^ BUT, what about the 2 dozen or so other U.S. citizens that are arrested in Mexico on the same charge every month, making an honest mistake? No love for them? The Marine was not on a "mission". Do we say the hell with the others since they were not an active armed forces member?

 

Your going to have to give me specifics of other cases otherwise I have no way to see the similarities . But if your asking me if I want to go to great lengths to defend a mans freedom who put his life on the line for mine then yes I want to leave no stone unturned.

My initial response was to your claim. I didn't put words into your mouth.

The sentence that you quoted was in response to the statement: "Clearly, we as a nation are not ready to truly discuss race." Not since LBJ has any American president spent as much time discussing race as Obama has.

 

I still do not see where the POTUS uses race to divert attention from scandals. You call the Gates issue a scandal. It doesn't qualify as a scandal.

No, I did not call the Gates issue a scandal. I explained that it was a misuse of the bully pulpit and used it as a contrast to the Obama administration's silence on this issue - a U.S. Marine under Obama's chain of command languishing in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn with firearms in his car.

 

Benghazi is a scandal.

VA is a scandal.

Arms into Mexico is a scandal.

 

Did he use race in any of those?

As I have already explained to you multiple times, Obama uses race to divert attention away from scandals. I never said that he uses his race as a defense. If you want detailed examples, then you may want to start a new thread on that topic. If you simply cannot understand my position, then I gave it my best shot without straying too far off topic.

If a person from Canada wanders onto US soil with a weapon that didn't go through customs, would he wind up in jail?

If a person from Canada wanders onto US soil with a weapon that didn't go through customs, would he wind up in jail?

By wandering onto U.S. soil, do you mean slipped into this country along its open border with Canada or do you mean reached a border crossing point by mistake and explained that he had guns in his vehicle? If it is the latter, then I think that it would be very unlikely that the driver would be jailed - temporarily detained maybe, jailed unlikely. If it is the former, then that would be very different circumstances than described by the U.S. Marine who was arrested at the border, tossed into a Mexican prison, and then held there for weeks without a hearing.

If a person from Canada wanders onto US soil with a weapon that didn't go through customs, would he wind up in jail?

 

I don't like hypotheticals that aren't identical. I would say any country who had a soldier who made a wrong turn and unknowingly broke the law and has been locked up for going on 2 months in brutal conditions I would say any country would be outraged. He fought for our country and was in San Diego to retrieve treatment for his PTSD and was in the process of settling when he makes a wrong turn. The only reason the guns were on him was because he was relocating his stuff.

 

I don't understand why anyone doesn't think our government should intervene and rescue one of our hero's. Seem weird this even has to be political in this thread . One of our hero's made a mistake now let's go help him out.

Who should be responsible in freeing the soldier?

 

I don't like hypotheticals that aren't identical. I would say any country who had a soldier who made a wrong turn and unknowingly broke the law and has been locked up for going on 2 months in brutal conditions I would say any country would be outraged. He fought for our country and was in San Diego to retrieve treatment for his PTSD and was in the process of settling when he makes a wrong turn. The only reason the guns were on him was because he was relocating his stuff.

 

I don't understand why anyone doesn't think our government should intervene and rescue one of our hero's. Seem weird this even has to be political in this thread . One of our hero's made a mistake now let's go help him out.

 

I haven't researched this topic, so just asking questions here. Was the soldier now in jail in Mexico on duty? Is he still a soldier? Was he on leave?,,

I haven't researched this topic, so just asking questions here. Was the soldier now in jail in Mexico on duty? Is he still a soldier? Was he on leave?,,

 

Good question. I know he relocated to San Diego for a health facility there. I'm guessing he is out of service if he relocated on his own but not sure.

Good question. I know he relocated to San Diego for a health facility there. I'm guessing he is out of service if he relocated on his own but not sure.

The Marine is a reservist who was recently ordered to report to the 4th Civil Affairs Group in Hialeah, Fla., on June 14 for a physical evaluation.

The sentence that you quoted was in response to the statement: "Clearly, we as a nation are not ready to truly discuss race." Not since LBJ has any American president spent as much time discussing race as Obama has.

 

No, I did not call the Gates issue a scandal. I explained that it was a misuse of the bully pulpit and used it as a contrast to the Obama administration's silence on this issue - a U.S. Marine under Obama's chain of command languishing in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn with firearms in his car.

 

As I have already explained to you multiple times, Obama uses race to divert attention away from scandals. I never said that he uses his race as a defense. If you want detailed examples, then you may want to start a new thread on that topic. If you simply cannot understand my position, then I gave it my best shot without straying too far off topic.

 

:thumb: OBamas only qualification for office is that hes a black man,, you can't speak against him or your a racist and he turns everything into a race issue. You have to remember this is the most racists president in our hsitory. This Marine probably wishes he was black so obama would help him but then again hes in our evil military so it probably cancels that out for Obama.

You are ignoring one key fact in this case. According to the article to which you linked: "A police report said the caller described the possible burglars as 'two black males with backpacks' — leading some commentators to vilify the caller as racist since it turned out Gates was entering his own home."

 

Think about that. Two black men make a forced entry into a house and a policeman reports that a witness described the two men as being black when he met her on the scene. When that report becomes public, the woman who reported the incident learns that "some commentators" have branded her a racist.

 

Yet, you assume that the policeman lied because there was no motivation for the woman to claim that she had not mentioned the two men's race. Really? The woman, many of whose friends and neighbors were undoubtedly following what was made into a national story, watched as she was unfairly branded as a racist.

 

The first officer arrived on the scene in broad daylight at 12:44 PM. What motivation did he have to falsely claim that the woman accurately described the two men? What motivation did the woman have to change her story after being branded a racist on national TV?

 

The anti-police bias on the part of liberals amazes me sometimes. Eyewitness accounts of the same event often do not match but when a policeman is involved, liberals are too quick to assume the worst in cops. Maybe the policeman's report was wrong in this case but I don't see how he stood to gain anything by deliberately falsifying it in the manner that you have suggestion.

 

One last comment. Please recall that it was NBC's news department that edited out a dispatcher's question in a 911 recording to make George Zimmerman appear to be a racist. Any idea which of the "commentators" mentioned in the NBC article might have mischaracterized Lucia Whalen as a racist?

 

 

You keep overlooking the fact that the officer who makes the arrest prepares the report and that it doesn't match the hard evidence given in the call.

 

You are the one accusing me of jumping to conclusions and crazy conspiracy theories, but are accusing a national news network of editing a 911 call. Don't you think someone would have caught onto that one?

 

Finally, I am far from "a liberal", so your statements don't really apply to me, but are still overly broad.

 

My point this entire time has been that I think it's a little harsh to criticize Obama's handling of such a delicate situation. That's it.

You keep overlooking the fact that the officer who makes the arrest prepares the report and that it doesn't match the hard evidence given in the call.

 

You are the one accusing me of jumping to conclusions and crazy conspiracy theories, but are accusing a national news network of editing a 911 call. Don't you think someone would have caught onto that one?

 

Finally, I am far from "a liberal", so your statements don't really apply to me, but are still overly broad.

 

My point this entire time has been that I think it's a little harsh to criticize Obama's handling of such a delicate situation. That's it.

The officer never claimed that the description was taken from the 911 call.

 

You are confusing two different incidents. The NBC news division was caught red-handed having edited the audio of the Zimmerman 911 call to give the impression that he was racist. It's not a conspiracy theory, it was national news. All the major media covered the story except for NBC. NBC did release an apology for the edit but there was no on-the-air public apology and Zimmerman has a defamation suit pending against NBC. I only mentioned the incident as evidence of NBC's liberal, pro-Obama bias.

 

My point is that presidential intervention in the Gates case was neither necessary nor appropriate. In the case of the imprisoned U.S. Marine, presidential intervention (through the DOJ and/or State Department) is warranted.

The officer never claimed that the description was taken from the 911 call.

 

You are confusing two different incidents. The NBC news division was caught red-handed having edited the audio of the Zimmerman 911 call to give the impression that he was racist. It's not a conspiracy theory, it was national news. All the major media covered the story except for NBC. NBC did release an apology for the edit but there was no on-the-air public apology and Zimmerman has a defamation suit pending against NBC. I only mentioned the incident as evidence of NBC's liberal, pro-Obama bias.

 

My point is that presidential intervention in the Gates case was neither necessary nor appropriate. In the case of the imprisoned U.S. Marine, presidential intervention (through the DOJ and/or State Department) is warranted.

 

 

Thank you, I understand they are separate incidents.

 

I guess the officers' report was based on someone else's 911 call or separate statements then, and that the person who made those has been in complete obscurity since then. NBC is probably helping to keep them quiet.

Thank you, I understand they are separate incidents.

 

I guess the officers' report was based on someone else's 911 call or separate statements then, and that the person who made those has been in complete obscurity since then. NBC is probably helping to keep them quiet.

I don't really appreciate the sarcastic tone. I have already explained this to you, but let me repeat it once again. The first officer who arrived on the scene spoke in person to Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller. The conversation was the basis for the part of his report in which he wrote that she gave him a description of two black men with backpacks. Ms. Whalen said the 911 vindicated her, but actually the 911 call was not the basis of that part of the police report.

 

Whether Ms. Whalen described the two men she saw breaking into the house as black or not to the officer, the fact that she had not described them in the 911 call is irrelevant. She was on the scened when she spoke to the policeman and very well could have continued observing the two men after she made the 911 call.

 

The policeman had nothing to gain from falsely claiming that Ms. Whalen said that the two men were black. Maybe he was mistaken, maybe Ms. Whalen was mistaken, or maybe she was concerned that some bloggers had unfairly pegged her as a racist based on the police report. It makes no difference.

 

Might you be confusing the introductory paragraph to the police report that was written by the Smoking Gun? SGT Crowley's report clearly states that Ms. Whalen gave the description to him when he met her on the sidewalk in front of her home. The 911 call and her interview with SGT Crowley were two separate events.

I don't really appreciate the sarcastic tone. I have already explained this to you, but let me repeat it once again. The first officer who arrived on the scene spoke in person to Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller. The conversation was the basis for the part of his report in which he wrote that she gave him a description of two black men with backpacks. Ms. Whalen said the 911 vindicated her, but actually the 911 call was not the basis of that part of the police report.

 

Whether Ms. Whalen described the two men she saw breaking into the house as black or not to the officer, the fact that she had not described them in the 911 call is irrelevant. She was on the scened when she spoke to the policeman and very well could have continued observing the two men after she made the 911 call.

 

The policeman had nothing to gain from falsely claiming that Ms. Whalen said that the two men were black. Maybe he was mistaken, maybe Ms. Whalen was mistaken, or maybe she was concerned that some bloggers had unfairly pegged her as a racist based on the police report. It makes no difference.

 

Might you be confusing the introductory paragraph to the police report that was written by the Smoking Gun? SGT Crowley's report clearly states that Ms. Whalen gave the description to him when he met her on the sidewalk in front of her home. The 911 call and her interview with SGT Crowley were two separate events.

 

 

Ok, thank you.

 

I had never claimed that the 911 call was the sole basis of the report, and understand that would be quite a ridiculous claim when they interviewed the witness who initially made the call. That was never the point. Let's put this to rest and just agree to disagree.

 

 

Back to the topic at hand, this is an unfortunate incident and it seems like the former-Marine in question was the victim of a good faith mistake. I hope he is vindicated and wish that he didn't have to spend time in a Mexican prison, especially considering some of the nonsense that goes on there.