wait, are you comparing pardoning your bank buddy and his brother to giving clemency to 2 honorable men who served this nation?

Bush has pardoned many fewer people than Clinton.

Doesn't seem like they served honorably.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: marincounty
I remember all of the right wing noise about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Text
The leniency was granted to the former agents even though the Justice Department had not completed its review of the case, according to officials at the agency. A president?s constitutional power to grant pardons or commutations is unfettered, but Justice Department officials sometimes feel resentful if leniency without their full review.

In an interview with an El Paso television station two years ago, President Bush signaled that he would at least look at the case of the former border agents. ?There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement, and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards,? Mr. Bush said.

But he went on to say that ?people need to take a hard look at the facts? of the case and added, ?I will do the same thing.?


?Nothing could be further from the truth,? the lead prosecutor in the case said in 2007, scoffing at the idea that the defendants were defending themselves. The agents said at trial that they had scuffled with the dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

?These agents shot someone whom they knew to be unarmed and running away,? said the prosecutor, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. ?They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.?

Wait, are you comparing pardoning your bank buddy and his brother to giving clemency to 2 honorable men who served this nation?

Bush has pardoned many fewer people than Clinton.

What honorable men? They were convicted criminals, just like the guy clinton pardoned.
AFAIK Marc Rich never shot anyone. And the crime he was convicted of is not even prosecuted criminally anymore. Text

Yeah, shooting a drug dealer in the ass is way worse than evading taxes, handing money to the President, and running to switzerland.

There's a reason tons of Democrats including Rahm Emanuel wanted these people to get clemency.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: marincounty
I remember all of the right wing noise about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Text
The leniency was granted to the former agents even though the Justice Department had not completed its review of the case, according to officials at the agency. A president?s constitutional power to grant pardons or commutations is unfettered, but Justice Department officials sometimes feel resentful if leniency without their full review.

In an interview with an El Paso television station two years ago, President Bush signaled that he would at least look at the case of the former border agents. ?There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement, and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards,? Mr. Bush said.

But he went on to say that ?people need to take a hard look at the facts? of the case and added, ?I will do the same thing.?


?Nothing could be further from the truth,? the lead prosecutor in the case said in 2007, scoffing at the idea that the defendants were defending themselves. The agents said at trial that they had scuffled with the dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

?These agents shot someone whom they knew to be unarmed and running away,? said the prosecutor, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. ?They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.?

Wait, are you comparing pardoning your bank buddy and his brother to giving clemency to 2 honorable men who served this nation?

Bush has pardoned many fewer people than Clinton.

Doesn't seem like they served honorably.

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Yeah, shooting a drug dealer in the ass is way worse than evading taxes, handing money to the President, and running to switzerland.

I'm glad we can agree. Shooting a person who has yet to be tried in a court of law, and is thus presumed innocent, in the back while holding the authority of the U.S. government is indeed much worse than evading taxes. Making it even more worse than the latter act are the attempts to cover up a felony, again while holding the authority of the U.S. government.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: winnar111

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

Deliberate obstruction of justice by federal law enforcement officers is a mistake, eh? Great . . .

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I never said I was a cop, but the same principles apply. Just wanted to clear that up.

Yes, I realized you were not quite clear on that, but figured that it did no harm to your position if that weren't it, and you seem to agree.

IMO, your position weakens if it's something else, but I don't know if you want to go into that topic.

We...disagree. It's likely nothing will change that. *shrug*

Like I said, come to me again after your friends are raped and mutilated by someone. Come to me after your family loses everything so that someone can get high a few more times. Come to me after you have to hold a child's hand when she's told she's paralyzed for life because of the ego and selfishness of someone else who'll never amount to anything anyway. If you haven't experienced that, I just don't give a fuck what you think.

People need to develop moral policies without experiencing those things. What are the people who happily avoid those experiences supposed to do for their moral orientation?

I'd suggest that those experiences run the risk of skewing your morality as much as developing it, even while it makes you 'feel' more passionate - just as you would think the strongest and best informed advocate against child molestation would be a victim, yet the experience actually is a leading cause of turning the victi into a future molestor.

The experiences you describe encourage you to develop hate for the perpetrator, to dehumanize them.

As we've always seen, people who are victims of immorality are not immune to becoming perpetrators of immorality. Look at the blacks who, having the nation turn to support ending discrimnation against them, happily supported discrimnation against gays for equal marriage rights. Look at how many victims of apartheid in South Africa would happily treat the minority whites with discrimination when they got power. Ask whites who live near Native American reservations how they feel they are treated by the natives.

Your exclusionary view that only those who suffer those harms can say much is IMO quite wrong, and simple logic would tell you the reasons why you are utterly impractical at least.

I'm sorry that you have developed a degraded set of moral views in whatever work to help people you have done, but you have. We need people who can both appreciate the humanity even of those who do wrong - who can understand why, can sympathize where appropriate while condemning the wrongs - and still protect the public.

Where did Jesus say anything resembling your dehumanizing the people who act horribly?

The phrase "cycle of violence", I suspect, is one you have heard but taken little interest in.

consider the words of the former Prime Minister of Israel when she said of their enemies that the enemies killed their children; for that they can forgive them. The enemies also forced Israel to kill their enemies' children; for that they cannot forgive them. Do you see the morality in what she said?

Now, it could be great propaganda, but I think there's more to it than that - the point is the morality it displays. She did not excuse the violence - she abhorred it, even if needed.

The only cop or soldier I think belongs in the role is the one who understands the tragedy of violence, even if needed.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: babylon5
No more fear for people protecting our dangerous border to do their job.

Their job is not shooting someone in the back *and covering it up*.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: marincounty
I remember all of the right wing noise about Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Text
The leniency was granted to the former agents even though the Justice Department had not completed its review of the case, according to officials at the agency. A president?s constitutional power to grant pardons or commutations is unfettered, but Justice Department officials sometimes feel resentful if leniency without their full review.

In an interview with an El Paso television station two years ago, President Bush signaled that he would at least look at the case of the former border agents. ?There are standards that need to be met in law enforcement, and according to a jury of their peers, these officers violated some standards,? Mr. Bush said.

But he went on to say that ?people need to take a hard look at the facts? of the case and added, ?I will do the same thing.?


?Nothing could be further from the truth,? the lead prosecutor in the case said in 2007, scoffing at the idea that the defendants were defending themselves. The agents said at trial that they had scuffled with the dealer, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

?These agents shot someone whom they knew to be unarmed and running away,? said the prosecutor, United States Attorney Johnny Sutton. ?They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.?

Wait, are you comparing pardoning your bank buddy and his brother to giving clemency to 2 honorable men who served this nation?

Bush has pardoned many fewer people than Clinton.

Doesn't seem like they served honorably.

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

By mistake do you mean they mistakenly thought they could get away with covering up their shooting of a guy in the back? If they wouldn't have tried to cover that up I would be a lot more sympathetic to their plight.

I guess I'm ok with their sentences being commuted but I don't think they should be pardoned.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ironwing
How many folks cheering this decision are affected by it? How many live here near the border?

Everybody in the country is affected by illegal immigration. It's not just a "border state" issue anymore.

I give a shit about somebody getting shot sneaking across the border. If they don't halt when told to, then shoot them all.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: winnar111

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

If they were defending the nation from harm, they would have shot a republican.

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I give a shit about somebody getting shot sneaking across the border. If they don't halt when told to, then shoot them all.

Was the big long article too much for you? Do you not understand that whole rule of law thing?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: sarotara
Hmm... reading the wikipedia entries and the various articles I wouldn't exactly portray them as deserving the pardon. The things that the border agents did don't exactly make their actions heroic:

1) Shooting unarmed suspect.
2) Destroying evidence.
3) Covering up what happened.
4) Not reporting the incident.

5)shooting bad guys at the border PRICELESS!

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I haven't the foggiest notion why anyone would celebrate the release of two convicted felons, but leave it to the usual yahoos @ P&N.

Because you like drugs dealers breaking our laws and you'd rather have kids ODing on those drugs than a lowlife getting his ass shot off?!

I hope you never start working at our border.

"YOU want me on those walls! YOU NEED ME ON THOSE WALLS!!!

Sorry just came to mind.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: winnar111

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

If they were defending the nation from harm, they would have shot a republican.

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I give a shit about somebody getting shot sneaking across the border. If they don't halt when told to, then shoot them all.

Was the big long article too much for you? Do you not understand that whole rule of law thing?

Ahh, does your bleeding heart only think US citizens are required to follow the law?

I guess when you read "the big long article" you missed the fact it was an illegal alien drug runner who got shot?

Some of you people are truly pathetic and need to pull your heads out of your butts and look around at what's really going on. We're having an illegal influx where I live and if I lived any farther away from the border I'd be in another fracking country!!!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I never said I was a cop, but the same principles apply. Just wanted to clear that up.[/q[

Yes, I realized you were not quite clear on that, but figured that it did no harm to your position if that weren't it, and you seem to agree.

IMO, your position weakens if it's something else, but I don't know if you want to go into that topic.

We...disagree. It's likely nothing will change that. *shrug*

Like I said, come to me again after your friends are raped and mutilated by someone. Come to me after your family loses everything so that someone can get high a few more times. Come to me after you have to hold a child's hand when she's told she's paralyzed for life because of the ego and selfishness of someone else who'll never amount to anything anyway. If you haven't experienced that, I just don't give a fuck what you think.

People need to develop moral policies without experiencing those things. What are the people who happily avoid those experiences supposed to do for their moral orientation?

I'd suggest that those experiences run the risk of skewing your morality as much as developing it, even while it makes you 'feel' more passionate - just as you would think the strongest and best informed advocate against child molestation would be a victim, yet the experience actually is a leading cause of turning the victi into a future molestor.

The experiences you describe encourage you to develop hate for the perpetrator, to dehumanize them.

As we've always seen, people who are victims of immorality are not immune to becoming perpetrators of immorality. Look at the blacks who, having the nation turn to support ending discrimnation against them, happily supported discrimnation against gays for equal marriage rights. Look at how many victims of apartheid in South Africa would happily treat the minority whites with discrimination when they got power. Ask whites who live near Native American reservations how they feel they are treated by the natives.

Your exclusionary view that only those who suffer those harms can say much is IMO quite wrong, and simple logic would tell you the reasons why you are utterly impractical at least.

I'm sorry that you have developed a degraded set of moral views in whatever work to help people you have done, but you have. We need people who can both appreciate the humanity even of those who do wrong - who can understand why, can sympathize where appropriate while condemning the wrongs - and still protect the public.

Where did Jesus say anything resembling your dehumanizing the people who act horribly?

The phrase "cycle of violence", I suspect, is one you have heard but taken little interest in.

consider the words of the former Prime Minister of Israel when she said of their enemies that the enemies killed their children; for that they can forgive them. The enemies also forced Israel to kill their enemies' children; for that they cannot forgive them. Do you see the morality in what she said?

Now, it could be great propaganda, but I think there's more to it than that - the point is the morality it displays. She did not excuse the violence - she abhorred it, even if needed.

The only cop or soldier I think belongs in the role is the one who understands the tragedy of violence, even if needed.

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from. It's not that I don't understand the underlying psychological factors. It's that I've studied them, considered them, and decided for practical as well as personal reasons that they are incorrect or inadequate.

I realize that it's somewhat elitist to suggest that only those with personal experience offer a judgment, however there is a very good reason for it. Persons who are not directly affected by something have the luxury of disassociating from it. If you've never seen a murder victim up close, never spoken to a rape victim, never truly experienced what those things do, then you don't have all the information necessary to draw a valid conclusion. The things that occur during a crime aren't merely facts; they are emotional impacts. The aren't always logical, but that doesn't make them ANY less real to those that experience them. You can't judge an illogical act through logic alone. It just doesn't work.

Who said anything about Jesus, or caring what the hell he said or didn't say? Last time I checked he was in charge of exactly jack shit. I mean, it's generally some good stuff, but unless you're religious it's hardly central to any discussion.

I abhor violence in general, and do everything to avoid it where possible. However, I have concluded that 'possible' has a shallower limit for me than for others. While I can respect the views of even a total pacifist, I do not and will not share them. Period. Everyone has a job to do; even the angel of death. Just because it isn't 'nice' doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: sarotara

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: sarotara
Hmm... reading the wikipedia entries and the various articles I wouldn't exactly portray them as deserving the pardon. The things that the border agents did don't exactly make their actions heroic:

1) Shooting unarmed suspect.
2) Destroying evidence.
3) Covering up what happened.
4) Not reporting the incident.

Except that they didn't get a pardon. They just got their sentences shortened.

You are right on the commuted vs pardon part. What bothers me the most is why would the border agents cover up the incident, destroy evidence, and not report this. As one of the posters above said, we should demand a lot more from those who wear the uniform and serve this country. Breaking the laws that you are responsible for upholding puts the border patrol in a very bad light.

1. suspect was a armed long time drug runner
2. they picked up their brass
3. they didnt think they shot the guy
4. they did report it.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: babylon5
No more fear for people protecting our dangerous border to do their job.

Their job is not shooting someone in the back *and covering it up*.

the drug runner was shot in the ass. get your facts straight.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: ironwing
How many folks cheering this decision are affected by it? How many live here near the border?

he was not a fricken illegal hopping the border. he was a well known DRUG RUNNER who has carted god know how many tons of drugs into our country.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: winnar111

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

If they were defending the nation from harm, they would have shot a republican.

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I give a shit about somebody getting shot sneaking across the border. If they don't halt when told to, then shoot them all.

Was the big long article too much for you? Do you not understand that whole rule of law thing?

Ahh, does your bleeding heart only think US citizens are required to follow the law?

I guess when you read "the big long article" you missed the fact it was an illegal alien drug runner who got shot?

Some of you people are truly pathetic and need to pull your heads out of your butts and look around at what's really going on. We're having an illegal influx where I live and if I lived any farther away from the border I'd be in another fracking country!!!

Did you miss the part where 2 US citizens shot someone in the back who wasn't armed?

Here is something important that you probably won't understand. Police just can't shoot someone they don't like, even if they are brown.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: winnar111

They merely made a mistake while defending this nation from harm.

If they were defending the nation from harm, they would have shot a republican.

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I give a shit about somebody getting shot sneaking across the border. If they don't halt when told to, then shoot them all.

Was the big long article too much for you? Do you not understand that whole rule of law thing?

Ahh, does your bleeding heart only think US citizens are required to follow the law?

I guess when you read "the big long article" you missed the fact it was an illegal alien drug runner who got shot?

Some of you people are truly pathetic and need to pull your heads out of your butts and look around at what's really going on. We're having an illegal influx where I live and if I lived any farther away from the border I'd be in another fracking country!!!

Did you miss the part where 2 US citizens shot someone in the back who wasn't armed?

Here is something important that you probably won't understand. Police just can't shoot someone they don't like, even if they are brown.

LOL, play the race card and don't address the real points.


They shoot someone breaking the law who was trying to escape. That's their job.

You bleeding hearts never let the facts get in the way of your faux outrage, do you.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Finally...Bush does something at least partly right.

Took him long enough.

I think a lot of people are enjoying the changes to IRA contributions while Bush was in office.


FWIW, I don't think I'd support a shoot-to-kill border policy, but I definitely wouldn't oppose it.

 

[fornax]

Possibly the only pardon I agree with.