WASHINGTON – A dozen members of the House of Representatives have written to President Bush demanding an investigation of the case against two Border Patrol agents sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison for the pursuit and shooting of a drug smuggler and calling for a presidential pardon of the pair.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case.

As WND reported, a federal jury convicted Compean, 28, and Ramos, 37, in March after a two-week trial on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation.

A congressional hearing on the case is being planned for Nov. 13.

The letter to Bush was signed by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

“Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean attempted to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across the U.S. border last year,” wrote the congressmen. “The two agents were prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the smuggler was granted full immunity to testify against the agents. Both men were convicted by a Texas jury for firing shots at the fleeing smuggler, who, they believed, carried a gun.”

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean (KFOX-TV, El Paso, Texas)

The letter questioned the accuracy of the charges against the agents and the conduct of the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton.

“We ask that a full investigation of this case be ordered immediately,” they went on to say in the letter sent to the White House yesterday. “We are confident that during such an investigation you will find that these Border Patrol agents were acting within the scope of their duty and were unjustly prosecuted. Also, we ask that you use your power of presidential pardon, as granted by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, to pardon these two Border Patrol agents. We understand these requests usually are for those that have already completed their sentences; however, we feel in this case it would be a miscarriage of justice to send these two Border Patrol agents to prison for protecting our nation’s borders from an illegal drug smuggler.”

The letter notes that both agents have been ordered to surrender themselves to federal authorities Jan. 17 unless action is taken to overturn “this unjust result.”

“This is not the message that our legal system should be giving to the drug cartels that are smuggling drugs, people and terrorists across our borders,” said Tancredo, author of “In Mortal Danger,” a book that says the insecure border and immigration enforcement policies represent the No. 1 crisis in the U.S. today.

Meanwhile, the Federation for American Immigration Reform has launched a petition drive to get Bush to reopen the case.

The group cites a statement by Rep. Jones who said: “The Justice Department’s outrageous prosecution does nothing but tie the hands of our Border Patrol and prevent them from securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, counterfeit goods and, quite possibly, terrorists. This demoralizing prosecution puts the rights of illegal alien drug smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines the critical mission of better enforcing current immigration laws.”

Joe Loya, agent Ramos’ father-in-law, has created a website on the case and is also encouraging Americans to write to Bush urging a pardon. He is also publicizing a fund for Ramos’ family.

So far, the White House has resisted calls for reopening the investigation and dismissed questions about a pardon raised by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving. Even asking whether the two agents should be pardoned was “nonsensical,” in the words of Bush spokesman Tony Snow..

“That’s an unanswerable question, Les,” said Snow yesterday. “The president is the person who is responsible for pardons. You can tell the network, which made you ask that question, that it is nonsensical.”

As originally reported by Connie Hair of Human Events, Holder’s undoing was the result of deft questioning by two committee Republicans: Dan Lungren, California’s former state attorney general, and Louie Gohmert, the former chief judge of a Texas appeals court. The two congressmen highlighted a fatal flaw in Holder’s theory. Moreover, they demonstrated that — despite having accused the CIA and the Bush administration of war crimes by cavalierly branding waterboarding as “torture” — the attorney general has still not acquainted himself with the legal elements of a torture offense, particularly the required mental state. This is remarkable, given that Holder’s own department explained these elements less than a month ago in a federal appeals court brief.

Rep. Lungren pointed out that if the attorney general truly believes “waterboarding is torture,” he must also think we torture our own Navy SEALs and other special-operations personnel when we waterboard them as part of their training. “No . . . not in the legal sense,” countered Holder. You see, said he, it’s “a fundamentally different thing,” because

we’re doing something for training purposes to try to equip them with the tools to, perhaps, resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There is not the intent to do that which is defined as torture — which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm. It’s for training. It’s different.

But it’s not different because “it’s for training.” Look at the torture statute (Sections 2340 and 2340A of the federal penal code) and try to find a “training” exception. There isn’t one. What removes an act from the ambit of torture (besides lack of severe pain) is intent. Lungren pressed this point, and Holder admitted that the training was “not torture in the legal sense because we’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.” Intent, he acknowledged, was the key question.

Then, Lungren pounced. The CIA interrogators who questioned top al-Qaeda captives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah intended no more harm to them than Navy instructors intended to their SEAL trainees. In fact, we know that the CIA went to great lengths, under Justice Department guidance, precisely to avoid severe harm. Their purpose, Rep. Lungren observed, was to “solicit information,” not to inflict torture.

Holder was trapped. He responded with some blather about how “when the Communist Chinese did [waterboarding], when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition, we knew then that that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that is violative of . . . all the statutes that recognize what torture is.”

For some background info:

Two Republican Congressmen, Pete Sessions of Texas and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, missed the House swearing-in ceremony today because they were at a party. But they decided to cast some votes anyway, even though that’s against the Constitution.

The two guys were hanging out, high-fiving constituents at the Capitol Visitor’s Center, when they saw on the TV that—oh no!—they were supposed to be getting sworn in on the House floor right then! So, they just took the oath by television. But the magic dust they sprinkle on Representatives to transform them into Democracy Fairies (made from the ground-up remains of John Adams’ single, brilliant horn) doesn’t work through C-Span. This means, technically, Sessions and Fitzpatrick violated the Constitution by voting on some bills later on that evening and now have to get sworn in again, for real this time.

The failure to be sworn in could mean the rules package the House passed on Wednesday doesn’t count, according to Roll Call. The action is now behind the scenes, as Speaker John Boehner tries to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to agree to a unanimous consent decree that would make all the work Sessions and Fitzpatrick did over the past day count retroactively

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-miss-swearing-in-but-still-vote/

President Obama finally weighed in, saying “I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion, as everyone else in this country.” After being criticized by many, he clarified that “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.”

Republican senators played up to their base, as well as many others who are uncomfortable with the decision.

I think the president, by the way, is trying to have it have it both ways,” Republican New York Congressman Peter King said.

“To me, it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the administration, the president seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America,” Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn said.

I am not an ideologue, or a person that follows the Republican party no matter their stance. And in this instance, I agree with the President Obama (yikes…I don’t even like typing that!). As a Conservative, we do, and should, hold the law of the Constitution above our feelings. One of my main arguments with liberals is their attempt to “interpret” the law in a way that fits their ideology, thus destroying the Constitution in the process. So, more than others, I believe conservatives MUST acknowledge the right of this building to be built. It doesn’t matter what mainstream America thinks. The 1st Amendment and the Freedom of Religion are nonnegotiable.

Do I think people have every right to think it’s insensitive and the right to be upset? Yes.

Do I think that there is enough negative public opinion that the Imam should consider a compromise? Yes.

Do I acknowledge the right of New York city builders to refuse to build it, if they wish? Yes.

But it’s important for Conservatives to hold the Constitution and all of our rights above public opinion. It’s what we do.
Of course people have the right to protest.

And I agree, the President has no say. And I think that’s pretty much what Obama has said. They have the right, and he won’t speak on his opinion. I say he’s correct.

Okay, so I have Sivic Oration do tomorrow, and my topic is about John F. Kennedy. I wrote a speech, but I need you’re opinion. Can you fix this for me?

here it is:

On November 22, 1963, when he was hardly past his first thousand days in office, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed by an assassin’s bullets as his motorcade wound through Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was the youngest man elected President; he was the youngest to die.

Of Irish descent, he was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, on May 29, 1917. Graduating from Harvard in 1940, he entered the Navy. In 1943, when his PT boat was rammed and sunk by a Japanese destroyer, Kennedy, despite grave injuries, led the survivors through perilous waters to safety.

Back from the war, he became a Democratic Congressman from the Boston area, advancing in 1953 to the Senate. He married Jacqueline Bouvier on September 12, 1953. In 1955, while recuperating from a back operation, he wrote Profiles in Courage, which won the Pulitzer Prize in history.

In 1956 Kennedy almost gained the Democratic nomination for Vice President, and four years later was a first-ballot nominee for President. Millions watched his television debates with the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon. Winning by a narrow margin in the popular vote, Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic President.

His Inaugural Address offered the memorable injunction: “Ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.” As President, he set out to redeem his campaign pledge to get America moving again. His economic programs launched the country on its longest sustained expansion since World War II; before his death, he laid plans for a massive assault on persisting pockets of privation and poverty.

Responding to ever more urgent demands, he took vigorous action in the cause of equal rights, calling for new civil rights legislation. His vision of America extended to the quality of the national culture and the central role of the arts in a vital society.

He wished America to resume its old mission as the first nation dedicated to the revolution of human rights. With the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, he brought American idealism to the aid of developing nations. But the hard reality of the Communist challenge remained.

Shortly after his inauguration, Kennedy permitted a band of Cuban exiles, already armed and trained, to invade their homeland. The attempt to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro was a failure. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union renewed its campaign against West Berlin. Kennedy replied by reinforcing the Berlin garrison and increasing the Nation’s military strength, including new efforts in outer space. Confronted by this reaction, Moscow, after the erection of the Berlin Wall, relaxed its pressure in central Europe.

Instead, the Russians now sought to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. When this was discovered by air reconnaissance in October 1962, Kennedy imposed a quarantine on all offensive weapons bound for Cuba. While the world trembled on the brink of nuclear war, the Russians backed down and agreed to take the missiles away. The American response to the Cuban crisis evidently persuaded Moscow of the futility of nuclear blackmail.

Kennedy now contended that both sides had a vital interest in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and slowing the arms race–a contention which led to the test ban treaty of 1963. The months after the Cuban crisis showed significant progress toward his goal of “a world of law and free choice, banishing the world of war and coercion.” His administration thus saw the beginning of new hope for both the equal rights of Americans and the peace of the world.

Can anyone fix it. Like make them in order, change some words and things? I’ll give the person who fixes it 10 points.

EL PASO, Texas — Keeping our borders safe was the topic of Tuesday’s Border Security Conference held in El Paso.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the U.S. is sending more aid to protect the border.

Napolitano said she was born in Albuquerque and she had a summer job in Alamogordo when she was growing up, so it was no surprise that El Pasoans packed UTEP’s Undergraduate Learning Center to hear her informed view of border security.

First, Napolitano announced that the federal government is funneling another $30 million into Operation Stonegarden, which is designed to help local law enforcement agencies with their border security effort. She also made it quite clear where she stands when it comes to the United States’ joint effort with Mexico to fight a drug war that she says has shared responsibilities on both sides of the border.

While many of the officials at the Border Security Conference were quick to answer questions, ABC-7 got little cooperation when we asked them to watch a two-minute video.

The footage, obtained by the ABC-7 I-Team, shows an open stretch of border without a fence, and, seemingly, without law.

The footage shows a 14-mile gap in the border fence about 25 miles outside El Paso near the increasingly violent Mexican town of Praxedis, a place where many cross the border without any resistance.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano didn’t mince any words when talking about the security effort along the border.

“We have a unique opportunity now with Mexico to really break up these cartels and shame on us if we don’t take full advantage of that opportunity,” Napolitano said.

The video, shot over the last two years, shows men crossing the border along a 14-mile gap in fencing, at times right under the noses of the Border Patrol.

“What’s happening there with no fence? First of all, a fence may not necessarily be a plan, but a fence can be part of the plan if it is married with manpower and alike,” Napolitano said.

ABC-7 came to the Border Security Conference hoping to get officials who spoke to watch the video and give their reaction, but we were turned down by Secretary Napolitano’s aides. Alan Bersin, the special Border Affairs representative, also turned us down, as well as Congressman Silvestre Reyes.

“I don’t know all the particulars … I’ve asked my staff to look into it,” Reyes said.

The only person ABC-7 could get to watch the video was Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz.

“Wow that’s a large number,” he said. “It’s information that needs to be processed in the U.S. The U.S. government needs to see that, process it and evaluate it and see what is actually going on.”

Ferriz said that the area near Praxedis is probably not the only place where this type of activity is taking place.

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=10887609&nav=menu193_2

House passes bill to add $2 billion for Cash for Clunkers program but has only $ 30 million for border ?

Welcome | Logout
Log In | Sign Up
The Huffington PostNovember 3, 2008

Home Politics Media Business Entertainment Living Style Green Chicago 23/6 offthebus bignews >> On The Ground 2008| Barack Obama| Senate Races | Fundrace| more… Make HuffPost politics Your HomePage Sign up for Election Alerts

Obama: “I Feel Pretty Peaceful” … PREDICTIONS … POLLS … ON THE GROUND … VOTING PROBLEMS…
Palin: Maybe Obama Thinks Terrorists Are “The Good Guys”
John McCain Can’t Stop Saying The F-Word (It’s Not What You Think)
Romney Can’t Say McCain Campaign Is “Dignified”
Dirty Trick: GOP Senate Candidate Puts Himself On Dem Ticket
Obama’s Swing State Ground Game In Action
Goat’s Head Left On Doorstep Of Dem Congressman’s Campaign Office
Florida Voter Info Lost On Highway
Anonymous Call Tells Pennsylvania Dems To Vote Wednesday
Florida U. McCain Chairman Resigns, Votes For Obama
Your request is being processed… Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter As Election Nears, Dirty Tricks Grow More Common
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com October 28, 2008 05:06 PM

——————————————————————————–
Read More: Dirty Tricks, Election Dirty Tricks, Fake Fliers, Obama Campaign, Philadelphia Fake Flier, Virginia Fake Flier, Virginia Flier, Voter Suppression, Voting Problems, Politics News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up!

Get Breaking News Alerts

never spam
Share Print CommentsAs the election nears, examples of political dirty tricks are emerging with greater frequency.

On Tuesday, the Virginia Pilot reported that a phony Board of Elections flier was circulating the state “advising Republicans to vote on Nov. 4 and Democrats on Nov. 5.” Voting, of course, is on the 4th only, creating fear among neutral observers and the Obama campaign that people were simply going to miss the opportunity to go to the polls.

Earlier this month, meanwhile, an anonymous flier was circulating in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Philadelphia telling voters they could be arrested at the polls if they show up to vote with outstanding arrest warrants or unpaid parking tickets. This is also untrue.

Dirty tricks and phony fliers represent the dark underside of nearly every election. And certainly, when it comes to the current contest, these tactics started long ago. Last March, as Time Magazine noted, a letter was being sent around Colorado, warning that out-of-state students could not register if their parents claimed them as dependents in another state.” One of the more common falsities making its way through email chains has warned voters in some states (updated below) that they will be turned away from the polls if they wore paraphernalia demonstrating their support for one particular candidate.

Since these antics are becoming more and more common we encourage readers to send in tips or episodes they have witnessed to the Huffington Post.

UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out that, in fact, several states do prohibit passive electioneering (buttons, t-shirts, etc.) in polling places. In Texas, for example, the law is as follows:

[A] person may not wear a badge, insignia, emblem, or other similar communicative device relating to a candidate, measure, or political party appearing on the ballot, or to the conduct of the election, in the polling place or within 100 feet of any outside door through which a voter may enter the building in which the polling place is located.
Barack Obama
Voting Problems
As the election nears, examples of political dirty tricks are emerging with greater frequency. On Tuesday, the Virginia Pilot reported that a phony Board of Elections flier was circulating the state …
As the election nears, examples of political dirty tricks are emerging with greater frequency. On Tuesday, the Virginia Pilot reported that a phony Board of Elections flier was circulating the state …
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com More in Politics…
McCain’s Crowd Disturbingly Small, Ten Times Less…Voting Lines Stretch To Eight HoursPalin: Does Obama Think Terrorists Are The…RNC Hits Obama For Visit To Sick…


Comments639
Pending Comments0
FAQ: Comments and ModerationFAQ: HuffPost Accounts
Post Comment
Post Comment
You must be logged in to comment of this article. Log in or Create an account
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click “Reply” at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments: Newest First Oldest First HuffPost’s Picks Expand All Collapse All
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (15 pages total)
- + Ningnang See Profile I’m a Fan of Ningnang I’m a fan of this user permalink
And now this…OUTRAGEOUS!
“Troops may run out of time to

The Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 . Ulysses S. Grant wrote about the war in his memoirs as…”one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” Abraham Lincoln who was a congressman at the time was bitterly opposed to the war. As a result the United States got California, New Mexico, Nevada parts of New Mexico and Colorado as well as undisputed control of Texas.
Mexico did not murder or rape no one, the Spanish probably did but not the Mexicans why Mexico didnt even exist yet. Mexico is a mix of indegineous tribes(Aztecs, Mayas, etc.) and people that came over from Spain.
And the USA should give back the land to the Native Americans they murdered and raped.

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law
By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-08-immigration_N.htm

Arizona’s tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state.

Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.

Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law’s passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.
============================================================

Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Harry Schumer are pushing for something that enables the illegal aliens cleaning up the hotels in their states to get on the Medical Bill. Since Durbin and Schumer are two of the ones that wrote the bill, they know how to do that.

So I no longer support any amnesty, or allowing the illegal aliens to remain in this country while their status is adjusted. They have to go.

AND…. self deport works very, very well. Tell your congressman so that they know also.

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law
By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010…

Arizona’s tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state.

Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.

Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law’s passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.
======================================

Clearly it works here. And clearly some of them are going home. But some are simply going to a more liberal state like Texas and New Mexico. So the question is serious.. would they go home.. would they try and get better I.D. and go deeper.

In any case.. it is working for Arizona and ..working.. self deportation is proven.
I don’t believe anyone actually hates California. They started this mess, and it has grown, but I still don’t think anyone hates California. But there is a secondary problem in all of this and it is simple: they are not really moving to California anymore.. they are headed to states that don’t require birth certificates instead. New Mexico, Texas, Utah.

AM I TECHNICALLY A VET! After general coourt martial sentence in OCT97-( 11 mos confinement, reduction to AB, bad conduct discharge)I am waiting for dd-214. Sentence was approved except the BCD which was awaiting appellate review. I outprocessed and given a ticket home on 8MAY98 and to remain on Leave pending review.It is almost 12 years ago. I have now contacted NPRC, Air Force Reserve Command, and spoke with Local VA.I contacted NPRC by mail, phone, and email; They say no dd-214 recieved:. In turn my rquest was forwarded to AFRC in Texas,When phoning Air Force Reserve Command, the reply was there was no order to make discharge, I inquired what my status was and he said that I am out. The VA refer me back to NPRC and tehn again the same vicious cycle.When talking with local WorkLinks couselors and Office Manager They phoned VA and quoted that they only show an entry date with no exiit? The question is Am I a VET? Is there any benefits or pay i should have recieved during the wait? Where do I turn now?Recently I started school due to being a dislocated worker on unemployment I received a letter saying Im a qualified Dislocated Worker elligible for WIAbenefits.City counselors of approved WIA providers no mention I cant recieve, qualify for, or apply for Federal programs like WIA with no dd-214. They need the document because I mentioned I served Military.Now all is on hold because they require DD214 from me….help…I am lost…some folks said to contact the congressman. should I get lawyer?