U.S. Attorney Protects Mexican Invaders against Searches and Seizures

0 megtekintés
Ugrás az első olvasatlan üzenetre

Ray Keller

olvasatlan,
2006. aug. 20. 13:01:482006. 08. 20.
U.S. Attorney Protects Mexican Invaders against Searches and Seizures
Mark Andrew Dwyer

I thought I was hallucinating. Two accomplished Border Patrol agents,
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, were convicted by a U.S. court for
shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, that worked
for Mexican drug cartel, I presume, and are facing 20 years to life in
prison for doing their job. The smuggler and the main witness in a trial
against the agents has been granted by the U.S. Attorney Office full
immunity from the prosecution for the crimes he committed, and is already
suing the U.S. Border Patrol for five million dollars, which exorbitant
amount must include his loss of profit from the sales of illegal drugs he
wasn't able to deliver to his American collaborators, I guess. The agents
who deserved to be commanded for their superb job of enforcing the American
border and the law are headed to jail, instead, and although numerous
petitions to pardon them have already been sent to President Bush, I don't
expect the Commander in Chief and the main "defender of the American border"
to be nearly as merciful in this case as he is for the millions of illegal
aliens that gained notoriety for making mockery of the American border and
the law.
When I looked into the details of the case and the events that led to
agents' convictions, I found the bases on which the charges were brought and
the guilty verdict pronounced even more absurd than the outcome of the trial
itself. Per Sara A. Carter, DailyBuletin.com Staff Writer (see [1]),
Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said that Ramos and Compean had no
business chasing someone in the first place. "It is a violation of Border
Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The
Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the [high speed] pursuit of someone."
(So, how can one apprehend and intruder, I ask, if they run away as quickly
as they can?) "Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the
speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not,"
Attorney Debra Kanof said, as if breaking the speed limit by the agents was
the main thing to worry about when determined, and often violent, foreign
criminal that couldn't care less about the posted speed limit made hostile
incursion into the U.S. territory. (To make it even more difficult, many
state and local law enforcement agencies have been instructed to not
interfere with violations of the U.S. border and the immigration laws that,
arguably, are federal domain and not within state and local jurisdiction.)

These and other absurdities were thoroughly exposed by several
commentators, most notably, by Lou Dobbs of CNN (see [2, 3, 4] for relevant
videos with "Lou Dobbs Tonight" clips) who referred (after T.J. Bonner, the
president of the National Border Patrol Council) to the conviction as the
most outrageous miscarriage of justice he's seen in America.

The biggest nonsense, though, comes from the statement of Assistant
U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof who said: "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is
a violation of someone's [emphasis added] Fourth Amendment rights to shoot
them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you
don't know they have a weapon [emphasis added]" (all quotes from [1]), which
embarrassingly flawed statement was later supported by her boss, U.S.
Attorney Johnny Sutton who wrote (see [5]., last paragraph) that the agents
were justly convicted for "willfully [sic!] violating Aldrete-Davila's
Constitutional, Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure".

According to such absurd interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and
the Supreme Court ruling by the Assistant U.S. Attorney and her boss, all it
takes for someone (say, an enemy's military) to get under "constitutional
protection" while invading the U.S. is to make sure that the U.S.
authorities "don't know the invader(s) have a weapon." And then the Federal
government will have to charge and convict each invading soldier in the
court of law (which includes appointing an attorney for each and every one
of them and granting them the presumption of innocence and other benefits as
stipulated by Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments) before the invasion can
be repelled. Can one imagine a nonsense bigger than that?

It's worth noting that this administration does not think, and justly
so, that aliens from countries that harbor terrorists are protected by our
Fourth Amendment, even if they, unlike the Mexican smuggler, Aldrete-Davila,
did not violate the American border on their trip to this country. These are
just the Mexicans (or "Hispanics") that enjoy that undeserved privilege that
the U.S. government extended to them without being authorized to doing so by
the Constitution of the U.S., in blatant violation of 10th Amendment that
expressly prohibits the federal government exercising of any authority that
was "not delegated to [it] by the Constitution".

Let's see what the U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, has to
say on this subject.

The very first sentence of the Constitution (often referred to as the
Preamble) clearly states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to
[.] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our [emphases added]
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America." It doesn't say "in Order to [.] bestow various rights and
privileges on aliens and their Posterity", nor does it indicate that it
intends to protect of the entire world against the excesses and reckless
acts of American citizens. To the contrary, the Constitution was passed and
ratified in order to protect the American people and their legitimate
interests (Declaration of Independence's "Pursuit of Happiness") against the
rest of the world (and against abuses of power of their own government), and
not the other way around. Any attempts to use the Constitution, as well as
the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, contrary to its clear intent, like
the attempts of making it easier for the invaders and intruders of all
trades to infiltrate the American nation and to disable this nation's
ability to resist incursions into its territory, sovereignty, and integrity,
are legally invalid and clearly unconstitutional. They can be compared to
using of First Amendment as an instrument to silence somebody, suppress a
religion, or to justify censorship. (Unfortunately, some Liberal activist
judges seem to engage in this kind of administration of "justice".)
Moreover, the language of Fourth Amendment begins with "The right of the
people" which clearly indicates that its protections apply only to "We the
People", or, in other words, to the citizens of the U.S. (some
constitutional scholars include lawful permanent residents in this
category), but not to illegal aliens and foreign border violators.

For instance, Judge Samuel Alito, a renowned constitutional scholar
and a Supreme Court Associate Justice, during his nomination hearings
expressed his strong opinion that illegal aliens do not automatically
acquire "constitutional rights" while on the U.S. soil (see [6] for a brief
report of Alito's earlier statements in this matter). In 1986, he made a
case that nonresident aliens, which category includes illegal aliens and
foreign border violators, do not enjoy protections offered by the Fourth
Amendment, contrary to what Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof said and
U.S. Attorny Johnny Sutton wrote in [5]. Obviously, Alito's position, as
opposed to Kanof/Sutton's simplistic and naive misinterpretation, is fully
consistent with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the
fleeing smuggler of foreign nationality that illegally crossed the American
border does not have Fourth Amendment rights, unless, perhaps, he can prove
his lawful permanent residence in the U.S., and, contrary to what Kanof
said, the Supreme Court never ruled that he does.

I argue that a foreign national who illegally crossed the American
border is not protected by the Fourth Amendment any more than a member of
foreign military force that invaded the U.S. is, and, therefore, he is not
protected against "unreasonable searches and seizures". I can imagine an
ACLU or SPLC lawyer claiming, in his attempt to dismiss the above argument,
that military aggression, unlike illegal border crossing by a foreign
criminal, is an act of war that excludes the invading army from the
jurisdiction of the invaded, but not withstanding extra-constitutionality of
such a claim, there is no acceptable criterion, consistent with the
Constitution, as to when a border violation subjects someone to the
jurisdiction of the state he/she invaded and when it does not.

For instance, if the requirement is that the aggression (war) must be
declared, then we would have to offer constitutional protection the foreign
invading army if they launched an undeclared aggression of American
territory. (Nonsense.) If being armed (with a proviso that the defenders
must know that the invaders are armed, if one were to follow the legal
opinion of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof) is such a requirement then
attacking America with millions of unarmed soldiers (who can later arm
themselves in the U.S., perhaps claiming their 2nd Amendment rights), or
with all the arms well hidden so that the U.S. authorities have no way of
knowing that the invaders are armed, will make the aggressors eligible for
constitutional protection and de facto torpedo (at least in the legal sense)
any serious attempts of defense. (Nonsense, again.) If wearing military
uniforms is such a requirement then the foreign invading army will
masquerade as bunch of civilians and gain support of ACLU and SPLC in their
demands for equal protection. (Nonsense, too.) And so on. These are but a
few examples - for each imaginable "criterion" there is a scenario of
aggression of foreign power "eligible" for "constitutional protection" in
the eyes of those who buy the above invalid argument that the Bill of Rights
and equal protection clause of 14th Amendment uniformly applies to any one
physically present on the American soil.

Unfortunately, neither the presiding judge nor the prosecutor
(assistant U.S. attorney) were sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to
realize the above facts - my guess is that they simply didn't have a clue.
As a result, the unjust verdict to convict the Border Patrol agents was
based, at least partially, on the invalid presumption that anyone (not just,
say, an American citizen), in particular a Mexican illegal border crosser,
has the Fourth Amendment right to be safe against unreasonable searches and
seizures without probable cause, that right the agents violated.

We must not forget that the "Blessings of the Liberty" are reserved in
the U.S. for American citizens (not withstanding the fact that we generously
but voluntarily offer them to some other individuals, like political
refugees and resident aliens) and not for the invaders and border violators.
So are the civil liberties, as the meaning of the word "civil" (related to
citizens) clearly indicates, despite that ACLU, SPLC, and other
self-appointed defenders of these liberties would like to bestow them on the
foreign intruders. No twisted logic, simplistic interpretation of the
Constitution, nor taken out of the context clauses of its Amendments will
change that.

REFERENCES

[1] Breaking the silence Convicted border agent tells his story By
Sara A. Carter http://tinyurl.com/jl8tg

[2] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 9, 2006 (video clip)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/060809-Dobbs-TJ-Bonner.wmv

[3] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 10, 2006 (video clip)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/060810-Dobbs-Bush-AntiBPSkunk.wmv

[4] Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - August 11, 2006 (video clip)
http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/060811-Dobbs-ReconShyster.wmv

[5] Statement of United States Attorney Johnny Sutton Regarding The
Conviction of Former Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos By Johnny
Sutton, U.S. http://tinyurl.com/gwyoq

[6] '86 Alito Memo Argues Against Foreigners' Rights By Jo Becker and
Amy Goldstein, Washington Post Staff http://tinyurl.com/jyegh

[7] Cedillo Proves Children of Illegal Aliens Are Not U.S. Citizens By
Mark Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jd9m4

[5] Statement of United States Attorney Johnny Sutton Regarding The
Conviction of Former Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos By Johnny
Sutton, U.S. http://tinyurl.com/gwyoq

NOTE: The above article is an abridged and edited version of Author's
longer essay "The Blessings of Liberty" posted at: http://tinyurl.com/koywm.

--
--
Ray Keller
rayk...@rnsmte.com

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the
hands of the people.

-Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound


Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission.
,
The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/

In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"


Válasz mindenkinek
Válasz a szerzőnek
Továbbítás
0 új üzenet