Ruben Navarrette's thoughtful columns briefly ran on Townhall. Lately, they have not been running his stuff there - and I suspect that it's because he made the Malkin-Tancredo line on immigration look foolish.
A friend sent me a link to one of his columns over at CNN, he discusses the two Border Patrol agents who have been sent to jail. It's a good read, and one worth keeping in mind, especially when you consider my response to Deb Saunders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Another great column from Ruben Navarrette. Thank you for pointing me to it, since I often forget to go looking for him.
Yeah, Navarrette disappeared from Townhall.com after a brief probation period or something. I gather the power of Ruben's words was overwhelming to TH editors... you see, the weight of Malkin, Buchanan, Gallagher, the MinutePeople, plus about a dozen other seething nativists on one side of the immigration see-saw just wasn't enough to balance out Ruben's end -- even tho he is not even at the polar opposite end, but more of a sane moderate in the wide center. In a backwards ass sort of way, Townhall paid Ruben quite a compliment...
In fairness, Medved & Chavez also write excellent occasional pieces on immigration at TH. But they are not obsessed with it like so many of their counterparts. So the "balance" is still waaaaaay off.
One thing worth noting: look at the responses to Saunders' column.
The first two words that came to mind when I was reading them were, "Got Prozac?"
The level of nuttiness exhibited by those demanding an amnesty for Ramos and Compean is astonishing.
Ken, I went and looked at the long string of responses. You're right.
You do know that there are paid hacks slithering around, all over the right wing 'sphere... it's really an embarrassment, not to mention annoying. Soros & Co. employ hacks on the other side of the 'sphere to do the same. And it is effective to some degree, helping to amplify the agenda of what I believe [hope] is really a small cabal of extremists -- on both sides.
Based on what I've read, it seems the two border patrol agents deserved to be punished. But doesn't 11-12 years seem a little excessive? Especially since the bulk of the case against them was based on the testimony of a drug-runner who was given complete amnesty for his testimony?
Also, Navarrette, to his credit points this out:
"Recently, Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitted that officials in his office "misinformed" Republican members of Congress when they claimed to have proof that Compean and Ramos confessed their guilt and said that they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" before the incident."
But he seems too eager to dismiss this point. Was any testimony of this "proof" the DHS claimed to have had used at trial or just during congressional testimony? If it was, I would say that is grounds for a new trial (not pardons). I don't think we know what was said at trial, because the last I read, the trial transcripts still haven't been released, more than a year after the trial was over. Why? Does it usually take this long to release transcripts? Can these agents file appeals without the transcripts?
Again, I'm not saying these agents are innocent of any wrongdoing. But I think there are enough legitimate questions that those in power should take a hard look at what went on. As we've seen from the Duke non-Rape case, the justice system is far from perfect. If we are truly interested in following the rule of law, let's make sure we get it right, and that we do it in all cases. Both in the instance of potential misconduct on the law enforcement side and on the side of properly enforcing our current immigration laws.
Based on what I've read, it seems the two border patrol agents deserved to be punished. But doesn't 11-12 years seem a little excessive?
10 years was a sentencing enhancement for using a firearm in a crime of violence. The critical question is "Based on what the agents knew AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, was it justified?" The answer is "hell, no," and the shooting moved from "Border Patrol Agents doing their job" to (at a minimum) "assault with a deadly weapon."
Especially since the bulk of the case against them was based on the testimony of a drug-runner who was given complete amnesty for his testimony?
Are you seriously arguing that if someone is found to be a criminal after having a crime perpetrated on him,
And therein lies the key issue of this case: the drug-runner was the most credible witness. The Border Patrol agents all had credibility problems. Ramos and Compean had the worst; they managed to impeach each other's version of events.
Think about that.
The drug runner may have credibility issues, but the people we grant the authority to employ deadly force on our behalf had far worse credibility issues.
When the drug runner is the most believable guy in the court room, the only real option available to the jury is to hammer the cops.
Was any testimony of this "proof" the DHS claimed to have had used at trial or just during congressional testimony?
The latter only.
I don't think we know what was said at trial, because the last I read, the trial transcripts still haven't been released, more than a year after the trial was over. Why?
The trial ended in October 2006. October 2006 was four months ago, not more than a year ago. Pretrial motions STARTED in October, 2005.
And the transcripts have been released. I found them in about two seconds of Google searching; I wonder why Joe Farah can't do likewise. Bob J at Free Republic has read the transcripts and commented extensively on them. Bottom line: this was not a good shoot, and they knew it was not a good shoot when they fired.
In other words, these two agents knowingly applied deadly force wrongfully.
That is more usually known as "attempted murder."
And you really need to quit getting your information from folks who are, like Ramos and Compean, being less than honest.
Post a Comment