Typhoid

oh no. There is a huge difference in the training and mission focus that is driving this. actually - promotion opportunity for strategic guys in the bomber and missile wings has never been better. The reason for that, of course, is the longevity in the position only lasting to the next "assist" visit.......... This is huge and long, long overdue. For those of us who have ever been involved in the nuclear business - the recent failures in security, procedures, accountability, etc., were beyond shocking. this has been very badly needed. of course - the Navy came up clean and green on its inspections..............

on which net? at one time they still used that callsign after going to the E-6B. I don't know what they are doing now.

is that because war is merely their hobby? its a JOKE guys!!!!

I'm pretty sure the airborne battle staff still retains that callsign.

ah! glad to be of service! and you and C5 do raise very good points about the trial.

"I won't even bother to debunk the carrier/lighthouse story.... " I think that's the 439th version I've heard of that one..........

"The mantra that someone lied and an oath was violated rings hollow to anyone who has already walked the walk of being on the line with unrealistic expectations. " you don't think I've been out there?

ah. no, actually we didn't. We bought some specific Migs to keep them off the market or for evaluation. We never established an actual Mig agressor squadron.

couldn't agree more, my friend. but by proceedings, I meant the actual legal proceedings.

Brasil bought Flankers for agressor training?

that is absolutely my point. I do agree, having said the above, the court proceedings in such a case must ALSO be held to the highest, and higher, standard as well. So I do agree and have said that the proceedings should have an independent review. It was, however, upheld on appeal so that review has been done. Not sure where this proceeding should go at this point. Buried perhaps......

on that, we will have to agree to disagree. I yield my five minutes to the Gentleman from Tennessee

har de har har sadly - point taken...............

the prosecution focused on the wrong charges. In that, we agree. But in the course of the trial it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they tampered with evidence and deliberately filed a false report. That was quite probably a key factor in the jury convicting them. besides shooting the drug runner in the @$$, they shot themselves in the foot with a howitzer. that is what got them convicted. no matter what you might say about how screwed up the prosecution was - you cannot avoid that clear and undisputed fact clearly proven in a court of law - as sworn officers of the law, they tampered with evidence and filed a false report. That is an unpardonable sin as a sworn officer.

well, no. I am adhering to the no politics rule here. I am quite willing to engage in a political debate and do so quite regularly. Just not here.

we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I am very much involved in trying to fix one of the parties, at least here on the local and state level, and work with my Congressman to feed him point papers and position recommendations. but we are drifting into a political dogfight so I will disengage on this line of discussion.

no. That was all evidence presented in court and cross examined. There is no dispute that they filed a false report and attempted to hide their shell casings, which is tampering with evidence. The "witness who may not be credible" is the Border Patrol Agent who blew the whistle on them for failing to report the gunfight and filing a false report. I agree that the prosecution was flawed and the sentencing was out of line. I do not agree that these guys are blameless and should be treated as heroes.

not sure what you mean by your first comment. In my view - the tampering with evidence is what they should have been charged with. That was part of the trial and presented in court. Its not really in dispute. to some extent, I agree. But that is why the opposition is gearing up for the fight and why I spend too much of my free time engaged in some of those activities - to stop this insanity and ensure we get the right people - regardless of party - into elected positions.

ok. First link is the USDOJ fact file on the case which, of course, is the US Attorney's view of the situation. We can view this with some skeptisism, I won't argue that. In this; http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releas..._factsheet1.pdf you will find the key point; "In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false." (I've added the bold print) from the Wall Street Journal; http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009579 the key paragraph; "So Compean and another agent returned to the scene to gather shell casings and discard them in a drainage ditch. Compean and Ramos, who'd been disciplined for past conduct unbecoming a federal officer, then filed a false report. The only reason their cover-up didn't succeed is because an honest border agent who learned of the shooting eventually reported it." That's where I have a problem with these guys. These guys are not the blameless heroes they've been portrayed as. I agree there are issues with the prosecution and with the specific charges filed against them. But I have a big, big problem with tampering with evidence and filing false reports. I've seen guys hung for that, and have hung one or two myself back in the day. When we start giving a free pass for this kind of abuse, then we are headed down a dark, dark road to tyranny. In my view, no pardon is justified.

"I can see you're taking advice from the North Korean police." and the Gestapo, KGB, NKVD, etc., etc., etc....................

Open Source -- Enjoy, but RWAGOS ----------- February 19, 2009: Although French and British navy officials announced on February 16th that two of their SSBNs, the French Le Triomphant and the British Vanguard, had collided with each other on February 4th, no more details were given. While the British have remained tight lipped, French officials have relented under media pressure, and made several interesting revelations (some openly, others "off the record.") First, the February 6th French announcement that the Le Triomphant had collided with some unknown underwater object, causing some damage to its sonar dome, was not a deliberate deception. At the time, the crew did not know what they had hit, and assumed that it was a cargo container, floating underwater after having fallen off a ship. It's a common enough occurrence in bad weather. Nothing else seemed to make sense. Ten days later, after the British announced that their SSBN had also collided with something underwater, they compared notes with the French, and concluded that the two boats had run into each other. No one has revealed if any analysis was done on materials from the hull of each boat left on the other after the collision. This would be definitive proof of a collision. This analysis may still be underway. It appears that the bow (front) of the Le Triomphant scrapped along the side of the HMS Vanguard. The French apparently believe that both boats were so quiet (which is how SSBNs are designed to operate), that neither boat detected the other one, even after the collision. The British have not released any information on what went on inside their boat before, during or after the collision. The French revelations indicate that onboard the Le Triomphant, there was bumping and scraping, then silence. There was probably a damage assessment drill, which came up clean, except for some damage to the sonar dome (which meant the sub was even less able to hear any noises coming out of the Vanguard). The Le Triomphant then proceeded on its way, only able to guess at what it had just hit. The French also revealed that they do exchange location knowledge with NATO navies with regard to where their attack submarines are operating under water. But they consider the SSBNs one of their strategic weapons and thus subject to a higher degree of secrecy. For decades, it's been understood that sharing information with all your NATO partners increases the chances of the secrets getting out. So even if France rejoins NATO, they will continue to keep the locations of their SSBNs to themselves. Since only one or two of these SSBN boats are at sea at any time, it was believed that collisions would never be a problem. The odds of an underwater collisions were considered so high as to be virtually impossible. It will be interesting to hear what the British have to say, eventually.

definitely picking up at the moment - but cannot say why......

I will certainly support a full investigation and prosecution of John Sutton. that is quite seperate from the suppression and falsification of evidence by the agents themselves.

that's what my Chief said... now - you missed a rather key part of what I said up there "I agree with and applaud the commutation as I thought the sentence was out of line and the confinement in the general prison population was out of line." so I think we agree on that point and I am glad to see them out of prison. now - "for what should be, at worst, an administrative offense?" Falsifying and suppressing evidence in a criminal investigation BY A SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER should be an administrative offense? I took my oath of office seriously and I suspect most people do. When one breaks their oath and commits perjury in the performance of their official duties - I do have a short level of tolerance. (granted that most of Congress and the state Legislatures do so on a regular basis.......) we should never tolerate that in our military and law enforcement agencies. For that reason - I do not support a Presidential Pardon.

I agree with you that was poorly done and should not have involved those charges. For shooting and wounding an escaping, armed drug smuggler they should have received remedial firearms training to improve their accuracy. They should have been charged with, and convicted, of falsifying and destroying evidence and filing a false report. and I agree that more in DC should be held to that standard. But these guys were sworn officers of the law and should be held to their oaths and that professional standard of conduct.