Some folks criticize our elected officials in Washington for being a “do-nothing” Congress.  And, with a 9% approval rating, who can love ‘em?  But I’m more afraid of my rights (and my pocketbook) when Congress acts than when it doesn’t.

Well, it appears that, at least once in a while, the “do-thing” Congress does something in spite of itself:

Washington - Some 1.3 million illegal immigrants have left the United States since Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the summer of 2007. If the trend continues, according to a new study, the nation’s illegal population will drop by half in the next five years.

I’ll believe the scenario described in the second sentence when I see it.  But, still, there’s more good news.  Even the so-called “token” efforts at enforcement by DHS (and I happen to be one of the few people who think Michael Chertoff is doing his best under very difficult conditions - conservatives claiming he’s in bed with Mexico and liberal advocacy groups screaming he is tearing mammas away from their babies) seem to be having some effect:

Moreover, reports the Center for Immigration Studies, young Hispanic immigrants began heading south before the nation’s economy did – a clue that what’s driving the new outmigration is a stepped-up border and workplace enforcement, not a souring US job market.

It should be noted that the group releasing the study is staunchly anti-illegal immigration, and others cited question the reasons for these numbers (the economic downturn is suspected by many).  But there does not appear to be any dispute that fewer illegals are here now than last year. 

The story repeats what has long been believed: There was a surge of illegals into the country when Congress was considering a “path to citizenship.”  When folks like us helped defeat the amnesty bill, the “undocumented workers” started to go home.

And despite the snide criticism of Chertoff and DHS, the numbers are there:

When the Senate fell short on its last vote on comprehensive immigration reform in June 2007, the takeaway message for politicians on both sides of the issue was this: Secure the borders first. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has beefed up security along the southern border and reported a spike in the deportation of illegal immigrants – 285,000 in fiscal 2007 – and nearly 100 employers of illegal workers facing jail sentences and very substantial fines, also a record.

Record enforcement numbers.  Interesting.  Who says illegals can’t be deported?

Moreover, Chertoff claims that, by the end of the year, the Border Patrol will be twice the size it was when President Bush took office.  This blog will attest to the fact that I am no fan of “Jorge” Bush (as some call him) when it comes to his immigration performance, but I am not one to ignore facts shoved in my face.

In fact, Chertoff says it’s getting better on numerous fronts:

“We’ve seen a turn of the tide in terms of illegal immigration,” he told the House Homeland Security Committee, citing a “substantial” decline in apprehension of illegal immigrants crossing the border and reports that remittances through Mexico and other countries in Central America from the US are declining.

The story notes that even immigration advocates have observed more people leaving and fewer coming.

So perhaps, like a broken clock, even Congress critters can get it right once in a while.  And to think:  All they have to do is to do nothing.

SUBJECT: LST office workplace dresscode

In response to recent inquiries, my answer is NO.

David Benzion, Publisher

Mickey Kaus over at Slate.com has been asking if the John Edwards scandal will be the first full-fledged candidate story to be covered completely on the internet as the MSM ignores it:

Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger writes:

As a member in good standing of the mainstream media, I generally tend to be skeptical of those in the blogosphere who accuse us of liberal bias.

But they sure seem to have a point with this John Edwards story.

and continues with this admission:

But this story has been ceded to the internet, where Slate’s Mickey Kaus asks, “Will this be the first presidential-contender-level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM?”

The North Carolina News & Observer has covered the Edwards scandal as has the San Jose Mercury-News. Curiously, we see nothing from the New York Times or Washington Post or any network television news division.  Draw your own conclusions about the continuing viability of such institutions.

Obama will be in town today to be welcomed to a “high dollar” fund raiser. It will be held in River Oaks. You will need to be the invited few to attend and oh, don’t forget that checkbook!

There is no word yet if he will be checking the tire pressure on the vehicles bringing him to the event or walking across the pool…

(The above is pure sarcasm. Rediscover your sense of humor and laugh a bit. OK?)

Do you support Barack Obama for president? If you do, do you ever really listen to your candidate? The rookie Senator from Illinois has dipped into his deck of race cards yet again to smear his political competition as a bunch of good ol’ white boys who don’t like “darkies.”

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

Let us ignore the fact that only George Washington appears on the dollar bill (not “all those other presidents,” Senator) and cut right to the chase. Senator Obama loves to talk about “hope” and “change,” but he constantly offers us nothing but the same trite, vapid political rhetoric that Democrats have been using for at least the last forty years. In fact, the Democrat Party is so bereft of ideas that it is a foregone conclusion that every election cycle a Democrat will make grandiose promises to voters, then try to scare them by calling a Republican a racist, insensitive monster who wants to take money from the poor so he can buy more gold toilet seats for his pasty white butt.

Where is the “change” and “hope” in all of this? The answer, if we are willing to face it, is that there is none. If we could be totally honest with ourselves, we would recognize that Senator Obama is simply a very inexperienced politician from Illinois with a lot of racist baggage (Jeremiah Wright), some nice-sounding but incredibly naïve ideas (talking with Iran), and no real-world accomplishments to speak of. He aspires to the leadership of the free world based on little more than his ability to enchant listeners as he reads from a teleprompter.

Are you willing to sell yourself to such a man as this? Is your vote so easily purchased that a nice suit, a suave speech, and some mellifluous words are all that is required to gain it? Stop reflexively hammering Republicans, put down the political bludgeon, step back from your emotions, and look at Senator Obama in a quiet light. Is he really qualified to be President of the United States?

This “racist” does not think so.

Previous Obamaudacity on LST: Typical White People

Milton Friedman was quoted in full-page ads placed by Merrill Lynch at the height of the Asian financial crisis at the end of the last century. It has been called the American century, but there are those who note it was also Friedman’s century.

“The world is ten years old. It was born when the Wall fell in 1989. It’s no surprise that the world’s youngest economy - the global economy - is still finding its bearings…Many world markets are only recently freed, governed for the first time by the emotions of the people rather than the fists of the state.. From where we sit, none of this diminishes the promise offered a decade ago by the demise of the walled-off world…The spread of free markets and democracy around the world is permitting more people everywhere to turn their aspirations into achievements. And technology, properly harnessed and liberally distributed, has the power to erase not just geographical borders but also human ones. It seems to us that, for a 10-year-old, the world continues to hold great promise. In the meantime, no one ever said growing up was easy.”

Here is the link to his famous television series, Free to Choose, based on his worldwide, best-selling book co-authored by his wife and partner, Rose.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Friedman !

The writer, author and prominent Reader’s Digest editor, Ralph Kinney Bennet, relates his encounter with a small, nerdy professor who was well into his 60s when the following occurred.

I was 29 years younger than the great economist. I played a lot of tennis then, and was in pretty good shape. Milton Friedman didn’t look frail, but he didn’t look particularly athletic either. I sized up his spindly legs, his glasses. Even in tennis whites he really looked the whole egghead thing. But I noticed that his racket looked ominously well used.

There was a clue he should have noticed earlier.

We volleyed for serve. He won with a weak shot that barely made it over the net and caught me off guard.

His serve was strong but pretty predictable. At first I thought, well, I’ll go easy on him, not make him race around, panting in front of his wife. He was in his 60s then.

Bennett, in his 30s and somewhat naive, falls for the whole act.  Not a good idea.

It dawned on me that the “weak” shot with which he had won the initial serve had been completely calculated. Now he was dropping impudent little spins masterfully over the net as I rushed futilely to get them. He had chances to rip forehands past me, but instead he directed the ball to some unexpected point in my court, making me scramble to get my racket on it.

Milton Friedman would be 96 years old today were he still with us.  This world is an immeasurably better place for his having walked upon it.  The wealthiest titans and most powerful political figures of history cannot influence its trajectory like a man with the most powerful, simple idea.

More traditional biographical posts to follow.  This is, after all, Milton Friedman Week at Lone Star Times !

Head’s up–a little birdie (with a gigantic piece of steak in its mouth) informs us that Pete Olson–Republican challenger to Democratic incumbent Nick Lampson in TX-22–will be interviewed by Edd Hendee this morning right after 8:00.

So the New York Times brings us word of supposed “Republicans” who have defected to Barack Obama.

Really?

Who are these people, I wondered.

Reaching the end of the article, I began to dig a little into the names mentioned, the first being a “Rita E. Hauser.”

Here’s what she told the New York Times:

“I really worry McCain would just continue most of these wrongheaded policies,” said Rita E. Hauser, a prominent philanthropist and former Bush fund-raiser who supports Mr. Obama. “I don’t want to become a Democrat; I just want a new direction and then a chance for the Republican Party to get back to its roots.”

In approximately 60 seconds, courtesy Google, I managed to come across this.

Ms. Hauser is an international lawyer and head of the American branch of the Tel Aviv-based International Center for Peace in the Middle East. She was a member of the Brookings Institution’s Middle East Study Group in 1975 and 1987-88 and is a former U.S. representative at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Ms. Hauser was also a U.S. delegate to the 24th U.N. General Assembly and has long been active in Republican party circles.

Fine; so far so good.

In December 1988, she led a group of American Jews in meetings with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in Stockholm and Geneva. The delegation was instrumental in Arafat’s explicit clarification that the PLO had recognized Israel, accepted Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and renounced terrorism…

Yes, clearly Ms. Hauser is a wise and discerning judge of character, whose lead on matters political should be carefully weighed and potentially followed.

I…just…can’t…resist…

How the mighty have fallen. Here’s an excerpt from a letter Hillary Clinton’s campaign wrote to supporters, asking for money to retire her campaign debt (which she largely owes to herself):

It sure is nice having a little more time on my hands, and I’d love to spend some of it with you. Would you like to join me for dinner?

During the campaign, I had the chance a few times to grab meals with supporters, but they were always rushed thanks to the frenetic pace of the campaign. This is my first chance to sit down and spend some real one-on-one time with you. If you enter today, we could be having dinner together soon!

Join me for dinner. Make a $5 contribution today.

Everyone who acts today will have the chance to join me — along with a guest — for a dinner to talk about whatever you’d like.

Let’s go to dinner! Every little bit helps, and even $5 can make a real difference. Contribute $5 now, and you and I could be enjoying a summer dinner together soon!

This makes me happy.

Alzheimer’s is a terrible disease, one that robs its victims of their very selves by degrading the brain and destroying memories both old and new. There is encouraging news from Britain that offers some hope for the future, however, in the form of a new drug to battle the disease.

The researchers say that if further tests of the drug, called Rember, are successful it could be available within four to five years.

The treatment can bring the “worst affected parts of the brain back to life” and scientists say it is twice as effective as any medication currently available.

They even suggested the drug works so well it might be given to patients in the future to prevent the onset of the illness.

The new drug works in new ways compared to existing medicines, but needs further trials to prove its safety and efficacy. Unfortunately, the early promise of this drug is tempered by the sober reality of socialized government medicine in Britain: the denial of care.

The drugs are expected to cost the same as current treatments for the illness such as Aricept, which are £2.50 [about $5] a day.

However, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) the Government’s drugs watchdog, ruled that Aricept, which has been shown to improve the memory and day-to-day life of those in the late stages of the disease, was too expensive for widespread use in Britain.

When the government runs the healthcare system, they call the shots. They determine where the money goes, what doctors you can see, and what they will pay for. They can even make it illegal for you to go outside the government-run system. If you dislike your insurance company telling you what they will or will not pay for, wait until the only choice you have, the government, denies you the drug you need. And that is not just empty rhetoric.

Terry Pratchett, the best selling author who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, disclosed earlier this year that he was being forced to pay for the [Aricept] himself.

Mr. Pratchett is fortunate enough to be able to go outside the government system (that his taxes pay for) to obtain the medicine he needs at additional cost to himself. Do you really want House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or a President Obama to give you the same “freedom?”

Much to the consternation of conspiracy theorists everywhere, World Net Daily has pronounced the non-existent secret plot to create the mythical North American Union (NAU) dead:

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is dead, says Robert A. Pastor, the American University professor who for more than a decade has been a major proponent of building a North American Community.

“The new president will probably discard the SPP,” Pastor wrote in an article titled “The Future of North America,” published in the current July/August issue of the Council on Foreign Relations magazine Foreign Affairs.

The SPP, which critics contend is a step toward a North American Union, is an agreement to increase cooperation on security and economic issues signed by the leaders of the U.S., Mexico and Canada in 2005. Despite having no authorization from Congress, the Bush administration launched extensive working-group activity to implement the agreement. The working groups – ranging from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration – have counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

“The April summit meeting was probably the last hurrah for the SPP,” Pastor wrote, referring to the fourth annual SPP meeting held in April in New Orleans.

But don’t put those zircon-encrusted tin foil hats in the attic just yet. It appears those behind the plot to form a more perfect NAU continue by indoctrinating the next generation:

Pastor also encouraged creating a dozen university centers for North American studies “to educate a new generation of students to think North American.”

WND reported on the fourth annual North American Model Parliament held this year in Montreal, Canada, for 100 university students from the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

‘Cuz we got East Texas Congressmen like Louie Gohmert who introduce bills like this–

HR 6615 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session

To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 24, 2008

Mr. GOHMERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Giving Inmate Terrorists More Opportunities (GITMO) Act of 2008’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion styled Boumediene v. Bush on June 12, 2008.

(2) Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the court’s majority opinion, held that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts.

(3) This is an obvious effort on the part of the Supreme Court to micromanage the detainment and disposition of detainees in the War on Terror who are dedicated to destroying innocent people and the American way of life.

(4) The United States Supreme Court clearly needs increased opportunity to oversee the handling of the enemy combatants, as it has seen fit to take a greater role in managing the Global War on Terror, which is a duty previously exercised by the Executive Branch.

(5) There can be no better way for the United States Supreme Court to exercise its new self-appointed war powers than to house the prisoners whom it has taken a greater role in overseeing.

SEC. 3. TRANSPORTATION AND DETAINMENT OF ENEMY COMBATANTS.

(a) Transportation- The Secretary of Defense shall immediately transport all enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, DC, where the United States Supreme Court shall hold the prisoners on the Court grounds, confined by adequate fencing.

(b) Shelter on Supreme Court Building Grounds- The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, is directed to provide shelter for the detainees outside the United States Supreme Court building, but on the building grounds. The Secretary of Defense shall provide guards to watch over the prisoners and shall implement a system to ensure that the prisoners receive the appropriate amount of food and water. Should the detainees need the use of restroom facilities, they shall use the facilities inside the United States Supreme Court building. The Chief Justice, if the Chief Justice so chooses, may perform the duties of Justice Anthony Kennedy under this subsection.

(c) Guard Duty- If any of the nine Supreme Court justices desire at any time to stand guard over the prisoners, or to provide the prisoners with their meals or water, or both, then the justices shall be permitted to perform these functions whenever they want.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

If either the Secretary of Defense or any justice of the Supreme Court refuses to carry out their duties under this Act, then their respective department or court shall receive funding for the next fiscal year at half the level of funding appropriated for the current fiscal year, or until such time as the Supreme Court no longer desires to micromanage the prisoners who have sworn to destroy our way of life.

Contributions to the Louis Gohmert campaign may be made here.

The intense feelings of many regarding the Ramos & Compean affair have led to a strange amalgam of outrage, confusion and, at times, misinformation. Some blog comments have bordered on hysteria, and certain “factoids” are likely to become part of the mythology of the case. Heels are firmly dug in and, barring some sort of spectacular new revelation, both sides seem destined to forever talk – make that yell – past each other.

Yesterday’s unanimous opinion by a respected three-judge panel of the venerable United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ignited the latest rhetorical conflagration, with a new twist – now the accomplished judges at the Fifth Circuit are in on the fix. There is no evidence of this, of course, but passion frequently trumps reason in the blogosphere.

Which makes it an opportune time to review some of the claims and beliefs attendant to this phenomenon which, for many, have become articles of faith.

THE BUGABOO JUDGES

Who are these men who, with the malevolent facility of a judicial Kim Philby, surely slipped silently into the back alleys of New Orleans to receive their marching orders from – well, somebody? If the shrill accusations of some in the last day or so are to be considered, they must be small and seedy men indeed.

Let’s see.

The elder statesman of the panel, and author of the opinion now decried by supporters of Ramos & Compean, is E. Grady Jolly of Mississippi, with 26 years of service on the Fifth Circuit, and who was nominated by President Reagan in 1982. In the 1960s, Judge Jolly served as a trial attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Mississippi, and a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice tax division in Washington. He then engaged in private practice for 23 years before President Reagan called him back into service as a federal appeals court judge. He has moderated conferences at meetings of the conservative Federalist Society. One of his comments at the December oral arguments – suggesting that prosecutors might have “overreacted” – was a primary basis for many incautious observers to wrongly assume the convictions would be reversed.

Judge Patrick Higginbotham, an Alabama native, also has 26 years as an appellate judge. He served in the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps in the 1960s before spending 11 years practicing trial and appellate law in Dallas, where he also taught Constitutional Law at Southern Methodist University. In 1975, Judge Higginbotham was nominated by President Ford to a seat on the United States District Court to replace Sarah T. Hughes (the judge who swore LBJ in as President after the assassination of John Kennedy). The appointment made him the youngest sitting federal judge in the country. Seven years later, President Reagan nominated Judge Higginbotham to the Fifth Circuit, where he assumed senior status in 2006. In 2002, Judge Higginbotham was honored by the American Inns of Court in a ceremony at the U.S. Supreme Court, hosted by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He has lectured at the Universities of Alabama, Chicago, Texas, Texas Tech, Columbia, Duke, and Penn, as well as Case Western, Northwestern, Utah, Loyola, Hofstra, the National Science Foundation, The American College of Trial Lawyers and the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.

The “youngster” of the panel, Edward Charles Prado, is a San Antonio native who was appointed to the federal trial bench by President Reagan in 1984, where he served 19 years before being nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President George W. Bush. Judge Prado is a University of Texas Law School graduate, and in the 1970s served as an Assistant D.A. in Bexar County and an assistant federal public defender in the Western District of Texas. In 1980, he became a state court judge in San Antonio, and was nominated by President Reagan (isn’t it interesting that the conservative icon was instrumental in the careers of all three men?) to the post of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, where he served for three years before being elevated to the federal bench by Reagan. Via appointment by Chief Justice Rehnquist, he served as the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Act Review Committee from 1991-1993. He also served 17 years in the U.S. Army Reserve. In 2005, Judge Prado was promoted by some as a “moderate” to replace retiring Sandra Day O’Conner on the United States Supreme Court.

Further recitation would be futile. The Judges’ own backgrounds and distinguished service are a sufficient response to baseless and scurrilous claims that they were somehow corrupted into rendering an unjust opinion by nefarious and conspiratorial forces straight out of an Oliver Stone movie.

I am content to weigh the stellar careers of these three honorable men against the credibility and credentials of their attackers.

MYTHS, NON-SEQUITURS AND DOGGED DETERMINATION

After the assassination of President Kennedy, an essential element of “proof” of a conspiracy was the “fact” that the President’s motorcade route had been changed to incorporate an awkward and difficult turn, with the effect of slowing the car to a crawl and rendering the helpless President a sitting duck to his assassins (3? 5? 15? The CTs still can’t agree). There was a single problem with this “fact”: it wasn’t true.

Though repeatedly debunked by indisputable documentary evidence, it was too late. It had become enshrined – one of those articles of faith – in assassination lore, and is erroneously repeated in conspiracy book after conspiracy book.

I wonder if the same will become of claims in the Ramos & Compean matter. I will say it is certainly encouraging to see more and more R&C supporters actually reading the record and moderating their stances from some of the extremely inaccurate early allegations. But, as with most “movements,” there is certain to be a cadre of true believers who have long since reached their conclusions (often eschewing any pesky research and relying on pronouncements of others) and are not to be confused with facts.

What progress has been made, and what will be made? (Page references are to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, linked here.)

The Jury Was Not Informed Davila Was a Drug Runner – This was an early misconception and, in all fairness, was not perpetrated by those who studied the record, but by those who had only half an ear for the truth. In fact, the jury was made quite aware of what was happening on the night of the incident. “Although he denied knowing the exact quantity of the drugs he was carrying, Aldrete-Davila admitted that he was aware that he was transporting drugs and that he was committing a serious offense.” (Opinion, p. 14.) Moreover, the jury knew of the substantial size of the shipment Davila was smuggling. To argue, as R&C did, that they were prejudiced because the precise weight and value of the drugs was not made known strains credulity: “Aldrete-Davila’s admission of the seriousness of the offense and the evidence of the size of the load demonstrated the point that the defendants were attempting to show by this further evidence.” (P. 14.)

This article of faith has been refined to suggest that defense lawyers should have been able to cross-examine Davila on his later arrests for drug offenses (R&C had no evidence of prior criminal conduct to present, p. 16) to cast doubt on his credibility and to somehow prove he really did have a weapon on the night he was shot.

There is much appeal to this argument; but insistence that this evidence is the Rosetta Stone to the exoneration of R&C surely overstates the case. First, as noted, the jury was quite aware that Davila was no choir boy; it is certainly debatable whether more evidence of his badness would have tipped the scales (notwithstanding the statements of some jurors that they would have decided things differently if they had known this thing or that – I can personally attest that such is a common theme of jurors who learn excluded facts after the case is over.) Second, and something that, regrettably, seems insignificant to critics of the court, is that trials are governed by rules of procedure and evidence, honed over hundreds of years of human experience in the American legal system, and informed by hundreds of years more of the English common law. Not just any evidence comes in at trial. There are rules governing hearsay, inefficiency, confusion and prejudice, all designed to prevent circus trials and irrational results. And the Fifth Circuit addressed this succinctly with respect to the “subsequent” incidents involving Davila. The court noted that the trial judge, through long-established legal principle, has much discretion as gatekeeper of the evidence; here, there was a risk that focus on unrelated matters would turn this into a “trial within a trial,” divert the attention from the case at hand, confuse the jury and prejudice the conduct of the trial. (Pp. 26-27.)

Moreover, much to the chagrin of many, even scumbags have Constitutional rights, and Davila was entitled to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as his plea agreement did not protect him from prosecution for crimes occurring after the fateful night. (P. 15.) In addition, the court reasoned that evidence of a subsequent incident of drug-running (without proof he was armed) “is not particularly probative of his drug-related experiences eight months earlier and does not show him more likely to have possessed a weapon when fleeing from the van in February. It certainly does not directly contradict any of Aldrete-Davila’s testimony.” (P. 26.) In sum, R&C’s lawyers and a number of outspoken lay critics charge that the exclusion of this evidence violated the agents’ Sixth Amendment rights, while the veteran panel of appellate judges found otherwise.

The Jury Did Not Know of Davila’s Plea Agreement – Another early misstatement by some, this, of course, is wrong. “The plea agreement and its details were made known to the jury.” (P. 16.) The proposition that the jury was not adequately informed of Davila’s perfidy is dubious indeed.

The Only Evidence Against the Agents Was the Testimony of the Bad Guy – This is a particularly troubling myth that seems still to linger despite the record. In fact, there was substantial evidence against the agents – including testimony of other agents and R&C’s own admission of wrongdoing in meddling with the evidence.

Aldrete-Davila’s own testimony, the behavior of the defendants after the shooting, and the inconsistent testimony offered by both defendants and other Border Patrol agents allowed the jury to conclude that the defendants faced no credible threat and, consequently, there was no justification for their firing upon Aldrete-Davila. (P. 44)

Further, there is a stubborn insistence by some bordering on the proposition that a jury simply should not have been allowed to believe anything Davila said because he was a drug-runner. To extend the Oliver Stone-JFK references, this brings to mind the comment by Kevin Costner’s district attorney character: “I always wondered in court why it is because a woman is a prostitute, she has to have bad eyesight.” There is no rule of law that holds one in Davila’s position is incapable of telling the truth. It is well known that prosecutors often resort to the testimony of shady characters, under grants of immunity, to win convictions of other criminals, as illustrated by the case of mobster “Sammy The Bull” Gravano, whose testimony brought down the infamous John Gotti and a number of other underworld figures. It is curious that many R&C supporters spend little time wondering why a jury would believe a known-drug runner over the agents.

The Agents Were Improperly Charged Under the “Gun” Law – This belief may be more aptly characterized as argument or opinion than as myth. As the Fifth Circuit noted, the application of Section 924(c) depends on whether Davila was shot without lawful justification. Unfortunately for R&C, it is now an adjudicated fact that they acted illegally. “Whether the defendants were justified in shooting Aldrete-Davila is an issue no longer in play after the jury verdict that rejected the defendants’ versions of the facts.” (P. 28.) Further, the court noted that R&C could present no legal support for their claim that this statute should not be applied to one using a gun in a violent crime if that one happens to wear a badge. (R&C also argued the indictment on this ground was fatally defective because it referred to “discharge” of a weapon while the statute referred to “use” of a weapon; not surprisingly, that hair-splitting did not impress the court.)

Other Assorted Myths, Mistakes and Canards – We were repeatedly told that the trial judge was a hack government functionary doing all she could to railroad the agent, and committing serious error after error. In fact, according to the unanimous panel, she ran a remarkably clean trial, committing no major errors. There is also the continued allegation that Johnny Sutton and his henchmen suborned perjury. Like the innuendo that the Fifth Circuit judges were manipulated, there is simply no proof to support this – that is, there is no proof that Sutton’s office knowingly solicited and sponsored perjured testimony. Conceding, after the fact, that a witness had lied on the stand is a far cry from proving the prosecutor orchestrated it in advance. If I am wrong, and there is evidence of subornation, then I will immediately join in the call for indictments. But I will not engage in the mob mentality that something just “had” to be.

Finally, there is the monumentally irresponsible – and just plain silly – notion that we should conduct our trials based on amorphous concepts such as “common knowledge,” as in “it’s common knowledge that drug dealers carry guns,” and “it’s common knowledge that you cannot believe anything a criminal says.” This philosophy would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous to our system of justice. Just a few decades ago, many folks considered it “common knowledge” that all black people were lazy. We do not try cases with hearsay, innuendo, intuition, prejudice and opinion – we require facts and evidence. This is a government of laws, not of men, and to abandon that principle to justify an end in a given case is to show contempt for and ignorance of the workings of the best judicial system in the world.

JURY, JURY, WHO NEEDS A JURY, or, WHAT’S WRONG WITH ACTIVIST JUDGES ANYWAY?

More than half a dozen times the Fifth Circuit panel reminded us that the resolution of factual disputes is for a jury, and the jury resolved those disputes against the defendants. (Pp. 2, 28, 28 n. 12, 28 n. 13, 30, 32-33, 44.) Being judged by fellow citizens, and not by a King or Dictator, is a celebrated element of our democratic freedoms. A jury’s judgment is not lightly to be disturbed by an appellate court, and certainly not by frustrated and angry partisans.

Ironically, many of the champions of the border patrol agents seem willing to flit between philosophies, depending on whose ox is being gored. Many of the conservatives demanding a reversal of the jury’s findings are the same people who will rail against “activist judges” who set aside convictions of less palatable defendants, or strike down statutes duly enacted by popularly-elected legislators or the people themselves. This seems like intellectual inconsistency to me, but it apparently has the virtue of suiting the purpose of the moment.

Next Page »