Thursday, August 30, 2007
Texas Monthly on the Feb. 2005 Border Patrol shootings
This months issue of Texas Monthly has a detailed story about the case of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were convicted for their role in shooting -- and covering up the shooting of -- an unarmed man on the Texas-Mexico Border (Pamela Coloff, "Badges of Dishonor"). The victim of the shooting was later determined to have been attempting to smuggle large quantities of drugs across the border, but this was not known to the agents at the time of the shooting.
Among other things, Coloff's article provides another look at Lou Dobbs' distorted reporting on this particular issue, providing another example of the ways in which he has relied upon lopsided reporting to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment and to dehumanize immigrants:
Two months before Ramos and Compean were set to be sentenced, Lou Dobbs introduced the case to a national audience ....Correspondent Casey Wian walked through the incident with Ramos, who recounted his version of events: hearing gunfire, finding his fellow agent lying on the ground, and then firing his weapon when the suspect pointed what appeared to be a gun. “[The public] entrusted me to stop a drug smuggler and I did,” he said. CNN’s viewers were never told that Ramos had failed to report the shooting, that Compean had tampered with key evidence, or that Aldrete-Davila had attempted to surrender—facts that were readily available to anyone who had read the indictment or newspaper coverage of the case.
Dobbs .... highlight[ed] the case on no fewer than 131 broadcasts in the eleven months that followed, including an hour-long special called “Border Betrayal.” Rather than delve into the specifics of the case, the show gave ample airtime to a rotation of family members, defense attorneys, lawmakers, and anti-illegal immigration activists who argued that the agents should never have been prosecuted. Dobbs injected his own nativist bent into the conversation, as when he reflected on whether the federal government had prosecuted Ramos and Compean because of “the influence of a powerful drug cartel” or was “blighting the lives of these two outstanding Border Patrol agents to appease the government of Mexico.”
This is not the first time I've mentioned Dobbs' heavily biased reporting, and I'm afraid it won't be the last. Perhaps giving people the facts won't change their mind, but I agree with the NY Times' David Leonhardt: if Dobbs' stories about immigration are really so good, he shouldn't be afraid to put the facts on the table. He's CNN!
-jmc
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/08/texas-monthy-on.html
Comments
'facts that were readily available to anyone who had read the indictment or newspaper coverage of the case.'
Everything in a prosecutor's indictment is a fact, huh? I am not a Ramos-Compean junkie, but they seem to have Sixth Amendment grounds for appeal. If that judge wanted even a semblance of a fair trial, how in the world did she deny admission of evidence of the 'second load' of drugs by Aldrete-Davila and prevent cross examination of him on that issue?
When you have a Bush buddy as close as Sutton combined with a Bush appointed judge who makes rulings like that, and then you have DHS testimony to Congress later admitted as false, you're practically begging for conspiracy theories. Especially with an administration with their track record of secrecy which makes everything they do look fishy.
Posted by: Jack | Aug 30, 2007 3:43:56 PM
Frankly, I find JMC's sympathies misplaced. The fact that the DA elected to go after two border agents instead of a drug dealer who was far more dangerous to the interests of the American people is an utter disgrace that most Americans find repulsive. Dobbs speaks more truth about illegal immigration than you'll ever hear from this blog. I'm certain his listeners will forgive his occasional mistakes.
Whatever the motives of the agents, they hardly deserved the sentences meted out to them. The fool Sutton tried them for the crime of assault with a deadly weapon during the commission of drug smuggling. The use of a weapon was an aggrevating circumstance. The original intent of the law, as Sutton was aware, was to punish the smugglers more severely if they used a weapon. It was never intended to punish the police unless they were actually involved in the underlying crime. Even if they were guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, they would never have received the ten years that the law mandated for such crimes, but you won't hear any cry of injustice from these immigration lawyers. The judge should have been capable of making that determination but apparently she lacked competence. The hosts of this blog are too busy trying to discredit Dobbs to pay attention to injustices perpetrated against citizens.
Posted by: Horace | Aug 30, 2007 7:47:17 PM
This country had better pick up its ass and quick.
WE the people are losing ground fast to the loonies
in our government
Just in passing where is the border fence ??
All should read Lee Iacocca's book on where have
" ALL THE LEADERS GONE "
Posted by: Dexter Greer | Aug 31, 2007 2:13:02 PM
jmc seems to have left out a few facts, himself.
When it comes to bias, he's the pot calling the kettle black.
There's a benefit for the Ramos family this Saturday in Phoenix, AZ.
For info goto: http:www.AmericanFreedomRiders.com
Posted by: cw | Sep 5, 2007 8:47:10 AM
For a discussion of the hate mail generated by this story, see http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/standupdesk/2007/09/badges-of-dishonor-hate-mail.php
Posted by: KJ | Sep 6, 2007 4:01:13 AM
You live rather a sheltered life, professor, if you think that hate mail is restricted to the anti-illegal alien crowd. The advocacy groups love to call all anti-illegal alien responses hate mail, even those that are thoughtful responses to their spin. While there is much hate mail, there are far more responses that have logical arguments against illegal immigration. Lou Dobbs has been accused of agitating hate, but anyone without bias would judge him a moderate without hate and with a great concern for this country. The latter is secondary for immigration lawers and illegal alien advocates who care nothing about the importation of poverty or illiteracy, and care about illegal aliens first and foremost. The motive of these champions of illegal immigration are fare more suspect as far as most citizens are concerned.
Posted by: Horace | Sep 6, 2007 8:29:21 AM
Delete "to their spin" from second sentence and the "e" from "fare". I'm visiting Lithuania (a small country on the Baltic Sea) and the jet lag is taking my toll on my editing skills.
I'll quash your hopes for my abandoning this blog. I'm not an illegl immigrant, nor am I considering emigrating. It is interesting to note, however, that one need only stay ninety days here to become eligible for legal residency. Lithuania is losing its population to the West and actually needs immigrants. Many young Lithuanians are involved with the travel business and are serving on cruise vessels. Their English literacy rate and good educational system make them very marketable outside their country.
I'm sure there are good slots for professors Hing, Johnson and Chacon in their law school in Vilnius. Any takers? If so, follow the URL yellow brick road to:
University of Lithuania (Vilnius) http://www.mruni.lt/lt/ (Need a crash course in Lithuanian)
Vilnius University Faculty of Law https://klevas.vu.lt/pls/klevas/public_ni$www_progr_app.show?p_kalba_name=en&p_mode=view (English)
Posted by: Horace | Sep 6, 2007 11:28:12 AM
Is anyone trying to pressure CNN to cancel this bigot?
Posted by: jack | Aug 30, 2007 12:07:45 PM