ICE racism, the House of Death murders and Democrats in apparent retreat

This fact is particularly relevant to putting into context the lack of action taken by ICE with respect to the House of Death mass murder in Juarez.
In that case, a dozen people of Mexican descent were brutally torture and killed with the participation of an informant who worked for ICE.

To date, the complicity of ICE agents (most of them white) in those murders has been swept under the carpet as part of an ongoing cover-up. By contrast, the informant, who happens to be Mexican, is now the subject of ICE-initiated deportation proceedings — in which the government is seeking to send him back to Mexico and a certain death at the hands of the narco-traffickers he betrayed.

As the director of ICE’s Office of Investigations, Marcy Forman oversees some 5,700 special agents and 156 ICE field offices. So she wields tremendous power.

The legal case that shines a light on Forman’s racist management style involves an African American U.S. Customs Inspector (Norman Green) in Houston who in 1998 applied for one of two open special agent’s position with U.S. Customs — which has since become part of ICE under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Despite applying, Green was not considered for the special agent job, and instead two other individuals (both white) were selected for agent positions, one of whom was clearly less qualified than Green.

Green filed an EEO complaint in 2001 and an administrative judge ruled in is favor in February 2006, indicating that Green had established a prima facie case based on race discrimination.

In April 2006, DHS issued a final order rejecting the judge’s finding and then appealed the case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In January of this year, the EEOC reversed the agency’s final order – a ruling favoring Green.

As part of the ruling, the EEOC indicated that the recommending and selecting officers at Customs essentially acted as the “cat’s paw” for the Assistant Special Agent in Charge (then Marcy Forman) who made the discriminatory recommendations that prevented Green from getting the special agent’s job.

The EEOC said Forman, at the time Green applied for the special agents job, “essentially ignored (Green’s) qualifications” and the administrative judge concluded that Green’s qualifications were “superior” to that of a candidate who was ultimately selected for the agent’s post.

From the EEOC ruling:

Norman Green, Complainant, v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency

Hearing No. 330-2004-00026X

Appeal No. 0720060058
Agency No. HS 00-ICE-000142

Jan. 19, 2007

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

… [Forman] met with and encouraged Customs Inspectors to apply for Criminal Investigator positions and had in fact met with [Green]. However, [Green] described his meeting with [Forman] as brief, cold and noted that [Forman] did not make eye contact with him and seemed uninterested in his qualifications for the position.

… The [administrative judge] found that [Forman] essentially ignored [Green’s] qualifications in recommending [another individual] …, over [Green].

… The [administrative judge] considered the testimony of [a witness for Green], a retired agency inspector supervisor, who stated that during his tenure with the agency (of some 30 years), he could not recall any African American males promoted from within to the position of special agent. He stated that many were qualified, but they were not considered, while Caucasian inspectors were quickly promoted.

… [Another witness for Green, an African American Customs Inspector] stated that [Forman] told him at one point that his "black ass would never become a special agent" when [Forman] was unhappy with [the witness’] actions in connection with his performance on a particular case. The [administrative judge] found the evidence showed that [Forman] was motivated by discrimination when she recommended [another agent] over [Green] for the position of Criminal Investigator (Special Agent).

… In the instant case we find that substantial evidence supports the [administrative judge’s] determination that discrimination on the bases of race and color occurred when [Green] was not selected for the position of Criminal Investigator and [a white individual] was selected instead. Specifically, we find the record supports the [judge’s] finding that [Forman’s] recommendations were communicated to the recommending and selection officials.

… We order the agency [ICE] to take the following actions:

1. Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall promote complainant to the position of Special Agent (Criminal Investigator … retroactive to November 11, 1998. …
2. Within 60 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall pay complainant $ 139,957.00 in back pay and other benefits for the period of time between November 11, 1998 and November 16, 2005. …
3. Within 60 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall pay complainant the sum of $ 75,000 for non-pecuniary, compensatory damages;
4. Within 60 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall pay complainant the sum of $32,377.56 for attorney's fees and costs;
5. Within 60 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall consider taking appropriate disciplinary action against the responsible management official [Marcy Forman]. The agency shall report its decision to the Compliance Officer referenced herein. If the agency decides to take disciplinary action it shall identify the action taken. If the agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.
6. Within 180 days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall train all responsible agency employees in the agency's facility in Houston, Texas, concerning the prevention of race and color discrimination and the agency's duties to ensure that similar violations do not occur….

1. Has any disciplinary action been taken against Marcy Forman in this matter, or is it being considered?
2. What specific actions are being taken in the Houston ICE office to address this issue of discrimination?
3. How does ICE plan to address the concern that Forman is now in a position of far more power (as head of OI) to affect far more people through continued acts of discrimination?
4. How many other discrimination complaints have been filed against Forman besides the Green case?

Greetings:

Mr. Rusnok [another ICE spokesman] forwarded me your request.  I appreciate your email and interest, however at this time we don’t have anything for you.

Narco News sources indicate the reason that Raimondi has nothing to say is that ICE headquarters is having a hard time figuring out how to handle this problem.

“How is the director of ICE’s investigative arm supposed to be disciplined for discrimination and not have that affect the entire agency?” one source explains.

This problem is underscored by the fact that a class-action discrimination lawsuit, filed by Hispanic special agents, is still pending against ICE's parent agency, DHS.

The big picture

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, recently buckled under the pressure of the anti-immigration crowd in agreeing to initiate hearings over the case of the two Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to long prison terms for bungling the apprehension of a drug smuggler along the Texas border.

The prosecutor in that case was U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton — the same prosecutor who had jurisdiction over the House of Death mass murder. The Border Patrol agents work for the same bureaucracy that employs Forman — the Department of Homeland Security.

From a recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein intervened Friday in the cases of two Border Patrol agents who are imprisoned for shooting an alleged Mexican drug smuggler and who have become a cause celebre for anti-illegal immigration GOP politicians, conservative media and activists.

The California Democrat, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote letters to three top administration officials -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Harley Lappin -- asking for specific information about their agencies' involvement in the case.

Feinstein is the first prominent Democrat to become involved in the case of the border agents, and her office said she has secured the agreement of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy to conduct a committee investigation. She said Leahy is open to a hearing on the matter.

Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos were convicted last March and sentenced Oct. 9 for the 2005 shooting of an alleged drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who had driven a van loaded with 743 pounds of marijuana from Mexico to Texas. The agents shot Aldrete-Davila as he tried to flee back across the border with Mexico, then hid evidence of the shooting and failed to report it, according to the evidence presented at their trial. Compean received a 12-year federal prison sentence, and Ramos 11 years and one month.

As Sen. Feinstein takes up the task of holding hearings on the Border Patrol agents’ case due to the pressure mounted by anti-immigration fanatics, she should consider whether her party is simply carrying water for the dark tide of discrimination that marks the undercurrent of that debate.

The scrutiny of the Border Patrol agents’ case may well be merited. But if Feinstein and the Democrats choose to ignore the House of Death mass murder in their congressional oversight, then how do the Democrats explain that double standard?

How does the Democratic majority allow the Suttons and Formans of the federal bureaucracy to continue exploiting white privilege from their positions of power — even to the extent of covering-up their agencies’ complicity in the mass murder of brown people — without themselves becoming complicit in those acts?

Maybe the party that got elected on its pro-civil rights stance will surprise us?

Stay tuned…