PrisonEx-Border Patrol Agents Await Word of Bush Pardon While In Prison

My brother-in-law comes in sometimes from work telling me of stories from the talk radio that are part of the chatter. He has mentioned this one several times in the last few weeks and I finally looked it up.

The basics: Two border patrol agents were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for shooting an illegal immigrant drug smuggler while on duty.

They were found guilty by a jury and given each given sentences of more than ten years.

There has been a growing list of congressmen petitioning President Bush to issue a pardon to these agents, but the President, as far as I know has not yet made a decision.

Question(s) for debate:

Should President Bush pardon these border patrol agents? Why or why not?

News is breaking that one convicted officer has been severely beaten in prison by inmates. The prison reports minor injuries, but Rep. Tancredo believes earlier reports of near-fatal beating and is demanding a visit. A federal report has asserted the convicted border agents lied about the shooting in trying to cover it up, then confessed that they just "wanted to shoot some Mexicans". Both Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean are Mexican-American, and have denied ever wanting to "shoot some Mexicans". WND and others are now reporting that one of the DHS agents who prepared the report has admitted to lying, so there is no longer credible evidence against the agents. Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is warning of impeachment.
Audio of speech

Should President Bush pardon these border patrol agents? Why or why not?

If the web of deceit can be untangled well enough to justify the pardon, they should be pardoned. If the DHS agent manufactured all the evidence, the conviction should be overturned. In the meantime, the agents need to be separated from the general population of the prison to secure their safety. If these two agents really did go out one day to "shoot some Mexicans", we're better off with them behind bars. But if they were doing their duty, they need to be promoted and compensated for the miscarriage of justice.

Not unless you want to change the law. They apprehended the man and then he ran knowing full well they were not allowed to shoot at him as he fled. They fooled him by shooting him in the butt. Then, knowing they had broken the law, they covered it up and lied.

What I don’t get is that they got such stiff sentences. Some drug dealers and killers get less time.

The law is the law and the crooks know it well and use it. The irony is this criminal dirtbag is suing for millions and will get it and the cops will, no doubt, be beaten to death in jail.

Bottomline for me is, Bush has never had any intention of stopping illegals from any country entering this country for any reason. If this, not pardoning two border agents who apprehend a drug smuggler, doesn't tell you that, then nothing else will, IMHO.

I'm being a little lazy here. But for a point of clarification, I believe that federal judges have lost a lot of ability in using discretion in sentencing. I think the minimum federal sentence was using a gun in a violent crime is ten years.

Should President Bush pardon these border patrol agents? Why or why not?

Rohrabacher said Bush "obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."

We already know what George Bush thinks about the borders, and if his total lack of action regarding these two agents doesn't tell us, nothing ever will! Does this president care "two hoots" about the opinions of Americans? The idea of protecting our borders crosses party lines and yet he still does nothing! There must be another side to this topic that I'm just not getting - what is it? We are supposed to believe that two Mexican-American Border Patrol agents with long careers rose from their beds that morning and decided to "shoot a Mexican"?

Actually Bush has done far more than Clinton or his father ever did. He has allowed the award of a 2 billion $ contract to Boeing for an electronic fence which IMO is the only way it can be done. I disagree with ever giving the 12 million here “amnesty” but he is still moving to do SOMETHING. Meanwhile what can we expect from the Dems who now are in control? Well idiot Teddy K says they are all “like blacks in the civil rights era” – the plan seems to be let em in and make em Democrat.

Anyone see any new TOUGH Dem legislation filed yet???

If I get into a street fight with some guy and really kick his butt and end up on trial for it there are guidelines for sentancing regarding how much time in jail I do, heck there might even be extenuating circumstances that might be taken into consideration that would result in me not even being convicted. However if they dig up in past that I had been a martial arts student, then that factors in AGAINST me, because the reasoning in that I was trained, and should have known what was excessive force and when I should have stopped swinging on the guy.

I feel the same level of responsibility belongs to police, public serveants, politicians anyone serving under the public trust and given extra priviledges and permissions under the duties of their job responsibilities. Police are given training, they are versed with the law, if they can know every little traffic violation which they can use to pull you over they can certainly know that they cannot use deadly force unless the situation warrants it, and shooting a fleeing suspect in the butt doesn't warrant it.

If I beat the guy in the street as previously mentioned I would be charged with assault, if render the same beating to a police officer I would be charged with aggravated assault, which carries stiffer penalties. Likewise, if a police officer (or other official under the public trust) breaks the law they should be subject to stiffer penalties. Critics might say that this is a hinderance to them doing their jobs, I don't think so, they don't get to define what their jobs are and how to go about doing them, those decisions are made by the people, through the representative they elect, by the policies set forth by the agencies they work for and within the bounds of the whatever labor contracts they have.

If they don't want to have to face the consequences of having broken the law, well then it's very simple POLICE SHOULDN'T BREAK THE LAW.

As for the pardon, if they commited the crime they should do the time, but there looks like there is at least some doubt as to them doing the crime at this point. Give them a fair trial, and prosecute anyone who gave false statements previously.

I have been following this for a while and the Justice Department is not telling anybody the truth. In fact they aren't telling about much of anything at this point.

Congress has been investigating and the Department of Justice refuses to tell them why they gave immunity to a convicted drug smuggler that had 700 lbs of marijuana in his vehicle, or the fact that when he was shot by the Border Patrol agent he claimed that he was running away, yet the wound that he received was in a position that was impossible to hit if he was running away. He would have been turned around facing the agent. The agent claims that he had a gun and was pointing it at the agent on the ground.

None of which were allowed to come at their trial.

My questions would be why is the DOJ refusing to answer Congresses questions, why did they give a drug smuggler immunity and believe his word versus two Border Patrol Agents, why were all the facts not allowed into the court?

Heck yes these two deserve Pardons far more than just about anybody that has ever gotten one. And I think that the US Deputy Attorney needs to be investigated. This case seems to be very odd and I think that an investigation of the US Attorney's office is more than warranted. And if DHS officials lied that is perjury and they need to be in jail.

These two border patrol agents DID try to cover up a crime. That must be dealt with... but not with 11 & 12 years of prison time.

Why on Earth was a drug smuggler given immunity to help convict these two? I am having a very hard time believing this was done in the name of justice. It's as if someone were out to make examples of these men. There's an aspect of Nifong to this case but no amount a researching it seems to prove my gut correct.

I suspect these men will be pardoned just before Bush leaves office.

I hope you are right but the other question that arises is are the ROE on the border tilted badly in favor of the criminals. Do they get to run and not fear being shot at regardless of what they have done or who they are (as in dangerous criminals). I am sure the ACLU would like to increase the free water and food we give them but IMO we need to be tougher on theses folks not kinder. IMO border agents need effective non-lethal weapons to bring down people like this as well as heavy weapons to deal with Mexican military support for the drug dealers.


With the Dems in any hope of making a difference IMO goes out the window. I fully expect that the 2 billion $ contract for electronic border security ok by Bush will not be funded by the Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6091901715.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5052200613.html

I think this is a tragic case of a miscarriage of justice. First, pardon, second, hold the state and guards immunity from civil action, then re=charge the drug smuggler.

This is simply so horrible, I have to stop and write my congress critter. Seriously, like right now.

It appears to me that this issue is unnecessary clouded. We have the crime of these two agents and then we have the contentious issue of immigration hanging over them. Let's be honest-a jury convicted these two agents. That means that beyond a reasonable doubt, in the minds of the jury, these guys were guilty. What did they do? They pursued a man who in running away, and who had his back to them, was shot. They fired fifteen shots at him. upon seizing him, they picked up the shell casings and in doing so, sought to cover up what happened. When is such an action every okay? We should be upset that people like Tancredo and others are trying to use this sutation for political purposes. Has this been the first time that disgraced cops have been attacked in prison? Does anyone here seriously believe that? I agree with Seamus that if two of the government's charges turn out to be lies, then the government's case is hurt. Though keep in mind that there are three charges0 and that doesn't absolve these guys of guilt at all. Tampering with evidence(i.e.-the shells) is not an inconsequential matter and neither is it something that can be ignored here.

I don't believe that the President should pardon either one of these guys. They were entrusted in carrying out their duties in a professional manner consistent with the laws of our land and the constitution. They failed miserably.

Can someone site a publication other than WorldNetDaily as stating DoJ lied about the case and/or withheld evidence? District judges, not U.S. Attorneys and the DoJ, are responsible for determining the admissibility of evidence according to federal statute and Supreme Court law. If the border patrol agents’ due process rights have been violated during trial they need to wait in jail just like every other convict does until their case is appealed to the Supreme Court if necessary — if the Supreme Court grants certiorari. What is so special about the circumstance that warrants granting them two of Bush’s rare pardons? In the meantime if they have been assaulted while serving their time they can initiate a lawsuit against the warden. Lots of inmates do that while serving their sentences, too.


This has been modus operandi since Bush took office. How many times has Gonzales stalled Congress on issues like FISA warrants and illegal NSA wiretapping?


Which facts? Is it a stretch to assume the smuggler wouldn’t risk testifying without immunity against prosecution for the incident? This doesn’t include future incidents if he tries entering the country again.

The government was aware the agents tried distorting what happened. Would a case against the agents be as strong without a witness? And did the government really take the smuggler’s word over the agents’? It sounds more righteous than admitting a jury of their peers took the word of a smuggler over that of the agents. Why wouldn’t you want the smuggler to testify unless you don’t have a problem with the case being politicized so long as the case follows your preferred policy outcome?

According to CNS News, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton “defended the decision [offering the smuggler immunity], arguing that the agents did not have knowledge of any criminal activity involving Aldrete-Davila at the time they shot him.”

You mean like this article in San Bernadino Sun There was an extensive interview on Lou Dobbs with 3 US Congressmen which also stated that DHS officials lied to them. This is AP Wahoo WorldNetDaily has been the lead in this story, but not the only one questioning the entire matter. I do recall one newspaper that dogged a story which nobody else touched. It was the Washington Post and I do believe the result was getting a sitting president to resign, did you hear about that one?

Now this drug smuggler is suing the US government for $5 million dollars. We can thank the US Attorney's office for this fiasco.

Should President Bush pardon these border patrol agents? Why or why not?

Based on what I've read, it sounds like they shouldn't be pardoned. They shot him in the butt. There is not a word about the dealer firing on them and being that he was shot in the butt, he couldn't have been facing them and threatening them with a weapon. In my opinion - based on what I've read - they had no cause to fire on him.

Let me see if I can sort out the Sun’s story. A new report found that other agents near the scene did not have knowledge “of an assault on a BP agent, nor did [other agents] have any knowledge of a reportable shooting incident.” This contradicts a memo written by DHS a month after the incident which states “all the Border Patrol agents on scene, including two supervisors, knew about the shooting when it happened and failed to report it.” Have all the BP agents at the scene who weren’t, in fact, aware of the incident, been charged? Are there more trials waiting on the wing that I’m not aware of? How does this discrepancy contradict the government’s story that Ramos and Compean tried covering up the shooting incident? In other words:


Even if the memo is false and testimony to Congress was emotionally-laden, how does the report relieve Ramos and Compean of their obligation to contact their superiors about the incident so their superiors can write up a report required by law? It doesn’t. You have to assume that not only was Congress given false/misleading information about the investigation, but the district court also provided jurists with the same incorrect information for deliberations. Assuming the court was this negligent Ramos and Compean will likely end up getting a retrial.

Charge DHS officials who gave false testimony to Congress with perjury, give them a trial and stick them in jail for all I care. I’m not going to vouch for the competency and professionalism of civil servants chosen by a president who values loyalty above ability, but DHS’s incompetence doesn’t explain why Ramos and Compean deserve a presidential pardon when legal redress is available.


Yeah I recall that one. The reason you and I can recall it is because WaPo doesn’t inhabit an alternate universe where Saddam’s WMD are found.

CR they broke the law and were convicted by a jury. If you write you Congress critter tell them you want the LAW changed too. The bad guys know the law and know they are safe if they just run and do that.

But any change in the law would have ACLU all bent out of shape of course – so on second thought forget it.

Oh brother. Now Congress is getting in on the act of overstepping its authority and the Right couldn't be more complacent about it—again. The amendment might get squished but it's a great example of pandering to inconsistent tough-on-crime critics.

NAFTA is supposed to be turning Mexico, the US and Canada into one trading block, a la the EEC. Is it any wonder we have issues regarding a failure to control illegal immigration?

While there is no need to inflame activists with a pardon, based upon the facts presented here, I hope their sentences are commuted to time served and they are released.

Congress has no business trying to force the issue with their bill--Purely a presidential perogative.

Facts such as?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246101,00.html

I'd seen this before, and apparently here's how I understand it:

1. The Border Patrol agents were in an altercation with the drug smuggler.
2. The drug smuggler had something shiny in his hands.
3. They shot at him numerous times, one hitting the man.
4. The smuggler made it back to Mexico.
5. A family friend turned the agents in.
6. Agents are arrested.

It seems that the men were kind of railroaded when it comes to the trial, but probably shouldn't have shot at the dude.

In my opinion, they were attempting to stop a crime and because it was a Mexican that got shot on the border it turned into a "LULAC" and "Hispanic American" nightmare.

Maybe they should've lost their jobs or something. It seems that maybe there were some lapses in judgement, they didn't shoot to kill, and he was afterall smuggling drugs.

But Prison time? Hmmm...

Interesting choice of words. Fleeing wildly on foot becomes "an altercation," and unsubstantiated claims by the two agents who also removed evidence and falsified documentation is elevated into "had something shiny in his hands."

We will never know what transpired on that day near the border, but we do know that the man was fleeing, that the two border patrols did fire repeatedly, and did later lie and deliberately obfuscate the investigation into the incident. Yes, the "victim" was a drug-runner and is hardly a reputable source, but dishonesty can't explain away the fact that the man's back was turned when he was shot. The cover-up on the other hand seems like a pretty clear demonstration of consciousness-of-guilt.

We've got two groups of people who broke the law, so neither side can be "trusted." That leaves us with the evidence: a man was shot in the back while fleeing... and try as I might I can't imagine how the officers could have felt threatened enough to use deadly force in that situation.