Myth vs Fact-Part 36

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	4:91 You will find others that wish to have security from you and security from their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation, they yield thereto. If they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear warrant against them. Tafsir: 1

Sphere: Related Content

Border Agents Were Charged With 'Non-Existent Crime'

Cross-posted by Snooper

They are JUST NOW figuring this out? Haven't WE been saying this EXACT thing since the news broke way back when? Judas Priest! Some people's kids! Read the Cybercast blurb and then, at the bottom, there is a short reference to Judicial Watch's "findings".

Two Border Patrol agents whose prosecution and sentences to lengthy prison terms triggered a political storm this year may have been charged with a "non-existent crime," according to a legal brief submitted to a federal appeals court in May, and obtained by Cybercast News Service.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively for shooting and wounding a Mexican national who was trying to escape after attempting to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana across the Mexico-Texas border in February 2005.

Although they were convicted on 11 counts, the crime carrying the lengthiest penalty was for the "discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence," a violation of section 924(c)(1)(a) of the U.S. Code. It carries a minimum 10-year prison sentence.

Cybercast News Service obtained a copy of an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") legal brief filed by Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), and Ted Poe (R-Texas) in the former agents' appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.

They accuse the prosecution of "creating a purported criminal offense never enacted into law by Congress," and of charging Ramos and Compean with a "non-existent crime."

Simply discharging a firearm near a violent crime is not illegal, the brief argued, saying the law they were convicted under is not a law at all, but a sentencing factor used to help a jury determine jail time after a conviction.

The brief cited several cases as precedent, including United States v. Barton in which the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that "discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence" could be used only as a sentencing factor, not as an element of a conviction. In Harris v. United States, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling.

The brief argued that, for a 10-year sentence, a defendant must be convicted under the specific terms laid out in section 924(c)(1)(a) (see section).

This provision is applicable, the section says, to "any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm ..." If, and only if, these conditions apply can a defendant be sentenced to ten years in prison for the "discharge" of a firearm.

The brief argued that the shooting of drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was not "in relation to" the drug crime because Ramos and Compean were themselves not participants in the drug crime.

Furthermore, Border Patrol Agents are authorized to carry and use firearms as law enforcement officers.

"By narrowing the issue to the discharge of the firearm," the brief said, "the prosecution and the trial court actions adversely affected the fairness of the entire trial, depriving defendants of any opportunity to present to the jury that they were using and carrying their firearms during and in relation to their employment as Border Agents."

The brief also criticized the prosecution.

"The criminal code cannot be treated by the prosecution as a legal chameleon, changing elements to fit the circumstances of the case that the government, in its discretion, wants to present to the judge and jury," it said.

One of the brief's authors, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners for America, told Cybercast News Service that this case could set an alarming precedent under which any law enforcement officer who fired a gun at the scene of a drug crime could be prosecuted under Section 924(c).

He also criticized U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the lead prosecutor in the case.

"What [Sutton] was apparently trying to do is avoid the little detail that there was no underlying crime of carrying a gun because [Ramos and Compean] were authorized to carry guns," Pratt said. "So I think he tried to slide around and use the sentencing provision as an underlying crime."

'Perverse'

Rep. Jones conceded in a statement that Ramos and Compean may have been guilty of violating Border Patrol policy by shooting Aldrete-Davila and failing to file a subsequent report.

But Jones also blasted Sutton, saying the prosecutor "had no business charging [Ramos and Compean] with a crime that Congress clearly designed to apply only to the individuals who are possessing, using, or carrying firearms for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime - not to federal law enforcement agents."

"How perverse it is that this statute is now being used against law enforcement officers who were trying to stop drug trafficking," he added.

Sutton told the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 17 that it was his trial team that made the decision to bring the "discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence" charge, and that he was not consulted on the issue.

"We have a deliberative process that goes on inside our office that I cannot describe," he said.

Sutton could not be reached for comment, and his spokeswoman said she did not think anyone else in the office would comment on the brief until it responds to the appeal in early August.

Asked about the appeal, Pratt said he was worried that it may be denied because the cited evidence had not been presented previously.

"The thing that concerns me most is that, because [the alleged misuse of Section 924(c)] wasn't brought up at the first trial, the Fifth Circuit Court could play legal games and say, well, too bad," he said.

Still, Pratt described himself as "hopeful" and warned that Sutton's tactics would eventually catch up with him.

"[Sutton] can only hide in the tall grass for so long and, Lord willing, the lawnmower's on the way in," he said.

Was U.S.-Mexico Deal Behind Border Patrol Convictions?

Judicial Watch was in federal court this week in its ongoing effort to obtain potentially damaging information from the U.S. government regarding Mexico’s role in the conviction of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot an illegal immigrant drug smuggler.

Just days after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing over the veteran agents’ controversial imprisonment, Judicial Watch was in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to ask a judge to force the government to release the documents relating to the 2005 incident.

In January Judicial Watch filed a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with three federal agencies—Homeland Security, Department of Justice and State Department—but none has bothered to respond so Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit and a judge ordered this week’s hearing.

Sphere: Related Content

America's Moral Paralysis

From The Washington Post

By THOMAS SOWELL
July 27, 2007 --

THE term "moral paralysis" has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the '30s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing - and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him. Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today - "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain - wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own - when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 - three years before World War II began - when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.
Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation. Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly - or not at all - toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the U.N. to do anything that would make any real difference. The U.N.'s history demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

Dean

Sphere: Related Content

Coming To America?

Until Islam is eradicated and purged from the world, it will remain a problem.

The Rape of Europe
By Paul Belien

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch Newspaper "DeVolkskrant" that young Europeans who love Freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will not exist twenty years from now.

While sitting on a terrace in Berlin , Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said, "We are watching the world of yesterday."

Europe is turning Muslim.

As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate.

"I am too old," he said. However, he urged young people to get out and "move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable."

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder's advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic.

Just consider the demographics.

- The number of Muslims in Contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million.

- It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of All European children will be born to Muslim families.

- Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for newborn boys in Brussels , Amsterdam, Rotterdam , and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose Islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated.

"She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

In a recent Op-Ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van Den Boogaard refers to Broder's interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness."

"I am not a Warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Consider that in all of Europe no one under the age of 65 has picked up arms in defense of their country. That task has been borne by the United States since Hitler surrendered in 1945.

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month's American Spectator: "Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not Working." But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children.

Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means "submission" and the secularists have submitted already.

Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U. S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary Anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism.

People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European "Islamophobes" who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (Islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be Red rather than dead.

Europeans apparently never read John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse."


Dean

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 35

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	4:84 Then fight (O Muhammad) in the Cause of Allâh, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you), it may be that Allâh will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allâh is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing. Tafsir: 1 2 3

Sphere: Related Content