But as I have heard it, in the case of the border agents’ case there are significant criminal activities on the part of the agents. To wit, the suspect had stopped, faced the agent, and had his hands in the air. But rather than simply arresting him, the agent tried to “butt” him with the stock of the shotgun he was carrying. Because the suspect was across a small stream, the attempt to illegally assault him resulted instead in the agent losing his balance (it was just a teeny bit farther than he could strike, because of the interposing rivulet). Because of that, the suspect saw an opportunity, and turned and fled.

Now. If that is true, and the person being interviewed on the radio show was in a position to know, it does demonstrate criminal behavior on the part of at least that one agent.

But to listen to the general coverage, no agents broke any laws. It would appear that that position is at best false.

Things are quite different in the casae of Mr. Libby.

My only point is that my opinion is that the position “Until such a time that the two border agents are given a pardon, I am against any pardons givenby this president” appears to gloss over fundamental differences.

(Just for clarification, I support a physical barrier, and criminal proceedings against those who come here illegally, followed by deportation. The flow of individuals here illegally serves to import poverty, and lowers standards of living for those who obey the laws. I do not see border control agents as bad guys, but rather as heros. [again: sp?])