By Nathan Barton
The Washington Times reports that the infamous Nazgul of the 9th Circuit Court have decided that a Border Patrol agent who shot and killed a sixteen-year-old male in Mexico while shooting from Arizona did NOT have immunity, for the murder, in a civil suit brought by the dead youth’s mother.
Cross his line… or don’t!
The case is disgusting and an example of the arrogance of federal agents and agencies, and the disgusting behavior of our court system, including both judges and juries. Shooting across the border in claimed self-defense against a crowd throwing rocks at him, the killer apparently hit the Mexican youth TEN times.
(That is amazing, given the usual ability to shoot of too many federal and local cops, who can turn a car into Swiss cheese with hundreds of shots fired, and only hit their victim a couple or half-dozen times.)
A federal jury in Arizona acquitted the killer of second-degree murder, but deadlocked on lesser manslaughter charges. A retrial is scheduled for this Fall. Meanwhile, the mom sought (a la OJ Simpson, I guess) to win civil damages from the agent under federal law, of acting under color of authority to deny someone their Constitutional rights. Especially due process. The youth (claimed by several to not be part of the stone-throwing crowd), was tried, sentenced and executed by the federal thug. Just as hundreds of Americans are, inside the borders of the Fifty States, each year.
The agent claimed immunity because the Mexican kid was not IN one of the Fifty States (or some other colony of DC), when he was killed. In essence, the kid did not have any constitutional rights (much less rights from the Declaration of Independence). (You know, life, liberty, and all that?)
So the 9th Circuit followed precedent and has, again (along with other courts), stated that even non-Americans OUTSIDE of American jurisdiction have the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. (The case is Rodriguez v Swartz, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-16410.)
Now we have lots of people crowing over how that is going to squash Trump’s efforts to get rid of DACA and not be able to build a wall and “militarize” the borders, and a lot of other junk.
Do they think that this ruling will do all that? Even stop some other border patrol thug, other federal law enforcer, or even the Barney Fife-wantabe from gunning down some other poor person? Really? They are totally clueless.
I expect the guy to get nothing more than what the sniper at Ruby Ridge, the arsonists at Waco, or a hundred other killers in blue or back uniforms get. A free ride.
(Indeed, earlier today, I head about the two Sheriff’s goons in Louisiana, who back in October choked a man to death to pull him off his tractor because he dared to ask to see the warrant they had for his arrest. He was killed for trespassing, some time before they tried to arrest him. They got off scot-free.)
But just imagine if this ruling were really applied on its face? Gareth suggested that this means that ANY and ALL non-US citizens, resident OUTside the Fifty States, are able to exercise all rights protected in the Bill of Rights. We know (under various court decisions) that it is not just federal agents that are supposed to not infringe on our rights. It applies to state and local thugs as well. It even applies to Tribal goons. And after all, they are “sovereign,” even if in a special relationship with the FedGov. (Kinda like Israel, or the UK? Dunno.)
Why should it not be understood to apply to agents and officials of ANY government? And why not to ANY right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? For instance, a German official trying to steal a German’s right of free speech while enforcing their dragonian “no Nazi symbols” laws? Or an Aussie being denied the right to arms by a thug in New South Wales? Or even a poor Honduran border-jumper who gets booted back after sneaking into Mexico?
In essence, this ruling, if applied honestly and fairly, makes the FedGov the sworn enemy of virtually every other state and government on the planet – and maybe even in the universe. Sworn? After all, don’t all these FedGov types, from the Prez on down, swear (or affirm) an oath to “uphold” the Constitution? Doesn’t “uphold” include “enforce?”
This might be just what the Neo-Cons and the Tranzis and (according to all the Trump-haters), Trump himself needs as an excuse to go ahead and declare the other 194 countries criminals and enemies of the FedGov – and fair game. Wow, ‘Merica really IS the ruler of the Universe!
Of course, a lot of us might be content to have someone enforce the concept that Americans have constitutional right INSIDE the Fifty States. But that is probably too much to expect.
The Price of Liberty 
Beau, my apologies for not posting this comment of yours in a timely manner. Apparently my clicker finger didn’t work properly.
Another correspondent posted that the State of Israel receives checks from Uncle Sugar for their defense and other expenses of more than $23,000 per Israeli family – haven’t confirmed it, but if so, no wonder they want to be our “friend.” Obviously, “follow the dollars” but especially to see how many and to whom those dollars come BACK from Canaan to the Fifty States.
That said, Israel is a nation with a government, and so from the principles of liberty, was never a good actor to begin with. All its actions do (like that of the FedGov and HM Governments and the Russians and anyone else) is further blacken its name.
But my point here is that US Nazgul seem to be stating that the Constitution applies universally, and therefore the FedGov can (and SHOULD) act universally: against both friends and foes. After all, if Eisenhower could send troops to force Arkansas to allow black students into white high schools, then should not Gaza Arabs be backed by US troops in attending Israeli high schools? And if Oregon florists should be made by the courts to do bouquets for homosexual ceremonies, should not Egyptian and Pakistani florists be made to do the same?
LikeLike
“Of course, a lot of us might be content to have someone enforce the concept that Americans have constitutional right INSIDE the Fifty States. But that is probably too much to expect.”
it is, indeed, too much to expect, especially from the 9th circuit, that lunatic bin that apparently requires dyslexia, hatred of America and tyrannical ideation among its own as precursors to being placed as a ‘judge’ in that perversion of justice stronghold.
as an aside, all the talk of ‘civil war’ (as if any war is ‘civil’) is absolute lunacy, but, then, the historically challenged (virtually all ‘citizens’) have no concept of what such a cataclysm will usher in. it would be infinitely better to simply acknowledge the truth – our divisions cannot be remedied – and divorce/separation be undertaken, than the lunacy put forth by those exhorting such a course.
further, those advocating a civil war have obviously failed to ask themselves the one question they should: who will we get to fight a civil war in our stead, as we have done before, always? THEY will be on the front lines, rather than other people’s children, as has always been the case. in the end, this fact, ie, those fomenting the civil war being on the front lines and actually having to participate in what they have started, will be the only ‘positive’ to such an event.
LikeLike
Dear Beau:
I am sorry you feel so constrained about expressing your true lack of regard and frustration with the 9th Circus Nazgul. As long as you can avoid the profanity (which sadly is such a temptation when dealing with these clowns in black), feel free to express the real depth of your feelings about the “justice” cabal.
As for the aside about “civil war” (a misnomer on both Mama Liberty and I had/have strong opinions), we shall have to explore that theme in greater depth in a different commentary. You’ve very much triggered some thoughts!
LikeLike
we know the ‘civil war’ was no such thing, as the south did NOT want to take over the federal leviathan, only to escape from it. therefore, the ‘civil war’ as a name to that conflagration was a lie. unfortunately, but expected, everything relating to that conflagration afterward was a lie, as well.
‘history is written by the victors’ is a truism that certainly applies to the American ‘Civil War’.
LikeLike
SOUNDS like you would take to task Israeli’s who shoot Palestinians for similar; of course, if you wait to see if something thrown shall explode, when you have the answer, TOO LATE! Of note, people who throw rocks at cars and through windows here are likely to face Felony charges, if not defensive fire, so, there it is.
LikeLike
I would take to task ANYone who responds inappropriately and excessively to acts of violence. I think a critical part of non-aggression (zero aggression) is appropriate response. (You are unlikely to convince me that shooting a six-year-old who trespasses on your property or attacks you with his fists is acceptable. But might be acceptable response for a sixteen-year-old six-foot football player trespasser or a thirty-year-old attacker with a club. And I would certainly argue that both criminal and civil court proceedings are appropriate for an Israeli trooper who shoots a stone-throwing Palestinian (or Orthodox) – to determine the truth of the incident. Which is apropos to this situation: several witnesses to the incident (maybe or maybe not believable) claim that the youth shot was not even involved in the stone throwing, yet was specifically targeted (ten rounds through his body?) by the border patrol guy. I agree with you about defensive fire, but have serious doubts if those ten shots can really be understood to be defensive fire. Was there a serious possibility that one of the stones was actually a grenade? Probably not. But again, that is a matter for juries.
I appreciate your comments and this discussion, but don’t let us distract ourselves from my point/conclusion: American courts seem to be stating that the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights apply universally. It is a bold claim, and leads to many interesting (and not necessarily desirable) results. If an American border patrolman is not immune from civil legal action, then, could not the relative of a Palestinian shot by an Israeli soldier ALSO not file a case in an American court? If there is jurisdiction as this court ruling seems to state?
LikeLike
israelis routinely shoot palestinians demonstrating for some semblance of a human existence, but, since israel is a friend of the u. s., there are no consequences to such atrocities.
what ‘friends’ do, even those who sink our warships and kill our sailors, is not important and should be kept from the public. on the other hand, what ‘enemies’ do should be considered, expanded and propagandized.
LikeLike