tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post4285793368137722653..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: UPDATED -- Set Nacho Libre!, or: Ramos and Compean: Casualties of the Bogus "War on Drugs"William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-54467069054742230962007-02-09T09:26:00.000-07:002007-02-09T09:26:00.000-07:00Agents Compean and Ramos submitted a verbal report...Agents Compean and Ramos submitted a verbal report of the incident to their superiors, a procedure which clearly follows US Border Patrol protocol. The opposite is true; The agents told no lies and destroyed no evidence, but the federal investigators lied and covered-up evidence themselves to secure a politicized case against them. Read Jerome Corsi's reports on the case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-31306393247845940882007-02-08T09:47:00.000-07:002007-02-08T09:47:00.000-07:00Will,As always an excellent piece. This whole cas...Will,<BR/><BR/>As always an excellent piece. This whole case just smells rotten. In essence, I’m probably restating what you have already said. The thing that really sticks out in my mind as twisted is that we are supposed to be involved in a war on terror. The Border Patrol (or whatever it is called now) is charged with interdicting any attempt at illegal ingression into our country. Ramos and Compean do their job, stop an illegal intrusion AND intercept 800 pounds of mota; as such their reward is a long stretch in a federal prison. <BR/><BR/>Let’s assume for a moment that the two agents were truly guilty as charged. Why have they been incarcerated in a federal prison in the general population, a population I might add rife with illegals convicted on drug charges. Someone wants these two agents dead, in my opinion. In terms of the civil suit, why hasn’t the government invoked the doctrine of In Pari Delicto? This mule is guilty of a number of felonies and misdemeanors directly related to the case. The fact that the government has given immunity in terms of a criminal case should have no bearing in a civil case. If the mule hadn’t been trying to smuggle a million dollars worth of weed into our country, then he wouldn’t have been subject to what happened to him.<BR/><BR/>KirkCaptain Kirkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04563942938766163570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-61618710154755388582007-02-08T09:45:00.000-07:002007-02-08T09:45:00.000-07:00From the AP on 7 Feb 2007 :EL PASO, Texas -- A fed...From the AP on 7 Feb 2007 :<BR/><BR/>EL PASO, Texas -- A federal report released Wednesday on the shooting of a suspected drug smuggler by Border Patrol agents concurs with prosecutors that the men failed to report the shooting, destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.<BR/><BR/><BR/>What part of "failed to report the shooting, destroyed evidence and lied to investigators" points to innocence? This case is not about the person who was shot, it is about two government thugs thinking they are above the law. How would two taxpaying citizens been treated in the same sitution? They would be under the prison now, never to see the light of day again.Chris Mallorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-52009948697452967852007-02-08T07:22:00.000-07:002007-02-08T07:22:00.000-07:00chris,your proof? WND has been running articles b...chris,<BR/><BR/>your proof? WND has been running articles bringing to light the lies told about these agents. you might want to reconsider. and coupled with what will has wrtitten here, i cannot see how these guys committted any crime. and whose to say that they even shot the guy? one journalist wrote that it's possible the guy got across to the other side and was then shot by his boss as punishment for losing the shipment. i mean, how many people get shot and don't break stride? well, this guy did not break stride.rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12473173027048173880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-11818779801063290102007-02-08T06:38:00.000-07:002007-02-08T06:38:00.000-07:00Usually I agree with you, but you are wrong in thi...Usually I agree with you, but you are wrong in this case. These two thugs broke the law and then attempted to cover it up. Just because Horiuchi has not been held accountable for his crimes, yet, does not mean that these two should receive a get out of jail free card. All government employees should be held to every standard of the law. If anything they should be held to a higher standard. Prison is the proper place for government thugs who break the law.Chris Mallorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-44088953290937870962007-02-08T05:21:00.000-07:002007-02-08T05:21:00.000-07:00Good piece overall, Will. I'm also thankful that y...Good piece overall, Will. I'm also thankful that you made particular mention of the dichotomy in regards to when/if federal officials are held to account and for what purpose. The dearth of prosecutions of federal agents, particularly Lon Horiuchi, for shooting the fleeing Sam Weaver in the back and the unarmed Vicki Weaver in the head are more than noteworthy.<BR/><BR/>Your quote of Julie Reynolds from her expose in the magazine, <I>El Andar</I>, is also noteworthy:<BR/><BR/><I>What was not visible was that the group included two men with numerous links to drug cartel figures. These men helped George W. Bush win the Latino vote in Texas.</I><BR/><BR/>Should I grok from this that the ordinary Chicano serf, in essence, is only meaningfully influenced by narcotics gangsters? In this case, by the thuggish twosome who endorsed Dubya for governor? I guess no otherwise "clean-handed" Latino figure in Texas, by endorsing Dubya., would of been significantly influential to attract the Latino vote? Hmm, that's an eye-opener ain't it?<BR/><BR/>Will, in light of your posting here, what do you make of the numerous Ami ex-pats who have set up house in Mexico since Mexico, as you explicitly point out, is rife with narcotics, not to mention ruled by underworld kingpins, and is otherwise a cauldron full of corruption? The immediate individual who comes to mind in this context is <A HREF="http://www.fredoneverything.net/" REL="nofollow">Fred Reed</A>, since I often read and do often agree with his pieces, which are focused upon the travails of America, naturally, but rarely if ever Mexico. There are other ex-pats who howl similarly as well, of course. Just sayin'...<BR/><BR/>But why would that be, I wonder? Are these ex-pats deluded? I mean, one has to wonder if they really believe that Mexico is genuinely more <I>pro libertate</I> than America (no pun intended)? Hmm, that seems to indicate that these folk are also, like most, quite clueless and ignorant of the collusion between the political wing of Gringo Federales, the Mexican Federales, and their brotherhood of narco thugs.<BR/><BR/><I>Even if diligent, incorruptible agents like Ramos and Compean were able to shut down the supply of narcotics coming into our country from Mexico (this would be like emptying the Rio Grande with an eyedropper), the criminal elites they serve wouldn't permit them to do so.</I><BR/><BR/>I gather then that the demand is insatiable among the serf stooges in this (wasted) land, as I said in a previous thread? I still can't understand the logic of repealing the 18th Amendment in 1933 after 13 long and immensely profitable years of government-induced gangsterism when there's an even greater and more intense demand for booze than for narcotics. Was it perhaps because, unlike the more modern narco affinity between the two, during Prohibition the private gangsters and the public gangsters weren't collaborating and working hand in hand? Or could it have been because, indeed, the demand for booze by serfs dwarfed their demand for narcotics and hence government had to bow down and remove the prohibition?<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, the logic is faulty. Yes, I understand the drug "war" is hopelessly corrupt because the Feds have naturally utilized it to effectively centralize control of state and local law enforcement, sanction the theft of a family's material possessions via tied-in draconian forfeiture measures, and other ends. Even so, why it is even called a "WAR" to start with is telling about the whole affair. I mean, why is it that government can ban just about anything or any behavior (except mindless hedonism and depravity) and there's no WAR that commences because of it?<BR/><BR/>It would be comedic, if it weren't so sad to ponder the following: They can ban us walking across a street with an MP3 player, a cellphone, or whatever <I>they</I> deem dangerous while walking across a city street. They can ban smoking tobacco anywhere and everywhere. They can ban praying, Bibles, and/or just plain religion altogether as <I>they</I> define it for us. They can take away our firearms or otherwise ban them on a whim. They can require us to be licensed to perform any <I>private</I> service for the public, etc. And we mostly respond with....s-i-l-e-n-c-e and a shrug. We meekly and obediently follow those new rules, regulations, and laws wherever and whenever they are imposed.<BR/><BR/>No WAR? Oh...I see.<BR/><BR/>But...if our crank, crack, acid, coke, or weed is banned, "it just don't matter, man, because I gots to have ma sh*t, man, whatevah da consequences!"<BR/><BR/>Hmmm, I guess that should be eye-opening as well. After all, we can certainly conclude from this we should be thankful that the Feds haven't effectively managed to somehow fashion a twisted "WAR" out of the aforementioned laws.<BR/><BR/>It all depends on how the serfs aggregately view the given law, obviously. Or am I mistaken?<BR/><BR/>The only way I can agree with all the yack about drug laws or any other laws about anything is if, and only if, ALL the laws dealing with restricting freedom of association <I>and disassociation</I> were rescinded.<BR/><BR/>What do I mean by this? Simple. If I can hire and fire, I can rent or refuse to rent to, I can serve or choose not to serve, whomever I want to without any "except on the basis of....." restrictions, then I'd agree with all the libertines without hesitation.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you can grok the obvious distasteful connection I'm making here. The point is that that kind of across the board action would never happen.<BR/><BR/>Oh well, the way I see it Will is that the faster the polity crumbles into ruin the better. At this stage, it would be infinitely better to burn down the whole termite-infested, rickety building and perhaps rebuild anew from the ash heap rather than hopelessly attempt a feeble repair of the massive damage. Perhaps there's a chance, however minute, that a genuine freedom phoenix could arise from the ashes.dixiedoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-14396338242231819292007-02-07T18:49:00.000-07:002007-02-07T18:49:00.000-07:00will,
i have yet to read the article, but know th...will,<br /><br />i have yet to read the article, but know the story. my question in all of this is: HOW IN THE WORLD DID THE JURY COVICT THESE TWO GUYS? rhetorical question, yes i know, but this is simply mind boggling.rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12473173027048173880noreply@blogger.com