\u201cMore than anything we want justice,\u201d Puga told The Intercept in an interview Tuesday night, speaking in Spanish from a San Diego park that she and Hernandez used to visit.<\/p>\n
![\"Maria-Puga-at-Mural-2020\"](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn05.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/02\/Maria-Puga-at-Mural-2020-540x669.jpg\")
\nMaria Puga stands at a mural commemorating her late husband Anastasio Hernandez Rojas in San Diego on Oct. 1, 2020.<\/p>\n
\nPhoto: Courtesy Alliance San Diego<\/p><\/div>In the years since her husband was killed, Puga said, she has never received a word of condolence from the U.S. government. The only direct communication the family has received from federal prosecutors came in 2015, when the Obama administration told them it was closing its investigation into Hernandez\u2019s death without bringing charges. A public apology thus became a core demand in a historic international case<\/a> that Puga and her family brought against the United States through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2016. Last week, they took a major step in that effort, submitting affidavits<\/a> from three former senior Department of Homeland Security officials directly involved in Hernandez\u2019s case to the commission. Those officials accuse the Border Patrol as well as current and former officials at the highest levels of DHS of engaging in obstruction of justice to protect the agents involved in Hernandez\u2019s death and the reputation of their agency.<\/p>\n This was not an isolated incident, the former officials alleged in the affidavits, which were filed with the commission and shared with The Intercept. Instead, it was emblematic of an entrenched pattern in matters involving the Border Patrol, particularly in cases of lethal force.<\/p>\n The claims came from John Dupuy, the current deputy director at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Enterprise Assessments, who served as assistant inspector general for investigations at DHS inspector general\u2019s office from 2012 to 2015; James Tomsheck, who served as assistant commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs at the time of Hernandez\u2019s killing; and James Wong, the former CBP deputy assistant commissioner for internal affairs, who oversaw the use-of-force investigation into the case.<\/p>\n Together, the three former DHS officials described a staggering miscarriage of justice made possible by a culture of violence and impunity within the Border Patrol and a homeland security oversight system that utterly failed to do its job.<\/p>\n Without any legal authority, the Border Patrol improperly inserted itself into the Hernandez investigation, destroyed evidence, and used an administrative subpoena, potentially illegally, to obtain Hernandez\u2019s autopsy, Tomsheck and Wong said in their affidavits (administrative subpoenas are meant for immigration cases, not for death investigations). In an 81-page brief<\/a> filed with the affidavits, attorneys for Hernandez\u2019s family said the subpoena was signed by the Border Patrol\u2019s then-acting deputy chief patrol agent in San Diego Sector, Rodney Scott, who is now the chief of the Border Patrol, responsible for overseeing nearly 20,000 federal agents.<\/p>\n Pressure to justify the force used against Hernandez came directly from David Aguilar, then the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Tomsheck and Wong claimed. CBP, the largest police agency in the country and among the largest in the world, is the institutional home of the Border Patrol; Aguilar was chief of the Border Patrol before assuming command of the agency. The two former internal affairs supervisors met with Aguilar the morning after Hernandez was killed. \u201cHis initial reaction to the reports of the Hernandez Rojas\u2019s incident was his typical reaction,\u201d Wong said. \u201cHe denied CBP\u2019s involvement even before all the facts regarding the incident were available.\u201d Tomsheck added that Aguilar ordered him \u201cat least twice to reflect that Anastasio Hernandez Rojas was unrestrained when he was combative.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI informed Aguilar that this was not the case based on the facts reported,\u201d Tomsheck said in his affidavit. \u201cI had statements from CBP officers that said Anastasio Hernandez Rojas was face down on the ground and handcuffed behind his back when Tasered.\u201d<\/p>\n Dupuy, the only one of the three men still working for the federal government, characterized DHS Office of Inspector General\u2019s handling of the Hernandez case as a \u201cdereliction of duty.\u201d Tomsheck, meanwhile, has spoken out about the problems within CBP before, describing the post-9\/11 surge in hiring Border Patrol agents and the unparalleled corruption that followed as \u201cthe greatest compromise of law enforcement integrity our country has ever seen<\/a>.\u201d In 2011, he filed a whistleblower complaint detailing how Aguilar, then chief of the Border Patrol, had pressured internal affairs to redefine corruption so the agency\u2019s numbers weren\u2019t so high. Wong corroborated the account in his affidavit.<\/p>\n In an interview Tuesday, Wong said his motivation for participating in the Inter-American Commission case was simple. \u201cIt\u2019s the right thing to do,\u201d he told The Intercept. \u201cWe were stymied within the organization.\u201d<\/p>\n The former officials were also highly critical of Dennis M. McGunagle, who served as the DHS OIG\u2019s special agent in charge in San Diego and was responsible for conducting the office\u2019s investigation into the Hernandez case, which the OIG closed in January 2012. That same year, new cellphone video emerged showing Hernandez was handcuffed when he was beaten and shocked with a Taser, contradicting the Border Patrol\u2019s claims in the case. In his affidavit, Dupuy said he reviewed McGunagle\u2019s original investigation and found that it was \u201cnot more than a few pages,\u201d \u201cfell short of investigative standards,\u201d and \u201cdid not follow investigative procedure.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I reviewed the investigation file two years after the incident, I was shocked to see what I believe was a lack of diligence and thoroughness,\u201d Dupuy said. \u201cThis case is an example of a pattern of dereliction of duty that I observed from the DHS OIG Office of Investigation San Diego field office in investigations involving allegations of use of force by federal agents.\u201d Dupuy stated that the new video evidence led him to believe that the case should be reopened, and that he said as much to McGunagle. \u201cHe was adamant that nothing more should be done \u2014 the case was closed and should not be reopened,\u201d Dupuy said. \u201cHe saw no additional value in OIG reopening the case.\u201d<\/p>\n In the end, the case was not reopened. \u201cDuring my time at DHS, I had other cases involving allegations of use of force overseen by McGunagle brought to my attention due to similar concerns over improper investigations,\u201d Dupuy said.<\/p>\n McGunagle was eventually promoted to a deputy inspector general at the DHS OIG, where he still works. The DHS OIG declined to comment on the filings. CBP, where Scott is still employed, did not provide comment despite multiple requests from The Intercept. Aguilar, who now works in the private sector, did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat\u2019s important to understand is that the people who are involved in this case have risen in the ranks,\u201d Andrea Guerrero, executive director of Alliance San Diego and an attorney for the Hernandez family, told The Intercept. \u201cThis is an ongoing threat to the safety of border communities and to the security of the nation when we have this level of impunity, unchecked, at the highest levels of this agency.\u201d<\/p>\n The Inter-American Commission system is best known for its role in examining incidents of state violence, massacres and enforced disappearances in Latin America. Last July, the commission ruled<\/a> that it had the authority to hear the Hernandez case, marking the first time in its 61-year history that a U.S. law enforcement agency has stood accused of an extrajudicial killing. \u201cThe bread and butter of this commission is to look at extrajudicial killings, but they\u2019ve only done so in other countries,\u201d Guerrero said. \u201cThis is what they do best, but they have never taken a case against the United States. This is the first time that they are doing so, and they they\u2019re doing so at a moment that is critical in the United States, where we are having a national conversation about what is acceptable use of force by police in this country.\u201d<\/p>\n The case argues that Hernandez was tortured and that as an undocumented person, his killing was part of a broader pattern of violence against migrants made possible by the U.S. government\u2019s failure to rein in its border security forces. \u201cAt every level of accountability, our government failed this family,\u201d Guerrero argued, but \u201cthis is not only significant for the pursuit of justice for this family \u2014 it\u2019s significant for the policing conversation going on in this country. It is a part of a national reckoning around responsible policing and its impact, especially on communities of color.\u201d<\/p>\n Guerrero said the affidavits of the three former homeland security officials bring critical new information to light in the Hernandez case: \u201cThese are three high-level DHS officials who have firsthand knowledge of the investigation, and they say unequivocally that there was obstruction of justice, that there was, essentially, a shadow investigation conducted by border agents who interfered with the official police investigation.\u201d It was through Dupuy\u2019s affidavit, she said, that Hernandez\u2019s widow and children learned, for the first time, that momentum for a reopening of the DHS OIG investigation was quashed from the inside \u2014 by an official now\u00a0supervising oversight investigations nationwide.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was Dupuy who posed the question, should this case be reopened after the eyewitness video came out, and the answer was no,\u201d Guerrero said. \u201cThat is a travesty of justice. That wasn\u2019t minor. That is major evidence that completely refuted everything that the CBP agents had been told and told the public.\u201d<\/p>\n Among the myriad problems in the Hernandez case, Guerrero said, was that Border Patrol agents acted as though they were so-called 1811s: law enforcement lingo for federal investigators with specific legal authorities and investigative powers. FBI special agents, for example, have 1811 status; Border Patrol agents do not. And yet, the affidavits describe Border Patrol agents inserting themselves in the Hernandez investigation at every turn, gathering evidence that they did not turn over to the San Diego Police Department and, in some cases, actively destroying what they collected. Guerrero argued these actions reflected a deeper institutional rot within the agency.<\/p>\n \u201cThrough this case we understand the anatomy of the impunity that is structural and systemic at CBP,\u201d Guerrero said. \u201cEverything that is wrong is evident in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n Representatives from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights hear testimony in the case of\u00a0Anastasio Hernandez Rojas as part of their investigation into U.S. border policy\u00a0at the Alliance San Diego offices on Aug. 23, 2019.<\/p>\n \nPhoto: Courtesy Alliance San Diego<\/p><\/div>\n Together, Dupuy, Tomsheck, and Wong\u2019s affidavits offer a detailed look behind the scenes of a notorious case of Border Patrol violence that drew international condemnation.<\/p>\n At the outset, CBP personnel failed to report the case, Tomsheck said. \u201cExternally, CBP is supposed to report the incident to the state or local agency that has jurisdiction over the incident,\u201d he said. \u201cIn the Anastasio case, CBP officers did not fully follow protocol by not immediately communicating with local police with jurisdiction over the area until the next day.\u201d At a meeting the following morning, \u201cBorder Patrol repeatedly stated that Anastasio was not restrained, that he was standing, and that he was combative when he was Tased,\u201d Tomsheck said. Reports from CBP\u2019s Office of Field Operations, he added, \u201cwere the first indication that something was wrong in how the Anastasio Hernandez Rojas incident was being reported.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAll of the Field Operations reports clearly stated that Mr. Hernandez Rojas was face down on the ground and handcuffed when Tased,\u201d Tomsheck said; the officer who shocked him said so in his own report. During the initial briefing where the incident was discussed, \u201cAguilar stated that all reporting of this incident would reflect that Mr. Hernandez Rojas was standing, unrestrained, and combative when he was Tasered,\u201d Tomsheck claimed. \u201cI challenged Aguilar’s assertions by stating that there are reports that reflected otherwise. Aguilar was furious with me for pointing that out.\u201d The commissioner\u2019s desire was clear, Tomsheck said in his affidavit: \u201cI understood that Aguilar wanted me to falsify reports and did not want this critical portion of events to be accurately documented.\u201d<\/p>\n In the days and weeks that followed, Tomsheck said his office was \u201cwalled off from information by DHS OIG.\u201d It was not until CBP Internal Affairs was ordered to conduct a \u201cfact-finding investigation that would monitor DHS OIG\u2019s investigation to learn as much as-possible\u201d that Tomsheck said he \u201cfirst discovered that the Border Patrol was conducting its own unauthorized investigation.\u201dAccording to the affidavits, that investigation was carried out by a secretive Border Patrol unit known as \u201cCritical Incident Investigative Team.\u201d Tomsheck said his agent on the ground encountered \u201cextreme resistance\u201d from Border Patrol agents and OIG officials in San Diego. When Tomsheck got a look at the OIG\u2019s investigation himself, the internal affairs supervisor said he found himself \u201cin disbelief\u201d at how lacking the inquiry had been.<\/p>\n As the investigation progressed, Aguilar remained adamant that the review by internal affairs conform to his preferred narrative, Tomsheck added. Suggestions that the FBI should be involved in the matter did not go over well, he said: \u201cThere was a strong desire on the side of DHS to not let the integrity problems of DHS end up in the hands of the Department of Justice.\u201d According to the\u00a0commission filing, CBP took the position that because filming at ports is prohibited, the agency was\u00a0justified in destroying video of Hernandez\u2019s beating. In retrospect, Tomsheck said he believes officials had an alternative motive. \u201cKnowing what I know now, I believe there was an effort to conceal the video footage of the event from SDPD,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Wong, meanwhile, said that the fact that CBP obtained an administrative subpoena to access Hernandez\u2019s autopsy was \u201cimproper if not criminal.\u201d The Border Patrol did not have jurisdiction in the investigation. \u201cIt is incredible that they attempted to get this information through that channel and problematic that the tactic worked,\u201d he said. \u201cThese subpoenas are administrative in nature and not supposed to allow access to something like an autopsy report.\u201d Wong added that when he and Tomsheck took their concerns up the CBP chain of command, they were \u201ctold that the matter would be handled internally. And that was the end of that.\u201d<\/p>\n Though he was not at DHS at the time of the killing, Dupuy said senior management brought the Hernandez case to his attention shortly after he joined the DHS watchdog\u2019s office in 2012. \u201cI was responsible for overseeing investigations and there was intense congressional and public interest in the case after news coverage revealed new video evidence,\u201d he said. The video \u201cdirectly contradicted CBP\u2019s version of the event,\u201d he noted. \u201cCBP agents had claimed that Mr. Hernandez Rojas was standing and combative, but the video showed him handcuffed in a fetal position on the ground, pleading for his life.\u201d<\/p>\n Dupuy examined his office\u2019s file on the case. \u201cThe file was very thin \u2014 there was a lack of diligence and activity in investigating this case,\u201d he said. \u201cThere was a significant discrepancy between the OIG file and the video and media reports regarding Mr. Rojas\u2019s physical position while being Tased. The OIG file did not report that Mr. Rojas was detained at the time he was Tased.\u201d Dupuy described voicing concerns about the \u201cdiscrepancy\u201d with his colleagues and raising the idea of reopening the investigation. Little could be done from Washington, he recalled being told: \u201cHeadquarters was in disarray.\u201d<\/p>\n At the time, Dupuy said, \u201cDHS OIG headquarters and its field offices had an atypical dynamic where headquarters gave a lot of discretion to the field offices.\u201d If Dupuy wanted to see the case reopened, he would need to go through McGunagle. \u201cI felt boxed in by what I could do on this case,\u201d he said. \u201cI felt that it should have been re-opened, but McGunagle had primary responsibility for that decision. If I forced the investigation to be re-opened, it would have been assigned to him and his case agents, and it seemed to me he had no interest in ensuring a proper investigation was carried out.\u201d<\/p>\n Dupuy said McGunagle demonstrated a general \u201clack of interest\u201d and a \u201clack of thoroughness and diligence\u201d in use-of-force cases. \u201cWhen we raised this matter with him, he blamed it on supervisors, but he was the supervisor for that office,\u201d he said. \u201cTo my knowledge, McGunagle has never faced consequences for failing to carry out his duties and properly investigate cases involving the most serious allegations such as excessive use of force resulting in the death of an individual,\u201d he said. \u201cInstead, he has been rewarded.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cA man died and the questions that should have been asked about his death, and the events leading to it, were not asked,\u201d Dupuy said. \u201cThe OIG had a duty to properly investigate the matter and uncover the facts the [sic] led to the death of Mr. Hernandez Rojas. This was not done.\u201d<\/p>\n Maria Guadalupe Guereca cries while remembering her 15-year-old son Sergio Hern\u00e1ndez, who was killed by Border Patrol in 2012, at her house in Ciudad Ju\u00e1rez, Mexico, on Feb. 18, 2017.<\/p>\n \nPhoto: Yuri Cortez\/AFP via Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n From the initial act of violence to the lack of oversight that followed, the affidavits reveal that the events in San Diego were consistent with patterns and practices the three former homeland security officials encountered across the border.<\/p>\n From DHS headquarters, Dupuy oversaw the performance of all investigative activities and all DHS Internal Affairs units. \u201cIt was a toxic and dysfunctional environment,” he said.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the case level, across the board, DHS OIG internal investigations did not comply with investigative and ethical standards.\u201d At the time, \u201cthe entire leadership team of the DHS OIG was under criminal or administrative misconduct investigations following the indictment of the former head of the OIG office in McAllen, Texas for fabricating investigative reports.\u201d Relationships between the inspector general\u2019s office and outside law enforcement agencies were strained, and OIG investigators got along better with CBP officers than they did with CBP internal affairs investigators.<\/p>\n \u201cIt should have been the other way around,\u201d Dupuy said. \u201cBut there was a turf war with Internal Affairs.\u201d<\/p>\n Tomsheck\u2019s and Wong\u2019s affidavits paint a picture of the Border Patrol as an agency where impunity for abuse is baked into the DNA. Both veteran federal investigators say the demands of senior leadership to toe the line on the Hernandez case were consistent with the agency\u2019s approach to lethal force cases more broadly.<\/p>\n Tomsheck pointed to the 2010 killing of 18-year-old Juan Mendez Jr<\/a>. as an example. The initial Border Patrol account of the incident was \u201cvery clear\u201d in suggesting the agent who killed him \u201cwas almost certainly in the wrong,\u201d Tomsheck said. The early reporting included a statement from the agent in which he said, \u201cI am going to be prosecuted for this.\u201d Those words were later scrubbed from the Border Patrol\u2019s account of the incident, Tomsheck noted. The 2010 killing of 15-year-old Sergio Hern\u00e1ndez Guereca<\/a> was another example. Initially,\u00a0Border Patrol agents claimed that Guereca was shot by accident after struggling with agents and then stumbled across the Rio Grande.\u00a0Tomsheck, however, received an autopsy showing that the unarmed teen had been shot in the forehead. \u201cI had been in law enforcement for more than 30-years at this point,\u201d he said, \u201cIn my experience, I had never seen someone shot in the forehead and stumble anywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n A 2018 Guardian investigation<\/a> identified 97 cases of CBP personnel using deadly force near the border over a 15-year period.<\/p>\n The affidavits show that the Border Patrol\u2019s ability to cover its tracks in use-of-force cases, including killings, was built into the agency\u2019s structure. Within CBP, the Border Patrol had its own internal system for reporting on use-of-force cases. Unlike internal affairs reports, \u201cBP reports could be altered without leaving an electronic fingerprint,\u201d Wong said. \u201cI have direct knowledge of multiple instances when reports uploaded onto BP\u2019s reporting system were later significantly changed from their original version.\u201d Tomsheck would \u201cmethodically print out\u201d Border Patrol reports to see if he could identify changes, Wong added, and it wasn\u2019t uncommon for him to find them, including in cases where lethal force was used.<\/p>\n As deputy commissioner of internal affairs, Wong said he became aware of \u201cmany instances when agents used violence against undocumented individuals without fear of repercussion\u201d and that he read reports of agents \u201cshooting across the border into Mexico without knowing who or what they were shooting at and without concern for innocent bystanders.\u201d When asked to justify their actions, Wong said, agents would invoke a \u201c\u2018fog of war\u2019 mentality.\u201d<\/p>\n Wong found the Border Patrol to be an institution that was profoundly hostile to outsiders. They called themselves \u201cthe Big Green Machine,\u201d he said, and it was soon made clear to him that he would never understand them because he \u201cnever wore green.\u201d CBP personnel but especially Border Patrol agents \u201csee themselves as members of a \u2018paramilitary organization\u2019 and soldiers \u2018on the front line\u2019 of a war against criminal organizations and terrorism,\u201d he said. \u201cMany agents asserted that CBP\u2019s mission was to protect the border at all costs, even at the expense of human life.\u201d The mindset and the sense of untouchability came from the top. \u201cHigh-ranking CBP officials took steps to shield CBP agents from accountability even in the most egregious cases, such as the over dozen lethal force incidents involving CBP agents that occurred between 2010 and 2011,\u201d Wong said. \u201cIt did not matter if the victim was a child or if there was clear video evidence of misconduct.\u201d When it came to shootings, he said, the default was to assume the victim had it coming: \u201cNo remorse was ever expressed.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI heard BP agents characterize undocumented migrants as the enemy and undeserving of any legal rights, much less the same rights as U.S. citizens,\u201d Wong said. He was disturbed to learn that agents had a practice of destroying the water jugs<\/a> humanitarian groups leave for migrants crossing the desert<\/a>. \u201cAgents justified their actions to me and their supervisors by claiming that migrants were more likely to turn themselves in to U.S. law enforcement if they did not have access to the food and water,\u201d he said. \u201cThis view disregarded the reality that many migrants lost their lives<\/a> after succumbing to the harsh conditions of the Arizona and Texas desert because they did not have access to food and water.\u201d<\/p>\n Wong found that the disregard for migrants\u2019 lives was often accompanied by a lack of understanding of the law. \u201cBP agents were woefully ignorant of the law, including basic due process rights,\u201d he said, adding that \u201cmany BP agents have no concept of what constituted \u2018reasonable suspicion\u2019 or \u2018probable cause.\u2019\u201d He recounted observing several instances of warrantless searches including, in one case, an agent who he observed \u201cdriving around in a van by himself using equipment to intercept phone calls with no authority and no supervision.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHe told me that the Patriot Act, federal legislation passed after 9-11, authorized this conduct,\u201d Wong said. \u201cIt did not.\u201d<\/p>\n Maria de la Luz stands with a picture of her son Anastasio Hernandez Rojas, who was killed by Border Patrol agents, during a rally at the U.S.-Mexico border in San Ysidro, Calif., on Feb. 23, 2013.<\/p>\n \nPhoto: Sandy Huffaker\/Corbis via Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n Much of the work of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights focuses on analyzing cases of state violence and producing recommendations for perpetrator nations. In addition to a public apology, the legal team for the family of Anastasio Hernandez Rojas is asking the commission to make several recommendations for the U.S. government, <\/b>including major changes to its use-of-force policies. Because the commission is accustomed to dealing with cases of violent security forces, it has developed clear standards for use of force, said Roxanna Altholz, co-director of UC Berkeley\u2019s International Human Rights Law Clinic and co-counsel on the case.<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re global standards, they\u2019re standards where there\u2019s consensus that law enforcement should only use force when it\u2019s necessary, proportionate, and for a legitimate purpose,\u201d Altholz told The Intercept. The standard in the U.S., meanwhile, is just \u201cobjectively reasonable,\u201d she said. \u201cThat\u2019s really the reason why we can have situations where someone who\u2019s handcuffed on the ground, begging for mercy in custody is tased to death, or a 9-year-old with a toy gun is shot and killed and the result can be that it was reasonable use of force.\u201d<\/p>\n Altholz and her colleagues are hoping to change that standard through the Hernandez case. They are also asking the Justice Department to open an independent prosecutorial unit specifically devoted to investigating and prosecuting DHS abuses. \u201cWhat\u2019s really significant about this case is we\u2019re arguing that the entire system is designed to shield especially border agents from accountability,\u201d Altholz said. \u201cIt was atrocious what happened that day, but we\u2019re thinking structurally: What were the structural reasons that led agents to take someone to a secure federal location, handcuff the person, beat them to death, and then lie about it and try to cover up?\u201d<\/p>\n U.S. prosecutors fought the acceptance of the Hernandez case before the Inter-American Commission last summer, arguing that because his family had received a settlement<\/a> in a lawsuit stemming from the case, they have already been given\u00a0\u201cadequate and effective remedies for the actions surrounding [his] death.\u201d The federal government will once again have an opportunity to respond to the case in light of the recent filings, this time under a president who has vowed to break with the border legacies of his predecessor.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Biden administration wants to mark a new chapter, a new commitment to human rights, this is a way for that administration to effectuate, to actually show that this administration is going to be different when it comes to the border,\u201d Altholz said. \u201cSo the first thing I’ll be looking at is, how does the United States respond?\u201d<\/p>\n When she and her husband began building a life in the U.S. together more than 30 years ago, Maria Puga said, they were innocent. They believed in the principles espoused by their adopted homeland. Her husband\u2019s killing, and everything that came after, took that away.<\/p>\n After nearly 11 long years, Puga is hoping that justice is finally coming. When millions of people marched in the streets<\/a> last summer following the killing of George Floyd, Puga said she identified with them. After all, the cases were remarkably similar: Both involved a knee pressed into a man\u2019s neck by an agent of the state, both involved onlookers and agents who stood by and watched, and both involved an effort to protect the killers. Whether it was a beat cop in the city or an agent on the border, Puga said, \u201cI see it the same.\u201d<\/p>\n If she had chance to speak to the new president, Puga said, she would tell him about the man she remembers \u2014 a happy, charismatic father and husband who loved his children deeply \u2014 and she would show him the video of how his life came to an end. \u201cAfter so many years of fighting for justice, I would ask for his help,\u201d she said. \u201cOur family needs some peace.\u201d<\/p>\n The post \u201cAnatomy of Impunity\u201d: Former DHS Supervisors Say Border Killing Cover-Up Was Part of a Pattern<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n This post was originally published on The Intercept<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Evidence of a \u201cshadow investigation\u201d emerges in the case before an international tribunal on Anastasio Hernandez Rojas\u2019s killing by federal agents.<\/p>\n The post \u201cAnatomy of Impunity\u201d: Former DHS Supervisors Say Border Killing Cover-Up Was Part of a Pattern<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":665,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[118],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26786"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/665"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26786"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26786\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27706,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26786\/revisions\/27706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u201cWhat\u2019s important to understand is that the people who are involved in this case have risen in the ranks.\u201d<\/blockquote><\/p>\n
![\"IACHR-san-diego-border-patrol\"](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/02\/IACHR-san-diego-border-patrol-1024x648.jpg\")
\nThe Cover-Up<\/h3>\n
\u201cI understood that Aguilar wanted me to falsify reports and did not want this critical portion of events to be accurately documented.\u201d<\/blockquote><\/p>\n
![\"Maria](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/02\/GettyImages-642760940-1024x683.jpg\")
\nThe Green Machine<\/h3>\n
The affidavits show that the Border Patrol\u2019s ability to cover its tracks in use-of-force cases, including killings, was built into the agency\u2019s structure.<\/blockquote>\n
![\"Maria](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn04.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/02\/GettyImages-526453972-1024x683.jpg\")
\nSeeking Peace<\/h3>\n