Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, March 16, 2013

An immigration agent was justified in fatally shooting a colleague who shot their boss six times in a federal office building last year, the FBI has determined. The double-shooting at ICE's Long Beach office occurred after Kevin Kozak turned down a transfer request by Ezequiel Garcia, who then shot him. Another agent rushed into the room and killed Garcia. The Associated Press is pursuing open-records requests for the investigative report on the shooting. "The public has a right to know about the actions of federal agents within a federal building," AP associate general counsel Karen Kaiser said.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

harry_powell

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

FBI: Killing American citizen without trial justified.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

An immigration agent was justified in fatally shooting a colleague who opened fire on their boss in a federal office building last year, the FBI has determined.

well, duh.

What does the headline have to do with the story, btw? There is absolutely no connection.

#1 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-15 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

FBI - check.

American citizen - check.

Killed - check.

No trial - check.

Justified - check.

#2 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-15 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Check, and mate.

#3 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-15 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Check, and mate.

Sorry, self declared victories ring hollow with me.

You can stop high fiving yourself, now.

Again, what does the headline have to do with the story? I read it and nowhere did it mention trials or lack of them being an issue.

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-15 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, that's good for you. Seek approval wherever thou wilt.

#5 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-15 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seek approval wherever thou wilt.

Unlike you, I don't require it. And if I did, I wouldn't get it from myself as you need to do.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-15 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman i was thinking the same thing...seemed justified as he was armed and was shot during the commission of a felony attempted murder

#8 | Posted by Lohocla at 2013-03-15 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Unlike you, I don't require it."

#6 | Posted by goatman

That's great! We're all proud of you.

#9 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-15 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Harry,

The problem with your headline is it is in general terms that can apply to anything (and given the drone debate here, it seems to apply to that directly) but the story is about a single case of a justifiable shooting. The story is not that the FBI agrees with killing citizens without trial.

#10 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The headline clearly states "American Citizen."

Not plural.

#11 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-15 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the FBI agrees with killing citizens without trial.

Of course they do, as do other law enforcement authorities when there is an imminent danger.

Like there was with al-Awlaki.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-15 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Al-Awalki wasn't an immient threat. At best he was a theorhetical one.

Definition of IMMINENT
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head

#13 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree. If he was an imminent threat, a lot of rules go out the window.

#14 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

But again, he is dead and is now more a distraction from the issue than the central point of it. The point is how we proceed from here. We all agree with oversight, so why keep fighting old fights? I am not seeking Obama's impeachment over it. I am seeking to tie his and all future President's hands when it comes to US citizens and force them to go the Constitutional route.

#15 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

- hanging threateningly over one's head

He had the history, the means, and the stated intent to continue to send bombers here. That is an imminent threat.

Had he not been killed and his next attempt been successful, the Impeachment hearing would be starting.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-15 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The time frame for planning and effecting one of these bombings is an extended one, and an imminent threat in that case is not 15 minutes.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-15 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Had he not been killed and his next attempt been successful, the Impeachment hearing would be starting.

Posted by Corky at 2013-03-15 02:32 PM

See post 15. Al-Alwaki is a distraction from the real issue at this point. Let's move forward together since we mostly agree and stop dwelling in the past just to fight.

#18 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

We all agree with oversight, so why keep fighting old fights?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me I suspect that this fight will occur again and again as the government "goofs up" and doesn't follow the rules, or plays semantics to supercede it's own rulings, or keep secrets to the point where no damage to the constitution can be proven. I don't trust the pentagon regardless of who is in office.

And there will be an army of DNC goons here to argue pragmatism for Obama when the "slip up" happens. Or an army of RNC goons to say we're siding with the terrorists if we disagree.

So it's worth having this fight NOW.

#19 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

hanging threateningly over one's head


=D Ya know, in all honesty, I almost left that off my cut and paste, but my damned integrity forced me to include it knowing full well that could be extended to apply.

#20 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

So it's worth having this fight NOW.

#19 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:35 PM |

Fight over use of drones I agree 100%

Fight over Al-Alwaki? He's dead. Let's look at policy and not be distracted by one example.

#21 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clearly, since the individual shot hadn't been tried in a public court, he should have been asked, as al-ababa was, to turn himself in. Then he could just go about his business until somebody captured him.

The Conservatives

#22 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-15 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Forget Al-Alwaki for a second.

In fact, forget drones. All they do is allow us to take a close shot without risking a pilot. We've had the capability to launch missiles into other countries and hit specific targets for a long time now. Drones make that EASIER, but it's not as if we haven't been doing this for decades.

I think the real issue here is whether we have the right to bomb and assassinate anyone in the world at a moments notice. Our [...] hypocritical foreign policy is the problem, not drone tech. We tell other countries not to act as aggressively as we do, and that's SOME of the reason they hate us so much.

#23 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Could not agree more Alex. Big NW flag. Thank you for saying it better than I have been able to.

#24 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Note I said "SOME" of the reason, not "ALL".

Fanatical Islam will hate us regardless.

#25 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I center on drones because at least lives at risk tended to slow our rush to war down some. Now, since we no longer have to risk our own lives, people seem eager for war.

#26 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe War must be ugly, cruel, horrible. It must be the worst thing we could imagine and even exceed our imaginations so that people will do all they can to prevent it. It must be a last resort after all other options have failed, not the first response. Drones make it easier and more appealing.

#27 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Clearly, since the individual shot hadn't been tried in a public court, he should have been asked, as al-ababa was, to turn himself in. Then he could just go about his business until somebody captured him.

rofl

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-15 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kanrei- I'm tired of dems and reps both being the big war party. No matter who we have in office, we just can't stop messing with people. For such a young country we have a long history of war. When folks on here say "both parties are the same" in terms of the military industrial complex, support for anything Israel does, torture, black ops, etc etc... they are right.

On social issues and business tax policies there are HUGE differences, however both political parties in the USA are hugely pro-war, pro-bloated military budget.

#29 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe War must be ugly, cruel, horrible. It must be the worst thing we could imagine and even exceed our imaginations so that people will do all they can to prevent it. It must be a last resort after all other options have failed, not the first response. Drones make it easier and more appealing.

#27 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-15 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's how all weapons of war are, and why they are created. Shall we get rid of tanks next? The fact of the matter is: drones are here to stay. Verizon wireless the phone store sells drones with youtube ready cameras on them. They're not even that expensive. I saw them at sams club too. (sams club is a membership based bulk food store like costco in case anyone didn't know. We have people from all over the world on this website)

Nothing can stop the technological creep. We just have to get our laws and morality/ethics to catch up.

#30 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-15 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ten years ago, democrats and so-called liberals and progressives would have argued that the republican president was setting a dangerous precedent by executing American citizens without a trial or even bothering to demonstrate how they're a threat to the security of the United States.

#31 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-03-16 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lets not compare deadly intervention in a shooting in progress with targeted killing from a safe distance without trial. That is ridiculous.

#32 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-16 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why is this news and why did the FBI have to spend a year to clear this guy? It's a well established precedent that one can use deadly force to stop another person meaning harm to others.

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-16 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement