Ramos/Compean: Darryl Fears, "angry conservatives", and possible distortion

Darryl Fears of the Washington Post offers "Support Swells for Agents Who Shot Drug Smuggler: Conservatives Lead Movement to Free Ex-Border Patrolmen". His report seems to contain errors.

First, it starts like this:

Early this week, the Bush administration urged angry conservatives to remain calm over the convictions of two former Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler, but petitions for their release continued to flood the White House.

Later on, he reveals that Sen. Dianne Feinstein "promised to look into the matter", and the American Federation of Government Employees will "speak with one voice" against the convictions. I don't know about the AFGE, but most people wouldn't put Feinstein in the "angry conservative" camp.


After the shooting, the agents collected all shell casings at the scene, threw them away and did not mention the shooting to superiors, a violation of Border Patrol procedures that call for an oral report after a weapon is discharged, according to the report and court records.

As far as I know, supervisors were on the scene or knew about the incident, which seems to indicate that the requirements for an "oral report" had been met. Also, I recall that the complaint from U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton was that a written report hadn't been made, but only supervisors - and thus not Ramos or Compean - can make such reports.


Investigators granted immunity to Aldrete-Davila to lure him back across the border. The story he told was corroborated by other officers at the scene, the report said.

Those statements may contradict the facts of the matter; OAD might have been presented to the U.S. by the Mexican consulate. Note also that a few of the agents on the scene have since been fired.

Then, Fears refers to Rep. Ted Poe (Tex.), Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.) as "[a]ngry congressional Republicans". Were they scowling as well?

I'm hardly an expert on the case, but parts of Fears' report are misleading at best. Please contact the WaPo's ombudsman and suggest they do more research: projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/deborah+howell/


It is true that the British and Papal forces are locked in
struggle. But it is also important to realise who their partners are,
even if the partnership have cracks. The British are aligned with the
Jewish, Byzantine and Hindu forces. The Papal forces are aligned
with the Islamic and Confucian forces.

Cromwell brought back Britain's Jews and made them loyal to the
British agenda. America's Puritans were also aligned with the Jews.
Disraeli made Israel part of the British agenda. Jefferson and
Franklin were instructed by a Greek named Paradise how to write the
Constituion and set up universities loyal to the Greek agenda.
Byzantines have a politburo called "Archons" to which even Gorbachev
belongs. The Byzantine forces have control over Russia as well as the
old Alexandrian hegemonies of Egypt and Syria. This is why Greek
shippers control Arab and Russian oil. Greek shippers shipped slaves
to America which were captured by Arabs and their African allies.
Greek-born British Prince Philip has reverted to Orthodox Christianity
in his old-age. All the money in India is in Orthodox Christian,
Zorastrian or Jewish hands. As the USA is moving towards a Papal
majority, the British hegemony is moving jobs to India, which is more
likely to be aligned with British interests.

The Papacy always had good ties to Islam, not just because of
abortion. The Papacy has always used Islam and Confucianism against
their enemies. Marco Polo reopened ties to China, which they saw as a
counterforce to Byzantium and Russia. Even when Muhammad was alive,
the Papacy wanted to use Islam to destabilize Byzantium. The Pope
opposed any action against Saddam because Tariq Aziz was a Papal
Chaldean. Hitler was a Papal altar boy and was aligned with Islam and